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.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
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.
Yes, because we've never survived horrible presidents before. Fuck off.
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?
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.
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.
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.
"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?
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.
A double dose of stupid and neither amsoc nor shreek are even here.
If you actually give a fuck about liberty, Stossel's premise is spot on.
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).
Trump is overtly against free trade.
Hillary only pretends to be publicly.
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.
And you obviously aren't paying attention as you've failed to realize that Trump has NO FUCKING IDEA what he'd do.
Seems like both descriptions fit both candidates. Could you clarify that a little bit?
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?
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.
You have no choice but to participate. I thought I just explained that.
You declared it. It's wrong. Saying it over and over again doesn't make it right.
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.
So you actually believe there's a chance Gary Johnson could get elected president?
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.
Don't use big words, Tony no understand.
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.
"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.
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.
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?
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?
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?
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.
True. But very few people are actually going to vote for Stein and I'll wager you $10,000 on that.
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.
If it's only possible if something impossible happens first, it's not possible.
Tony, you got toasted! Stick a fork in him! He's done!
"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.
Tony can't even think of his own arguments. He just regurgitates them and spits them out at things he doesn't like.
This is bat-shit crazy, even for you.
Well at this point it's one possible outcome, barring an unbelievably strong debate performance tonight.
You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.
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
The context is political reality, not your little charts.
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.
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?
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.
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...
I do so enjoy watching you shill for a racist war monger.
Tony and MikeP2 cancel each other out ? wasting the other's vote ? and leave me free to vote for Johnson. Thanks, guys.
Re: MikeP2,
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.
At least HillRod can count on a hostile Congress and Senate
It's adorable that you have so much faith in the GOP.
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.
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.
You're fucking stupid even for a troll.....
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.
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!
Re: Tarran,
Is that so? That would imply that whoever guarantees the permanence of this gravy train would be a great president.
Have I mentioned I like Stossel?
Is it the 2nd grade reading level?
Naah; if it were, he'd be telling everyone how much he liked your comments.
Tony got really good at second grade by the sixth time he repeated it.
The best 10 years of his life!
No to mandatory paid leave, yes to employer-paid abortions. Compromise, people.
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.
Obama's Folly continues to yield embarrassing dividends.
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.
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.
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.
starting with Obamacare
^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.
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.
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?
Well, they do kill people.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjlxXAy1_eE
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.
will pay them Tuesday, for a hamburger today
Whoring yourself out, Montana style.
Make America Wimpy Again!
Tony and Hihn in one thread, huh? I guess today's a good day for a liquid lunch after all.
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.
Bill Clinton won AZ twice, so I don't think its that much of a shock for Hillary to win it.
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.
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.
See also: the CDC and lead.
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.'"
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.
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.
I didn't realize until now that you could corpse-fuck a thread while it was still alive.
BULLY!
Rhywun... obsessed with making a public ass of himself!
"...I'd think a Republican presidential candidate would resist promising more "free" stuff...."
http://www.gocomics.com/pearls.....2016/10/16
"YAAAY!"
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!
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.
Thank goodness, Trump is not criminal. I learned this at Trump University.
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
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.
Hillary Clinton is a manipulative, power-mad liar and a racist war monger.
FTFY
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.
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%.
That was one foreign head of state he admires. Biiiiiiig difference.
Which member of that criminal class do you admire?
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.
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.
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 $85... p/h .
see this................ http://www.BuzzNews10.com
Facebook gives you a great opportunity to earn 98652$ 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
Well, I guess it was the perfect time for me to write an article about Gary Johnson stumbling over words: Why Libertarians are Crazy
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
Are you off your meds again? Because you appear to have no point.
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.
Let pharmacists prescribe medicine. I guess that's too simple.
Trolls don't have points.
Re: Michael Hindered,
He probably did. He carries a copy of it in the inner pocket of his jacket.
Did you?
You think that cutting spending is akin to ushering a dictatorship? Does that sound to you - sane? It doesn't to me.
You mean besides "Let the Market be, you dolt!"?
No, it's time to learn Monetary Sovereignty: https://goo.gl/A0rkDx
But we do need someone who can better articulate libertarian ideas. Gary is sort of an embarrassment.
Bluntly, I don't like the LP running non-libertarians for president. I think if we reward them for that behavior, what we will get is a political party like the Republicans or Democrats, where the party's name is only a vestige of why they were founded and has no bearing on their actual policies in the present. We will get a party that is only interested in getting power and keeping it.
