Gary Johnson

'Should Gary Johnson and Jill Stein really be distracting voters this year?'

The New Yorker goes full New Yorker in lament over, you know, democracy.


If you've ever wondered how the two major parties ended up nominating the two most-hated presidential candidates in history, part of the answer can be found in the unintentionally hilarious New Yorker story, "The Stakes of the Third-Party Candidates," by Amy Davidson. Really, it's like a Borowitz Report, only funny. The subtitle gives away the article's argument: "Should Gary Johnson and Jill Stein really be distracting voters this year?"

The insularity of the piece calls to mind two other bits associated with The New Yorker: Saul Steinberg's 1976 cover (see below) depicting the "view of the world from 9th Avenue" and the famous misquote about Pauline Kael being surprised at Richard Nixon's 1972 victory, since the magazine's film critic didn't know anybody who voted for him. To view third parties as a "distraction" in any way, shape, or form is, simply, bullshit. It presumes there is a center to politics that is not only ideologically unchanging but morally right.

Davidson dredges up the photo-finish in Florida during the 2000 election, which is the trauma from which liberals have yet to recover (they never will, either, if they keep insisting that Ralph Nader, rather than their own awful candidate, cost them the presidency that year).

Clinton has a narrow lead in a head-to-head contest with Trump, which diminishes when the contest is polled as a four-way race. In 2000, Al Gore officially lost Florida to George W. Bush by five hundred and thirty-seven votes; Ralph Nader, the Green candidate, got almost a hundred thousand votes there….

Many Americans consider their votes to be meaningless, because they see the major parties as members of the same corporate oligarchy or as big-government enemies of individual freedoms, or the candidates as generic self-serving politicians.

Read the whole thing here.

The piece is in the October 17 issue of The New Yorker, so who knows exactly when it was written. Probably before the Pussygate tape surfaced, since the audio tape and its fallout among Republicans have given Clinton supporters some breathing space. Yes, Trump was already behind heading into last weekend and the latest revelations (with a promise of more to come), will make it even harder for the short-fingered vulgarian to beat the Democratic nominee.

But leapin' lizards, what the hell is wrong with The New Yorker? When writers there are not pronouncing as "scientific fact" that "a vote for Jill Stein is a vote for Donald Trump," they are attacking Bill Weld for not selling out his running mate and then castigating the former Massachusetts governor for saying things such as:

"This is a year when voters looking at the two establishment parties are thinking, I'm watching a scary movie and I can't change the channel. Well, you can change the channel!"

Now, that may not rise to the level of a scientific fact, but it does seem a pretty good summation of the general mood of voters. Fully 59 percent disapprove of Trump and 52 percent don't like Clinton, according to RealClearPolitics' averaging of various polls. The same source finds, even after the second presidential debate and Pussygate, that less than 45 percent of voters say they'll cast a ballot Clinton's way and about 40 percent still want Trump. Johnson is polling around 7 percent on average and Stein is sitting at 2 percent. If you're a Democrat, it kind of sucks to be you, doesn't it? Sure, you're ahead for the moment but not by as much as you should be—Clinton herself has wondered why she isn't 50 points up—and there's almost 10 percentage points out there being sucked up by mere third parties, including one ticket headed up by a goof two-term former Republican governor of New Mexico who is anti-war, pro-choice, pro-immigration, pro-trade (just like Clinton is in front of certain audiences), and a bunch of other stuff that plays well with Democrats and millennials.

New Yorker

Nowhere in her article does Davidson bother to rebut her own apt summation of why voters aren't overwhelmingly pro-Clinton. It's enough, it seems, to merely point out how benighted "many Americans" are to "see the major parties as members of the same corporate oligarchy or as big-government enemies of individual freedoms, or the candidates as generic self-serving politicians."

What part of that statement is wrong, exactly? To be sure, there are differences between Trump, whose racial, sexual, and ethnic taunts are despicable and has no relevant experience to be president, and Clinton, whose career is a pretty good case against voting for her if you believe in free speech, peace, and economic freedom. Given the Wikileaks revelations about Clinton's private speeches to wealthy audiences and her articulation of private vs. public positions on just about everything, Davidson might even have had the Democrat in mind when she was talking about corporate oligarchs and self-serving pols. (Do note, by the way, the Clinton didn't disown her comments during the debate, suggesting the Wikileaks' emails are accurate.)

Are candidates such as Johnson, who is on the ballot everywhere, really a distraction in such an election? Of course not. He's the emodiment of a pluralistic democracy, offering voters not simply another choice but a radically different—and plausible—one (his and his running mate's experience in office set them apart from Jill Stein and the Green Party ticket, though that doesn't mean they shouldn't have been in the debates, too).

No wonder the Libertarian ticket is polling at historically high numbers, and no wonder that fearful Democrats and Republicans, who are dying off like non-reproducing members of the Shakers, are so focused on Johnson. How dare he give voice to 10 percent of the voting population, or 7 percent, or even 5 percent! This is America, goddammit, we don't have time for an ever-increasing array of choices that reflect our individual desires, demands, and dreams! Especially when it comes to politics, amirite?

Related: Four Reasons Gary Johnson (and Jill Stein) Should Have Been Included in the Debates.

NEXT: Pre-Dawn No-Knock SWAT Raid for Minor Drug Charge Ruled Unconstitutional

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. You are only permitted to vote for third party candidates when my favorite major party candidate is guaranteed to win.

    Or, when your third party candidate is "stealing votes" away from my major candidate's biggest opponent.

