Evan McMullin

Evan McMullin: 'If Gary Johnson Were a Real Libertarian, I Probably Wouldn't Be Doing This'

Conservatives who lament Johnson's insufficient libertarianism should be treated with skepticism at best.

|

In a Washington Times interview yesterday, independent conservative presidential candidate Evan McMullin, who is having the best week of his campaign, took a potshot at his competitor from the Libertarian Party. "If Gary Johnson were a real libertarian," he said, "I probably wouldn't be doing this." The paper cited Johnson's positions on religious liberty and consumption taxes as reasons for McMullin's skepticism.

Last week the #NeverTrumper former CIA agent, Goldman Sachs investment banker, and House Foreign Affairs Committee policy advisor made similar comments to the Libertarian Party presidential runner-up, Austin Petersen, adding that he would have "probably" supported Petersen had the former Freedom Watch producer beat Johnson for the nomination:

(You can watch their whole interview here.)

McMullin's he's-not-libertarian-enough critique is certainly a refreshing change from his explicitly anti-libertarian (and laughably false) claim from a month ago that Johnson "spends his time advocating for legalized prostitution and for a drug culture here in America, rather than dealing with problems that are really big, like our economy and national security and government reform." But it's not like you have to scroll far down through the candidate's Twitter feed to find policy ideas anathema to solid majorities of libertarians:

Yet his is a common enough complaint among Trump-averse conservatives that I will walk through its logic problems at more length after the jump. First, though, a response to McMullin that I solicited from Libertarian Party Chair Nicholas Sarwark:

The Libertarian National convention in Orlando brought nearly 1,000 delegates chosen by state Libertarian Parties around the country into one room. They were not bound to any particular candidate and heard all of the candidates debate before choosing a nominee. I trust the judgment of dedicated Libertarian Party members from around the nation somewhat more than that of an unremarkable Capitol Hill staffer with no purpose other than to split the Gary Johnson vote in the mountain West and assist in electing the Democrat for President. Perhaps his remarks would have more credibility if he was on the ballot in more than 11 states or had managed to find a fellow Capitol Hill staffer to be a running mate in time for his FEC filing or the printing of those ballots in the aforementioned 11 states.

The day I take advice on who's a real libertarian from a former CIA operative who was an insider in Washington and at Goldman Sachs, being propped up by dead-end neoconservatives like Bill Kristol and shameless Republican political consultants like Rick Wilson, is the day I'll resign as Chairman of the Libertarian Party.

I'm not resigning today.

Me-ow! Now, my main additional point:

If the L.P nominated a "real" libertarian, conservatives likely wouldn't touch him or her with a 10-foot pole.

Next time! ||| Austin Petersen
Austin Petersen

It's no accident that conservatives such as McMullin and Glenn Beck and Mary Matalin and Erick Erickson hold up Austin Petersen when playing the "true libertarian" card. That's because Petersen, an energetic media/politics entrepreneur with zero governing experience, comes off as more palatable to social conservatives, particularly on the concepts of religious liberty (as understood in a 2016 political context) and opposition to abortion.

But these and other positions don't make Petersen a libertarian's Libertarian, they make him a conservative's Libertarian (NTTAWWT!). The Libertarian Party platform has always been pro-choice when it comes to abortion, reflecting the majority opinion among libertarians (and Americans). That doesn't mean you can't be a pro-life libertarian, or debate the issue on explicitly libertarian grounds, but rather that if we insist on playing the usually foolish quien-es-mas-libertarian game, this position doesn't bolster the argument. Nor does Petersen's gleeful repudiation of the L.P.'s long-treasured Non-Aggression Principle.

I genuniely appreciate the way Petersen during the primary season repeatedly hammered away at Johnson's incoherent stance on forcing bakers to make wedding cakes, a position that has come back to repeatedly haunt the candidate post-nomination (see the great new Reason TV video from Utah for further corroboration of that). But while I wouldn't pretend to claim what the "real" libertarian position is on all public accommodation laws, chances are non-trivial that if you polled L.P. members, or the broader American subset of self-identified libertarians, you'd get a measurable amount of principled opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act (for the record, I agree with Richard Epstein on the issue). Would Evan McMullin support a candidate who really went there, in the face of the inevitable public outcry? I doubt it.

More relevantly to the 2016 conversation, the dominant libertarian/Libertarian position of foreign-affairs anti-interventionism is probably even more of a non-starter for #NeverTrump conservatives than weed or even abortion. Before they discovered a late-in-life conversion to third-party political campaigns, many of the interventionists who are now clustered around McMullin were busy sending human waves against another untenable contender for president: Rand Paul. All of it based on issues stemming from national security. Keep in mind here that Rand Paul at the time was getting hammered by many anti-war libertarians for being too interventionist (that some of the same gang have now rallied around Donald Trump makes me laugh and laugh). So if future #NeverTrumpers were calling Rand a liberal pantywaist on foreign policy in 2015, do we really think they'd be ready to embrace the foreign policy of someone closer to, say, Ron Paul in 2016? Of course they wouldn't. We know that because Ron Paul ran for president in 2008 and 2012, and we remember how they behaved back then.

Evan McMullin's bae. ||| C-SPAN
C-SPAN

So who is the real libertarian's Libertarian? One person making that claim is distant L.P. presidential finisher Darryl W. Perry, who received 6.8 percent of the vote in the first round of Party balloting, and is now waging a write-in campaign so that people "will have the ability to cast a vote…for an actual libertarian." Methinks that the Evan McMullins of the world wouldn't soon cotton to a fella whose platform begins with the statement that "all coercive forms of taxation should be eliminated, and government programs should be funded voluntarily."

There are indeed many libertarian objections to Gary Johnson. I'm no fan of consumption taxes (though unlike McMullin, I will note that Johnson's proposal also comes strapped to the very libertarian-friendly notions of scrapping the IRS and cutting government spending by 23 percent in year one). His position on Citizens United makes the religious liberty stuff look well-thought-out ("Well, I don't like the idea of corporations being citizens," he told me last month). Some of his in-the-moment responses to stuff—like supporting a proposed burqa ban, which he did in a January 2016 interview with Nick Gillespie and then rescinded the next day—indicate weird instincts and judgment.

But it's also true that Libertarian Party activists knew that he was an occasionally tongue-tied, pragmatic, libertarian squish going in to this year, and made the rational calculus that maybe having a practical minded governor would be an interesting contrast and potential force-multiplier in this particular presidential election. They had recruited the guy for years before he came in, and there isn't exactly a deep bench when it comes to Libertarians with executive experience. Did the gamble pay off? We'll be debating that for years to come. In any event, the end product is a candidate who indeed is not the idealized libertarian of our competing dreams, but he's one hell of a lot more libertarian than anyone on the ballot in this presidential election. Including Evan McMullin.

Advertisement

NEXT: Florida Supreme Court Rules State Death Penalty Law is 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 Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Is McMuffin actually trying to pass himself off as libertarian?

    Is he stupid or is this some weird political gambit?

      1. ^^This. After all, it worked for the Trumpkin, passing himself off as a Republican only to manifest himself as a poison pill, no?

        1. I don;t see this Egg McMuffin fellow getting much of anywhere with his efforts.

          1. But he’s being served all day now.

            1. I’m lovin’ it

              1. I’m making over $16k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life…Go to this web site and click tech tab to start your work… http://tinyurl.com/j4onneg

            2. Good idea, but everyone’s afraid of that clown hanging around outside. Must be his running mate.

    1. i vote weird political gambit

      theres probably enough Yokeltarians out there that he will draw away some people who are otherwise pretty libertarian but find Johnson/Welds attitude re: religious freedom, immigration, guns (weld in particular), etc. intolerable

      1. No trueYokeltarian is going to vote for somebody with CIA, CFR and Goldman Sachs on their resume.

        Seriously

        There’s nothing libertarian about McMullin, and even less yokeltarian. He worked for the United Nations for Christ’s sake!

        1. He worked for the United Nations

          ok, that seems pretty disqualifying.

          What did he do @ Goldman? I see lots of people who like to cite the names of banks in their CV, but when you look…. like in his case ……..- he spent 2011-2012 in the “Investment banking division” – but doing *what*? He could have been in IT support for all that means. I dont think 18 months @ GS suggests he was running deals. Thats barely time to get up to speed on basic processes. His CIA career seems more substantial, but its still pretty vague.

