A Better Choice

Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump aren't the only choices.

|

Hillary Clinton is a manipulative, power-mad liar.

Donald Trump is a selfish, sexist, narcissistic bully.

These are our choices Nov. 8?

The leading candidates' avarice is bad enough. Their ideas are worse.

Clinton wants to micro-regulate America into poverty and stagnation. Trump would start a trade war, if not an actual war.

While America is going bankrupt, both candidates brag that they will spend more—Trump on the military and his pointless wall, Clinton mostly on social programs.

Both promise a new child care entitlement: paid maternity leave. I'd think a Republican presidential candidate would resist promising more "free" stuff. But Trump, with daughter Ivanka standing behind him, offers Clintoncare "lite": paid leave for six weeks instead of 12.

Naturally, the Clinton media want more. Socialist cheerleaders at Fortune complain that Trump's proposal is stingy compared to Clinton's and very stingy compared to real family leave, offered by civilized nations in Europe—especially Greece.

Hello? Have you not noticed how Greece suffers largely because of "generous benefits" like that? You think it's a coincidence that Greece's unemployment rate is 25 percent? Why would employers hire workers if they must later give them 12 weeks of pay not to work?

I'd think Fortune writers and Democratic and Republican presidential candidates would understand that "free" benefits come with nasty costs. But they don't understand. Or if they do, they just ignore it.

Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson doesn't ignore these problems. He promises to avert America's bankruptcy by cutting spending 43 percent.

But the candidate of the third party (I should call Libertarians the first party, since they respect the Constitution) is in a tough spot. He must both convince voters that he has better ideas—and that he's not strange. That's tough to do when you're a politician who stumbles over words and the RepubliDems won't allow you into the debates. Recent polls show that almost 40 percent of Americans don't even know that Johnson's running.

That's too bad. If there were ever a year for a third party to thrive, this was it. Most voters—from both major parties—are unhappy with their party's nominee.

Sadly, they are not unhappy enough to vote for Gary Johnson. I have to respect the betting; bettors give Johnson just a .1 percent chance.

The bettors also say Clinton is favored 84 percent to 15 percent over Trump. Get ready for President Clinton. Sigh.

Polls suggest about 6 percent of Americans will vote Libertarian.

Some will be Bernie Sanders supporters. How can that be? Sanders is a socialist! He's an economic illiterate who wants government to control more!

But on civil liberties, Sanders is better than Trump and Clinton.

Both Sanders and Johnson are sympathetic to immigrants. Johnson knows that most become workers, customers and entrepreneurs who boost economic opportunities for everyone.

Like Sanders, Johnson wants to avoid getting bogged down in foreign wars.

Like Sanders, Johnson has long been in favor of marriage equality, whereas Clinton only recently decided it was politically safe to endorse it.

Like Sanders, Johnson knows that some complaints from the Black Lives Matter movement are valid and that the drug war does more harm than good.

Obviously, those positions upset some conservatives, but Johnson still has plenty to offer Republicans. He's more sensible than Donald Trump.

Unlike Trump, Johnson knows that free trade decreases poverty and makes the world a better, happier place. He understands that the minimum wage makes most people poorer and that free speech is a good thing.

Like Trump, Johnson opposes gun control, Obamacare and increasing regulation.

A vote for Johnson will give Americans more choices and freedom in the future. Johnson getting 6 percent of the vote this election means easier ballot access, more money and more advertising next time. More people would know that there are other—better—options.

That's why I'll vote for Gary Johnson. He did a good job as governor of New Mexico. He vetoed the excesses of power-hungry state legislators 750 times. He'd stand up for limited government in Washington, too.

Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton won't.

COPYRIGHT 2016 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC.

NEXT: Half of U.S. Adults Are in Facial Recognition Databases, Health Insurance Premiums Spiking, Final Presidential Debate Tonight: A.M. Links

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

  1. If you can’t recognize that Hillary is a terrible danger to the longterm character of the country, while Trump is at worst a shortterm speedbump, then your awareness of history, current events, and politics is so pathetic that you have no business writing such an article.

    The only consideration in this election, is what is the best way to keep Hillary out of office. If that answer is Johnson, then fine, but if you going to go that route, at least convince a liberal friend to stay home on election day. Or at least get them so drunk the night before they are demotivated to leave the house.

    1. Yes, because we’ve never survived horrible presidents before. Fuck off.

      1. Do you have problems reading? I never said we wouldn’t survive. I said she is a terrible danger to the longterm character of the country.
        I personally don’t want to see hyper liberal activist SCOTUS nominees that will further erode our rights and liberties.
        I personally don’t want to see the Obamacare transformation into the planned Fed-run governmental health insurance.
        I personally don’t want to see the confiscatory tax plan that further enriches the cronies and perpetuates the FSA.
        I personally don’t want massive numbers of immigrants conned into second-class citizens with the carrot of citizenship dangled in front of them solely if they vote Dem.

        And these are just the top policy programs that Hillary has already laid out for anyone to see. Do you want all that crap?

        1. Too bad nobody has any alternatives to Obamacare, not even for the Medicare part.
          Which ones are the wackiest, the Hillary haters or the Trump haters? It’s like arguing over the best way to rape your mother.