    Really, this whole democracy thing would be much simpler if you would just for the major candidate I tell you to. We should just do that.

    1. Two candidates is too many, really. How will people know if they are voting for the right one?

      1. With two candidates, you can signal how virtuous you are by supporting one and how evil everyone else is for supporting the other guy.

        1. My co-worker's step-sister makes $97 hourly on the laptop . She has been out of work for six months but last month her paycheck was $14100 just working on the laptop for a few hours. Go this website and click to tech tab to start your work...

        2. My co-worker's step-sister makes $97 hourly on the laptop . She has been out of work for six months but last month her paycheck was $14100 just working on the laptop for a few hours. Go this website and click to tech tab to start your work...

      2. Two candidates is too many, really.

        Especially when so many kids are starving in this country.

        1. Are you suggesting we eat either Clinton or Trump?

          1. We're going to need a bigger garlic press.

            1. I imagine they both taste of shit and rot.

              1. Andrew Zimmern would give it a shot.

            2. When does a bigger garlic press become a woodchipper?

              1. when you add the motor!

    2. You can use your voice in any way you want, so long as it doesn't make a difference.

      1. The Prohibition party never elected their fanatical candidates. In fact they averaged 1.4% of the vote, but the 18th Amendment and helper laws made beer a felony from 1919 to 1933.
        So how is it that their votes "didn't matter"?
        The commies got 8% in 1892 and got the entrenched looters to pass an income tax.
        The Econazis got 5x the Kleptocracy spread in 2000 and the Dems copied their entire platform into the Lootenberg Bible.
        The ONLY votes that change anything are the spoiler votes.

    3. I once had a U.S. Constitution professor tell the class, in all seriousness, that a two party system was better than a multi-party system because it assured at least one candidate for the majority vote, and was hence "legitimized." Of course, by that logic, a one party system would be perfect.

      1. so, a king?

  2. You know what's a real distraction? Jizz stains on your underwear.

    1. Mike is pissed at you!

      1. I can't even figure out what he was yelling at me last night.

        1. He hates me best. That's all that matters.

          1. We all hate you Best. You're the anti-Nikki.

        2. Real mike or sock puppet mike?

          1. Real Mike. He corpse fucks the threads at 6 AM

    2. You're obviously not the real MH. You managed to go an entire post without citing the 91% statistic.

      1. Well, and the post isn't hitting the 1500 character limit and is understandable.

        1. It's also lacking in CAPS !!! and (parenthetical nonsense).

          1. Typical BULLYbehavior from the INFILTRATOR fetal-cult Paulists. Real Libertarians must fight back against the BIBLETHUMPING reactionaries FLEEING from the sinking ship that is the GRANDPA OLD PARTY. These RATS have poisoned the Noble Libertarian brand (which is built from a grassroots movement that we nurtured from the ground up) and have snatched away our momentum. Gary Johnson (PBUH) is being UNFAIRLY spurned because he is a true Libertarian (socially/economically tolerant) as the Paulists pine over their long lost TYRANT (socially/economically bigoted).

            1. Oh, man, that's good. Not quite far enough off the hinges, but a damn fine showing. 8.5/10

          2. I thought it was Hercules who used ALL CAPS and stuff in brackets.


            2. Did somebody call?

      2. And the fucker troll put a period at the end of the name. Only trolling douchebag impersonators do that.

        1. It was probably some sort of Super-Thug and Hihn is going to call the police because he is being bullied.

        2. This is one of the good trolls.

          Go back to last night's thread for some interesting reading.

          1. Which one had the Hihn goodness? He's so emotionally fragile.

                1. LOL the thread corpse-fucking is amazing. (lollers)

              1. Hole




                1. Remember to read all of Hihn's comments in Dracula's voice. I prefer Gilbert Gottfried's Dracula voice, but Bela Lugosi's Dracula is also a good choice.

                  1. I usually read him as a fire-and-brimstone preacher who got caught fingering the bake-sale winner and is trying to get his congregation back but is weak from prostate cancer.

                    1. That is (not-surpisingly) specific.

                    2. If what you mean by "the bake sale winner" is "himself" then I'm in concurrence.

                    3. A boy won the bake-sale?

              3. I honestly don't think I can have one more bite of his painful humiliation. I find I'm a little stuffed.

                1. IDENTITY THEFT isn't funny bro. FELONIOUS bullying from thugs

      3. Also, the real Michael Hihn does most of his posting at like 4 in the morning.

        1. He's waiting for Shoney's to open so he can get his Senior Discount breakfast: one cup of black coffee and one piece of rye toast, plain. He leaves no tip.

            1. UCS doesn't like coffee.

      4. STALKER

        Paulist LOSER Mint Berry Crunch denies the reality of Mahael Hihn.

        He is Hihn. I am Hihn. We are legion.


  3. To be sure, there are differences between Trump, whose racial, sexual, and ethnic taunts are despicable

    Deplorable: Deserving strong condemnation.
    Despicable: Deserving hatred or contempt.

    Who are you working for Nick?

    1. Oh no! Nick accurately described Trump's vulgar speech! HE MUST BE IN THE TANK FOR HILLARY!

      1. He accurately described his delusions I suppose.

      2. It would be wise to take everything I say completely and utterly seriously. Deathly utterly.

    2. Didn't he say in the Sunday "who's getting your vote" thread that he's voting for Johnson?

  4. If Johnson was clearly pulling mostly from Trump (as opposed to fairly equally between the two candidates, possibly a bit more from Clinton), liberals would be singing his praises as a "reasonable alternative" for Republicans disgusted with Trump.

