Gary Johnson Responds to Evan McMullin's He's-Not-a-Real-Libertarian Critique: 'I've Been the Nominee of the Libertarian Party Two Cycles!"

Independent conservative opens up a polling lead over Johnson in Idaho while lagging distantly in Minnesota. But are his tax and foreign policies really more libertarian than the Libertarian's?


Look, The Weekly Standard even gave him one of them weirdo cartoon heads! ||| The Weekly Standard
The Weekly Standard

Independent conservative presidential candidate Evan McMullin, who is making enough waves in the historically Republican-dominated state of Utah that GOP vice presidential nominee Mike Pence is holding a rally there two weeks before Election Day, is once again championing his own libertarian bonafides in contrast to Libertarian Party nominee Gary Johnson. McMullin, who is on 11 ballots compared to Johnson's 51, and who has never polled higher than 2 percent nationally (though he has almost never been polled), has given "3 Reasons Why He's a Better #NeverTrump #NeverHillary Vote Than Gary Johnson" to The Weekly Standard, the neoconservative magazine that has been as enthusiastic about the McMullin campaign as it has been hostile to libertarian ideas over the years.

Reason numero uno:

First, McMullin pointed out that Johnson is a poor protest vote for those who care about the Constitution. "Gary Johnson is not actually a libertarian," McMullin told TWS at a press event. "He has tax policies that are not libertarian, his stance on religious liberty is not libertarian." […]

McMullin is pro-life, while Johnson believes in a right to abortion. "If Gary Johnson were a real libertarian, I probably would not be in this race," McMullin said.

I caught up with Johnson this afternoon just after he had finished a Facebook Live video to promote his new book Common Sense for the Common Good: Libertarianism as the End of Two-Party Tyranny (read Brian Doherty's scan of it here), and asked him about McMullin's comments.

"Well, all I can point toward to on my libertarian bonafides is that I've been the nominee of the Libertarian Party two cycles," he said. "And that is the libertarian hardcore that…decides that. So I don't know how you can get any more bonafide than that."

(This answer was a milder echo of what Party Chair Nicholas Sarwark told me two weeks ago: "I trust the judgment of dedicated Libertarian Party members from around the nation somewhat more than that of an unremarkable Capitol Hill staffer with no purpose other than to split the Gary Johnson vote in the mountain West and assist in electing the Democrat for President…. The day I take advice on who's a real libertarian from a former CIA operative who was an insider in Washington and at Goldman Sachs, being propped up by dead-end neoconservatives like Bill Kristol and shameless Republican political consultants like Rick Wilson, is the day I'll resign as Chairman of the Libertarian Party.")

What about the religious-liberty charge, which has dogged Johnson throughout 2016? "I would have signed the Civil Rights bill of 1964, and I think that that's in essence what he is pointing out, that a real Libertarian would have vetoed that, or not signed it. I would have signed it."

Today the number of McMullin-qualifying states in which he has been publicly polled doubled from two (Utah and Virginia) to four, with the introduction of Minnesota and Idaho. In the Gopher State, the independent barely registered a blip in a Star-Tribune poll, tying the Green Party's Jill Stein at 1 percent, compared to Johnson's 6, Donald Trump's 39 and Hillary Clinton's 47. But in Idaho, the second-most Mormon state in the union (19 percent of the population, compared to Utah's 55 and Wyoming's 9), a new Emerson poll has McMullin beating Johnson 10.0 percent to 4.2 percent, while Trump stomps Clinton 52.3 percent to 23.3. McMullin polled 32 percent among Idaho Mormons, just behind Trump's 33; but received just 7 percent of the non-Mormon support.

I asked Johnson to what he attributed McMullin's regional success, and he just said "I couldn't guess." (In an interview last week with Brian Doherty, he said "It is what it is.")

After the jump, a deeper look at McMullin's more-libertarian-than-thou claims.

McMullin's critique of Johnson's allegedly deficient libertarianism continues to zero in on one questionable area of Johnson's ideal tax system—a federal consumption tax—while ignoring the extremely libertarian components of abolishing the Internal Revenue Service and federal corporate taxes, not to mention slashing enough government to submit a balanced budget on day one (thereby easing some of the pressure to raise taxes). McMullin, by contrast, sounds just like a standard-issue Republican, only even less likely to reduce taxes for the top earners:

He will make the tax code fairer and simpler, helping to spur business innovation, especially the growth of small businesses, which are the country's most important job creators. Small businesses should pay closer to 25 percent of their profits in taxes, whereas now there are many that must pay almost 40 percent. Right now America also has the highest corporate tax rate – 35 percent – of any advanced economy. Even Barack Obama has said that it should be substantially lower. Income tax rates also need to come down, especially for the middle-class; once the economy starts growing again at an acceptable rate, high-earners should also get a break.

What about foreign policy? The Weekly Standard, which acknowledges that "many non-interventionist libertarians could be turned off by McMullin's hawkish foreign policy," nevertheless soldiers on:

Second, McMullin pointed out that Gary Johnson is a poor choice for those casting a protest vote on the grounds that neither Trump nor Clinton is fit to be commander-in-chief. "I do believe that I'm prepared to lead this country. I know where Aleppo is. I've been to Aleppo," said McMullin, a former CIA counterterrorism agent. "We need to defeat ISIS."

"There's nothing honorable about not knowing who international leaders are or not being able to say that you respect any of them," he added.

Rather than rehash AleppoGaffeMania, or even get into a discussion about the comparative advantages of running both a state bureaucracy and a successful company, let's take a proactive look under the hood of McMullin's foreign policy ideas.

First, and most promisingly, McMullin—quite unlike the gang over at The Weekly Standard—opposed the war in Iraq. Here's how he put it in a recent National Interest essay:

[W]e must exercise leadership in a prudent way. One of the most important mistakes to avoid is the premature use of force. That is why I opposed the invasion of Iraq in 2003. As an intelligence officer who saw it firsthand, I believe the war was a tragic and expensive mistake. I say this even though I remain proud of my service in Iraq as an officer with the CIA. The valor, courage, and integrity displayed by American forces in Iraq were extraordinary. We overthrew a brutal tyrant and then fought a long war to defeat Al Qaeda in Iraq. These were noble objectives but not sufficient justification for the cost of fighting.

Good start! But then it begins to deteriorate into some Goldilocks notion of finding a third way between Bush interventionism and alleged Obamaite retreats:

The great challenge we face today is how to reconcile the imperative of global leadership with the necessity of reining in its costs. Whereas the war in Iraq illustrates the dangers of doing too much, the myriad failures of the Obama administration demonstrate the costs of retreating into passivity and compromising our principles. If we had struck the Islamic State much earlier, before it spread across Syria and Iraq and before it beheaded American citizens, we could've crushed it at a much lower cost. Instead, we now have 5 thousand troops in Iraq while ISIS is launching attacks across Europe and inspiring massacres in the United States.

Given the importance of strength, it is especially regrettable that the Obama administration has begun to implement about $900 billion in defense cuts, leaving our military too old, too small, and not sufficiently ready to meet the demands of a chaotic world. As a first step toward restoring American leadership, I would reverse those cuts so that our troops have the training and equipment they deserve.

There are things to like about McMullin's essay here—he's against torture, for example. But it's hard to see much daylight between his positions and those of, say, Hillary Clinton. Which is to say, they're neither very libertarian nor particularly smart. Over at The American Conservative, Daniel Larison takes us on a brief tour:

His Syria policy is essentially identical to Clinton's, including support for a "no-fly zone," and he thinks the U.S. should have bombed the Syrian government in 2013. McMullin's support for an aggressive foreign policy isn't limited to that. He favors sending weapons to Ukraine, he is for continued support for the Saudi-led war on Yemen, he thinks the U.S. should "prevent Russia from conducting airstrikes in Syria" (he doesn't say how), he supports the Cuba embargo, he wants to use a small number of ground troops in the war on ISIS, and of course he thinks military spending should be increased. His campaign press releases predictably describe the nuclear deal with Iran as "disastrous." Also like a typical hawk, he claims that supposed U.S. "withdrawal" from the world under Obama has allowed "destructive forces" to "surge." In his National Interest piece, he says that "we must exercise leadership in a prudent way," but based on these positions it seems clear that McMullin has a very strange definition of prudence. McMullin hopes to win over voters that can't bring themselves to support either major party nominee, but on foreign policy he combines many of the worst positions of both. That reinforces my impression that he is an anti-Trump candidate whose main appeal is to Republicans that remain deeply committed to a very aggressive foreign policy.