          Was Obama just a “speed bump?” Drink Kool-Aid much?

          1. Are you off your meds again? Because you appear to have no point.

            1. Trolls don’t have points.

              1. “Trolls don’t have points.”

                Check the tops of their heads.

              2. I Make up to $90 an hour working from my home. My story is that I quit working at Walmart to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $70h to $86h?Go to this website and click tech tab to start your work? Visit this web? http://www.14EarnPath.Com

              3. Trolls don’t have point

                More evasion,
                Now TWO who cannot name a libertarian alternative to Obamacare … or even the Medicare part.

                1. BigT
                  Check the tops of their heads.

                  STILL more evasion,
                  Now up to THREE who cannot name a libertarian alternative to Obamacare … or even the Medicare part.

                2. Alternative? How ’bout repeal all federal regulation of healthcare? How about repealing federal regulation of health insurance. Making personal, and not just business, health insurance tax deductible? I’ve got *lots* of libertarian suggestions for the health market, but none of them involve passing a new law.

                  1. Alternative?

                    None of those are policies.

                    I’ve got *lots* of libertarian suggestions for the health market, but none of them involve passing a new law.

                    You named at least four laws, none of them policies, and proved my point. the “repeal never replace” mentality cripples you before you begin, in addition to being a silly goal.

                    How about the quarter-trillion dollars in Medicare subsidies from the INCOME TAX, — instead of the Trust Fund , which would otherwise be bankrupt

                    Expanding tax-free healthcare is the wrong direction and balloon the deficit. Make it taxable, offset by a fixed tax credit, Revenue neutral, paid for by higher taxes on he unions raping the system . The exploiters subsidizing the explored and 100% equal foir all.

                    Do you know THE highest uninsured death rate is Medicaid/CHIP eligibles. The reimbursements are too low for inner city providers.

                    And I asked for libertarian policies, which may have been unclear, Cato et al

              4. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link,

                go? to tech tab for work detail,,,,,,, http://www.highpay90.com

            2. Too bad nobody has any alternatives to Obamacare, not even for the Medicare part.

              Because you appear to have no point.

              One more time.
              “Too bad nobody has any alternatives to Obamacare, not even for the Medicare part.”

              1. Keep yelling at that cloud, gramps.

                1. Keep yelling at that cloud, gramps

                  Translation: Now FOUR people FAIL to name a single libertarian policy. Is that why they all attack me … for calling them out as phonies?

                  1. Stop bullying them.

                  2. Don’t feed the troll. Esp. a troll who can’t read.

                  3. don’t quite know whether this will qualify under your unclear definition of “libertarian” policy…. but here goes.

                    True libertarianism holds that anyone has the liberty to do as they please, first consideration being that that decision does no harm to anyone else. (if my plan is to make housebreaking legal to pay for medical care, it fails, as I’ve done harm to the homeowner and his property to satisfy MY lust for ese). Thus, MY libertarian policy is to get FedGov OUT of everything to do with medical care, payments, taxes relating to, regulations, papwerwork and records requirements, medical insurance or the regulation thereof… in other words, returning to the COMPLETELY FREE AND UNREGULATED market that used to govern all medical care.

                    1. Yes, that includes getting FedGov out of controlling, regulating, managing, requiring, limiting, restricting, etc, ANYTHING to do with medical care including drugs and appliances and equipment ised in that industry. WHY can I buy certain antibiotics over the counter for my goat, for a few cents the cap, when the same stupid pill costs me a $150 visit to a guy in a white coat so he can scribble some words on a blue piece of paper which I then take to a federally regulated pharmacy and now pay sixty bucks for a bottle of twenty……?????
                      Get rid of THAT system. HOW can it cost millions and take years to get a certain drug “approved” for human use, when others which have known serious side effects can come to market in months, for a fraction of that cost? And WHY do bought/owned FedGov regulators decide HOW to use this drug or that, and thus make it illegal to use it for “other”?

                    2. While you’re at it, get the STATE governments to stop regulating, too. Before Obamacare, before other Federal “reforms,” state governments, through direct control of licensing for health care providers of all types and through insurance regulation, pretty well controlled the market. State laws requiring insurance policies to cover expensive-to-treat conditions have driven up insurance costs. It’s like you were shopping for a car in 1970 and you were not allowed to buy a stripped Dodge Dart or Rambler American, because all cars had to have A/C, a V-8, automatic transmission and power windows, whether you wanted them or not.

                      I think some people do buy drugs meant for their livestock and self medicate…….
                      unless by goat you meant gout? 🙂

          2. It’s like arguing over the best way to rape your mother.

            Nobody has ever been able to rape your mother… The yard sign and internet ads are a blatant form of consent.

            1. Which ones are the wackiest, the Hillary haters or the Trump haters? It’s like arguing over the best way to rape your mother.

              Nobody has ever been able to rape your mother..

              Oh.

              1. That’s what she said!

          3. Let pharmacists prescribe medicine. I guess that’s too simple.

    2. Ah yes, that old chestnut: “A vote for a third-party is a wasted vote!” It’s funny that no matter how many times that gets proven logically, not to mention mathematically, false, it still keeps coming back up.