    1. I actually have a least one liberal friend on FB doing exactly that.

      1. Fake. There are no liberals on Facebook!

    2. That's exactly what they were doing a few months ago. Once polling showed he was taking from Clinton as well, the tone changed instantly.

    3. I think it flipped over after the whole "locker room" speech thing.

    4. Hasn't Shrek been doing that here?

      But I think your point is well made. On the whole, both sides are clearly threatened by Johnson. (Har har)

  5. Yeah, that article is definitely a result of the Clinton campaign giving marching orders to the media a few weeks ago when things were very close and Johnson was viewed as taking "her" votes. Now that Trump is falling behind, she can basically coast through the next month and win. Honestly, I want Clinton to get farther ahead, because then people won't feel like they have to vote for one of the majors anymore.

    1. Naww, if she pulls farther ahead, it means more states become swing states and more people then think that they "have" to vote for Trump just to give him a few more EV's in that particular state, that he won't need because he's going to lose anyway.

    2. Slightly related: Media has to report on what other people find.

      Clinton's presidential campaign, and Psaki, who succeeded Palmieri as White House communications director, appears to refer to a March 15, 2015, appearance the State Department had arranged for Kerry on CBS's "Face the Nation."

      On March 12, Palmieri sent Psaki an email with the subject ?line "between us on the shows," in which the body of the message read: "Think we can get this done so he is not asked about email."

      Fourteen minutes later, Psaki replied, "Agree completely, working to crush on my end:)"

      RNC spokesman Raj Shah said the exchange showed that the administration "has treated the Hillary Clinton email scandal as a P.R. problem to be managed, rather than the grievous breach of national security it clearly is."

      But in an email Friday, Psaki called it "much ado about nothing."

      1. these people are so stupid. If things don't change, we are going to end up with a not shit revolt or serious anti government violence. If that happens, one of the first casualties is always hack journalists. They really think they are untouchable. It is amazing how stupid they are. They are going to keep fucking around until we finally have someone in this country who wants to take on the government and is smart about it. And you don't take on the government by shooting cops, at least not at first. You take them on by shooting their hack journalists and using terror to control the media narrative.

        1. Doom, gloom, and the death of buffoons; A novella by John.

          1. I am not saying anything anyone who knows how actual and effective guerilla operations work. in many countries being a journalist is a very dangerous profession and not just because of what the government might do to you. These idiots have no idea how good they have it.

            1. I hope no one interpreets your comments as promoting that kind of a "solution."

              1. It is what it is. It would be nice if they would get their heads out of their asses and stop being mouth pieces for the government. I don't see that happening any time soon.

              2. interpreets


            2. Radio, newspaper and tv stations are the first to go. In the internet age, ISPs would be target soot. If you control these, you control the information.

              "Think of the press as a great keyboard
              on which the government can play."
              ? Joseph Goebbels

            3. A lot of idiots in this country have no clue how good hey have it. Progs find them useful.

  6. With these two clowns running, both the Rs and the Ds ought to hope for any distraction they can find.

  7. I think its notable that South Park is a more-accurate and insightful critic of modern American political culture than the bastion of upper-west-side liberal intellectual-elitism. And has been for a decade or more.

    really - when's the last time you can remember reading something in the New Yorker that made you say, "Wow, that really crystallizes the historical-moment in a way that will affect how millions of people understand it"

    munch on a memberberry if you can't recall immediately.

    1. when's the last time you can remember reading something in the New Yorker

      Never. I find smug pseudo-intellectual babble to be insulting to my intelligence. Same reason I don't listen to NPR or watch the Discovery channel when they have a show about space.

    2. That "sprawling New Yorker Shit" is just generally hard to read, regardless of the ideology.

      1. I used to read the cartoons and movie reviews when I was a youf.

        There were some great covers back before they started to get all political.

        1. I used to read the cartoons and movie reviews when I was a youf.

          "The pig says, 'My wife is a slut.'?"

          "Now that's a complaint!"

          1. Ziggy's at the complain department again. "The New Yorker's stealing my jokes."

        2. That is because they used to be a satirize the self appointed New York elite. The magazine was started by a bunch of people sitting around the Algonquin Hotel brutalizing other elites. It was called the "vicious circle" for a reason. At some point the people running the magazine decided going after their own was too hard and made it about going after all of the little people instead. And bullies are never funny or very interesting.

        3. Zeb is obviously a leftist nitwit, because everyone south of 42nd Street knows it's "yoot",,,

      2. That "sprawling New Yorker Shit" is just generally hard to read

        It didn't used to be. Or it used to be worth it, at least

        I grew up reading the mag; i had to read it cover-to-cover every week for some writing classes i took in school.

        I blame David Remnick. he turned a decent literary journal into a cultural/political echo-chamber.

        1. Agreed. The fiction issue used to be tits twenty years ago.

  8. What people who work at the New Yorker don't seem to get is that it's precisely when the stakes are high that third parties should be most relevant. That's the whole point. If libertarians made the Dems lose to Kasich, no big deal, he's basically a democrat anyway. If you want them to get the message, the only way they'll ever get the message, is if they risk losing to a Donald Trump.

    1. Right, because Kasich the lifelong Republican is more of a Democrat than the Clinton-donating, gun control-supporting, anti-free speech former Democrat Trump...

      1. I believe he's referring to the character that Trump is running as.

        1. Indeed. You gotta keep in mind that people who actually support either Hillary or Trump see the character and believe it.