There is much to like about Evan McMullin, or at least to prefer over some of the uglier trends in the GOP and conservatism writ large. On ABC's This Week over the weekend, for example, McMullin winningly described his candidacy as "dedicated to these principles that I'm talking about, namely the equality of all men and women. We are standing also for the cause of liberty, the idea that we all ought to have the power and the freedom to pursue happiness in the way we like." He criticized forthrightly the "bigoted, sexist, xenophobic messages" coming out of the mouth of Donald Trump. He is pro-immigration and pro-trade, opposes the death penalty, and has said conservatives should "move on" from their opposition to gay marriage.

But let's not pretend that the Gitmo-loving hawk who can't criticize Gary Johnson without making dumb weed and prostitution jokes is anybody's libertarian, let alone somehow more deserving of the descriptor than the two-time L.P. nominee. The fact is, no matter who the Libertarian Party would have nominated, Weekly Standard-style conservatives, who are appalled both by Donald Trump's manners and foreign policy, would have coughed up some pro-life hawk who knows how to impress the Washington Post editorial board. Interventionism, abortion, and respectability politics are just too important to leave in the hands of libertarian weirdos. Even if the alternative only has access to a maximum 84 electoral votes.

NEXT: Should Libertarians Vote Trump? Nick Gillespie Debates Walter Block in NYC on 11/1

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

  1. I'm the only true Libertarian

    1. You can always tell a true libertarian. You just can't tell them much.

      1. You sir, have just made an enemy for life!

        1. And you, sir, have just one an enema for life

    2. I'm the only true Libertarian


      Do you think your comment would have had more of a momentous impact if you had typed that you were the only onetrue Libertarian?

      1. Libertarianus quondam, Libertarianusque futurus.

        1. One AlmightyJB to rule them all?

          Admittedly, I went with the obvious and incompatible, Vaelyn.

      2. onetrue

        I know there's a joke in here somewhere about mtrueman...

        1. If any of my simple mistakes provide a means by which others are inspired to give us good-hearted humor, CZ, I look forward to it.

        2. "I know there's a joke in here somewhere about mtrueman."

          It's a joke every time he shows up.

  2. Independent conservative Mormon opens up a polling lead over Johnson in Idaho while lagging distantly in Minnesota. But are his tax and foreign policies really more libertarian than the Libertarian's?

    Let's just cut through to the actual root.

    1. ^This

    2. If he were more libertarian, he wouldn't be doing so well in Utah among the Mormons. They are among the least libertarian of Republican constituencies.

      But gay cake hurt Johnson there quite a bit, along with his other attempts to signal how not religious he is. He went out of his way to poke them.

      1. For about ten years religious people in this country said gay marriage would be the end of religious freedom in this country. And Libertarians said "no it won't and after we get gay marriage we will be right with you making sure it doesn't infringe on religious freedom". Sure enough we got gay marriage and sure enough exactly what religious people said would happen is happening. And where are Libertarians? Well their party is nominating a guy who says that forcing people to participate in gay marriages is not just permissible but right and good.

        And still, those God damned bible thumpers won't hear the Libertarian gospel and keep voting Republican. The bastards!!

        1. Religious people are backwards, mouth breathing homophobes, except for Muslims who are doubleplus good.

          1. Yeah, funny how that works. Reason runs a Ron Bailey "America is getting so much better because fewer people believe in God" article about twice a year. Then spend the rest of the time talking about how importing millions of believing Muslims is going to America better.

            1. And catholic Mexicans.

          2. You just gotta be able to separate the good Muslims from the few bad ones. That's totally not a thing with other religions, they're all bad. Except the religion of peace, good.

        2. Roe v Wade was more than 40 years ago and you're blaming gay marriage for "the end of religious freedom in this country"? That ship has sailed.

      2. It says a lot about how much influence the Warboner Party has that they can come up with an ad-hoc nominee and have him poll ahead of well-established third parties.

        1. You're vastly overestimating just how much pull the LP has. Established, sure, it's been around forever. Popular, electable? Pfft.

        2. I don't think a Mormon polling highly in the two states with the highest number of Mormons says much other than "Mormons vote for Mormons."

          1. Not all of us do. Quite a few see McMullin's background, hawkish ways and supporters as something other than divine intervention. Those are the Mormons outside of Utah and Idaho though.

      3. Look, libertarians have now gotten so contrary and disagreeable that they don't even want libertarians to be elected! I mean, Gary said something really libertarian somewhere in that rambling incoherent stream of statism light. It was there, I'm telling you! Look for it and vote Johnson, you Trumpet!

  3. I love the principled libertarians who tell me how eager I should be to vote for a former Republican governor turned Libertarian Party presidential candidate.

    I'll remain a principled non-voter. Johnson squandered this opportunity. Any 'gains' made will prove to be ephemeral.

    1. I'm not eager, but if he won he would best represent my principles of limited govt, while the other 2 options will just push down on the boot, so he gets my vote if I can summon the will to bother.

      1. If Clinton wins:

        If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face ? forever.

        If Trump wins:

        If you want a picture of the future, imagine a hand grabbing every pussy ? forever.

        If Johnson wins:

        If you want a picture of the future, imagine a man toking on a giant joint ? forever.

        1. That makes the choice pretty obvious.

          1. It's Johnson, right?

            1. Oh - you.

              Myself and two good friends of mine went on a brief holiday with another person I barely knew. It was me, my good friends (a male and a female), and my male friend's lover (another male and a person I barely knew). My friend's lover began telling me why he so liked my friend, and "giant joint " was among the reasons he mentioned before I politely told him to keep certain things to himself.

              Thus, I get your reference, Rhywun.

              1. Maybe your male friend has a big apartment...?

                1. Maybe your male friend has a big apartment...?

                  He is a pitcher, Rhywun, if I understand such matters correctly.

                  I would have preferred that his boyfriend merely reaffirmed my own biases by mentioning my friend's sense of humor, genial nature, intelligence, et cetera, and not mentioned maters of a personal nature.

                  1. LOL I wasn't even euphemizing there. Well played.

  4. So a Republican that didn't get asked to prom is now the arbiter of who is and is not a libertarian?

    1. How long have you been around these parts?

      1. Define "parts" HM.

        I know how you are with you word-smithing and such like.
        And some of your links.


        And no - not only will I not click any of your links in response to my post (or other links in the immediate future), I now advise others to avoid your links in this particular.

        Unrelated: Thanks for the information regarding "The Return of the Mandatory World Tour" of which we typed a brief time ago.

        1. I [will] not click any of your links

          That is your loss, given his past contributions. I'll be in my bunk.

          1. I do not trust you in this regard, Slumbrew..

          2. Double plus good

  5. Being nominated by a party with the letters 'L', 'i', 'b', 'e', 'r', 't', 'a', 'r', 'i', 'a', 'n' in its name does not make a person a libertarian. Hell, in 2008, that party nominated Bob Barr and Wayne Allen Root. Guess which political party both those gentlemen went on to rejoin? Guess which policies they have subsequently announced vociferous support for that violate things like freedom of association, freedom to contract, freedom of speech etc? 😉

    If the LP was dominated by hardcore libertarians, they probably wouldn't be nominating retread republicans.

    Sure Gary Johnson is probably the closest thing to a libertarian on any of the state ballots in the presidential election this year, but that's really not saying much. That's like saying that Mother Theresa is the tallest person in the room when she is addressing a convention of little people.

    I suggest that Gary Johnson take a minute to speak to someone whose brain hasn't been turned to pudding by pot use and ask that person to come up with an argument that isn't a giant variation of the "propter hoc, ergo post hoc" fallacy. They might accomplish what he can't.