      How about this: If you vote for one of the two major party candidates, odds are very high that your vote is statistically insignificant. Not only would it carry more weight going to a third-party candidate, but it would go a long way to breaking the duopoly that the two shitty parties have held over politics for something like 100 years.

      Ergo, if you don’t vote for Johnson, you’re wasting your vote, and you might as well stay home.

      1. At what point did I imply “a vote for a third-party is a wasted vote”? I made no such assertion.

        Stossel’s premise is terribly flawed, portraying Hillary and Trump as comparable evils. They aren’t.

        In his own words, its a choice between a manipulative, power-mad liar versus a selfish, sexist, narcissistic bully.
        So which of those characteristics would be worse in a POTUS? “power-mad” alone is pretty much the one characteristic that history has proven again and again that should never be near the power inherent in a position like POTUS. FFS, how can anyone ignore that?

        Vote for a third party, fine. But be damn sure at the end of the day, Hillary is kept out of office.

        1. We wouldn’t want anyone who is power-mad running to be the most powerful person in the world. Thank God we have that sane and level-headed Trump.

          1. “We wouldn’t want anyone who is power-mad running to be the most powerful person in the world.”

            How does constant cognitive dissonance feel? Does it hurt?

          2. Tony must have forgotten that he’s trolling the libertarian website today where we, like, y’know… talk about voting for someone who isn’t Clinton or Trump.

          3. A double dose of stupid and neither amsoc nor shreek are even here.

        2. Stossel’s premise is terribly flawed, portraying Hillary and Trump as comparable evils. They aren’t.

          If you actually give a fuck about liberty, Stossel’s premise is spot on.

          1. Nonsense.
            You obviously aren’t paying attention to what Hillary is outspokenly promising to do.
            Trump has made few concrete policy promises, and the ones he has are the ones the moderates tend to like the most (e.g. the SCOTUS nominee list).

            1. Trump is overtly against free trade.

              Hillary only pretends to be publicly.

              1. Right on, T.F.G.

                Hillary has made it clear that she isn’t really against free trade ? she just pretends to be in front of certain audiences. Trump, on the other hand, wants to eviscerate our economy.

                Sorry, but business really does matter. It really does drive everything.

                So I just don’t see the argument that Hillary is oh so much worse than Trump. Neither is acceptable, or defensible.

            2. You obviously aren’t paying attention to what Hillary is outspokenly promising to do.

              And you obviously aren’t paying attention as you’ve failed to realize that Trump has NO FUCKING IDEA what he’d do.

        3. Seems like both descriptions fit both candidates. Could you clarify that a little bit?

      2. The only possible role votes for a third-party candidate could play is to spoil the election, presumably in favor of the real candidate you like the least. I don’t know what logic or math you’ve been consulting, but that’s established history.

        If there are only two possible outcomes to something, any action you take benefits one of them. Why is this so incredibly difficult a concept for people?

        1. Oh, Tony, we understand the concept. We also recognize that long term it’s a destructive one.

          So many of us reject the attempt to terrorize us into participating in an immoral system.

          1. You have no choice but to participate. I thought I just explained that.

            1. You declared it. It’s wrong. Saying it over and over again doesn’t make it right.

              1. Tony is not aware of anything that goes on outside his mum’s basement. In Tony world you would be forced to vote, for the person he wants you to vote for. Or else, he’ll call on the president to assassinate you.

                1. So you actually believe there’s a chance Gary Johnson could get elected president?

                  Or what are we talking about?

                  1. Or what are we talking about?

                    You’re arguing that since someone inevitably wins an election (True), and the first past the post system creates incentives that ensure that the politically interested will coalesce into two different dominant political parties (True), that to have political influence, we must vote for one of these two factions (False).

                    There are numerous avenues to influence over the political system. Voting is actually the least meaningful avenue.

                    1. Don’t use big words, Tony no understand.

                    2. I agree with most of that. All I’m pushing back against is the notion that voting third party is consequential or that voting has anything to do with self-esteem.

                  2. “Or what are we talking about?”

                    This something Tony never knows.

                    Just go on about killing your fellow citizens and how you hate poor people, Tony. Other than that, you’re very dull.

        2. Because your assumed fact of only two possible outcomes is only true due to the mass delusion of people believing it to be true. Self-fulfilling prophecies can be broken. You seem to be unwilling to make the effort to do so.

          1. Actually it’s the natural consequence of a winner-take-all ballot. But if you want to attribute to mass delusion the fact that we’ve only ever had two viable parties on the national level, that’s still a hurdle to clear. How do you propose to do that?

            1. It’s almost like in your world the 1850s never happened.

              Also, for your claim to be accurate that it is empirically impossible (not simply unlikely – you said it isn’t possible) for any but one of the two major party candidates to win, you would have to prove that even if every single eligible voter cast a ballot for Jill Stein, the electoral college would still simply appoint Clinton or Trump as the winner. Can you do that? Do you think the EC is that corrupt?

              1. The fact that the Republican party is going to survive Trump is all the evidence you need that the parties are rather set in stone. Also the fact that you had to go back 166 years for the one counterexample.