  9. Read the whole thing here.

    Sf'd it

    1. And you're the first to complain. Tells you something about the drive here to read that source material.

      1. I was just looking to mine some high-density derp anyway. There's bound to be some choice bits nick overlooked.

        I think its funny when i hear people on the left and the right constantly accusing each other of horrible bias, when they hardly ever read anything outside their own respective bubbles.

        Its certainly something most libertarians can't really be accused of; we have no choice but to slog through other people's horrible bubble-worlds. I feel more intimately familiar with Salon's zeigeist than i do "American Thinker".. or whatever passes for conservative-highbrow.

        It makes it frustrating when talking with lefties tho. I know their world front to back, inside and out. But they hear me and all they can think is "Oh, one of thos FAUX-NEWS swilling conservatards!!" I probably read more of "their stuff" than they do.

        1. Agree wholeheartedly. I've argued with lefties on other sites, usually starting with some "innocent" questions, which I know how they will answer. Then pointing out the contradictions, and how their ideas have actually played out in reality. And eventually the accusations that I must get my info from Faux News. In a recent instance I pointed out how hackneyed the Faux News thing is, the guy actually explained to me that Faux means False. Intellectual giants, I tell you.

          1. Intellectual giants, I tell you

            Its like AmSoc defending the "BleachBit"-Fact-Check by insisting he has a background in "Chemical Engineering", and then proceeding to debate how to properly disinfect pools.. Amsoc puts Bo to shame in the "complete idiot assuming intellectual superiority" department.

            "Pool-boy" might make a cute new name for him

            1. That was funny. I regret I wasn't on-line during that exchange.

              He'd last less than an hour in my research group. The competent chemists would shred him.

            2. You would think a real ChemE would have enough coin to pay his mortgage.

  10. You know, I am finally there. I'm going to vote for Johnson.

    It took me a while, but it was either that or don't vote at all, and I would like the Libertarians to get the permanent ballot access as well as to cover the spread between the two candidates. I am utterly sick of both the D's and the R's.

    1. I'm pro Trump at this point (lesser of two evils).

      Trump carries the possibility he will actually win, and he has the benefit of saying some things I like and seeming to actually sorta give a fuck about my and people like me's well being, so if people can prove to him that what's he's actually doing is hurting Americans, he seems capable of actually changing his mind for the better.

      Plus, he would do real harm to the establishment, causing such stess some really nasty people might off themselves with panic based heart attacks, break the Clinton Machine, and other good stuff.

      Hillary on the other hand only says things I disagree with more or less and has made it obvious she will destroy her enemies through any means necessary. Since I'll be counted among her broad enemy list (either by having money but not giving enough to her, or saying things against liberal doctrine, and otherwise daring to use my rights in a manner contrary to current government interests) I think I'd likely be in real danger in her regime if I ever did anything, either purposefully or accidentally, which would make the powers that be notice me in any way.

      So, even assuming both will be equally likely and equally vicious in attacking their enemies, I'm much less likely to end up an enemy of Trump than an enemy of "How dare you own guns or say negative things against me!" Hillary.

      That's help make it a fairly easy choice for me.

  11. Should a man Nick's age really be wearing a leather jacket?

    1. Too old or too young?

      And anyway, the Jacket wears Nick.

    2. The Jacket is a symbiotic organism similar to the Venom symbiote from Spider-Man. It chose Nick as its current host. In time, it will choose another. The Jacket is eternal.

      1. But is it grass-fed, cruelty-free leather?

  12. On another note, my brain is simply numb to all the leaks documenting cozy relationship between Hillary's campaign and just about all the media whether it's CNN, the Boston Globe, MSNBC, NYT, or Politico. When I encounter grown adults who pretend this doesn't exist, shameless partisans who deny but are secretly gleeful, and media stories that maintain how neutral they and their peers's just baffling to me that this is reality. 99% of human beings really aren't much more than monkeys in clothes.

    1. The collusion is staggering.

      I can't decide if people don't know about it, or if they think it's OK because Hillary is the one doing it.

      1. It's definitely the latter.

      2. They've adopted the precepts of total war. There should be no limits when you are fighting on the morally correct side. A little girl with all her skin burned off is a small price to pay to keep another Republican out of the White House.

        1. A little girl with all her skin burned off

          One of several images from my youth that I will never forget.

        2. Hillary basically said on Sunday that the humanitarian crisis in Syria is an opportunity to escalate the situation militarily with Russia and force them to back down so the US can reassert hegemony in the region.

          Think of how craven and grotesque that is. But Trump is the unhinged loose cannon that must be stopped at all costs.

          1. They can't turn back no matter what Hillary does or how bad she is, because doing so requires admitting how much of an accomplice they have been to all of the various abuses of law and disasters that have happened under Obama. Once you sell out your beliefs in a particularly public and hideous way, there is usually no going back because doing so requires facing what you have done. Most people can't do that and instead retreat further into rationalizations.

            1. Lots of people, politicians especially, sell out. The baffling thing to me is how many people sacrificed their integrity for the Clintons.

              My dad met Bill at a political event when he was laying the groundwork for his first presidential bid. He (my dad) sat back down in the audience, turned to my mom and said, "You can't trust that man."
              Dad knew Bill was a sleaze almost instantly.

              1. I think part of it was because Clinton was a baby boomer and all the boomers so wanted one of their own to be President. And once they sold out and lied to get that, they were screwed. Clinton just took their loyalty and abused it and there was nothing they could do about it. The more he abused them, the more they had to humiliate themselves to defend him and the more impossible it became for them to ever stop supporting and enabling him.