    1. Being nominated by a party with the letters 'L', 'i', 'b', 'e', 'r', 't', 'a', 'r', 'i', 'a', 'n' in its name does not make a person a libertarian.

      This applies also to Democrats, who fraternize with pseudo-socialist Senate back-benchers who barely caucus with them, then vote for a Peronist from a so-far undiscovered planet in their own primary. Not a Democrat in sight this cycle.

      1. And "Republicans" who only care for states rights when talking about abortion, not drug laws, Dept of Ed, etc.

      2. Not a Democrat in sight this cycle.

        Not so: Flirting with socialists and voting for hardcore authoritarians who somehow manage to produce "progressive" credentials is entirely in line with the old Democratic Party tradition reaching back to Woodrow Wilson and FDR.

    2. Yeah, assuming that the LP is somehow a pure libertarian organization is ridiculous.

      They may be terrible at being a political party, but they are a political party. And political parties only succeed by giving voters what they want to hear now. Not by dazzling people with their ideological purity.

      I really think Johnson was a good pick (but not great) for the LP because he isn't really a very good libertarian. A "real" libertarian has zero chance of getting elected president. Someone like Johnson (though probably not Johnson because his personality isn't great and he sounds dumb) could have a chance. And barring collapse of society or violent revolution, that's the best that's likely to happen: someone who will move things a little bit in the right direction.

      1. You are right. You can't get a nominee who is pure in all ways. So the question is what issues are you willing to compromise on. And by picking Johnson and Weld, Libertarians showed that the issues they are willing to compromise on are religious freedom and gun rights. They showed that while their stated preference is to support the 2nd Amendment and religious freedom, their revealed preference is for other issues such as gay marriage, drug legalization and such.

        Is that bad? If you think guns and religious freedom are really important non negotiable issues, it is. If you don't and see other issues as being more important and those issues as being something that can be traded away for other gains, then no it is not.

        Think of it this way, what if the LP had nominated someone whose views on the 2nd Amendment and public accommodation laws were unassailable from a Libertarian perspective but who was less than pure about immigration and gay marriage. Do you think reason would have been all "hey no one is pure and we have to make compromises" about such a candidate? Hell no. That is because immigration and gay rights matter to them and gun rights and religious rights matter but much less so.

        It is what it is.

        1. Think of it this way, what if the LP had nominated someone whose views on the 2nd Amendment

          Governor Gary Johnson is the only Presidential candidate with a record of standing up for gun rights. He vetoed countless gun control measures as Governor of New Mexico including bills to regulate caliber, round limits, and more. The Democrat controlled state legislature routinely passed bills that would restrict gun rights but Johnson stood strong and vetoed them all. Thankfully the Democrats didn't have a veto-proof majority as was the case in other states.


          1. You're wasting your time. Nobody in these comment sections gives half a shit about being honest about Gary Johnson. It's all crab pot 'libertarianism' down here.

          2. Johnson is fine on guns he sucks on the first amendment. It's Weld who sucks on guns. I meant the ticket as a whole not just Johnson. Sorry that wasn't clear

        2. I don't think Johnson is bad on gun rights. Weld is not great, but he's the VP candidate for a ticket with no chance, so who cares?

          As far as the religious freedom thing goes, I'd like to see someone who takes the principled position. But I'm not sure it's really a hill worth dying on politically. I don't think repeal of public accommodation laws is likely. Maybe I underestimate the support that position would get.

          What I really think a Libertarian candidate should do is to narrowly focus on what he thinks could actually be accomplished politically in terms of shrinking government and increasing freedom and how it would benefit people. Electing a Libertarian president isn't going to transform the government overnight. Be principled, but don't make a huge issue of things that you'll never be able to get through congress and focus on things that a president could accomplish.

          1. I happen to think the first amendment is a hill worth dying on. I think anyone that doesn't isn't much on principals and is just interested in more identity politics.

            I also think the second amendment is a hill worth dying in and running with a guy against it doesn't inspire confidence.

            I hate to break it to you guys but Trump is better on the first two amendments then GJ. The fact that the LP couldn't even get anyone more supportive of the the first two amendments in the BOR than Trump shows what shitty organization the LP is.

            What's even worse is despite all the shitty articles about how Trump can't win because he's not libertarian enough, the truth is GJ could have pulled a lot more voters if he supported those two libertarian positions.

            1. Trump is better on the first two amendments. Johnson is better on other things that libertarians consider more important.

              1. Tell me, John, which "other things" are more important, from a pro-freedom POV, than the first amendment?

                1. Ask the "libertarians" who are shilling for Hillary.

                  1. As soon as I see one.

                2. Nothing IMO, but to many people. Importing more immigrants and abortion.

                  1. Those people are not libertarians. Of course, if I remember correctly, John dors not claim to be a libertarian, either.
                    But, whatever party you identify with, the first amendment is the pillar of freedom, and the second, the muscle the people have to demand their first amendment rights are respected.
                    If the restrictions on government were restricted to just the first two amendments, and those restrictions strictly adhered to, you would need no others.

        3. i still think they went with Gary specifically BECAUSE the gay baker thing was where he deviates the most from ideological purity. those who pushed for the limitation on public accommodation laws come off sounding more like HARD right socons, than libertarians. the nutty element of the GOP already has their candidate. we would have been nominating someone who completely alienated the left, for pretty minimal gains from the right.

          i do wish McAfee had had a slightly less interesting past.... but, given that he did not, i think Johnson was our best choice available.

          1. So he left a libertarian position because the libertarian position was too republican. Again, that doesn't say much for the LP when republicans come out more principled.

            1. your argument is a little circular. that republicans come out more principled, because the libertarian is not parroting a republican position?

              and he did not "leave" a "libertarian" position.... he held this position consistently.

      2. Re: "And political parties only succeed by giving voters what they want to hear now. Not by dazzling people with their ideological purity."

        You are effectively saying that there is no point in there being a Libertarian Party or a small-l libertarian party, because the libertarian ideology is about gov't NOT GIVING voters much of anything at all.

        And you would be right--the Libertarian Party will never be a winner because it doesn't give away other people's property.

        1. And that doesn't even make sense since the positions he deviated from on purity are held by Republicans who are raking in half the votes in the country. He ditched principals to win while the candidate who supported the first two amendments kicked his ass in votes.

          Great strategery there.

    3. Not to quibble (oh, who am I kidding, yes, Imma gonna quibble!), but "because of this, therefore after this" IS logically valid, since a cause must necessarily precede its effect.

      Ok, somebody please slap the shit out of me now...

  6. Oh, who the fuck cares anymore?

    1. Yup. I plan on not watching the news at all til this is all over and the cunt wins. The comments are my only source of news until then.

      1. So, you haven't heard that Hillary pledged her soul to Satan, cackled 3 times, fell down and started speaking in tongues? Fucking MSM

  7. McMullin is such a loser he makes Johnson seem sympathetic and principled. The idea of a former NSA hack who never say a civil right that couldn't be abrogated in the name of terrorism and never heard of a foreign intervention that he couldn't support lecturing someone on being a "real Libertarian" is remarkable to put it mildly.

    I would vote for Hillary before I would vote for McMullin. At least she is running a real campaign as opposed to McMullin who is running a false flag one.

    1. The only thing I need to know about Evan McMullin is that he looks like a walking penis.

      1. It's fortunate that he looks just like what he is. Imagine how hard it would be for someone who looks like that and isn't a dick.

    2. He did unconsciously reveal his true motives in that Reason interview didn't he?

      I'm still hoping that he wins Utah, the election results in nobody getting to 270 votes and a relieved congress picks him, with the third highest electoral vote tally, to be the next President.

      The butthurt would be epic!!!!!!

      1. I think he might manage to be a worse President than Hillary. The butt hurt would be fun and all right up until he actually took office.

        1. At this point the U.S. government is doomed. All we can do is enjoy the spectacle as best we can. Why not watch a apparatchik take the fall?