          1. It’s meaningless at best. Chelsea Clinton was employed by a hedge fund for a while.

            1. I bet it was for her unique insights into derivative pricing theory

          2. 2011-2012

            Technically, he could have only worked there 2011 December 31 – 2012 January 1…

    2. Political gambit. He wants to draw off the socon #NeverTrumpers from Johnson in case they strayed off the GOP plantation. That’s why he’s talking up Petersen.

      1. Typical caketarian strategy.

      2. He wants to draw off the socon #NeverTrumpers from Johnson in case they strayed off the GOP plantation.

        I would have thought those types would go more for Castle, but maybe the key phrase is “off the GOP plantation.” McMuffin gives them an out to vote for someone other than Trump while not technically being a vote for a *gasp* 3rd party since he’s not actually running on any party’s ticket. Seems kind of stupid to me, but then again, there’s a lot of stupid people out there.

      3. He sees his polling numbers in Utah and wants to take the rest of the pie from Johnson since he doesn’t think he can get it from Clinton or Trump.

        Every time I have thought that this election cycle couldn’t get more retarded, everyone manages to dial up it up higher like a teenager out to prove that it can get louder. I have seen a lot of political bullshit, lying, and pure stupidity in my lifetime and studied enough history to know that it’s essentially always been like this, but this election season really takes the cake.

    3. It’s pretty obvious that the desire to hold political power is strongly correlated with some awful psychopathologies.

    4. I’m pretty sure he’s just a stooge employed by the conservative wing of the Republican party to ensure that GayJay does not receive enough votes to qualify for automatic ballot access in future elections.

      That would be a terrible inconvenience for the duopoly, and we can’t allow it to happen.

      1. Could be, but I wouldn’t have thought the Stupid Party would be smart enough to come up with something like that.

    5. I’m making over $15k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life. Go to website and click to Tech tab for more work details…Go Now… http://tinyurl.com/hso7qky

  2. Johnson isn’t enough of a warmonger for him. This guy is a lying sack of shit and he’s not very good at it. If you’re going to tell whoppers at least make them credible.

    1. I think he tells Egg McMuffins.

    2. Why bother? How many blatantly false things have currently elected politicians said to get elected and re-elected? What real penalty is there?

  3. I’m no GayJay fan, but he is the most libertarian of all the potential shit bums we have this year. *prays for Rand Paul to run in 4 years

  4. It’s sort of like if Donald Trump said he was running because Hillary Clinton wasn’t liberal enough, isn’t it.

    Also, Evan McMullin looks like a turtle with its shell off.

    1. There can only be one! He was defeated in a race with Mitch and had to forfeit his shell.

    2. “White men who shave their heads look like freshly-circumcised dicks” – George Carlin
      I think that is a pretty good description of McMuffin.

    3. I’m all in with GJ, but not going after how other candidates look when mine is a dead ringer for Emperor Palpatine.

  5. Sorry, bub, but if you do a video thing with frickin’ earbuds hanging off you braincase, you’re starting with a credibility deficit.

    1. Can I wear a full headphone setup, or do I need a standup mike and speakers?

      1. Like a belt and suspenders, I would recommend both because, well, you can never be too prepared.

  6. Who wants to play quien-es-mas-libertarian?

    1. Lorenzo Lamas…… o Ricardo Montalban…

      1. Montalban was the Kissing Bandit (1948) way before Trump.

        1. And wrapped in Rich Corinthian Leather!

          1. FINE, IT IS FINE DAMNIT!

            GET IT RIGHT!

            1. I was actually thinking of the Eugene Levy version. Sorry, no link.

              1. On further reflection, here’s something for the feminists out there.

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbXfrZt-6pw

    2. Chico Escuela o Roberto Clemente?

      1. (Salma) Hayek?

    3. ?Sabe quien mas tambien mas libertarian?

    4. Katy Jurado o Lupe Velez?

    5. Buenos noches Senores y Senoras. Bienvenidos.
      La primera pregunta es: Que es mas macho,
      pineapple o knife?

      1. pineapple I understand translating, but knife?

        1. Lyrics from a Laurie Anderson track from the ’80’s – just thought it sounded like the upstream thread.

          1. Yeah, I figured it must have been a quote one second after I hit submit.

    6. Tek yer fuckin Messican talk elsewhere, ameego

  7. The fact that you connect the 1964 Civil Rights Act (which protects individuals from discrimination) with people refusing to provide services for a gay wedding (but still serving gay clients) highlights the truth to McMullin’s statement.

    The Libertarian Party has morphed into a left-wing Reform Party- they’ll be pro-immigrant and pro-free trade, but they’ll dismiss every other issue concerning actual ‘liberty’ as a ‘social issue’. The Republican Party has more actual libertarians than Johnson or Weld.

    Epic fail. Epic, epic, fail.

    1. Yes. McMuffin wants to escalate the war on drugs and the war on prostitution, thinks Gitmo is awesome, and finds Clinton too dovish.

      OTOH, under GJ a few people might have to bake cakes they would rather not bake.

      Clearly McMuffin is the better choice for freedom-lovers everywhere.

      1. No, you’re right, McMuffin is awful (although the McMuffin sandwich at McDonald’s isn’t that bad). I’m not trying to say he’s better. Far from it.

      2. I agree. Close GitMo. Once those detainees outlived any usefulness I never understood why they didn’t each get a bullet in the back of the head.

        1. Sarcasm?? Just in case you were serious, many of them were detained for no reason.

          1. It depends. Shoot the ones that were Al Queada commanders or anything similar. Like the guys we traded for Bergdahl. Anyone detained for mere suspicion could be released, period.

    2. The fact that you can’t see that going after a type of public accommodation will always be spun as an attack on the notion of public accommodation, and therefore be seen as an attack on the 64CRA makes you a naive fool.

      1. I definitely think that it is easy to argue that you can’t discriminate against an individual, but you can discriminate against an institution (like gay marriage). Utah, ultimately did just that with by expanding anti-discrimination measures to gays, but not necessarily ‘gay marriage’, as an institution. Heterosexual marriage is not protected by anti-discrimination legislation, nor should it be. For instance, if a Catholic baker does not want to make a wedding cake for a divorced man that is getting remarried, without an annulment, that is fine under the law.

        By expanding protections to institutions we really are treading down a bizarre and dangerous path.

        1. It’s not about whether the connection is valid, but if it will be made and what defense you can mount against it.

          I’m not saying Johnson should be for gay cakes, but it also shouldn’t be the make or break issue in deciding his libertarian bona fides over Trump or McMullin.

          It’s sort of like the local “libertarian” running for city council who only walked to talk about getting rid of all stop lights. Maybe just don’t lead with that, you know?

          1. Then where does the line get drawn? I see a lot of excuses made for Johnson’s numerous apostasies and the response always seems to be, ‘well that’s just a ‘fake culture war”.

            He opposes Citizens United; Hobby Lobby; he thinks Kennedy is a good justice (until people reminded him about the Justice’s ruling on Kelo); he thinks religious liberty is a ‘black hole’; he supports a carbon tax; he said his ISIS policy will be a continuation of the president’s policy; he likes expansive executive orders ‘when Congress won’t act’ (whatever that means), etc.

            I really don’t see what makes Johnson a ‘libertarian’. The Libertarian Party is just a left-wing Reform Party now.

            1. Sorry, but your criticism of GJ obviously makes you a socon-plant-concern-troll.

              How DARE you try to tell us the definition of Libertarian even though words have real meanings and if you have access to a dictionary can read up on it and know what it means without having to be a part of it and don’t you dare use that word that’s our word we will tell you what Libertarian means not you because we don’t like some of your beliefs so you cant tell us what words mean even if they have an objective meaning.

            2. He opposes Citizens United

              Patently untrue (from The New American):

              Of the 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court decision, which allows citizens to associate into corporations and spend money to persuade voters without federal government permission, Johnson takes a strong First Amendment stand. “I think it comes under the First Amendment, that they should be able to contribute as much money as they want.” Johnson makes the argument that more political speech by those outside of the half-dozen corporations that control most of the mainstream media “makes politicians more accountable, not less accountable.”

              Libertarians frequently argue about the role of religion in government and how much religion should be permitted to discriminate in the public sphere. Is supporting a carbon tax really a huge problem when he’s promised to slash government spending and taxes? I don’t agree with it, but that’s hardly a dealbreaker either. I think your last comments about ISIS and executive orders are bullshit until I see proof otherwise.