                1. Yeah I forget how Bill was supposedly a New Democrat. He was the man from Hope. Kind of a "Hope and Change" image, if you will. Boomers were going to set the world right.

                  The Lewinsky thing was arguably the nadir of the humiliation of his supporters. The most powerful man in the world taking advantage of a young female employee had to be rationalized and forgiven.

              2. +100,000 policemen

            2. They can't turn back no matter what Hillary does or how bad she is, because doing so requires admitting how much of an accomplice they have been to all of the various abuses of law and disasters that have happened under Obama.

              Dave Grossman, who has turned into a real asshole in recent years (what with encouraging cops to kill without hesitation and all), actually wrote a pretty good chapter on this in On Killing called "The Dark Power of Atrocity." He used some of the shit that happened in post-colonial Africa as an example. His premise was that atrocities has a powerful effect on the people committing them, but they represent a point from which no one can return - the perpetrators always trade short-term power for long-term destruction.

        3. I remember when I was with Special Forces. Seems a thousand centuries ago. We went into a camp to inoculate the children. We left the camp after we had inoculated the children for polio, and this old man came running after us and he was crying. He couldn't see. We went back there and they had come and hacked off every inoculated arm. There they were in a pile: a pile of little arms. And I remember I...I...I cried. I wept like some grandmother. I wanted to tear my teeth out. I didn't know what I wanted to do. And I want to remember it. I never want to forget it. I never want to forget. And then I realized, like I was shot ? like I was shot with a diamond...a diamond bullet right through my forehead.

          1. . And I thought: My God, the genius of that. The genius! The will to do that: perfect, genuine, complete, crystalline, pure. And then I realized they were stronger than we, because they could stand it. These were not monsters. These were men, trained cadres ? these men who fought with their hearts, who had families, who have children, who are filled with love ? but they had the strength ? the strength! ? to do that. If I had ten divisions of those men our troubles here would be over very quickly. You have to have men who are moral and at the same time who are able to utilize their primordial instincts to kill without feeling, without passion, without judgement. Without judgement! Because it's judgement that defeats us.

            1. I did that as my dramatic monolog in 11th grade speech class. I can still do most of it from memory. The class was all wtf omg, but the teacher (a groovy stoner who brought his kayak to work every day) was laughing behind his clipboard.

              1. It's pretty much the only thing I remember about the movie other than drunken Martin Sheen destroying his hotel room and actually slicing his hand up.

                1. You need to watch Apocalypse Now again. Wow. So good. Skip the Redux nonsense, it adds a few seconds of boobs at the cost of a long dinner party with French people.

                  1. ^This. Do NOT watch the indulgent director's cut.

                    * Classic version in my top 5 favorites of all time.

                  2. The dinner party scene is good. Also, I like boobs.

              2. $5 says that groovy stoner would find more in common with Col. Kurtz nowadays. Kind of like how modern-day Carl Bernstein finds more in common with Richard Nixon.

                1. Zeke (he wanted all the kids to call him "Zeke") was an alright guy for an unreconstructed hippie. He always had a "fuck everything" streak that could have been nurtured into libertarianism.

            2. this sounds like its from something, but I can't remember what.

        4. A little girl with all her skin burned off is a small price to pay to keep another Republican out of the White House.

          Its worse than that = "LOOK AT WHAT THEY MADE US DO!!!"

          Its like Hillary's claim that the Clinton-sponsored DOMA was really just 5th-dimensional chess to prevent the GOP from enacting a constitutional amendment* enslaving the gays. Even the worst things they do are other people's fault!

          (*and - even if that were remotely true... wouldn't amending the constitution require large #s of Dems also joining in? the logic of the thing doesn't even add up)

          Much of the media seems to be involved in rationales that are nearly identical to Vietnam-era Pentagon-PR = "We had to destroy the village in order to keep it from falling into enemy hands". If they're complicit in spreading lies or burying inconvenient facts... well, its in the service of the Good, so your standards simply don't apply.

          1. Right, because constitutional amendments are easily passed with a simple majority during the lunchbreak.

            1. Just like naming a post office.

              1. It is about that easy once you control the Supreme Court. Let's try just the first two:

                First Amendment: No, you can't criticize Hillary or the Dems, that is "hate speech" which is not protected.

                Second Amendment: Yes, militias have a right to bear arms. So we are cool with the National Guard having guns. The rest of you, not so much.

                and on and on...

      3. I am amazed at how quickly the media can manipulate people's opinion. I had lunch with a friend of mine last weekend I have known for over 20 years. She is a good suburban prog and of course has bought into the whole anyone who doesn't embrace the Transgendered is a bigot line. What is amazing about it is that I know for a fact she had the exact opposite opinion of transgendered for the entire time I have known her. She was always very pro gay rights but would have never thought letting men use the women's restroom because they claim to identify as a woman was anything but nuts. And now she believes just that is the gospel truth and required thinking by anyone who isn't an evil bigot.

        I can't see any reason why she changed her mind other than the media has said believing this is necessary not to be a bigot. It is kind of frightening to be honest.

        1. "We've always been at war with Eastasia."

        2. People have a keen sense of shame now, I think. If you tell someone they should be proud because this is right, they won't. But if you tell someone they should be ashamed for not helping the powerless, they fall right into line.

          Not here, so much. Here I think there is much more analysis and much less shame. But in general. While I don't really want to live in a society where the tyranny of the powerful runs rampant, I am no more excited about the tyranny of the powerless.