                This is how you guys approach everything, isn’t it? If only everyone voted for Stein, Stein could win! Kind of like if only everyone stopped behaving like rational human beings, libertarianism could work somewhere?

                1. I’ll ask again: do you deny the truth of the statement that if everyone voted for Jill Stein, she would win the election.

                  Is that proposition true or false? No caveats or snark. True or false.

                  1. True. But very few people are actually going to vote for Stein and I’ll wager you $10,000 on that.

                    1. I’d be foolish to take that wager indeed.

                      But it did at least force you to contradict your earlier statement that it is an unalterable fact that it is not possible for any but one of the two major party candidates to win.

                    2. If it’s only possible if something impossible happens first, it’s not possible.

                    3. Tony, you got toasted! Stick a fork in him! He’s done!

                    4. “I’ll wager you $10,000 on that”

                      I’m gonna fix this for more real world Tony:

                      I’ll wager you $10,000 all of the crayons I haven’t eaten yet on that.

                2. Kind of like if only everyone stopped behaving like rational human beings, libertarianism socialism/communism could work somewhere?

                  Tony can’t even think of his own arguments. He just regurgitates them and spits them out at things he doesn’t like.

        3. If there are only two possible outcomes to something

          This is bat-shit crazy, even for you.

          1. Well at this point it’s one possible outcome, barring an unbelievably strong debate performance tonight.

            1. possible

              You keep using that word. I don’t think it means what you think it means.

              1. Col.,

                I think the word possible (or impossible) means something different for a social-justice retard type than it does for a science or statistics type like you and I

                1. The context is political reality, not your little charts.

            2. Tony, if you eat your cake, you can’t have it anymore!

              Either Hillary winning is the only possible outcome, in which case I don’t need to vote for her, or it isn’t, it which case I’ll vote for the Johnson possibility.

              You want to have it both ways. There’s no point in voting for Johnson, because he won’t win. But I better vote for Hillary, because she will win.

              Pick one.

              1. Correction for clarity: There’s no point in voting for Johnson, because Hillary will win. But I better vote for Hillary, because she might not win.

                Which is it?

              2. Silly marshual! When proggies eat their cake, they just expropriate another one!

                Of course, they’ll also send in armed Federal Diabetes Agents to snatch the cake off your place.

                Now, shut up and chew your carob-coated quinoa balls, while they still let you.

        4. That would be true if we were voting on a strictly democratic basis, but that isn’t what we are doing.

          Most states have a winner take all system of allocating electoral votes, so for somewhere like Minnesota, which will vote overwhelmingly for Hillary, a Libertarian vote won’t affect the outcome of the presidential election at all.

          It will however, help in getting the Libertarian party some traction towards major party status.

          If you are in one of the few contested states or are in a proportional allocation state, by all means vote for Trump to deny Hillary. Otherwise you need to vote Libertarian…

        5. I do so enjoy watching you shill for a racist war monger.

        6. Tony and MikeP2 cancel each other out ? wasting the other’s vote ? and leave me free to vote for Johnson. Thanks, guys.

    3. Re: MikeP2,

      If you can’t recognize that Hillary is a terrible danger to the long[-]term character of the country, while Trump is at worst a short[-]term speed[ ]bump, then your awareness of history, current events, and politics is so pathetic that you have no business writing such an article.

      El Trumpo is no short term “speed bump”. He is more accurately someone capable of raising a perennial barrier to economic progress in the name of “Making America Grating Again!”. At least HillRod can count on a hostile Congress and Senate whereas GOP Senators and Congresscritters will bow to El Trumpo’s whims due to the fear of losing their seats to the Buck-toothed vote.

      1. At least HillRod can count on a hostile Congress and Senate

        It’s adorable that you have so much faith in the GOP.

        1. Re: Grizzly,

          Nothing in this life is guaranteed so I have to look at this by considering the likelihood of a non-hostile GOP Congress vs. a hostile one. Considering that Nuestro amado y valiente se?or presidente did not have anything near to a cooperative Congress and Senate, then it is more likely Nuestra amada y valiente se?ora presidenta will face a similarly uncooperative Congress and Senate, even in nominal terms and not absolute terms.

    4. Trump said, “I love war.” https://goo.gl/h8uiQj

      The draft dodger loves war. How brave of him. And not only does he love war, but he would use nuclear weapons. https://goo.gl/qxPMC6

      So maybe he is a short term speed bump. With him as President, the entire world could be short term.

      1. You’re fucking stupid even for a troll…..

  2. Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson doesn’t ignore these problems. He promises to avert America’s bankruptcy by cutting spending 43 percent

    Has Stossel ever read the Constitution? Since when is this a dictatorship? Ironically, Gary has been pandering to the goobers who hate him, the OTHER 1%, while ignoring the very majority he keeps talking about, the 59% who are fiscally conservative and socially liberal.

    We’ve had 40 years to get ready for this and have absolutely nothing. Nothing for jobs and the economy. Nothing for the biggest debacle at all, Medicare, or for healthcare overall. No reforms of government. No tax plan. Gary and Bill are center stage all alone, with a libertarian establishment as useless as the Rep and Dem establishments. And openings like this occur only once or twice per century.