              Not being a perfect libertarian isn’t the same thing as not being a libertarian. Your whole comment is a Non Sequitur.

            3. Ron Paul supported Kelo too so what does that say about him? If Kelo is a litmus test then RP isnt a libertarian either.

              1. Who said that one thing by itself is a litmus test for anything?

        2. Johnson would still get plenty of heat from libertarians and conservatives even if that was his position on the matter.

    3. The fact that you connect the 1964 Civil Rights Act (which protects individuals from discrimination) with people refusing to provide services for a gay wedding (but still serving gay clients) highlights the truth to McMullin’s statement.

      I’m either way too dumb or smart to make sense of this.

      1. looks upthread

        ‘too smart’ is the winner

    4. What are you talking about? Libertarians have always been left-wing reformers. Ever since Bastiat sat in the left wing of the french assembly, and spent a lot of time trying to reform and stuff. Libertarians and your conservative republicans are diametrically opposed.

  8. Conservatives like this ass clown and his backers have become a really stupid breed of Libertarian. Whatever you think of Libertarians, they at least have principles and apply them in a consistent if sometimes naive way.

    Ass clowns like McMullin don’t even do that. Instead of affirming a set of principles and living with the good and bad they produce and working to figure out ways to minimize the bad or recognize the limits of their principles, these people view their principles as a ready made set of rationalizations for whatever policy they prefer, which of course is always whatever benefits them. They are always about other people suffering for their benefit.

    So McMullin is all about the constitution and limited government until it gets to the federal drug war and then thats different because drugs are bad. The commerce clause is totally limited except for controlling the devil weed. He is all about privacy and the 4th Amendment until we are talking about terrorism and the NSA and such, then that goes out the window because the Constitution is not a suicide pact. He is all about free trade and commerce except somehow the moral imperative for free trade doesn’t apply to free trade in labor and thus does not also compel free immigration.

    I think Libertarians have blind spots but I would never call them dishonest or intellectually bankrupt. These people however are entirely dishonest and intellectually bankrupt.

    1. McMullin is neocon all the way. Doesn’t have a libertarian bone in his body.

      1. Pretty much. He is a “libertarian” only insofar as being so is a convenient rationalization for getting what he wants and even better justifying why he should.

      2. He might. Did anyone look in his asshole?

        1. Oh, good Lord! (… very funny, though)

  9. Err, Gary Johnson might not be a great example of a libertarian but he’s a hell of a lot closer than McMullen who seems like he’d be WAY more at home in the Constitution party

    1. I don’t think he would fit in there at all. McMullin is all about open borders, free trade, and foreign interventionism. The problem with that is not so much the positions, it is that he tries to claim those things are required by either the constitution or a commitment to liberty similar to the way a Libertarian argues for such. That would not be bad, except that he is then in no way consistent about it. The Constitution and liberty require free trade, but somehow don’t have anything to say about drugs. The Constitution is supposed to limit the power of government, but the President has virtually unlimited power to wage undeclared war.

      McMullin fits in with the peculiar breed of half wits who are backing him and really no where else.

      1. McMullin fits in with the peculiar breed of half wits who are backing him and really no where else

        His primary constituencies seem to be disgruntled NeverTrumpers like Bill Kristol and Rick Wilson, and Mormons because of the combination of neocon sympathies and religious commonality. I can’t think of anyone who seriously thought he had libertarian principles and his statement that he’s the one true libertarian in this race just reeks of Bo/shriek-ism.

        1. It’s also a well known fact that mormons LOVE egg mcmuffins, and are irrationally attracted to this man due to his name being phonetically similar to that tasty fast food item..

  10. He’s an idiot, but I still hope he wins Utah.

    Go McMuffin, go!

    1. He is trading on the proven fact that Utahonians are obsessed with Egg McMuffins, and that his name is spelled and sounds suspiciously like Egg McMfuffin.

  11. McMullin (who I see has shed his tie again) does not speak for all anti-Trump conservatives.

    And Johnson isn’t a “pragmatist” on public accomodations, nor is he simply a supporter of “the 1964 Civil Rights Act.”

    Follow me closely here…the 1964 Civil Rights Act was passed in *1964.* The “cake” debate, which started *almost half a century later,* is about (a) whether sexual orientation and “gender identity” should be suspect classifications, and (b) whether this new, expanded Civil Rights Act should supersede the First Amendment.

    On both issues Johnson took the wrong position. It’s only a “pragmatic” position if you’re looking at this from the standpoint of winning former Bernie voters. (Johnson said, IIRC, that he agrees with Bernie 70% of the time). But if we’re looking at it from the point of view of attracting, say, Mormon voters, it’s the opposite of pragmatic.

    To sum up:

    Supporting the CIvil Rights Act of 1964 is pragmatic.

    Desiring to expand that law into new territory, while trampling on the First Amendment, is *not* pragmatic.

    1. Thanks Eddie. I was worried we would never find out how you felt about gay cakes and public accommodation laws.

      1. It doesn’t matter what I *feel,* Oprah.

      2. He actually makes a valid distinction. You of course being one of the biggest idiots on here and being virtually unteachable let it go right over your head.

        1. Thanks for the “help,” John.

          1. There is nothing else to say. You made a valid point. Hugh is too dim to understand it much less respond to it. He deserves to be ridiculed. If he doesn’t like it, he should get smarter. Life is hard if you are stupid and that is how it should be.

            1. I was hoping to use some sarcasm on Hugh, but not to dial it up *quite* as much as you did.

              Sometimes people are smart but choose not to apply their intelligence to some emotional issue. It’s not as if either of us are exempt from that tendency.

              1. Sometimes people are smart but choose not to apply their intelligence to some emotional issue.

                True and I have no patience for that either.

                1. I have no patience for that either.

                  Except for the issues about which you fall prey to that exact same thinking, which is what I think Fusionist was getting at.

                  As I like to say, everyone is MSNBC on some topic.

            2. Is that you, John Wayne? Is this me?

              1. “Who the fuck said that?! I will PT you until you die!”

      3. The suspense was killing me too.

      4. :waits patiently to hear the “correct” view:

        1. I’m a fellow-traveller, not a full-on libertarian – though please observe that I’ve been saying some nice things about Johnson. Just not all the time.

          The “correct libertarian view” is something libertarians can figure out amongst themselves.

          But Johnson scored an “own goal” with the cake thing, making himself vulnerable to McMullin, especially in Utah.

          You can denounce McMullin and the evil interventionists all you want, but on this particular issue McMullin has found one of Johnson’s genuine political vulnerabilities.

          There was a very effective thing Johnson could do to avoid being criticized for taking a non-libertarian position on gay cakes.

          Guess what that very effective thing is?

          1. Have gay sex on public access television and then spooge on the camera?

            1. Close…the answer is “take a libertarian position on gay cakes, as opposed to a non-libertarian position.”

              But maybe your idea would work in Utah, too.

              1. Damn, I thought I had this one.

                I actually thought of you earlier today when I thought about explaining the concept to Tony that it is a perfectly well established moral and intellectual tradition practiced by many religions (most easily brought to mind in the western world in the guise of Catholic monks) to simply withdraw from the world and focus on personal piety and self improvement rather than trying to change the world.

                Then I thought better of it because it’s Tony.

          2. There was a very effective thing Johnson could do to avoid being criticized for taking a non-libertarian position on gay cakes.

            It would, of course, result in him being denounced for taking a libertarian position and accused of being anti-gay. That may in various situations have lost him more votes than it gained him, if we’re talking purely pragmatic analysis. I would have agreed with the position more, though.

            1. However, if you have to champion the authoritarian position to garner political traction, what’s the point?

          3. Actually, Eddie (I’ve never called you that, so there’s a FIRST), I was asking that because it seemed your observations were being dismissed out-of-hand, while they seemed OK to me.

            Some later statements from others added some clarity, but, my statement wasn’t directed at you.

              1. “(I’ve never called you that, so there’s a FIRST)”

                Go for it, Sir Digby or that thing you were before.

                1. Uh, for the “beg your pardon”.

          4. Open a gay Nazi wedding cake bakery?

    2. Riddle me this…if there’s some intrinsic logic in the 1964 act requiring that its scope be expanded to take in more and more suspect classifications, then what’s next after sexual orientation and gender identity?