          1. While I don't really want to live in a society where the tyranny of the powerful runs rampant, I am no more excited about the tyranny of the powerless.

            That is one of the pithier and truthful things I have read in a long time Brett. I am totally stealing that. Bravo.

            1. Blind squirrel, acorn. Anything I put here that is useful is purely coincidental. Use it in good health.

              1. Is the Brett L moniker purely coincidental!!!

                1. Besides being my given name and initial of my last name?

        3. There are real and tangible costs to not thinking the right thing. Costs most of us, myself included, are usually unwilling to pay.

          Every time I post on here, I worry.

    2. Yesterday, someone posted that Glenn Greenwald article at intercept-dot-com revealing e-mails showing certain lay-down relationships between major media and the Clinton campaign. This is a major story, but anyone who might report it and get some traction with the public is...... on the friendly list.

      1. Right now on Drudge

        CNN Jake Tapper congratulated Podesta...
        CNBC John Harwood Advises Campaign [And he was debate moderator?!]...
        NYT Gave Hillary Veto Power On Quotes!
        BOSTON GLOBE coordinated to max her 'presence' in paper...
        Aide calls Chelsea 'spoiled brat'...
        BRAZILE BUSTED: DNC Chief Shared CNN Town Hall Questions...
        Leaked Sanders Dirt...
        Clinton campaign had discussions with DOJ!
        Just as... State Dept Coordinated Email Release

        This is why they are going to send the FEC after Drudge and all right thinking people in the media will cheer it.

  13. The fly-familiar is vomiting a caustic elixir boring its way through HRC's skull, depositing a Screw-wyrm who will direct the host into blasphemous and obscene rituals of captured Yazidi children.


    1. Agile Cyborg, is that you?

    2. Agile Cyborg has a singular style. I've known his postings here for years. Agile is a friend of mine, and you sir......

  14. Really, it's like a Borowitz Report, only funny.

    Well done.

  15. The progtards really are going into full meltdown mode over the prospects of 3rd parties possibly ruining everything for The Once and Future Queen Hillary.

    Question: what goes better with salty ham proggie tears: popcorn, or pretzels?

    1. It's going to be a long 4 weeks until the election (and then 4 years after that), I say both.

  16. Many Americans consider their votes to be meaningless, because they see the major parties as members of the same corporate oligarchy or as big-government enemies of individual freedoms, or the candidates as generic self-serving politicians.

    I don't suppose it ever crossed this cunt-waffle's mind that maybe those many Americans are right?

    1. CA-
      No, it probably has not crossed her mind.

      1. You are correct. It hasn't. Most people are so busy going to work, watching ballgames, etc. etc to take a critical look at what is going on.

  17. C.S. Lewis:
    "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

    INB4 Disregard because of the religious apologetics exuded from quote source

    1. That quote is a universal truth. It is why people who claim to "live by their principles" are often the most terrifying of all.

      1. As I have pointed out before, Lewis is the person most responsible for me being a libertarian.

        1. He is one of the best thinkers and for my mind the best essayist of the 20th Century. I would take Lewis over Orwell any day. Orwell remained a socialist to his death and still believed in it if only the right top men could be found. Lewis understood there is no such thing as "top men".

          1. Lewis understood there is no such thing as "top men".

            Not true, he wrote an entire book about them.

            1. True. not that should be in charge of anything.

            2. I would say that this is the most accurate prediction of the current governance by the cosmopolitan self-declared elite that anyone made before it happened.

            3. Man, That Hideous Strength is chilling. I thought the first two books were pretty good sci-fi/fantasy, with plenty of wonder and amusement in them, but THS just depressed the shit outta me.

    2. "To live his life in his own way, to call his house his castle, to enjoy the fruits of his own labour, to educate his children as his conscience directs, to save for their prosperity after his death --- these are wishes deeply ingrained in civilised man. Their realization is almost as necessary to our virtues as to our happiness. From their total frustration disastrous results both moral and psychological might follow."

      Also CS Lewis.

      The bolded part is my platform if I ever run for office.

      1. So Lewis was selfish, didn't support universal education and hoarded his money. Probably got his information fro Faux News.

    3. Something else Lewis said along the same lines: "She's the sort of woman who lives for others - you can tell the others by their hunted expression."

  18. Props for "leapin' lizards," Nick. You can never go wrong with the classics.

  19. No Amy Davidson, No. I will not hold my nose and vote for your candidate, Hillary Clinton, who is a bigger war monger than Dick Cheney, who is pals with the international war criminal Henry Kissinger, and who supports the racist and un Constitutional war on drugs.

    So NO Amy Davidson NO -I will not hold my nose and vote for your candidate, the racist war monger and foe to individual liberty, Hillary Clinton.

    1. Dear Amy,

      Do you really want me to vote for Trump? Because idiots like you are why I would never vote for Clinton.


      Hopefully Everyone

  20. If Clinton really thought that the votes for Johnson were "hers", she would be pushing for IRV voting systems. If the democrats really believed that about Nader, that is all we would have heard about the last 16 years.

    But they aren't that honest, they know that only helps the 3rd party candidates, as it takes an argument away from the major parties.

    1. Third parties only get any traction when one of the major parties gets weak. If the Democrats had anything but a loathsome candidate and were not planning to screw a large number of their supporters and expecting them to vote for them anyway, Jill Stein and Johnson wouldn't matter.