  8. Evan McMullin vs. Gary Johnson. A G?tterd?mmerung of irrelevance

    1. If nobody beats nobody in a (remote Idaho) forest, does anybody care?

  9. "I would have signed the Civil Rights bill of 1964, and I think that that's in essence what he is pointing out, that a real Libertarian would have vetoed that, or not signed it. I would have signed it."

    The public accommodation section was, and is, an abomination. The goal was to make the federal government the final arbiter of all business relationships. Barry Goldwater understood this but his objections were drowned in cries of "racism". Since that law was passed the federal government can now tell you whether you can refuse service to any protected minority.

    People have forgotten the degree to which leftists infected the Civil Rights Movement. They had no interest in racial equality, only in vesting the federal government with greater power. They used the movement to further their goals. If you think that those leftists cared about racism then try to find any one of them who denounced Castro and Guevara for their statements about the worth of black people. To this day, the ruling class in Cuba still looks like it got off the plane from Madrid last week. There are no blacks in positions of authority.

    If Gary Johnson had a single molecule of moral fortitude (and two functioning neurons) he would never support that law.

    1. It was inevitable that those laws would eventually be used against other forms of unpopular thinking. Those lose essentially made it illegal to be a practicing racist in public. If you tried, you would get sued out of business.

      Reason staff libertarians don't think that is a big deal because they don't like racists. Now of course the left has made objecting to homosexuality the same as being racist and have effectively in many places made being a practicing Christian illegal. That doesn't bother the reason staff because they aren't Christians and don't like Christians anymore than they like racists.

      It never occurs to the reason staff that the left will move on and use this power against views the reason staff might like. Nope, that will never happen.

      1. "first they came for the who ever, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a who ever... nobody left to speak up for me"

    2. My Cuban "Hispanic" friends are the whitest people I know.

  10. I overhead at Burger King that Evan McMullin has recurring pubic lice that he simply cannot get rid of.

        1. Ah, the 'dollar sigh', that gets me EVERY time!

          1. My favorite never Trump weirdo is David French. This is the guy who went on deployment to Iraq and told his wife she was not allowed to email with men while he was gone and would have to cease an email friendship she had with some guy about faith issues. That is right she was emailing with a religious radio host about God and being a good Christian and French just couldn't trust the little tramp to keep her legs closed while he was off at war.

            1. I remember that.

              He really is a cuck.

              1. Ever notice how Washington pundits of both partisan bents so often turn out to be total weirdos in their private lives? Bill Bennett spent the 1990s writing about "virtues" while also being a compulsive gambler who left his wife and kids nearly destitute. Jeffrey Toobin got one of his best friends' daughter pregnant and then refused to admit paternity or submit to a DNA test until she went to court and forced him to submit to the test and had the court rule he was the father. The list goes on and on. They are all just awful and screwed up people.

                1. Funny how that works. A lot of them are also just incredibly fucking stupid.

                  Congressman gets busted with cold, hard cash

                  And of course, my very own congressman Hank Johnson the Immortal (Full disclosure: the dude later said he was joking the whole time and I just don't buy it.)

                  1. Peggy Noonan nailed it a couple of weeks ago when she referred to Washington and the media as being "condescended to by our inferiors". These people are not fit to run a pay toilet at a rest area yet think they have some God given right to run all of our lives.

            2. He says he didn't tell his wife not to use email.


              1. He says

                This summer, my name leaked to the press after I spoke with Bill Kristol about the possibility of mounting an independent run for the White House. As expected, Trump fans reacted ? this time with an assist from the mainstream media. Politico reporter Kevin Robillard tweeted an excerpt from an interview about my deployment to Iraq, making it seem (wrongly) as if I had prohibited my wife from emailing or speaking with other men while I was downrange:

                But then he directly quotes his colleague Kathryn Jean Lopez who started the entire thing. No one ever said he prohibited her from emailing. They said he told her she couldn't email with men. It said she couldn't have a facebook account for fear of ghosts of old boyfriends, couldn't drink, and couldn't have "meaningful email exchanges" with men, whatever that means.

                That is creepy and weird if you ask me. Maybe his colleague and friend Lopez had it wrong or was lying. If so, French doesn't explain how or offer a direct rebuttal. He only says "I never told her she couldn't email" and then goes off whining about how a bunch of cranks said mean things to him on the internet.

                I really can't stand David French.

                1. I read that as denying a restriction on emailing other men. Other men modifies both emailing and speaking.

                  I suppose it could be read another way, but that requires a hostile reading.

  11. Hey Gary. I hate to break this to you, but you are not a Libertarian.

  12. Any time I find my nerve failing regarding how I will vote this election, all I need to do is read something Gary Johnson said or 'wrote'*.

    My resolve not to waste my vote for him is stiffened to more I am exposed to him.

    *Yes I know, the more intelligent stuff is ghost written for him by less damaged minds.

    1. Taran you do what what you are going to do, and if anyone has a problem with it. I will back you up when you tell them to f-off.

  13. Mandatory disclaimer: McMuffin is a bad candidate.

    But what does it say about Gary Johnson that this McMuffin guy can troll him with more libertarian than thou taunts?

    Johnson: "I would have signed the Civil Rights bill of 1964, and I think that that's in essence what he is pointing out, that a real Libertarian would have vetoed that, or not signed it. I would have signed it."

    Oh, pull the other one. The issue being debated today, on the plane of reality, is whether the Civil Rights Act should be (a) *expanded* to take in new suspect classes - specifically sexual orientation and "gender identity," and (b) whether it's OK to stomp on the First Amendment in the name of protecting gays and transgenders from discrimination.

    Almost half a century passed between the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and any influential movement to add sexual orientation and gender identity. So don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining, don't tell me about "necessary logical consequences of the 1964 Act."

    Perhaps Johnson can enlighten us - what *additional* protected classes should be added to the Civil Rights Act? To take some examples which have *actually been proposed* - what about political opinion, weight and physical attactiveness?

    1. Looking above. Probably furries and bronies.

    2. it still boggles my mind that so many libertarians dig in on this issue. let the right wing have the bigots who care about not selling a cake.... they tend to be the same people who want a government official to be able to not do her job, so we will never get these people to vote libertarian anyway.

  14. Also the Progressives that you were courting, and the Libertarians that you were ignoring, are leaving you in droves to vote for Clinton, or Trump.

    Maybe you should have read this book.


  15. Who has time for this nonsense? I'm voting for Jill Stein.

    Jill Stein approves this message.

    1. Jill Stein promises to abolish safe spaces for trolls.

      I'm Jill Stein, and I approve this message.

      1. But she supports them for unions!

        Provide full protection for workplace rights, including the right to a safe workplace and the right to organize a union without fear of firing or reprisal by passing the Employee Free Choice Act.

        1. Isn't that the bill which would abolish the secret ballot for union elections?

    1. So by that logic, isn't any Indian who picks up a telephone or uses a rifle equally guilty? If there is a more insane and evil concept than cultural appropriation, I can't think of it.

      1. As far as I can tell, the rule is "if white people we don't like adopt an idea from another group, that is bad". So it's OK for Japanese people to dress up like 50s bikers but not OK for white women to dress up like geishas, unless they are superprogs. People like Elizabeth Warren and Rachel Dolezal can pretend to be a different race because they say the right things.

        1. Yeah because nothing builds understanding and harmony among the various nationalities and racial groups of the world than ending all cross cultural exchanged. These people's stupidity is terrifying.

          1. Their mental gymnastics are a thing to behold. One minute they're saying we need to imitate so-and-so the next minute they're criticizing people for imitating so-and-so.

            If only we could convince them that adopting single-payer healthcare from Canada would be cultural appropriation.

            1. Hawaii is a continent. You learn something new every day.

        2. I thought people said Dolezal wasn't OK?

          It's so hard to keep up.

          1. She got plenty of praise for her courage in this NYT article:

      1. Dianne/Paul,

        I checked and that interaction between the "Gods Girls" co-founder and the unnamed Lyft driver (and second passenger) seems to have happened.