      Obesity? Attractiveness? Political party affiliation?

      1. pineappleness and knife edgieness, methinks.

      2. “…then what’s next after sexual orientation and gender identity?
        Obesity? Attractiveness? Political party affiliation?”

        It’s no wonder you’re considered to be not real bright.

        1. Yeah, it’s not as if anyone wants to make physical appearance a protected class.

          I’m just making stuff up.

          1. Political discrimination:

            “A handful of states and localities address this issue, among them New York, California, Colorado, North Dakota and the District of Columbia. The broadest-based laws, such as those in California and New York, make it illegal to discriminate on the basis of an employees’ political activity or beliefs in or out of work…”

            1. And absolutely nobody wants to ban weight discrimination.

              1. You’d think sevo would at least try for a rebuttal, if only along the lines of “lol ur stoopid.”

              2. You’d think that the OAC would do better by giving diet and exercise advice.

      3. then what’s next after sexual orientation

        *raises hand furiously*

        and gender identity

        *damn it*

        best guess: credit rating

        1. oh fuck no, please don’t even say it

            1. How can a culture so intertwined with banking and lending over the centuries also spit out so many fiscal retards?

            2. JFC

            3. Will it also prevent them from getting 80% of the lease as a deposit? So $1000/month for a year turns into a rental deposit of $9500 plus $1000 a month

            4. A market for middlemen!

    3. Desiring to expand that law into new territory, while trampling on the First Amendment, is *not* pragmatic.

      Seems to me that the question of “pragmatic” depends more on things like polling. Agree that it’s less libertarian.

      1. So how does the idea poll among Mormon voters?

        1. I would assume that it polls pretty poorly. Certainly if you thought that the Republicans were going to nominate Trump you’d nominate someone who’s libertarian apostates and more moderate views fit them on the right-libertarian side, hence the mentioning of Rand Paul or AP (but yes, the neocons and McMuffin still wouldn’t like him.) It was pretty obvious that the Democrats were going to nominate Hillary.

          I still remain pretty unconvinced that a more “pure” libertarian would be getting more votes on net, though yes there could be a case for someone whose less libertarian positions lined up with Utah, like Sen. Mike “pretty libertarian except I’m willing to ban Internet gambling” Lee.

          1. I would have thought that a (scare quotes) “pure libertarian” would be a guy who wants to legalize heroin vending machines, not someone who wants bakers to decide if they want to service gay weddings.

            1. Are there heroin vending machines to be legalized? Where might I find them?

        2. I’m guessing there’s that fear that someday they be forced to sanction gay temple marriages. It’s pretty far-fetched but far-fetched scenarios is what elections are all about.

    4. The point was that if McMullin really wanted to get into demanding Johnson adopt a purist libertarian view on public accommodations, that would involve repealing the 1964 CRA. Which McMullin would never advocate. He’s being disingenuous.

      As far as pragmatism goes – yes and no. Johnson’s position on it hurts him with conservatives in Utah, but I ultimately think it’s a marginal impact (most people who wouldn’t vote for him over that already wouldn’t vote for him because of his stance on abortion and/or other issues) there and even more so nationally. Also, I don’t think it’s just Bernie voters. There are a lot of people in the center and even the center-right who support anti-discrimination laws covering sexual orientation.

      1. In the states where McMullin is on the ballot, Johnson could only have had an advantage by championing religious freedom and freedom to define marriage as you wish, as opposed to how the government wishes.

        1. An advantage compared to what? With what group? Outside of Utah, I see little evidence to suggest that McMullin is significantly cutting into Johnson’s vote share, and it’s entirely possible that Johnson would alienate more people than he’d gain if he had a different position (at least outside of Utah).

          And even in Utah, what evidence is there to suggest that Johnson adopting different positions on those issues would benefit him enough to surpass McMullin, let alone actually win the state? You can point to these issues, and I’m not saying they’re irrelevant, but compared to other advantages McMullin has such as:

          1) Being from Utah
          2) Being a Mormon
          3) Going to BYU
          4) Being against abortion, and more broadly holding socially conservative views in line with Utahans as a whole that go beyond accommodations or gay marriage (and McMullin’s pretty much said while he disagreed with it he wouldn’t fight Obergefell, so it’s not like he’s really going to do much for gay marriage opponents on that issue).

          Johnson’s position on these issues seem to be a relatively minor factor.

      2. There have been plenty of high profile libertarians who have taken the alternative view on the CRA. It’s not clear to me why someone’s stance on this controversial topic is such a sticking point in judging their libertarian-ness.

        1. Because it’s not about *hurr durr he doesn’t want to repeal the CRA.*

          It’s about *not letting the CRA metastasize and grow into new territory.*

          And about the First Amendment.

          This strikes me as a fairly obvious distinction, especially if one is talking about pragmatism.

  12. There’s a fascinating* circle jerk going on facederp among my high school classmates.

    Did you know that if Trump becomes president, he’s going to abolish the EPA? Everyone recognizes the danger he poses to our lives.

    You know, every year, the temptation to build a castle, dig a moat, fill it with ill-tempered sea-bass with laser beam emitting harnesses and a giant flag giving with a skull, crossbones and a bony hand giving the finger gets more and more tempting.

    *by fascinating, I mean a fucking trainwreck that makes me want to shitcan every resume from an ivy league school graduate that ever lands on my desk (RC Dean gets special dispensation because he’s sort of cool)

    1. I actually don’t have that many friends who went to the Ivy League, but the circuit of “fancy” private colleges are completely fucking their grads if my acquaintances are any indication.

      1. As an Ivy League graduate, I concur.

    2. Did you know that if Trump becomes president, he’s going to abolish the EPA?

      If only that were true, the double bonus of not only getting rid of the EPA but also watching various upper class twits on the right suffer the indignity of having Trump accomplish one of their great dreams in government would be more pleasure than any of us probably deserve.

      One thing that is true, and if you want to torture your friends you might want to mention it, is that the guy who is slated to head Trump’s EPA transition team is a noted climate denier. Drop that little bomb on them sometime.

      1. the guy who is slated to head Trump’s EPA transition team is a noted climate denier

        Oh they know – it’s reason No. 3 why a vote for anyone but Clinton is A Vote to End the World.

        1. It is funny, the Republicans are forever just one more Republican victory away from small government Nirvana and the Democrats are forever just one defeat away from the end of the world as we know it. If only either one of them were right.

        2. Wouldn’t it be awesome if he actually denied there was a climate?

    3. You should ask if they know who started the EPA and why.

      1. No. I’m done.

        They are now fantasizing about Obama being lynched by white republicans if he were to have groped a white woman.

        They really, really scare the shit out of me. In another country three quarters of a century ago, they’d be dutifully reporting on me to the state security police so that I and my family could be sent, never to be seen again, to the east, and then cheerfully congratulating each other for the blows they has struck to defend civilization.

        1. Yes, they do, just like Trump supporters.

    4. Didn’t the EPA recently cause a massive disaster that contaminated a huge amount of water? Maybe someone should clean house over there.

  13. Yeah I don’t know why Reason is giving McMullin so much free publicity.

    1. They have confused them with one of the breakfast products offered by their newest corporate sponsor.

  14. Johnson’s insufficient libertarianism

    And then you have the Mika Bfltspyks of the world, who wonder why that nice Weld man isn’t the LP candidate, instead of the laughably incompetent Johnson.

    Everybody hates him. I respect that.

    1. Weld is a hell of a lot smoother on camera and doesn’t
      come across as such an ignorant goof as Gary (whom I
      like, but have become frustrated with).

      Look on the bright side. When Hillary wins, the Dems
      have to own the ensuing depression.

  15. Who was it who said, “Hell is other people?” Sartre?

    I think he was mostly correct; its actually “other libertarians”

    1. I always remember that there are slightly more versions of libertarianism than libertarians, and 99.9% of them would be a good start from where we are now. Conservative and Liberals have the same fights.

      1. Yeah. All of our versions are much better.

      2. Conservative and Liberals have the same fights.

        I dont know about that. Libertarianism isnt a cultural-tribe. Its a principle-based-system. It doesnt allow much room for squishiness – you either are one, or you arent.

        1. I mean, are you a minarchist or an anarchist. Is government coercion ever justifiable? Abortion, murder or medical procedure? Sovereignty vs free migration? We have all sorts of fights about what principles mean. Even after you get to the principles that freedom and self-ownership are the paramount virtues. How that works out in real-world differences is disagreed upon.