    (My attackers still can’t name a single policy solution. Oh wait, “repeal never replace, because anything else is conspiring with statists!”)

    Lady Liberty has nobody defending her and nobody promoting her. Time to learn Chinese?

    1. And openings like this occur only once or twice per century

      Speaking from personal experience?

      [Puts on a necklace of garlic.]

      Go on.

      1. Speaking from personal experience?

        I passed US history!

        1. Easy for you, since not much of it had happened yet while you were in school.

            1. Naptime already?

              1. I’m easily bored by thugs with childish insults.
                What does it say about your parents if you think that’s acceptable behavior?

                  1. For any others who are uneducated, launching an unprovoked personal attack is called bullying. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/

                    Which is worse, the bullying itself, being proud of it., or having been raised to think it’s appropriate behavior?

                    1. Fixed that link in your name I see.

                      Some advice:

                      1) Stop invoking “bullying” – no one gives a shit.
                      2) Stop putting everything in bold, it’s obnoxious and makes you look absolutely insane.

                    2. Stop invoking “bullying” – no one gives a shit.

                      The bullies don’t, so OBVIOUSLY you’d object

                      Stop putting everything in bold, it’s obnoxious and makes you look absolutely insane.

                      One more time. I do it ONLY to highlight aggression.
                      For any other retards, launching an unprovoked personal attack is called bullying.
                      https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/bully

                      As we see here, Ship of Theseus enters a thread for the sole purpose of launching a personal attack. Which is worse, the bullying itself, being proud of it., or having been raised to think it’s appropriate behavior?

                      And in what fascist universe does the aggressor also dictate an appropriate response by the victim? The militant self-righteous

    2. Re: Michael Hindered,

      Has Stossel ever read the Constitution?

      He probably did. He carries a copy of it in the inner pocket of his jacket.

      Did you?

      Since when is this a dictatorship?

      You think that cutting spending is akin to ushering a dictatorship? Does that sound to you – sane? It doesn’t to me.

      My attackers still can’t name a single policy solution.

      You mean besides “Let the Market be, you dolt!”?

      1. Don’t spread the hinfection.

      2. Stossel: he promises to avert America’s bankruptcy by cutting spending 43 percent

        Hihn:Has Stossel ever read the Constitution?

        Did you

        That’s where I learned the President can’t cut taxes

        You think that cutting spending is akin to ushering a dictatorship? Does that sound to you – sane? It doesn’t to me.

        Umm, Presidents can’t cut taxes on their own. Only dictators can. You can learn the Constitution here::

        1. Cutting taxes has NOTHING to do with cutting spending.

          The congress approves a budget. A budget is a cap that says how much the government is allowed to spend, max.

          The executive branch does have the capability to not spend all that money; they’ve just rarely had the inclination.

          Reading the constitution does not help you if you can’t understand it. You are like a hog staring at a wrist-watch.

          1. Old Mexican
            Cutting taxes has NOTHING to do with cutting spending.

            Presidents can do neither on their own. Seriously!

          2. Reading the constitution does not help you if you can’t understand it. You are like a hog staring at a wrist-watch.

            One must also be educated in Supreme Court rulings and existing statues which have severely limited Presidential impoundment since 1974

            “However, the president does not have a limitless impoundment power. The U.S. Supreme Court, in Train v. City of New York, 420 U.S. 35, 95 S. Ct. 839, 43 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1975), ruled that President richard m. nixon could not order the impoundment of substantial amounts of environmental protection funds for a program he vetoed, which had been overridden by Congress. The president cannot frustrate the will of Congress by killing a program through impoundment.
            http://legal-dictionary.thefre…..mpoundment

            “Congress in 1974 passed the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act, which reformed the congressional budget process and established rules and procedures for presidential impoundment.”

            1. In a sane world, the SC would never have ruled that and would have struck down that 1974 law as unconstitutional overreach.

              1. Umm, what did the bill do that an authoritarian would call overreach … without knowing what it says and does?

      3. Old Mexican
        You mean besides “Let the Market be, you dolt!”?

        I mean US Presidents have no power to cut taxes … or pass any other legislation. That’s the Legislative branch. But I have too much class to call you a dolt.

        1. We have THREE ommenters who aggressively proclaim a US President can “promise” to cut taxes on his or her own.

          -Old Mexican
          -Hyperion
          -Chipper Morning Wood
          Who also thinks it’s cool to feed humans into wood chippers

          But it’s still early.

          And they have PROVEN me correct!!!

          My attackers still can’t name a single policy solution. Oh wait, “repeal never replace, because anything else is conspiring with statists!”
          Lady Liberty has nobody defending her and nobody promoting her.

          (They’ll attack even if If I say this is the Reason.com website)

          My tone and boldface in self-defense pf multiple aggressions

      4. Does that sound to you – sane?

        It’s hihnsane, is what it is.

        1. Col Chestbridge is the FOURTH to say it’s “hihnsane” to claim a President has no power to cut taxes.
          Does that mean only a “genius” never heard of our Legislative Branch?