You'll not the entire argument for Johnson was that it would help the LP gain power and influence. And, judging by the lack of any attempt to extend the interest Johnson's getting to legitimate libertarians running down-ticket, the party is not actually meaningfully educating or expanding the influence of libertarian principles.
In essence, the LP is toying with selling out and becoming yet another political party. And supporting Johnson will only encourage them to go further down that road.
"Trolls don't have points."
Check the tops of their heads.
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
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
Any serious LP candidate avoids the LP party because its an utterly pointless endeavor to align with them. Which is why the LP has Gary.
Far better for a serious politician to align with the Dems or Reps and at least have an impact.
There is no LP and there never will be. The TPTB will never allow it to gain traction unless they can use it as a foil against the other side. If Hillary loses and Johnson is considered to be a reason due to good vote totals, expect an all out assault to delegitimize the LP going forward.
It's a two-party system and it will always be a two-party system, because that has been proven to be the best way to consolidate power and graft.
The only way, outside of revolution or coup, to break the two-party system is for a highly respected multi-billionaire to self-fund a serious third-party bid. There are very very few of those in the country who are crazy enough to do it.
Or the LP can only nominate the 100% purist libertarians and continue to get 1% of the vote, at best.
Couldn't disagree more.
The LP needs to run only quasi-libertarians who have moderate ideas on personal freedom and the role of government. Anything else is a waste of time and never has any chance to move the needle.
Simply...
Derp.
GJ is more libertarian than half the commentariat and more enticing to potential converts than ANY nominee the LP has EVER run. When will people like you realize that NOTHING, that lasts, happens overnight?
To realize libertopia, you will need to convince a very large portion of the population that liberty is in their best long term interests. You don't accomplish that by taking a hard stand on dog fucking and heroin legalization. In fact, doing so, from a political standpoint, is bat-shit insane.
You can still be a principled libertarian and realize the brass ring will be obtained through incrementalism.
Say what you will about his chances of winning (everyone knows he won't), but I've a slew of "conservative" friends/acquaintances who are voting for GJ and dabbling in libertarianism.
Would have been much better if Rand Paul would have won the GOP nomination. Then I'd actually be motivated to vote.
That's probably not going to change. Libertarians are not going to win a national election in the foreseeable future. The best we can do is to nominate someone articulate enough to get the libertarian message out in a way that actually wins over voters. In the meantime, we can try to get a libertarian nominated as the GOP candidate.
Easy for you, since not much of it had happened yet while you were in school.
Don't spread the hinfection.
It's hihnsane, is what it is.
calling for religious tent revivals to protest .... equal rights, civil liberties and the Constitution?
The Rand Paul who lives in your head sounds like a dick. Fortunately, the guy in real life is not the same as the one in your head.
GJ is more libertarian than half the commentariat
The best way to convince people to vote for someone is by accusing them of impurity.
60% of the time, it works every time!
Sadly necessary disclaimer: If I vote, it will be for Johnson
OK. Let's test your hypothesis. Ask the people voting for Johnson who they voted for in the last election (or if they voted at all) and what parties they will be voting for in the congressional races.
My guess is that of the Gary Johnson supporters who didn't vote for him the last time around > 95% will be voting not for any LP candidate but exclusively for Democrats or Republicans.
If you are correct, you should get a significant number of people voting for LP or doing write ins.
Do you want to give it a shot?
Concur
If Johnson breaks 5% he'll make 2020 a lot easier for the LP candidate who might be more to our liking. He's doing great work for the future of liberty in this country despite his flaws.
I dunno. The Cubs are 5 wins away from a World Series championship. Maybe Sweet Meteor O'Death will get elected.
I'd vote for any of the 93.275% most libertarian of the commentariat before voting for Trump or Clinton.
Nobody is pure. Nobody is perfect. (Can you name anyone?) But claiming GJ isn't libertarian is simply bullshit. He's not libertarian on ONE issue.
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.
It's more than just one issue. Carbon tax? No guns for the "mentally ill" and potential "terrorists"?
Morever, even if it's just one issue, if that's an issue someone cares about a lot, then its weight is greater in their mind than yours.
Anyone arguing Trump or Clinton is more libertarian than Johnson can be called out. But anyone saying Johnson isn't a candidate they can support is not axiomatically thrown out of the libertarian club.