          1. And, if elected, what do you do about government institutions that you don’t have the votes to abolish? If you can’t affect the level of spending by the NIH or NSF, is it libertarian to vote for a rider that bans spending on X (which only insures that more will be spent on not-X)? That certainly comes up in Congress, where X is stem cell research, or political science funding, etc. Is the “true” libertarian position supporting all those riders in order to throw as much sand in the gears as possible, or is it opposing them as efforts to “impose morality.” Can other libertarians care about the votes on things like that even if they don’t acknowledge that there aren’t libertarian principles at stake?

            Plenty of things to argue about.

            1. Spoiler votes are the key to changing the laws. And if a few LP candidates actually DO get elected, as the Populists managed in 1892, the looter whores will again stab and elbow each other for a chance to lick their boots and change their own platforms. This is exactly what happened in the Y2k election, when the Dems got pummelled and now out-econazi the Greens. Potato chip companies copy the recipes that–prices held constant–sell the biggest volume. Spoiler votes are the only unequivocally important signposts out there besides odds offered by bookies.

          2. are you a minarchist or an anarchist.

            Libertarians arent anarchists, so thats a disqualifier right there.

            Is government coercion ever justifiable?

            As with the above – yes, the concession that limited govt is necessary implies that

            Abortion, murder or medical procedure?

            Thats not a libertarian debate but one about definitions of biological agency. its open to different opinions.

            All of those seem pretty easy, actually. I think the tougher ones within libertarian circles are the issues of Immigration & Foreign Policy.

            Mainly because both run into problems with the basic assumption that even a limited, minimalist state has realist requirements to sustain its own existence – and that a complete absolution of border-controls, or hyper-isolationist non-interventionism lead to some existential questions about practical sustainability of the state itself.

            e.g. – As frankie once said (paraphrased) – a *true* libertarian foreign policy would never have blockaded the soviet missiles being shipped to Cuba. Which is essentially suicide-pact non-interventionism ; in the issue of immigration, you have things like the dilution of citizenship rights, and a expansion of the notion that the state has an obligation to defend the rights of ‘anyone and everyone’, which would quickly make it unable to practically do so at all.

            1. Possibly with a truly non-interventionist foreign policy, the missiles
              would never have been put into Turkey that led to the missile being
              put into Cuba. Of course, if you go back far enough, there would have
              never been a depression, possibly no civil war, actually Jefferson’s
              first draft of the Declaration would have been accepted (blaming
              slavery on King George III) and we would have started our country
              with slavery being abolished in 1776. If only!!

              1. I hope there is an alternate time line where that happened.

  16. The bottom line here is that Johnson made himself vulnerable to attacks from the likes of McMullin – nobody *forced* Johnson to do that.

    1. Nobody can force a Johnson!

      1. +1 Rape Culture

    2. Nobody forced McMuffin to be an asshole, either.

      1. A GOP hack lecturing libertarians on what being a libertarian means seems almost like a daily occurrence to me.

        1. True dat. But the bottom line is we get candidates elected now and then and they vote against looting, arson and pillage. One dissident voting in a roomful of looters and dupes reduces the percentage of bad choices the dupes can be suckered into making by roughly 16%. This is measured in Solomon Asch experiments since 1955, and is as reproducible as a physics lab experiment. Integrity is its own reward to LP voters because it repeals bad laws no matter which candidates get to shake the champagne bottle and cash government paychecks.

      2. It’s too much to ask of any man to live with a noggin like that and not be an asshole.

      3. But Johnson can’t turn McMullin (sp?) into a non-asshole.

        Johnson *can* choose to defend religious and associational freedom.

      4. Is that a gay version of the “apple pie” in
        that teen movie a few years back?
        (American Pie, had to look it up)

    3. Yes, and if Johnson had taken the opposite position, he would have been vulnerable to attacks from other people. I certainly understand the desire to say “oh, screw it” and take the 100% maximal libertarian position on every issue, but I also don’t believe that that would necessarily earn more vote if that’s what you’re concerned about.

      McMuffin also has specifically bashed Johnson for caring too much about pot legalization and for being a dove on foreign policy. His “not a real libertarian” thing is skewed.

      1. “the 100% maximal libertarian position”

        If I said it once, I said it a million times…don’t exaggerate!

        Keeping the Civil Rights Act to its current list of suspect classifications, while supporting the First Amendment right to choose which weddings to cater, isn’t a *maximal* position.

        The maximal position would be repealing the Civil Rights Act and legalizing heroin vending machines.

  17. Yeah, because conservatives were just sooooo eager to vote for a libertarian in all of those previous elections.

    Seriously, fuck this Ed McMuffin guy. In an election dominated by horrible candidates, I sometimes think he manages to somehow be the worst.

    1. Yeah, because conservatives were just sooooo eager to vote for a libertarian in all of those previous elections.

      ^ This.

      If there’s one thing this election has laid bare with stark clarity, it’s that the Republican Party will never support, or even fail to actively resist, a libertarian even if the very future existence of the party is at stake. They will literally sabotage their own chances to win before they will endorse a libertarian.

      1. Yuip. Back in the Tea Party days, the TP candidates were generally vociferously small government. The Repub establishment hated them, undermined them, worked for their defeat by Democrats, and would still rather have a Democrat in office than a principled small government Republican.

    2. “Yeah, because conservatives were just *sooooo* eager to vote for a libertarian in all of those previous elections.”

      In several previous elections, they didn’t support third parties at all – this year they’re open to third parties, and what do the libertarians do? Nominate Mr. Prochoice Gay Cake, because screw the conservatives, you wouldn’t like us anyway!

      1. Seriously, it’s like “why should I shower, it’s not like she’d go out with me even if I did!”

        Well, take a shower and find out, stinky.

      2. this year they’re open to third parties, and what do the libertarians do? Nominate Mr. Prochoice Gay Cake, because screw the conservatives, you wouldn’t like us anyway!

        Mostly because he was the most qualified of their expectedly not very professional candidates. If Rand Paul had run for the LP nomination, he probably could have beat out Gary. But no one expected the Republicans to nominate someone so far to the Left as Trump.

      3. Says the frustrated antiabortion neocon.

        1. How are you defining neocon?

          1. My guess: “Someone I disagree with.”

      4. They also nominated someone who according to many
        libertarians is “not libertarian enough”. But the point was
        to get someone more palatable to Repubs and actually
        electable (in theory).

    3. He really is the perfect example of just how cynical and opportunistic this whole Presidential election cycle has become.

    4. Why be so harsh? The breakfast sandwich is just manufacturing a little controvery so his moribund campaign sees a small flicker of hope.
      Of course he is going to accomplish zilch this year. Least of all become the leader of some new conservative party that will overtake the imploding Republicans like he openly dreams about.
      He just wants his day in the sun. The name of the game is to edge out Castle for 5th place. If he can pull 25% of his votes in the 10 states outside Utah instead of 15% he just might do it.
      Don’t hate the playa, hate the game.

  18. Also silly are the people who say “he’s not libertarian” while saying that they wish Bill Weld was at the top.

    Gary is more libertarian than anyone else running, and at the same time he’s a bit of a libertarian squish in that he’s compromised on some positions that don’t play well with a larger crowd. It’s not untrue to say that he’s compromised more on right-libertarian unpopular positions than left-libertarian unpopular positions. But, as noted, his proposed massive spending cut plus move to a consumption tax is right in line with right-libertarian and conservative visions of tax reform; Cruz and Paul’s tax plans weren’t very different, nor the FAIR Taxers either, a right-wing phenomenon. So that’s a weird claim from the McMuffins. His musings about “if you were going to do something on climate change, a carbon tax is better than command and control regulation or emissions trading credits, but I don’t support one” is indeed, as he said it, the standard conservative/libertarian wonk position.

    On religious liberty, his “I signed an RFRA but don’t understand it” puts him basically in line with Mike Pence.

    But even he does end up left-libertarian, he’s still an obviously better choice for right-libertarians. He’s definitely the most pro-gun of any of the three largest candidates (and more pro-gun than VP Weld, for that matter.) Not for people for whom an aggressive foreign policy is a dealbreaker, but by that point we’re definitely stretching libertarian beyond all meaning.