        I'll have to remain cognizant to not click on your links again without wearing protective gear.

        On a more serious note, I was hoping to determine that the video was a hoax.

        1. You act as if I'm posting Crusty links.

          Having said that, the video I posted appears to be direct from the source. Ie, it's from the Gods Girl co-founder herself.

          1. You act as if I'm posting Crusty links.
            Immediately dismiss this thought from your mind, as it has no basis in my reality.

            ...the video I posted appears to be direct from the source.

            This is what I had hoped to disprove.

            One can still have hope, right?

            1. One can, but I would definitely question their sanity.

    2. Hey. My great Grandfather was native. I have to say this. If you are pissed of about appropriated canoes, then you should make yours the old fashioned way, and learn to make your own bow, and start a fire like the ancestors did.


      1. Apropos of this, there are a bunch of enthusiasts that make bows, arrows and hunt using historically accurate methods. It's a bit like watching televised golf... or fishing, but some people put an incredible amount of time and effort into it.

          1. Yeah. Lots of time and energy. =D

        1. With modern technology Diane. =)

    3. Dean says that in the wake of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, non-indigenous Canadians should rethink the canoe.

      Truth and Reconciliation Commission: not just for South Africans anymore!

      1. Isn't Canada appropriating the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

        And, by extension, wouldn't her referral to it also be cultural appropriation?

    4. o Dean, the story Canadians tell themselves about the canoe is one of European colonialism, while ignoring the role the canoe played in displacing and harming indigenous people.

      Well, if by 'displacing' you mean 'the Amerindians packed up their shit and moved' you'd be technically correct. And most of the 'canoe' period of Canadian history was French coureur de bois trading within native communities and intermarrying, not the reservations system of later Canadian history.

      Certainly the majority of wilderness canoers are people who have a very privileged place in society. They're frequently highly educated people. They're almost completely white.

      Every redneck piece of shit I knew growing up had a canoe. They're cheaper than a motor boat and they let you portage between lakes while fishing. The canoe is the closest thing to "the People's Boat" you'll ever get. But apparently only shitbag Torontonian WASPs use them.

      Fucking rich-ass out of touch West Coast 'intellectuals'.

      Oh, this explains it, she IS a shitbag Torontonian WASP.

      1. Certainly the majority of wilderness canoers are people who have a very privileged place in society. They're frequently highly educated people. They're almost completely white.

        In societies with government-mandated education, some is doing something wrong, if there is any truth to this.

    5. A lot of white people canoe. No one cares what she thinks. Really, no one.

    6. Oh my god, what a load of shit. Canoes were invented independently in many places. You want a boat that works well with a paddle? You come up with the canoe.

      From Wikipedia article on canoes:

      Constructed between 8200 and 7600 BC, and found in the Netherlands, the Pesse canoe may be the oldest known canoe. Excavations in Denmark reveal the use of dugouts and paddles during the Erteb?lle period, (ca 5300 BC ? 3950 BC).[5]


    7. Paddling floating pieces of wood across fresh water was stolen from my people. Will whites ever learn?

    8. "To hear the full interview, click the "play" button above."

      Um... no thanks

  16. Sarwark rocks

  17. First they came for the Trumpkins and I did not speak out. Then they came for the Progtards and I was silent. Then there was no one left to come for the Libertarians.

    I'm Jill Stein, and I approve this message.

  18. Rand Paul 20/20!

    Eh?? What do you think???

    1. That you would vote for Stalin over Rand.

      1. Hyp,

        I think he or she is quoting another H&R commentator (I cannot now recall which one) who posted that Rand Paul, being an eye surgeon, would be better suited to try for 2020.

        1. I get that.

          But, it's shreek, I have no fucking patience for it.

        2. I got all that. But it's shreek, I have no patience for it. It's a total shithead.

          1. Or squirrels, damnit!

            1. Eight o'clock shift change. I got stung by that last night.

          2. Meh, addictionisamyth is... Unorthodox. I don't think he's shreek.

            1. You're probably Tulpa. notice the lack of any of the same letters in your handle.

              1. What are you talking about? I have two different "e" 's in my handle.
                Besides, of course I'm Tulpa! Addiction Myth is Tulpa, you're Tulpa, we're all Tulpa.

            2. Yeah, well you're wrong. I busted him for being shreek 10 minutes after his first post here.

  19. tarran hit the nail on the head a few months ago when he described Johnson as not a libertarian but as a( paraphrasing here): statist who believes that the iron fist of the the state should hold the public in as light a grip as possible.

    I can't intellectually dispute this, yet I still plan on voting for the man. Simply due to the fact he's the least authoritative candidate capable of bringing a third party into the recognized group of legitimate political parties.

    To be honest, it makes me feel a touch dirty and disingenuous to rag on others for voting the 2nd worst evil. That being said, if your philosophical leaning are favorable to libertarianism and you don't live in a swing state, (continued)...

    1. ...Why in the ever loving fuck would you vote for the two major parties? I can't for the life of me figure that out.

    2. To be honest, it makes me feel a touch dirty and disingenuous to rag on others for voting the 2nd worst evil.

      It should. And the Gary Johnson experience has ended any ability of his supporters to both claim to be Libertarians and also reject the concept of strategic voting or criticize others for engaging in it.

      1. Fair enough, John. I'm not going to try to rationalize the point any further past my final point: the non-swing states.

        1. There is nothing wrong with strategic voting. No one ever said life owed you a perfect choice. I have always defended strategic voting and will not rag on Libertarians for doing it now. They do, however, have to live with the revealed preference their choices show.

          1. John. To be "The Prince". you must never give you principles. The only sacrifice you must make is to give up on your ideology.

              1. Oh yeah?!?! Up on yours, buddy!!

                Oh, wait....

                / 🙂

            1. Your principles, ideology and fifty cents will get you an ice cream cone at the DQ.

    3. I can't intellectually dispute this, yet I still plan on voting for the man. Simply due to the fact he's the least authoritative candidate capable of bringing a third party into the recognized group of legitimate political parties.

      There aren't a lot of libertarians that are outright anarchists, and even those who say they are, probably aren't. If you're going to vote, voting for Johnson isn't just "the lesser of half a dozen evils" but a decent step in the right direction. Is he qualified to be the Chief Executive over a nation of 330,000,000 in a scenario where you accept the broad powers of the office that its illegally acquired over the last several decades?


      But therein lies the rub. There are those of us that don't accept those broad powers as necessary or legitimate. So Johnson's lack of qualifications in this arena aren't a deal breaker.

    4. ...yet I still plan on voting for the man. Simply due to the fact he's the least authoritative candidate capable of bringing a third party into the recognized group of legitimate political parties.

      To be honest, it makes me feel a touch dirty and disingenuous to rag on others for voting the 2nd worst evil. That being said, if your philosophical leaning are favorable to libertarianism and you don't live in a swing state....

      Nut shells.

      *Notes Trigger's honesty in the context of this website with a history of judgemental commentators*

      I, for one, won't judge you, TH.

      1. *Tips a brew*


        I've never claimed to be a smart man, just a man honest enough to accept the painful truth of how stupid I truly am (unlike some other douche bags around here I could mention).


        1. I've never claimed to be a smart man, just a man honest enough to accept the painful truth of how stupid I truly am....

          Self awareness.

          The lack of it seems to be a comfort to many.

          I am not so sure that you or I would welcome that sort of comfort.

  20. While I disagree with McMullin's premise, I do agree with anyone voting for him. My vote still goes to Johnson.

  21. "Well, all I can point toward to on my libertarian bonafides is that I've been the nominee of the Libertarian Party two cycles," he said. "And that is the libertarian hardcore that?decides that. So I don't know how you can get any more bonafide than that."

    (emphasis added)
    GJ probably is more libertarian than McGuffin, but certainly he could have come up with something better than an appeal to the authority of the libertarian party head honchos.

  22. Muslim migrant from Syria in Germany has 4 wives, 23 kids, no job, and claims $389,000 per year in state benefits. I'm sure he'll get around to integrating any day now.