    3. No, it’s time to learn Monetary Sovereignty: https://goo.gl/A0rkDx

  3. Mr. Stossell, it’s admirable that you try to persuade people to vote for Gary Johnson. In the end, though, we know it’s futile. He isn’t going to win the election. If he were to win, he’d be an awful president who would be utterly destroyed by a congress and civil service that colluded with each other to end his threat to their gravy train.

    If someone wants Johnson to be president because they think he’d make a great one, I can understand voting for him.

    If someone wants Johnson to occupy the office solely to deny it to Trump, Clinton or Stein, then one is not signalling their protest properly. Writing in “None of the Above” is a far clearer protest vote. It’s one I encourage everyone who cares about liberty to make.

    1. I’m gonna go to work, make my money, and rage, rage, RAGE online instead.

      That’s a clearer protest than a write-in vote!

    2. Re: Tarran,

      If he were to win, he’d be an awful president who would be utterly destroyed by a congress and civil service that colluded with each other to end his threat to their gravy train.

      Is that so? That would imply that whoever guarantees the permanence of this gravy train would be a great president.

  4. Have I mentioned I like Stossel?

    1. Is it the 2nd grade reading level?

      1. Naah; if it were, he’d be telling everyone how much he liked your comments.

        1. Tony got really good at second grade by the sixth time he repeated it.

          1. The best 10 years of his life!

  5. No to mandatory paid leave, yes to employer-paid abortions. Compromise, people.

  6. Yes! We can have all the cake we can eat-free childcare, doggy day care, birth control, beer, weed-you name it and never have to think about the national debt for even an instant. All the next president will need to do is nuke/invade some countries back to the stone age and make them pay back their war debts to us. Hey! It worked great from 1945 until about 1975.

  7. Obama’s Folly continues to yield embarrassing dividends.

    Except that 85% factoid is extremely misleading. As insurance industry expert Bob Laszewski pointed out last month, 85% is the percentage of people who received subsidies when buying insurance on the Obamacare exchange, i.e. using one of the state or federal websites to buy it. However, that figure does not include millions who bought Obamacare plans off the exchange, likely because they weren’t eligible for a subsidy.

    A reporter named Steve Davis called up a bunch of state based Blue Cross Blue Shield insurers and asked them how many people they were selling Obamacare plans to both on and off the exchange. After adding all of the numbers up he found it was close to 50-50. There were 2.3 million people getting subsidies and 2.4 million not getting them. In other words, about half the people buying these plans are experiencing sticker shock that’s guaranteed to get much worse next year.

    One reason I’m not terribly concerned about Clinton’s inevitable win is the colossal albatross she’s got wrung around her neck. Suck it, Dems, this is your steaming pile of shit. Dig in.

    1. It’s not an albatross. It’s a lever.

      Obamacare was never the end-game, it was intended to fail, to usher in the total rewrite of our healthcare system into a fully government run socialized endeavor.

      1. ACA helped drum out a ton of Dem legislators on the federal and state level. If not for the Trumplosion I suspect this year would to a large degree be a referendum on Obama’s colossal overreach, starting with Obama. Pushing for commiecare would be political suicide.

      2. ^This^ Yes-it was an engineered failure. By forcing insurance companies to hold the bag for Obamacare, they pretty much guaranteed their collapse that will require a government savior. It is somewhat analogous to how Amtrak was formed-railroads were required by the gov’t to operate unprofitable routes that they could not sustain. We all know how this worked out.

  8. Both promise a new child care entitlement: paid maternity leave.

    There are few moments when i wish Nikki were around, but this is one.

    I am pretty sure of all the bullshit being tossed around at the Federal level…

    (e.g. “free college”, an expanded Americorps type thing – ‘national service’, a head-fake “Fix” for the ACA which would in fact be Stage 1 of “Medicare For All”, national-healthcare system, etc)

    …. the one that’s actually going to be successfully pushed though in the next 10 years? Will be more child-rearing subsidies/breaks, and “free daycare” for everybody. Federally-subsidized daycare.

    Because even the GOP economists think one of the biggest problems is underutilization of the workforce, and the long term decline of people having kids. Many people seem to think that ‘incentives to make more babies’ is the great solution to prevent a multi-decades long demographic stagnation a la Japan.

    anyway, Nikki hated babies, as we all know. She might have had some interesting points on that.

    1. Many people seem to think that ‘incentives to make more babies’ is the great solution to prevent a multi-decades long demographic stagnation a la Japan.

      How many people think “well we would be fucking without protection, but our daycare wouldn’t be subsidized!?!”

      I mean seriously, have any of these top men walked outside and talked with real people?

  9. While America is going bankrupt

    As long as the suckers think you really will pay them Tuesday, for a hamburger today, you’re not bankrupt.

    1. will pay them Tuesday, for a hamburger today

      Whoring yourself out, Montana style.

    2. Make America Wimpy Again!

  10. Tony and Hihn in one thread, huh? I guess today’s a good day for a liquid lunch after all.

    1. What confuses you today?
      And why such a bully?

      1. I’m confused as to what you think you’re accomplishing, but aside from that i’m good.

        1. A piano with one note still thinks it’s a piano

  11. In a monumental tribute to how awful Trump is, Hillary might actually win AZ this year, thus my presidential vote might carry some weight.