If he breaks 5 percent the LP will continue nominating middle of the road squishes who don't actually believe in libertarian principles.
I know how they voted. Romney. All of them.
To be fair, many LP congressional candidates are nut-jobs. I, often, don't vote for them either, depending on their positions.
Your logic doesn't follow, or you misunderstand my hypothesis. This isn't about winning elections (at least not yet). It's about realizing a path to liberty. It's about making libertarians from statists over a long period of time. Supporting a statist, or not supporting liberty when the opportunity arises, doesn't support that cause.
If it were Johnson (L), Paul (R) and Clinton (D), fuck yeah I'd support Paul even if he's not as libertarian as Johnson, because his odds of winning are better and has more opportunity to to benefit the cause of liberty.
Trump, isn't the least bit libertarian and doesn't give a flying fuck about liberty.
The incumbent congresscorpse in my district is the ur-leftroid Rosa DeLauro: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosa_DeLauro . The Republicans are running a Marine Veteran with a PoliSci degree who drives trucks to make some dough. DeLauro is worth an up to an estimated $26 million. Another one who has "done well by doing good."
Our truck-driving leatherneck is an Hispanic for Trump, BTW. I think I'll write in somebody in that race. There is a ballot- qualified LP Senate candidate, Richard Lion. I'll vote for him. He's got no chance against Dick "I apologize if you got the impression my Viet Nam-era reserve service makes me a `Viet nam vet'" Blumenthal, of course. If Prescott Bush came back at the right hand of Jebus, he'd have to switch parties to get elected in CT.
Anyone arguing Trump or Clinton is more libertarian than Johnson can be called out. But anyone saying Johnson isn't a candidate they can support is not axiomatically thrown out of the libertarian club.
Then who's the purist here?
Me, who will vote for the good enough libertarian or the guy who won't vote Libertarian because the LP candidate isn't libertarian enough?
Naptime already?
I'm confused as to what you think you're accomplishing, but aside from that i'm good.
I'm missing the part where he said people should protest against equal rights, civil liberties, or the Constitution.
You completely misrepresented what he said. The only ass here is you. As usual.
(My tone and boldface in self-defense against aggression, rather childish aggression)
You type pretty well for a guy with his hands nailed to a cross. Do you know what all good martyrs have in common?
Please keep the goalposts in place.
Purity of the person you are taking to ? Purity of the candidate ? Acceptableness of the candidate to the person
My goalposts are right where they started.
I'm a principled libertarian, who is voting for Johnson, despite him NOT being the most principled libertarian in the world, because he will, and is, what's best for promoting the long term cause of liberty. That cause is to incrementally convince a large portion of the American population that liberty is in their best interests.
Keep yelling at that cloud, gramps.
I only took issue with part of what you said, not all of it. I quoted what I argued against. You're right, you're not so much shifting the goalposts as just plain deflecting.
Who do you expect to convince if you can't even get along with people who are already lean in your direction?
BULLIES!
Libertarianism is an ideology and political system that fosters a free society. It is not a set of cultural attitudes like Objectivism.
You don't even know what the words you use mean, and you want to lecture other people?
Nothing would please me more than being wrong, but I'm just not seeing it. I don't see Gary Johnson's candidacy as doing anything at all to advance liberty; he just isn't a convincing evangelist. Again, I would love to be wrong, and I am sure you can find a few hundred or even thousand people across the US who would say that he introduced them to the ideas of classical liberalism or libertarianism through his campaign. But I would bet that every one of those people were very receptive to the idea and just needed to trip over any website associated with the pro-liberty movement to make that leap.
I doubt any more than 1% of the people voting for him will ever consider becoming pro-liberty in their voting or even in their political views. My guess is that in the next election cycle, the LP will regress back to the 1% mean.
BULLIES!!
If you're saying that Michael Hihn is the second coming of Jesus of Nazarene, Son of God, the Light of the World, The Good Shepherd, I think we can all agree with that.
They're dead?
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.
Deflecting?
You took issue with:
In direct response to:
He, in fact, is.
And you, for some reason, took that as an insult and accused me of being a purist, despite the fact that I support an impure candidate. How does that work again?
I'm not arguing with tarran at the moment, I'm arguing with you. About calling half the commentariat not libertarian enough. I mean really, you're going to accuse an anarcho-capitalist like tarran of being insufficiently libertarian?