    The man used to work in a garage and car hire service in his homeland but has not worked since resettling in Germany.

    He expressed an interest in working again but noted his commitments to his family made this difficult?.

    1. "There are many people in the community who are taking advantage of this," Ali said. "This is a law and there's nothing wrong with it."


    2. There are no downsides to open borders. Just insane people like you wanting to do insane impossible things like build walls.

      I am going to go to one of these reason get togethers in Washington sometime and corner Gillespie on reason's refusal to even mention the fallout of the great Muslim migration reason thought was so fabulous when it first started. I am sure they will kick me out, but it will be a badge of honor when they do.

      1. I wonder what Shikha Dalmia would say about this case.

        1. Jihad Watch is unreliable. This is an isolated incident. You cannot collectivize. Welfare state is the real problem and needs to be fought, but immigration is an unrelated issue. Collectively immigrants of all kinds are a boon, so you cannot individualize a problem.

          1. You forgot to mention the Crusades or mention Islamophobia, so B+.

            1. Does Dalmia go into those? I admit, even with best efforts, I roll my eyes on second paragraph at best, then proceed to comments.

              1. Dalmia like Merkel thinks forced immigration is an economic boon. The exact opposite of what America used to do.

    3. I'm sure he'll get around to integrating any day now.

      The fuck you talkin' 'bout, sounds like he's integrated just fine.

      1. He integrated all the way to the bank.

    4. BTW, this story is a little thinner on deeper look:

      The family could be receiving more than ?320,000 a year in benefits according to a financial manager on the Employers' Association website.

      There is no official confirmation on this figure.


      Germany does not legally recognise polygamy, meaning that Ghazia A was forced to choose a "main wife" so the rest of the family could claim benefits. The other three wives are categorised as "friends" of the Syrian migrant.

      But a local official in the town of Montabaur described the situation as an "exemption".

      Ghazia A now lives with his "main" wife Twasif and their five children in Montabaur, in the state of Rhineland-Palatinate ? while the other three wives and children have been moved into neighbouring communities up to 31 miles away.

      Basically, wife 2-4 don't necessarily add anything to his official compensation. The 23 children might provide him a direct financial benefit from the state. But the 'could receive more than' is weak sauce.

      However, if the figure could be confirmed, the compensation would be based on the 22 children, not the multiple wives.

      1. Yeah, a guy having 23 kids with 4 different women never happens in the US 🙂

        1. Yeah, but most of them are in the NFL and pay child support.

        2. I had an aunt who had 22 kids with 2 different husbands.

  23. http://legalinsurrection.com/2.....-patients/

    Insurers use California assisted suicide law to deny treatment for the terminally ill.

    1. Now, one young mother says her insurance company denied her coverage for chemotherapy treatment after originally agreeing to provide the fiscal support for it, but indicated it would be willing to pay for assisted suicide instead.

      Death panels were just a stupid fantasy of Sarah Palin. Reason has long assured me of this.

      1. And yet boob jobs and Lasik can be had for $2500 a side.

        1. Priorities, Brett. Where are your priorities?

          1. Hey, I already came out in favor of giving poor people cards full of money that could only be redeemed for medical service -- including orthodontia -- as an Obamacare replacement. Think of all the tits, ass, and teeth that would get fixed.

            1. I am intrigued by your ideas, and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

  24. This Sowell article is a good read:

    But the left in general, and Hispanic activists in particular, have fought against leaving Hispanic parents with that choice. At the heart of the left's vision of the world ? and of themselves ? is that they know better what is good for other people. This means that the left sees itself as having both a right and a duty to take away other people's options.

    This issue was fought out 18 years ago, in a California referendum on so-called "bilingual education," which in practice meant largely teaching Hispanic school children in Spanish. All the forces of political correctness, including the media and the educational establishment, argued in favor of teaching those children in Spanish, even when their parents wanted them taught in English.

    Despite a barrage of propaganda from the media and other organs of the left, a majority of California voters sided with Hispanic parents, and passed a law forbidding schools from imposing Spanish on children whose parents wanted them taught in English.


    1. Remember, Trump is the racist, not the people who want to leave generations of Hispanic kids unable to speak, read or write English and by virtue of that doomed to the bottom end of the wage scale. These people are fucking vile.

      1. It sure is fascinating how this bilingual education debate only ever comes up for Spanish speakers. My guess is that it makes sense to pander to Spanish speakers since there are more of them than say, Hmong speakers.

        Plus, Spanish is an easier language to learn for virtue signaling. Even the dumbest prog can learn how to say hola and gracias. Learning the equivalents in Armenian or Vietnamese might require some work.

        1. It comes up because bilingual education in Spanish is a huge jobs program for teachers. It is always about the money with these people.

        2. It sure is fascinating how this bilingual education debate only ever comes up for Spanish speakers.

          *Looks at section of CV that lists his work studying bilingual English/Yawi schools in southern Thailand*


          Sure. I'll roll with that.

          1. My mistake. Bilingual education also came up with Ebonics.


            But other African Americans, including Jesse L. Jackson, said that movement toward Ebonics would limit black students' ability to compete for jobs against people who have mastered standard English.

            When you've lost Jesse Jackson...

            1. And Vietnamese and Arabic, in certain communities. Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if there was some controversy over Hmong bilingual education at one point. Especially after that one Hmong hunter went ape-shit in Minnesota, I think it was?

              1. Lau v Nichols was the main court case. Its ruling that schools had to provide services for English learners was overturned by No Child Left Behind.

                1. NCLB didn't overturn the ruling from Lau v. Nichols that public schools had to provide a "meaningful education". I'm curious to know why you interpret it that way. What NCLB did was that English language learners weren't exempt from taking the yearly standardized tests mandated by the law to measure Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). All but 10 states give administer those tests only in English.

                  1. Besides NCLB is now moot. The Every Student Succeeds Act *barf* (ESSA) mandates that states prove evidence of yearly improvement in English language learners academic English language proficiency.

            2. If you think this only ever comes up regarding Spanish speakers, you're not up on yourlandmark Supreme Court history.


                1. Titles...Titles everywhere!

                  1. Where? You at the titles bar?

    2. Despite a barrage of propaganda from the media and other organs of the left, a majority of California voters sided with Hispanic parents, and passed a law forbidding schools from imposing Spanish on children whose parents wanted them taught in English.

      Fucking racists. This is why the direct democracy is the enemy of freedom! If only they let their elected representatives lead them with wisdom, probity and grace they demonstrate on regular basis.

      1. A while back, I posted a few videos of progs whining about Team Red sweeping the 2014 midterm election. Of course, according to them, this was because all those ignorant, racist, yokels in flyover country voted against their own best interests instead of submitting to the will of their intellectual superiors- people like Matthew Yglesias and Jesse Myerson.

  25. McMullin is half right. Gary Johnson is a cosmotarian?

  26. FWIW, CNN is announcing the GOP is panicking over Donald Trump - they've even gone so far as spending money on ads for their Senate candidates. I haven't actually checked to see if this is true, but a party spending money on ads for their own candidates is certainly a sign of panic, I'd say.

    1. We have a nominee who is a big celebrity and has the ability to dominate the media cycle. This allows the party to spend money on down ballot candidates because the nominee doesn't rely on traditional spending. Clearly they are panicking.

      The more I hear them say ridiculous things like that the more I think there might be something to the idea that there is a coordinated effort to try and depress the Trump vote by lying about his chances. How else do you explain this nonsense?

      1. And by doing it, they continue to make trump voters want to vote even more.

        1. That is what it looks like to me.

        2. So, do you think that Trump will win because of better turnout and possible secret Trump voters who are too ashamed to answer polls honestly?
          I'm genuinely curious: at this point I see Hillary winning in a land slide, allowing her to claim a voter mandate.

          1. I don't know. it's impossible. I think there are people who will vote trump, but won't admit it. Turnout will also be low. I think it'll be low for both of them though. I think Hillary will win, but the popular will be low, I don't know who wins.