      1. In many ways, Trump is a third-party candidate. He's only nominally a Republican, and much of the establishment hates him. It's as if Ross Perot entered the Republican primaries and won.

        1. He very much is. Both parties are run by self serving elites.

        2. I tentatively agree with this. The whole intra-GOP controversy about Trump is that he was an interloper-- a carpetbagger if you will, who 'subverted' the GOP establishment and brought in not-insignificant numbers of first time, non-traditional and non-historically registered republicans (if that last one makes sense-- if it doesn't I apologize).

          1. It is many ways the old school nationalist and populist conservatives standing up to try and take the party back from the internationalist WFB conservatives and the Neo Conservatives. Somehow conservatives managed to turn conservatism into a dimwitted form of Libertarianism whose adherents love free trade and Wilsonian internationalism but hate pot, taxes and abortion. The Trump movement is a rejection of all that and in many ways a return to what conservatism was before Buckley and the Neo Cons got ahold of it.

            1. Buckley and the Neo Cons

              Worst 60s band ever.

              And doesnt make sense.

              1. They were a bad band. And I didn't mean they both did it at the same time. I mean first Buckley kicked out anyone who didn't completely embrace free trade and monetarism and then the NEOCOns arrived after Vietnam and in the 1990s started kicking out anyone who didn't embrace internationalism and intervention.

            2. The way they most resemble Libertarians is that they are once again holding purges before achieving victory with a coalition of somewhat competing views.

    1. Veep is pretty funny for a documentary series.

  21. The subtitle gives away the article's argument: "Should Gary Johnson and Jill Stein really be distracting voters this year?"

    Christ, what an asshole.

  22. Ye gods and little fishies, what a maroon. The New Yorker is like ground zero for social signalling.

  23. Grab it by its motherfucking pussy.

    1. Damn you! I've been waiting for a good opportunity/ excuse to mash up the old "Grab its motherfucking leg" meme with Trump's "Grad her pussy" statement, but you stole my moment. Damn you straight to hell!

  24. Saul Steinberg's 1976 cover (see below) depicting the "view of the world from 9th Avenue"

    That cover exhibits evidence of self-awareness completely lacking in anything published in the New Yorker today.

  25. Most voters, about 110,000,000, don't live in swing states. Perhaps there should be more talk about how if you live in a swing state, you can safely vote your conscience since your vote will not likely matter anyway.

  26. When writers there are not pronouncing as "scientific fact" that "a vote for Jill Stein is a vote for Donald Trump," ...

    Even if you start with the assumption that the only parties that matter, i.e., the ones who have a realistic chance at winning, are R and D (which isn't an acceptable premise to begin with), a vote for Stein is really more like 0.5 votes for Trump and 0.5 votes for Hillary -- in other words, it does not affect the difference between the two. /pedant

    1. Well, no. Its more like -1 votes for whichever major party candidate they were going to vote for and zero for the other one, bringing the vote total closer, but not by two votes. Like when divisional rivals play each other in baseball, you get a whole game for winning. If you are playing someone else, you get a half game for your result, and they get half a game for their result. Voting for Stein over Hillary is like getting traded from the Yankees to the Cardinals before interleague play. The only time they could affect each other is in the world series.

    2. Well, no. Its more like -1 votes for whichever major party candidate they were going to vote for and zero for the other one, bringing the vote total closer, but not by two votes. Like when divisional rivals play each other in baseball, you get a whole game for winning. If you are playing someone else, you get a half game for your result, and they get half a game for their result. Voting for Stein over Hillary is like getting traded from the Yankees to the Cardinals before interleague play. The only time they could affect each other is in the world series.

      1. Fuck you squirrels. What are you, cricket fans?

    3. Repealing bad laws is winning, and the LP has been doing that for ears.

  27. The article was well written and very entertaining.

  28. RE: 'Should Gary Johnson and Jill Stein really be distracting voters this year?'
    The New Yorker goes full New Yorker in lament over, you know, democracy.

    We should always read and heed what the New Yorker recommends. After all, you won't find a liberal rag that that is wise enough to promote clueless, self-entitled, arrogant, rich elitist filth like Heil Hitlary every day. Plus, the New Yorker is so wise because, after all, they're from the East Coast, and they know everything. Just ask them sometime.
    They'll set you straight on how wonderful socialism is provided of course, it is run by a bunch of clueless, self-entitled, arrogant, rich elitist turds from the East Coast.

  29. Three reasons not to vote for Johnson.
    1. He can't win so why waste your vote?
    2. He can give the Presidency to Trump by denying Clinton the 270 electoral votes, in which case the Republican Congress would pick the President and Vice PresidentAs as starter, say "Goodby" to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and other social programs.)

    1. And these are reasons NOT to vote for Johnson how exactly? If I knew for a fact this would come to pass I'd give sexual favours to every lowlife who was willing to make it happen.

    2. Personally i consider voting for Clinton a "wasted vote". And who do you think you are to tell others that their RIGHT is a waste if they don't do it the same way you do?

      What if all Johnson supporters voted for Trump? Would you still want them to not vote for Gary?

    3. Wrong.
      1. Spoiler votes change the laws, and laws--not photos of politicians' teeth--are what tell the cops whether or not to shoot your kids and take your car.
      2. Each spoiler vote packs 6 to 36 times the clout of lemming votes. Look at the Econazis. When they made Groper Gore lose the Dems copied every Green plank with fanatical zeal. Both looters want cops to shoot kids over victimless BS. Both looters want to preserve the communist manifesto income tax and the asset forfeiture that crashed the economy in 2007. But if dead kids, paying a mortgage so someone else can have your home and being groped by Marxist tax looters is what yu call "winning," then go ahead and drink the Kool-Ade.