    Fuck the GOP, I’m voting for Johnson. Hillary is the president every Republican primary voter who picked Trump deserves.

    1. Bill Clinton won AZ twice, so I don’t think its that much of a shock for Hillary to win it.

  12. Climate hysterics do what they have to, since weather is not as accommodating as they’d like. Despite decades of flat, possibly even slightly declining rates of occurrences and intensity, alarmists are pushing for a new criteria nad categories to capture “unprecedented” hurricane events.

    All that rain still can’t wash away the reek of desperation.

    1. I’ve mentioned this many times over the years. Government Agencies which rely on certain “Problems” being everpresent and always-growing simply “lower the bar” for what is defined as part of the problem every 10 years or so.

      The same goes with Environmental Activists. Now that things like the water and air are as clean as they’ve ever been, they run around screeching that exposure to trace-levels of pesticides or [insert anything else, like Fracking Chemicals] are somehow now an “Epidemic”, even though human beings routinely digest/consume equal trace amounts of similarly ‘toxic’ substances in the course of our daily lives.

      See what they did with “Mass Shootings” last year? When the actual data on people being “killed” in gun violence was insufficiently hysteria-inducing, they simply changed the method of how to count a “Mass Shooting Event” to make it seem as though ‘spree killings’ of the Columbine-type were rising – when what they were now describing were actually more often ‘gang related spray-&-pray indicidents’ in which nobody was getting killed, but 3 or more may be wounded.

      Its the #1 method to create a fake-Epidemic = Change the definition of the data.

      1. See also: the CDC and lead.

  13. So you actually believe there’s a chance Gary Johnson could get elected president?

    They say, “When a thing cannot go on forever, it won’t.” This could be the year Americans become so weary of the grotesque dog-and-pony show perpetuated by the Dumbpublicrans that they throw off the shackles of conventional wisdom and do something pointless and stupid.

    “Here I stand, in the sanctum sanctorum of the voting booth. Should I cast my vote for the ‘real’ candidate? Fuck it, I’ll vote for Johnson. All those other true believers will pick up the slack, and I’ll be able to say, ‘Don’t blame me, I voted for Kodos.'”

    1. And the flip side to the “there’s no chance for Johnson” argument is, if there’s no chance anyone worth electing will get elected, then why vote at all? Moreover, most states are already decided. Voting will only affect chances in a few states.

      1. One could join with the League of Non-Voters, and not vote.

        http://www.leagueofnonvoters.org/

        It’s an honorable position. I urge all to vote for Johnson, other LP candidates, and such independents that don’t induce the gag reflex, or write names in. Utahns may vote for McMullin for the chaos magic of it, theoretically throwing the election to the House.

  14. I didn’t realize until now that you could corpse-fuck a thread while it was still alive.

    1. Rhywun… obsessed with making a public ass of himself!

      Here goes some quote that doesn’t say anything like what Hihn says it does

    2. Rhywun|10.19.16 @ 1:03PM|#
      I didn’t realize until now that you could corpse-fuck a thread while it was still alive.

      (lol) That’s,like saying “I didn’t realize until now that a corpse can be alive.”

      1. You’ll realize that when you see Hillary as President.

        1. You’ll realize that when you see Hillary as President.

          That was Trump’s to lose. Just like both Obama’s elections were GOP fuckups. The Bush GOP spent trilions of dollars to buy middle-class votes, even isolating the Medicare Trust Fund … only to lose the White House and both houses of Congress.

          But Trump isn;t the only one blaming everyone else for hos own failure. Now that he committed suicides in the third debate, the GOP can focus on escaping ANOTHER total rout,

  15. “…I’d think a Republican presidential candidate would resist promising more “free” stuff….”

    http://www.gocomics.com/pearls…..2016/10/16
    “YAAAY!”

  16. To all the t&c supporters your candidate has policies position that violate the 1st , 2nd, 4th, 5th and 8th amendments. (1st – liable , limit $ by some, 2nd – Secret lists 4th,5th & 8th (stop & frisk, religion surveillance, torture…) Gary is the only one who fully supports the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Prove me wrong with facts not insults!

    1. Can I agree? Ron Paul SHITS all over the 9th Amendment, lies about the 10th, says states have rights that have never been delegated, and the Supreme Court has no power to defend constitutional rights.

      In 1957, Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus activated his state militia, using the threat of armed government force to stop nine black kids from entering Little Rock’s Central High School. President Eisenhower sent federal troops, authorized to use force if needed, to defend the individual rights of those nine kids. Faubus backed down.

      Faubus later described his action as defending the voters of Arkansas from an intrusive federal government. The federal courts have no role in defending equal and unalienable rights. Sound familiar? Ron Paul says the same thing today. For the same reason. And claims to be a constitutional conservative. If Ron (and Rand) are, then so is David Duke. And so was Orval Faubus, George Wallace and the KKK.

      State’s Rights is not federalism. State’s rights was invented by southern racists, as an excuse to reject federal rulings they opposed. To defend the Jim Crow mentality. To deny the equal and unalienable rights enshrined by our founders

      What a disgrace.