  27. Hey, there, Reason staff, at 9 PM EST (7 PM Boulder time), there's going to be an alternative-alternative Presidential debate. Hillary and Donald won't show up, and Johnson and Stein probably won't as well, but there will be Darrell Castle, Rocky Da La Fuente, and Gloria La Riva.

    The debate will be broadcast here.

    1. I didn't say go to that last link *before* 9 EST - the singer they have up there now sounds like the winner of the Vogon Poetry Contest.

      1. Theres no one here on campus. No signs. No protests.

        1. I'm told the student sponsors pulled out - apparently the organizers got on their nerves somehow.

      2. Dude, the People's Republic of Boulder? Hosting anyone but far left or corrupt Democrats/Socialists/Communists? You must be high.

    2. Rocky Da La Fuente

      I thought this guy was made up for a second, but his website is 'Napolitano' article level:

      What if we invested in the interests of all of the People of the United States rather than pandering to political constituencies that historically favor a particular Party with their contributions and votes?

      Well already you're off to a rough start there, Washington will eat you alive.

      What if we withdrew our military from those countries that have not requested our military presence (or have failed to provide a safe environment for our troops even if invited) and withdrew our foreign aid as well?

      So no Team America World Police sequel then?

      What if we indexed the federal budget to the prior year's GDP so that federal spending could only rise with an improved economy?

      What if we truly vetted theories on critical issues like Social Security, healthcare reform, minimum wage, etc. before promoting them based upon political preference (i.e., honestly analyzing their potential adverse consequences as well as their positive impact)?


      1. Yeah, he's nuttier than squirrel turds.

  28. Trump on track to win more black votes that any GOP presidential candidate since 1960?

    So, does that come out to, 6 black votes? I really don't know. But given the seeming lack of enthusiasm from black voters for Hillary, it doesn't sound like good news for the inevitable one.

    Black Likely Voters for TRUMP @Rasmussen_Poll
    Oct 3 ? 9%
    Oct 6 ? 12%
    Oct 7 ? 13%
    Oct 10 ? 14%
    Oct 11 ? 19%
    Oct 12 ? 19%
    Oct 13 ? 24% !

    There's only one explanation for this. They actually saw Hillary for the first time on the teevee and the old white nag scared the livin bejeebus out of em.

    1. I know a few black commentators have argued against voting for Democrats. The basic argument is that while blacks vote overwhelmingly for Democrats, neither major party has any real incentive to do anything for blacks beyond lip service.

    2. Probably won't amount to much but the black people I know have mostly seemed to vary between not giving a shit and sort of enjoying Trump's "don't give a shit" style. Mostly I think they will have a low voter turnout.

  29. You know, Gary, I hate to break this political reality to you. But running as something doesn't exactly make you that. Politicians are infamous for pretending to be one thing while being the opposite. Your argument is lame. Try again, please.

    1. Gary/Weld are by no means Libertarians. They wasted the Libertarian Moment, and now the hard left progressives, union guys that they were courting are leaving them in droves for Hillary, and Trump.

      In the last election Gary was the Obama alternative.

      This is why I embrace Agorism over the Libertarian Party.


      1. Fuck the State, Even if I have to participate in it for my own advantage.

          1. YOU WILL NEVER GET TEH SUCC HM 11111` =D

          2. Come on, The State was hit or miss, but when they hit, they could be funny.

      2. The disaffected and pissed off Bernie Bros were telling pollsters all summer "man, fuck that bitch! She stole the nomination from Bernie! I'm voting libertarian!" Then, two weeks before the election, they all decided, "no we don't actually have the balls to do that, plus, have you read what these nuts really think?" And went back to the Democrat plantation.
        And, viola! GayJay goes from 9% to 3%!
        I, for one, am shocked. Shocked, I tells ya!

        1. hopefully a few stragglers got left behind?

  30. Evan McMullin is making Gary Johnson his prison-bitch.

  31. Trump supporters vs. Berkeley students
    This should be fun.

    1. Any one under thirty should not be trusted ????

    2. Every time I really, really want Hillary to lose to save what's left of the rule of law and and constitution, someone else brings up this wall shit and I start 2nd guessing myself and just want to say fuck it, let er burn!

    3. Yeah the free helicopter rides thing was beyond the pale was it not Reason. =D


  32. Food fight at the kids' table.


    1. ^This guy knows what it's all about^

      1. The best part is that it's completely compatible with all world religions because it's transcendental ^^;

  34. Why is Jeff Bezos in the picture?

  35. I really can no longer believe that Trump wants to win. If he would have just completely dropped that wall bullshit after the election and for the most part just kept his trap shut, he would destroy Hillary. No one likes that cunt, for crying out loud, you have to try really hard to lose to that.

    1. After the nomination, not election.

    2. I have a slightly different take: I don't think he wants to govern. I do think he wants to "win", because he seems like a demented Type A sort, that can't take no (or, 2nd place) for an answer (at least, initially). I think he probably even liked the idea (at one point) of being in charge of the country, and may still. That said, I get the impression that the actual business of governing turns him off.

      Of course, he could have lost this desire to win, in this particular case.

      1. What president actually governs these days? They're surrounded by advisers, they don't need to do anything except show up at the right places occasionally. or sign or veto something.

        1. It worked out pretty well for Calvin Coolidge...and, by extension, America when Coolidge was President.

  36. Kennedy and Kmele Foster would make a great ticket and have the progs shitting in their undies.

    1. Kennedy and Kmele absolutely do not deserve the revolting hatred that the left and their puppet media will throw at them.

    2. Is Lucy Steigerwald 35?

      1. How do you run someone you can't talk about?

        1. put up fight club posters.
          It's either for Voldemort or Lucy.

      2. Who?

        1. I wish the Janelle Mon?e/Jidenna look would catch on more.

          1. Well, Jidenna sure got a hell of a boost with Luke Cage.

  37. Nicholas Kristof says evangelicals are redeeming themselves by opposing Trump:

    "Much of the public focus has been on prominent evangelicals, including Jerry Falwell Jr., Ralph Reed and James Dobson, who are backing Trump. Yet it's striking how many others denounce him as utterly unacceptable....

    "It's easy for secular Americans to dismiss all of this as too little too late ? but that would be exactly the wrong approach....

    "...too many secular liberals have moved from denouncing religious intolerance to embracing an irreligious intolerance of their own....

    "...In my reporting around the world, I've been awed by evangelical and Catholic missionary doctors risking their lives to ease suffering. And remember that it was evangelical pressure that led President George W. Bush to adopt a massive program to fight AIDS around the world, saving millions of lives and turning the tide of the disease.

    "Many young evangelicals seem tired of the culture wars, wearied by politics, and less interested in hounding gay couples than in helping the homeless, the addicted, the incarcerated....

    "...As many prominent evangelicals renounce Trump, the secular response should be to applaud that courage in hopes that this is a turning point..."

    Bless your heart, Kristof, you try *so hard,* and you're *so sincere.*

  38. Johnson is a mediocre libertarian and his SJW nonsense is obscene

    Big L party affiliation is not convincing

    Ron Paul has way more libertarian cred as a Republican then Johnson has

    Btw I love to say I told you so!!! cop appreciation at 49 year high

    People here claim media fellates cops which is absurd ... almost any movie featuring cops has corrupt cops prominent... training day being an obvious example. Same for tv

    And media support for cops hardly got better over the year when the pole changed minds .. what happened was people realized when the facts came out at almost everything the anti-cop protesters/media were saying including black lives matter was a flat out lie e.g. Ferguson and Baltimore


    1. Excuse 'pole' and 'then' I dictate posts so get errors like this

    2. If the public thinks it has to choose between cops on the one hand, and rioters, assassins and race-baiters on the other, cops win.

      But if you've been following H&R, you'll have seen the commenters bemoan the racebaiter/SJW takeover of the anti-police-abuse movement.

    3. "People here claim media fellates cops which is absurd ... almost any movie featuring cops has corrupt cops prominent... training day being an obvious example. Same for tv"

      So we know your eyes are brown.