  30. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can't believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do,

    go to tech tab for work detail,,,,,

  31. Quote condensation happens. Leo Durocher did not say, "Nice guys finish last." He said, "Look at Mel Ott over there. He's a nice guy, and he finishes second. Now look at the Brat (Eddie Stanky). He can't hit, can't run, can't field. He's no nice guy, but all the little son-of-a-bitch can do is win." Durocher accepted the condensation and used it for a book title. Perhaps Kael was comfortable with "I live in a rather special world. I only know one person who voted for Nixon. Where they are I don't know. They're outside my ken. But sometimes when I'm in a theater I can feel them." being truncated as well. In any case, it's still pretty damned sneering.

  32. I don't know about Jill. But, Gary is doing a great job distracting voters he should be attracting.

  33. If we had an instant-runoff election system, like the one Australia has and Britain rejected (in a referendum a year or two ago), voters for third parties would not throw away their vote--their vote would get transferred to their next-best choices. Nor would minor parties be stealing votes from major parties.
    Electronic voting machines make the transfer process easy and "instant."

    1. Voters already have a pretty good idea of where other voters stand and take that into account when voting. There is little reason to believe that the outcome of elections would be significantly affected by instant-runoff elections.

      More importantly, instant-runoff doesn't fix the basic problem with US democracy, namely the fact that we have professional politicians who are running for these jobs because it brings them wealth and fortune.

      If you really want to fix the US election system, we should go to an ancient Greek-style sortition system, similar to what we do for jury selection: first, you determine a subset of all voters that are eligible, then you select representatives randomly. You might still have voting to eliminate candidates.

  34. American's appear too stupid to step out of the matrix.

  35. not a fly, an eye booger

  36. I had my suspicions that Hillary was a zombie; the flies on her confirm it!

  37. Not New...Progs hate democracy.

  38. Libertarians missed a chance to knock out the republicans... ALL that had to be done is to cozy up to the democrats and offer a hand to work with; not give away the store but offer to help them if they helped you knock out republic seats...

    Too little , too late though REASON.

    1. I think part of being a Libertarian is not caving to the pressure of the political elites that the democrats love. Gary Johnson has said that he plans to work with BOTH SIDES. People are voting for him, because of that. Not because he plans to be another democrat pawn.

    2. Nah. The platform was sabotaged with the cowardly straddle, but it's still WAY better'n the looters?. Cozying up only makes it easy to be stilettoed as by Fatso with the Aleppo trap. Dealing direct with the public and ignoring the thugs while angling for spoiler votes is best. The idea is to change the laws, even by forcing them to change them or lose gubmint jobs.

  39. 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.


  40. Hillary's nonwhite firewall is sturdy enough to withstand Johnson defections. However, Johnson / Stein has potentially high ceiling and any votes that adds to Johnson's 2012 totals represent less votes for the democrat (and republican) party. If he wins "only" 3 million votes, at least a third of that will be democrats. That's actually significant if turnout is low. Even Obama lost 4 million votes in 2012. And Clinton ain't Obama.

    The democrats know Clinton won the election. But they're worried about her long term viability. Obama won a landslide election in 2008 but GOP made serious gains within two years. What would happen under Clinton, who's not trusted by almost half of her party? The democrats going to Johnson are anti-establishment and moderates may not turn out for their party in the next midterms, while the center right is once again energized by ACA, gun / drug rights, etc.

    And what happens if Johnson wins 5 million plus votes? Then it's officially a movement, and voters will get... ideas about voting third party. That's a big concern for both parties, but especially for dems. All the red states will return to the status quo once Trump is out of the picture.

  41. 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


  42. Gary Johnson is the emodiment.

  43. just as Phyllis implied I didnt know that some people can profit $5059 in 1 month on the internet
    see more at----------->>>

  44. I love how my vote only counts if i'm voting for your candidate. Perhaps if you wanted the third party vote you should have given us something worth voting for...

  45. I received my mail in ballot last night. It was a pleasure filling it out and mailing it this morning. Voted against all tax increases, against letting felons who committed "non-violent" offenses out of prison and against bond measures for the subway. Also smiled as I voted for Johnson. Yes, it was a good morning.

  46. Narrow lead? Go to Paddypower where you have to give THEM 6-to-1 odds to bet the pro-choice party wins. The bookies will eagerly bet 4-to-1 that The Antichoice prohibitionist looters lose. Odds on Gary are stuck at 33 to 1, mainly because the lying media makes it sound like the looters are neck-and-neck. That makes it all the easier to ignore the libertarians, and why not? They have been paid cash money to do since the Nixon campaign subsidies were enacted in 1971.The law is easy to find and read online.

  47. until I looked at the paycheck saying $4730 , I did not believe brother woz like actualy bringing in money part time from there computar. . there friend brother started doing this for less than 7 months and resently paid for the morgage on there home and bought a new Cadillac .......


  48. Peyton . even though Billy `s report is cool... on monday I got a gorgeous Maserati after I been earnin $8985 thiss month and even more than ten k lass month . it's certainly the easiest work Ive ever had . I started this 9-months ago and practically straight away started bringin home at least $78 per-hr . look at this now


  49. While coming to education, the technology has brought many advantages to students and as well as teachers. showbox For example, students can do their homework or assignment with ease and can complete it faster by using the Internet.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.