    1. Johnson’s compromised a good amount on drugs, and that’s generally seen as a “left-leaning” position libertarians hold, relative to society in general.

      Also, “left-libertarianism” is often used to describe people who are in the left wing of right-libertarianism. It’s an actual philosophy (or philosophies – it even started out referring to variations of socialism and left-wing anarchism) that Johnson clearly doesn’t adhere to.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-libertarianism

      1. Johnson doesn’t adhere to any philosophy. It’s not even clear he’s even read any philosophy. But he’s clearly sympathetic to the C4SS shit.

        1. C4SS shit is preferable to most of the garbage that comes from Rockwell/Hoppe/Block types.

        2. Johnson doesn’t strike me as an anarchist of any stripe

      2. He’s a politician. Most of them don’t have a consistent actual philosophy, and if so, they’re damn sure better off not attempting to explain it or be philosophical. Taking an issue position is fine, but if you attempt to explain your reasons for holding that position, you’re just going to piss off the half of your supporters who agree with the position but for different reasons.

        1. Yeah I agree Johnson could be better about that. I was just giving that as a prominent example where he deviates “to the right” of libertarian orthodoxy.

    2. he’s still an obviously better choice for right-libertarians.

      LOL wut

      1. Which candidate that’s running is a better choice for that group?

  19. I was basically with the LP Chair’s remarks until he got to the part about McMullin ‘splitting the Gary Johnson vote”.

    Dear Mr. Sarwark,
    Fuck. You.

    If I vote for Gary Johnson, it’s because none of the other candidates match my policy preferences and priorities as well as he does. If I vote for McMullin, it’s for the same reason. If I cast a write-in vote for a week old sack of dogshit, it’s for the same fucking reason. As the chair of a party that claims to dispute the idea that our votes are the property of one of the two major parties, it’s disgusting to see you resort to that same argument when an independent candidate might be a more appealing choice to some people than your party’s nominee.

    So, again, and with no due respect whatsoever.

    Fuck. You.

    1. I think if you read it again, you will find that Sarwark wasn’t dictating your vote, or insinuating anything about it.

      Sarwark was talking about McMullin’s motivation and purpose for running. He contended that it was McMullin’s strategy from the beginning to be a splitter and not run a serious campaign. All evidence he gives for that is pretty solid.

      1. Yeah, I was commenting on the goals of the breakfast sandwich and his backers.

        1. i heart this.

    2. I see what you’re saying, but I think his point is different from that.

      UT was an early state that rejected Trump and leaned heavily toward supporting Johnson in numbers that could actually flip the state.

      McMuffin’s having been given such a disproportionate amount of publicity for essentially being a candidate only in UT, and his unique appeal to UT voters at the expense of national appeal (always a risk in nominating a Mormon) belies the fact that he was urged to run simply to dilute GJ’s potential hold on UT.

      I don’t think he’s saying GJ “owns” those votes – I think he’s making a comment on why McMuffin joined the race in the first place.

      1. Please excuse the flagrantly improper use of “belies.” My English degree should be revoked.

        How hard is an edit button?

      2. How many wives does this guy have distributing doorhangers? A REAL Mormon would have at least a dozen, and maybe thirty kids of bicycle age, each with a crew of Sign of 4 Secret Society members.

      3. I’ve not seen that McMullin was urged to run because people wanted to strip votes away from Gary Johnson in Utah. Is there info to support that?

    3. Yeah, the LP isn’t any more entitled to anyone’s votes than the next party. Stuff like that drives me crazy because as the recipients of that attitude from the big parties, surely we should know better.

  20. My son is starting to look at colleges. It’s been pretty easy to winnow out the lunatic asylums from the list.

    I’ll tell you what I told my brother (Spoiler Alert: He didn’t listen, either.)

    Buy your son a backhoe, instead of blowing all that money on college.

    1. You know, getting certified as an underwater welder costs about $50000, you can do it in under two years, and his first paycheck will be 5% of that, but he’ll get that every week.

      1. Assuming you like underwater welding, of course.

        1. What does liking a job have anything to do with it?

        2. Its piecework, often. You only have to be able to endure it for 6 weeks at a time. Plus, if you’re good, you can make enough money to work for 4-5 months and take the rest of the year off until you have kids.

      2. Fifty grand? That seems like a lot.

        1. I was going to go lower, but my wife’s cousin paid $34000 for a regular welding ticket, and got robbed. So I was trying to high-side it. Shit, when I was working on the construction project, we were training combo-welders (stainless and carbon steel, mostly pipe) as fast as we could. Only downside was you had to make your first two production welds to get your ticket. There were guys going from $15/hour to $35/hour with 12 weeks of doing 8 hours a week of extra work. AND, when that job was over they could go do turnaround work and work 70 hour weeks making $45/hr plus time and a half. It’s not for any half-wit who can swing a hammer, but its not brain surgery either.

    2. I thought asian hoe’s were better?

      1. Limited range of motion, they only run sideways.

        1. ^^ I can confirm that this is accurate. So can HM.

    3. Buy your son a backhoe, instead of blowing all that money on college.

      ^ This.

      Maybe the only job where you can take home $80/hr and eat a hamburger while you do it.

      1. *Raises hand*

        Oh, only $80 an hour.

        *Lowers hand*

        1. Lawyers like conference calls because they charge all the people on the call billable hours. :-p

  21. The day I take advice on who’s a real libertarian from a former CIA operative who was an insider in Washington and at Goldman Sachs, being propped up by dead-end neoconservatives like Bill Kristol and shameless Republican political consultants like Rick Wilson, is the day I’ll resign as Chairman of the Libertarian Party.

    I’m not resigning today.

    Sick burn.

    Also true.

    1. Yes it is. And very true.

  22. Nicholas Sarwark is seriously the best Chair the LP has ever had.

      1. Oh shit, he lurks!

        1. Senpai noticed me!

          1. *kicks Joe’s desk from behind*

            Stop sucking up!

  23. It’s funny to see Johnson-bashers here suddenly lining up on his side of the ball to bash McMullin.

    1. I think Johnson is a doofus. McMullin, however, is legitimately loathsome. It is a pretty backhanded compliment to say that Johnson is a lot better than McMullin. Backhanded or not, it is a truthful compliment.

  24. If Egg McMuffin were a sausage McMuffin I wouldn’t be hesitant to eat him.

  25. I’m probably slightly more McMullin-sympathetic than the average commenter here, if only because he has a lot of similarity with another tea party/neocon crossbreed that I could have seen myself voting for in the right situation in Marco Rubio. I don’t mind his platform, he’s bad on a lot of things that are secondary concerns to me but he hits my core issues generally well.

    That said, it’s absolutely ludicrous that a drug war-supporting, warmongering Washington insider would think to stand there and lecture people on what a true Libertarian is. If you want to play that game, either run for the Libertarian nom (and get smashed for your right-wing platform) or shut up.

  26. I bet McMullin has at least heard of Murray Rothbard unlike certaint LP candidates that we know

      1. Queen Alexandra’s lover.

  27. RE: Evan McMullin: ‘If Gary Johnson Were a Real Libertarian, I Probably Wouldn’t Be Doing This’
    Conservatives who lament Johnson’s insufficient libertarianism should be treated with skepticism at best.

    Evan McMullin does a point. Weld and Johnson are nothing more than rehashed republicans running for president because their egos demand it. However, they are as exciting as mud and have a very difficult time getting out the LP’s message which is a shame because this could have been a great year for the LP. Hopefully, in four years, the LP will choose a presidential candidate (and VP candidate) that doesn’t come across as Caspar Milktoast and Dr. Boring.

    1. This cycle was all about anti establishment and the LP took the most pro establishment people available to them. Trump won on anti establishment and Bernie would have if the DNC didnt rob him. The LP missed an opportunity

      1. I couldn’t agree more with your comments.
        What a tragedy it is the LP picked Laurel and Hardy to run for Executive Office.

      2. Bernie would have if the DNC didnt rob him

        … Clinton won an absolute majority of the popular vote in the Democratic primary. There wasn’t any point where Sanders was ahead of her in total votes. The superdelegates were icing on Clinton’s cake, but she would have won even if they didn’t exist.

        Now, the DNC was totally in the tank for Hillary. Maybe if the threw their support behind Sanders instead, he could have won the popular vote. But if they hadn’t been in the tank for Hillary, other Democrats (Webb, O’Malley, …) may have become serious contenders which could made Sanders an also-ran like Mike Gravel way back when. Counterfactuals are fun but ultimately lacking in predictive power.