  17. Either Trump will win, or Hillary will win.

    Unless you find the two identically, down to the last quantum, bad, then one or the other is less bad.

    A voter has the choice either to vote for the lesser bad, or to use his vote to signal virtue.

    Crude beats criminal.

    Even if you DO feel they are indistinguishably bad, remember that the media, academia and Hollywood will completely back Hillary, and reflexively oppose Trump.

    So crude with a headwind beats criminal with a tailwind.

    1. Thank goodness, Trump is not criminal. I learned this at Trump University.

      1. It doesn’t matter which one is less bad. One may be farther past the red line of the Kevrob Awfulmeter (patent pending,) but both are so far in the red that it’s like saying you are doomed to die from an extinction level meteor strike or the sun going supernova.

        Clinton: “Lawful” Evil
        Trump: Chaotic Evil

  18. Stossel says, “While America is going bankrupt, both candidates brag that they will spend more?Trump on the military and his pointless wall, Clinton mostly on social programs.”

    A lie. America is not going bankrupt. America is Monetarily Sovereign. Unlike Greece and the other euro nations, unlike state and local governments, unlike you, and unlike me, AMERICA CANNOT GO BANKRUPT.

    Being Monetarily Sovereign, America creates dollars, ad hoc, simply by paying bills. That is the federal government’s method for creating dollars.

    Stossel represents the rich .1% that wants you to believe you should pay more taxes and receive fewer benefits, so as to widen the Gap between the rich and the rest.

    To see the facts, read: https://goo.gl/A0rkDx and https://goo.gl/idnkml

    In 10 minutes, learn why is no reason to increase FICA or to cut Social Security or Medicare.

  19. Hillary Clinton is a manipulative, power-mad liar and a racist war monger.

    1. Hillary Clinton is a manipulative, power-mad liar, corrupt and a racist war monger.

      FTFY

  20. RE: A Better Choice
    Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump aren’t the only choices.

    These are the choices the republican and democratic parties have offered the little people.
    Now you know why I drink heavily.

  21. I was interested to see Gary Johnson early on. He and his running mate were on a talk show. They came across as two frat boys. I expected them to pull the chair out from under the other and slap each other on the rump. But it wasn’t ill the ‘What’s an Aleppo’ issue and later when Johnson couldn’t even name one foreign head of state that I realized what a goof this guy is. Sadly, he’s a waste of time. If the Libertarians don’t start coming up with better choices, they’ll stay at that 1%.

    1. That was one foreign head of state he admires. Biiiiiiig difference.

      Which member of that criminal class do you admire?

  22. Yes John, there is a third party, one that in some states, I don’t know how many, though I think not many, whose candidates might appear on ballots. Unfortunately, I believe that for reason or reasons I cannot explain, conspiracy being one possibility, electoral dumbness being another,that third party candidates have about as much chance of being elected president as I have, which is no chance, or as they say in West Virginia, there are four chances, as follows: Fat, Slim, Little and No.

  23. Johnson would have had a chance if he had been allowed in the debates and if the media weren’t in bed with the Democrats and Republicans.

    At this point, sadly, it’s a two horse race.

  24. 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

  25. 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

  26. Well, I guess it was the perfect time for me to write an article about Gary Johnson stumbling over words: Why Libertarians are Crazy

  27. 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

  28. 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

  29. Ellie . true that Susan `s blurb is good… I just purchased a gorgeous Fiat Panda sincee geting a check for $8891 this-last/4 weeks and also ten grand last-month . this is actually the most financialy rewarding Ive had . I started this 9-months ago and right away was bringin in at least $87, per-hour .

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

  30. Ellie . true that Susan `s blurb is good… I just purchased a gorgeous Fiat Panda sincee geting a check for $8891 this-last/4 weeks and also ten grand last-month . this is actually the most financialy rewarding Ive had . I started this 9-months ago and right away was bringin in at least $87, per-hour .

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

  31. 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

  32. too many people are ignorant of real party politics, national politics and vote for whoever those around them vote for with very little self-investigation of who is in office or who is even running for office – let alone their fitness for the office in question.

    the low-info voter dooms the nation

  33. 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

  34. 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

  35. Ellie . true that Susan `s blurb is good… I just purchased a gorgeous Fiat Panda sincee geting a check for $8891 this-last/4 weeks and also ten grand last-month . this is actually the most financialy rewarding Ive had . I started this 9-months ago and right away was bringin in at least $87, per-hour .

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

  36. I’ve often voted Libertarian in AZ knowing full well the candidate was going to lose, I’m a registered Libertarian, but ..

    even compared to Trump and the Hildebeast this years Libertarian candidates are not anything to get excited about.

    In theory, yes, they would be preferable to either (a dead fish would be preferable) but standing alone they are hardly representative of a coherent libertarian philosophy.

    and maybe a large libertarian vote would send a “message”. but so what? Trump or Clinton was going to be elected, and voting for the 2 “libertarian” yahoos hardly seemed like a message I wanted to send.

    the country is so fart gone that not one political movement in the country can field a decent candidate.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.