But you've successfully ignored my point going on several replies now. Well done.
Any LP candidate ever polled at 10%?
People are looking. Some will convert.
WIN!
Let me ask you t...
1. Do you agree that the only way forward to a free society is to convince a large portion of the population that liberty is in their best interest.
2. If so, would you also agree that the only way to do that is to change the minds of those who believe otherwise (along with convincing the young who don't yet have an opinion)?
3. If so, what is your plan to do so?
Mine is incrementalism.
I need to leave, but I'll check your response later tonight, if you care to check back. If not, have a good day.
Your tone and boldface are an obvious attempt to hide the complete lack of substance in your post. You have not backed up anything you've said.
k
Are you kidding me?
I did NOT say the commentariat wasn't libertarian enough. I said Johnson is more libertarian as half the commentariat. (a direct quote) I then went on to say I'd vote for 90+% of the commentariat over Trump or Clinton.
How, in the name of zod, is the commentariat not libertarian enough if I'd vote for 90% of them?
It's like you seem to think that I think that anyone less libertarian than me is an unacceptable human being?
Not libertarian enough to criticize Johnson.
FFS this is not that difficult
It kind of depends on how you define best interest. Most liberties aren't based on people saying "in a free society my life will improve" so much as thinking "if we fight over this, it's going to hurt." For example, most people didn't support religious liberty in U.S. history. The ones who did, tended to do it not because they saw religious liberty as a good thing so much as were afraid of what would happen to them if they tried to suppress other religious groups.
Technically, one would be correct arguign that those people were seeing liberty as in their best interest, but really what they really desired was a society that wasn't free but one where their faction systematically suppressed rival factions and gave them advantages. They were merely settling for liberty as a temporary makeshift.
Yes, but again liberty seems to get widespread support only when people fear the alternatives, not because they love it.
I plan on working hard, amassing a nice nest egg, while raising children who are resilient, educated and productive. I then plan on a nice, quiet retirement.
$park? is totally a Swifty, I need merely repeat your "point" that self-defense is martyrdom!
Oh, woe is you. I can see that's it's all you can do to keep yourself from being completely covered by the bullshit being flung by the rest of the commentariat like a pack of howling apes. You clearly are the voice of reason that's needed right here right now. If only the moronic masses would put down their torches and pitchforks and just hear you out. But no, it's just you against a cruel, cruel world.
Why don't you do more proving and less whining?
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.
Just the bullies and thugs..
Did your parents raise you to believe this is acceptable behavior? Are they proud of you?
(In defense of serial aggression)
You are a bold man to constantly wade in amongst the lions that want to do nothing but tear you to shreds. I will personally submit your name to the Nobel committee. For all the awards they offer, surely there's one that will apply to the work you attempt to do here.
By the way, do you not consider it strange to call a bully someone who has only heaped praise upon you?
Stop bullying them.
Don't feed the troll. Esp. a troll who can't read.
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.
That's what she said!
A piano with one note still thinks it's a piano
Jesus, you think Reagan was libertarian???
In a sane world, the SC would never have ruled that and would have struck down that 1974 law as unconstitutional overreach.
In what universe is a carbon tax going to be revenue neutral?
"We argue for revenue neutrality on the grounds that this tax should be exclusively for the purpose of leveling the playing field, not for financing some other government programs or for expanding the government sector. And revenue neutrality means that it will not have fiscal drag on economic growth."
Do you honestly believe that if a carbon tax was instituted that it wouldn't be used to finance other government programs or expanding the government sector? That article is chock full of wishful thinking.
It's like the people that think we'll get congress to get rid of the income tax and implement a national sales tax. What we will actually end up with is an income tax AND a sales tax. (Yes I know that the proposal says that one can't happen without the other. Excuse me if I don't believe that.)
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"?
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? 🙂
You'll realize that when you see Hillary as President.
So, you've given up? The world can't be fixed? We cannot live in a libertarian based (free) society?
Why do you even come here then?
I didn't ask you what can't be done, I'm asking you what your ideal (your objective) would be and then how we'd go about achieving it?
Effects based planning...
No. I haven't given up.
I am bringing about a freer world by working hard, amassing a nice nest egg, while raising children who are resilient, educated and productive. I then plan on a nice, quiet retirement.