        1. Ok ill concede that saying they outright robbed him is a little hyperbolic.

          But as wikileaks has shown the DNC fought him every step of the way and he would have had a better chance had they stayed neutral. The fact that he did as well as he did DNC resistance or not still supports my statement that this has been an anti establishment election cycle

      3. The anti-establishment people on the right mostly have their preferred candidate already running on the GOP ticket. Johnson’s been criticized for being too friendly to the anti-establishment people on the left, so I’m not sure who exactly would have better captured that group.

        Petersen or McAffee would not be doing better than Johnson. People forget that before Johnson the LP hadn’t broken 0.5% of the popular vote since Ed Clark’s 1980 run.

        1. The point isnt poll numbers since you arent going to win anyway. The point is having the platform to broadcast your message to millions of people that hate Trump and Clinton and they blew it because Gary doesnt have a firm grasp on the philosophy and Bill Weld is a freaking neocon

  28. Austin Petersen vs. Eggan McMuffin:

    Who swims in a bigger pyramid pile of pussy?

  29. It is flattering that antiabortion conservatives and commie anarchists seek to mimic and infiltrate the LP. This is offset by their low estimate of our smarts, integrity and familiarity with the platform. Then again, with 6 to 1 or 4 to 1 odds against one can see how desperation would have God’s Own Prohibitionists grasping at straws and trying any feint and bluff to make the defeat less crushing. We are voting for better laws, and know spoiler votes pack the necessary clout. They are voting for paychecks torn from taxpayers’ hide, so to them it is a personality contest for boodle.

  30. There is literally nothing libertarian about McMullin. I can also say that because of AP’s opposition to the NAP made him the least libertarian of all the candidates this year.

    It should have been McAfee at least he knew he wasn’t going to win and had a plan to get libertarians elected to local office, after this year is over that is the strategy that needs to be followed. Also his philosophical take on libertarianism is beautiful and I believe that it would have resonated.

    1. Are suggesting that an outspoken billionaire with no political backround could have had some level of success during this election cycle!?!?!?

      I liked McAfee alot despite him not being a hardline anarchist

      His VP candidate also had a good grasp on the philosophy unlike Garys neocon VP

      1. If you can look past Belize he was the best we had this year. Good media presence,articulate, coherent philosophy, tech savvy. It would of been something special if he was on the ballot. It would have been entertaining and he knew how to pull a stunt. All of this years protest votes would have coalesced around him. And as mentioned votedifferent.us, shine the light on local candidates, if we can get mayors and councilman and state reps elected, we can possibly get congressman and Senators and then maybe we’ll be ready for the big leagues.

        1. Agree 100%

          The LPs presidential ticket should be about advertising the message while the main effort should be on the local levels where they can win.

  31. “If Gary Johnson were a real libertarian,” he said, “I probably wouldn’t be doing this.”

    Possibly, but I think it’s more likely that if Gary Johnson were a competent candidate he would be at 20% and more across the West and the country, while McMullin would be at 1 or 0.

    Johnson could be a “real” libertarian and he’d still come off looking like an incompetent, incoherent, goofball. Which is still better than Douche and the Turd Sandwich, but that’s not that hard to do. I agree with the person who said, on another thread, that Weld and Petersen would’ve made a better ticket.

    1. Johnsons problem more than any issue he may or may not be libertarian on is, Gary Johnson. He seems like a decent quality nice guy, but his media presence is horrible, he is not very articulate, and not his fault God bless him, has a lot of tics that average Americans will be turned off by.

  32. Short sweet and serious: This is a shill candidate who is even less qualified for public office than his sponsors, the Clumps.

  33. If the L.P nominated a “real” libertarian, conservatives likely wouldn’t touch him or her with a 10-foot pole.

    So instead we got a fake libertarian and conservatives still won’t touch him with a 10 foot pole because he’s made no attempt to bring them on board.

    I fail to see how selling out libertarian ideals for the same outcome is an improvement.

  34. His first tweet (that still exists) was this.

    So, Evan McMullin, the “libertarian” is suggesting that ISIS & AQ “must be destroyed”. Gee, the US has been attempting to destroy the latter for well over a decade now and how’s that been going? There’s only one way to attempt to destroy an armed group and that is by military action. So Mr. Libertarian wants to wage a ground war? Please. Get this clown out of here.

    http://bit.ly/2ebx4WK

  35. Anyone who legitimately runs for President without saying it all needs to be torn down to providing national defense sans standing armies, oversee treaties, and providing enough “confederation” that war isn’t breaking out between states every half hour isn’t qualified for the job, libertarian or not.

    I have had it up to my eyeballs over “lesser of _____ evils”. My vote doesn’t make a fucking difference, so even threatening to vote Trump doesn’t even matter. But if we’ve reached the point that Democrats want to take 70% of my stuff, Republicans want to take 50% of my stuff, and a supposedly legitimate libertarians want to take 40+% of my stuff, so what’s the difference? Everyone is drifting statist every single day. Sometimes it’s hard to NOT think that there’s some illuminati behind everything. And if I’m willing to compromise at MAYBE 25% of my stuff, I’m a “purist” and incorrigible.

    Oh well.

  36. Well, Matt-just how is a consumption tax going to “end the IRS”?? Who will collect this tax? What if a business refuses to turn over the collected tax?
    The Libertarian Party, as well as the Republican Party, has no idea what the income tax actually is. Too bad, because if they really really understood the tax and explained it properly the American people just might buy into it and actual, relevant tax reform will be possible. From the bottom up, not the top down!
    So instead, we are to believe that a minor party candidate will be elected and will be able to reduce the federal government in a top down manner by total overhaul of the system! Dream on LIbertarians!
    The only way to reform or abolish the income tax is to understand the tax via the history of the tax, the 13th amendment, and the taxing clauses of the US Constitution. Gary Johnson, the LP, and the Republican Party hasn’t got a clue about the tax. They are offering fools gold to the American people ! http://www.nontaxpayersforronpaul.blogspot.com

  37. I think Nicholas Sarwark, Libertarian Party Chairman, is more knowledgeable in this area than a breakfast sandwich.

    Taken from his Facebook page:

    “The Libertarian National convention in Orlando brought nearly 1,000 delegates chosen by state Libertarian Parties around the country into one room. They were not bound to any particular candidate and heard all of the candidates debate before choosing a nominee. I trust the judgment of dedicated Libertarian Party members from around the nation somewhat more than that of an unremarkable Capitol Hill staffer with no purpose other than to split the Gary Johnson vote in the mountain West and assist in electing the Democrat for President. Perhaps his remarks would have more credibility if he was on the ballot in more than 11 states or had managed to find a fellow Capitol Hill staffer to be a running mate in time for his FEC filing or the printing of those ballots in the aforementioned 11 states.

    The day I take advice on who’s a real libertarian from a former CIA operative who was an insider in Washington and at Goldman Sachs, being propped up by dead-end neoconservatives like Bill Kristol and shameless Republican political consultants like Rick Wilson, is the day I’ll resign as Chairman of the Libertarian Party.

    I’m not resigning today.”

  38. The public accommodations section of the 1964 Civil Rights Act was just plain wrong and was in almost perfect contradiction of the rest of the act.

    The essence of libertarianism is free association, that is, the right of people to choose with whom they will associate whether that association is financial or personal. The Act’s original purpose was to abolish the despicable Jim Crow laws that prevented free association of whites and blacks. However, the civil rights movement of the time was infested with socialists, communists and other virulently anti-capitalist groups for whom free association was the enemy. Their goal was not to extend freedom but to establish the federal government as the final arbiter of all private dealings. This was a step on the path to a fully controlled economy.

    Some of these groups considered blacks to vastly inferior to whites but saw that blacks could serve as useful idiots for the cause. Communists had absolutely no respect for blacks. Cuba, which is a far more racially diverse country than the US, has no black people among the ruling elite.

    Today, the main purpose of the public accommodations section of the act is to harass political enemies. That it would come to this was inevitable.

  39. I hate always being late to the party. Oh well, here goes.

    It kills me that a certain segment of self-identified libertarians let perfect be the enemy of good. I think we can all agree that, despite to whatever extent American culture has drifted libertarian–and I’m skeptical of that, our government is about as far in the other direction as you can get without goose-stepping or politburos. And, what’s worse, this state of affairs is the baseline in the popular political mind.

    In short, people are addicted to statism. They’re brainwashed. And you don’t cure that in one election. You don’t rip the tumor out with a wrench and expect the patient to live. The name of the game is incrementalism, the same way we got to where we are. You start by dialing down the power of the state. You turn the burner down slowly so the frog doesn’t go into shock and scream for a full flame.

    So, if an ex-Republican comes along and espouses, say, 65% of the doctrinaire Libertarian platform, I’m good with it. That’s a damn sight better than anyone else on deck, and it’s heading in the right direction.

    1. Gary Johnson isn’t “incrementalism”. He’s going to get 1% of the vote.

  40. McMullin is in this race on behalf of a neocon contingent that wants Hillary to win. She is the only candidate he helps.

    Consider that before McMullin entered, Utah was considered the most likely state for Johnson to win, one whose electoral votes could lead to a deadlock. Clinton was not really much of a factor: if Trump and Johnson roughly split the non-Hillary vote, they would both finish ahead of her. Clinton (or any Democrat) would top out at around 28%, and after some small party votes the Republican and Libertarian would split about 67-68% of the vote.

    But now put in McMullin and split that vote THREE ways instead of two, and Hillary can win with 28%. It’s virtually the ONLY scenario in which Clinton can win Utah, and it exists ONLY because of Evan McMullin.

  41. Ed McMuffin touched me inappropriately.

  42. until I looked at the paycheck saying $4730 , I did not believe that…my… 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 …….

    …….. http://www.jobprofit9.com

  43. If Evan McMullin Were a Real Libertarian, He Would Drop Out, and Give Utah to Gary.

    1. If GayJay was a Real Libertarian he’d endorse Trump and withdraw from the race.

      1. Let me rephrase: “If Evan McMullin Were a Real Libertarian, He Would Drop Out, and Give Utah to the Libertarian Party (Gary Johnson).” The fact that McMullin is claiming to be a Libertarian speaks volumes regarding his lack of credibility. In 2020 McMullin can run as a Libertarian. See how far he gets.

  44. People who live in ‘libertarian case for Obama’ glass houses probably shouldn’t be throwing any stones.

  45. It is not the cake issue that got McMullen ahead of Johnson, it is that Johnson explained his mandatory cake baking stance by equating it to killing in the name of religion and specifically mentioned Mormons in that context, and only Mormons.

    If his example had been Islam, we probably would hear a lot more about that part.

  46. Facebook gives you a great opportunity to earn 98652$ at your home.If you are some intelligent you makemany more Dollars.I am also earning many more, my relatives wondered to see how i settle my Life in few days thank GOD to you for this…You can also make cash i never tell alie you should check this I am sure you shocked to see this amazing offer…I’m Loving it!!!!
    ????????> http://www.factoryofincome.com

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

    ===> http://www.NetNote70.com

  48. McMullen might not be libertarian himself, but I’m not sure what’s libertarian about Gary Johnson’s policy of “I’m going to second-guess your motives, judge you based on my telepathy, and use the government to force you into contracts in which you don’t want to participate”, either.

  49. 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

    ……………. http://www.jobhub44.com

  50. Matthew . I can see what your saying… Bobby `s storry is surprising, last saturday I got a brand new Land Rover Defender since I been making $4556 this past 5 weeks and more than ten-grand this past-month . this is definitely my favourite-job I have ever had . I began this 4 months ago and immediately made more than $71 per-hr . More Info
    ????????> http://www.factoryofincome.com

  51. I’m using it now and it’s awesome! I’ve signed up for my account and have been bringing in fat paychecks. For real, my first week I made $306 and the second week I doubled it and then it kind a snowballed to $120 a day! just follow the course.. they will help you out.

    —————>>>>> http://www.Ejobs90.Com

  52. Bella . I can see what your saying… Jesus `s blurb is good, on wednesday I bought a new Lotus Elan after making $9196 this last 4 weeks an would you believe 10/k lass month . this is really the nicest work I’ve ever done . I started this 5 months ago and almost straight away brought home minimum $73.. per hour . read
    ????????> http://www.factoryofincome.com

  53. Anna . I see what you mean… Virginia `s postlng is incredible, last tuesday I got a new Audi Quattro after having made $5000 this last 5 weeks and over 10k this past month . without a doubt it is the coolest work I have ever had . I started this seven months/ago and pretty much immediately started making minimum $85 per hour . view it
    ????????> http://www.factoryofincome.com

  54. Anna . I see what you mean… Virginia `s postlng is incredible, last tuesday I got a new Audi Quattro after having made $5000 this last 5 weeks and over 10k this past month . without a doubt it is the coolest work I have ever had . I started this seven months/ago and pretty much immediately started making minimum $85 per hour . view it
    ????????> http://www.factoryofincome.com

  55. Liliana . if you think Lawrence `s blog is incredible, I just purchased a new Honda after earning $5741 this – 4 weeks past and also 10 grand lass month . it’s by-far the most-comfortable job I have ever done . I started this four months/ago and almost immediately began to make minimum $85… p/h .

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

  56. Liliana . if you think Lawrence `s blog is incredible, I just purchased a new Honda after earning $5741 this – 4 weeks past and also 10 grand lass month . it’s by-far the most-comfortable job I have ever done . I started this four months/ago and almost immediately began to make minimum $85… p/h .

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

    1. ammythomas12, I am the legal representative of the owner of the copyrighted and trademarked phrase, “If you think Lawrence’s blog is incredible,” and as such I must hereby notify you that you are in violation of U.S. Copyright and Trademark laws. It is my duty to inform you that under fair use as such, you now owe my client $7.26 for each individual use of this phrase anywhere on the internet. Please send your contact information to our office at Dewey, Cheatham, & Howe at 5815 Wilshire Blvd, Los Angeles, CA.

  57. Good Sir McMullet, it doesn’t matter that he isn’t a “Real” libertarian. For better or worse, he is “The Libertarian Nominee for President”, which means he is “our” Libra-tarian, right up until the nominating process begins all over again.


  58. Facebook Create a job in 2016 for every user just using facebook account
    for 2-3hr.I am check this is nice job first hr i earn 180$ and last my eaning balance is 345$ per hour.
    ???????? http://www.great.jobs14.com

  59. Nominating someone like Peterson is the only thing the LP can do to pull be back into the fold. After Bob Barr and two Johnson runs, I couldn’t take any more and left.

    McMullin is just trying to court enough of the libertarian vote to win in Utah, in order to hold up the election. He has no constituency or policies, it’s all about stopping Trump for him.

    1. Petersen fuckin sucks.

  60. until I looked at the paycheck saying $4730 , I did not believe that…my… 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 …….

    ……………… http://www.jobprofit9.com

  61. until I looked at the paycheck saying $4730 , I did not believe that…my… 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 …….

    ……………… http://www.jobprofit9.com

  62. Liliana . if you think Lawrence `s blog is incredible, I just purchased a new Honda after earning $5741 this – 4 weeks past and also 10 grand lass month . it’s by-far the most-comfortable job I have ever done . I started this four months/ago and almost immediately began to make minimum $85… p/h .

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

  63. Kaylee . I just agree… Michelle `s rep0rt is incredible, on tuesday I bought themselves a Acura after having earned $4812 this past month and a little over 10-k last munth . without a doubt its the easiest-work I have ever had . I began this seven months/ago and pretty much straight away earned over $71 per-hr . pop over to this site

    ……………. http://www.jobhub44.com

  64. until I looked at the paycheck saying $4730 , I did not believe that…my… 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 …….

    …….. http://www.jobprofit9.com

  65. Super and Easiest 0nl!nee Home opportunity forall. Make 2512 Dollars per month.All you just Need an Internet Connection and aComputer To Make Some Extra cash.Visit this link………..

    =======tiny.tw/3qVg

  66. until I looked at the paycheck saying $4730 , I did not believe that…my… 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 …….

    …….. http://www.jobprofit9.com

  67. Libertarians are going to have to be a little flexible and open-minded if they expect to have an impact. Insisting on purity or having a long list of “deal breakers” is crazy. A return to liberty is going to take decades. You don’t turn the ship of state around within one presidential term, and you aren’t going to be allowed to torpedo the ship, either. Going for everything in one man or woman is just an excuse to avoid responsibility.

  68. 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.