      1. *not really Dunphy, surely long time commentator trolling

  39. FJ is roaring with a new optima blue top, my napa has become the backup. New wire in all of ignition/charging system.
    I also found a sales tax token from washington state while cleaning my shop today. No clue why it was there.

    I had named the FJ Agnew, buut with the new paint I think a new name might be in order. You each get one vote, you can't vote for your own handle.

    1. Name for a Toyota?

      The Orient Express.

  40. Here's something I'm quite baffled by- where did McMullin say he was more libertarian than Johnson? He said he's vote for Johnson if Johnson was actually libertarian. Those aren't the same. I'm a Republican and, in this election, would enthusiastically vote for a libertarian. We'd disagree on some things but I wouldn't fear an expanding federal govt and I'd know my religious liberties would be intact. I'd prefer a libetarian-leaning conservative but would be satisified with a libertarian. I'm guessing McMullin thinks the same- don't bother running if there's an acceptable alternative (a libertarian that cares about liberty). I'm planning to vote unenthusiastically for Johnson but I understand why he feels he can't.

    1. The small L lib/right area of the population has a tough call, depending on how they rank issues. Rand's numbers would be interesting to see if they had gone with him.

      1. Rand Paul would have won by a landslide, and would've gained a lot of the Bernie Bros. But, Republicans be stupid, yo.

        1. I don't have any reason to think the Dems wouldn't pay people to claim they were beaten by Rand supporters just like they did for Trump. They certainly would have had some women claim Rand raped them or otherwise looked at them rapey. Then they would have beaten the CRA statements to death. Followed by war on women since he's pro-life.

          The game plan and narrative remains the same no matter the player. The same people keep falling for it.

          1. Sure, but leveling those charges against a guy with already moderate street cred due to his filibuster, and a guy who uses his vacation to provide free eye surgery in the third world would have less impact than against Trump.
            We know the media is biased. The Republicans know that the media is biased. So nominate Trump? Step 3: profit? I'm not understanding the Republican's thinking here.

  41. I don't really get why mcmuffin thinks dissing Johnson's libertarian bona fides is supposed to do him any good. Johnson's running as the LP candidate and its not like its won him any massive base of support by default. Gary wants to appeal to the so-called disaffected bernie-voters or #nevertrumpers. the "libertarian vote" isn't really where the money is, so so speak, so i'm not sure who he's trying to impress.

    1. His candidacy only exists for one reason. To split the votes in a swing state to make Trump lose. To do that he needs to push as many republicans to his side as he can. Since there's a lot of liberty minded republicans who aren't impressed with Trump he's trying to swing them to him.

  42. Oh, they haven't got the Presidential candidates yet.

  43. This is making the CPD look good.

  44. Hippie 60s guy trying to warm up the audience.

    1. His soul is on fire for doing a die-in in Washington.

      1. And when we finish this debate, let's all go get arrested!

  45. Currently trying to decide between voting for Johnson and voting for no one. The main thing is that no matter how bad Johnson is, I at least don't think he's an unrepentant felon who ought to be in prison, which I can't say about either of the major party candidates this year.

      1. Some say I just make news
        But let me guarantee,
        I will explain my views:
        Shut up and vote for me

    1. Is Trump a felon. A womanizer, shameless self promoter, overconfident in his own ability to solve intractable problems maybe.

      1. I think Trump ought to be in jail for fraud and sexual assault
        I think Clinton ought to be in jail for taking bribes and violating records laws

        1. Did he sexually assault anyone?

          1. You'll have to decide that for yourself. I think he did.

  46. Hey, Lily Tang Williams is giving the libertarian, anti-communist pitch.

    1. (3rd party candidate debate for Senator for Colorado)

      1. (warmup for Presidential debate)

    2. She is a bright spot for libertarians this year. She would have been a far better presidential candidate, for sure

  47. Ooh, poetry! Even the Vogons are squirming in their seats.

    1. Christina Tobin - hippie chick and founder of Free & Equal.

      1. Her father was apparently a libertarian who got removed from the Illinois ballot - and that inspired her.

        1. She doesn't like Johnson and Stein not showing up.

  48. Let me see...as a libertarian should I vote for Evan McMullin or Gary Johnson?

    The correct answer must be EM as GJ isn't libertarian enough.

    The stupid...it burns.

  49. National anthem - not some hippie mutilation, either.

      1. Ed Asner has spunk.


  50. OK, they're going to try League of Women voters rules, let's see how this happens.

  51. Party for Socialism and Liberation, Liberty Union Party, Peace and Freedom Party.

    Not to be confused with the Socialist Party or the Party of Socialist Union...splitters!

  52. I don't understand why Reason keeps harping on this? I don't think McMuffin (not to be confused with the delicious McDonald's breakfast sandwich) is arguing that he is more libertarian than Gary Johnson or that he's even a libertarian. McMuffin is noting that Johnson isn't much of an alternative and the people of Utah and Idaho seem to agree. If libertarians are totally not on the right, then is Reson so upset by McMuffin 'stealing votes from Johnson', as has been contended?

    It's hard to get around the fact that Johnson is a shitty candidate and a shitty libertarian, too. He barely ever mentions his foreign policy positions (until he got criticized for not knowing 'Aleppo', which was a stupid faux controversy); he's completely clueless about religious liberty (he really really sucks on this issue); he was totally in favor of carbon taxes (which kind of refutes his whole 'low tax liberalism' argument) before he was against it; he thinks Kennedy is a model justice (before he was reminded by the Wall Street Journal that Kennedy joined the majority opinion in Kelo); he's against religious liberty bills, even though he signed such a bill in New Mexico (similarly, our president voted for a bill when we was a legislator in Illinois), and his running mate is a god damn snake.

    You cosmos fucked up and no one should forget that.

    'And they didn't even get the votes'
    - Murray Rothbard

    1. Hear, HEAR!

      You can say that again!

      (edited to remove parentheticals)

      It's hard to get around the fact that Johnson is a shitty candidate and a shitty libertarian, too. He barely ever mentions his foreign policy positions; he's completely clueless about religious liberty; he was totally in favor of carbon taxes before he was against it; he thinks Kennedy is a model justice; he's against religious liberty bills, even though he signed such a bill in New Mexico, and his running mate is a god damn snake.

      You cosmos fucked up and no one should forget that.

  53. Asner asks about North Dakota protests - do you support this totally righteous crusade for justice?

  54. Socialist wants to nationalize oil companies

  55. Johnson, Stein, Trump, Clinton... in order, if we had a "European style" selection process (no thanks).

    Johnson is a milquetoast version of the Founding Fathers' Libertarianism when they wrote the Constitution, with rights of the people, constraints on The State's power to prosecute, and some-such things.

    Meh Johnson!

    Stein, the Bernie on steroids, can be controlled by an (R) Congress, and maybe make some Constitutionally restrained progress? happen. "The Berned" should really ALL vote Stein because they are equivalent platforms (Bernie's basically a Green, and Stein's more Bernie than Bernie was), but wutevs.

    Trump can be controlled by any Congress, the SCOTUS and the media. You shouldn't be afraid of him, even though all of his ravings. That shit won't fly. If elected, The Donald would probably get some quick lessons in the limits of executive power (checks and balances with lawmakers and the courts), protests, the media.

    Clinton though... hellfire from the skies, govt. eyes in your bathroom, cats and dogs living together, Death To America, WWIII.
    She is a deep-State porn star, a wet dream for the intelligence and military-industrial communities of the "government". Malleable and Statist.
    Oh yeah... just like that... Bomb Libya, oh yeah! Oh! IRAAAAN!!! SYRIA NO FLY ZOOOOONES!!!
    Oh. So good...
    Now go clean yourself up.

    So yah... Johnson. My one choice for President.

    1. Beautiful. Absolutely gorgeous. AC is jealous.

      1. Who's AC?

        1. Agile Cyborg, our resident poet laureate

  56. Castle: Native American reservation system an example of socialism (he should explain that's a bad thing)

    1. Castle:
      "Sitting on the extreme right of the American political spectrum, the Constitution Party is the unofficial flagbearer of the Christian Reconstructionism and dominionist movements in the United States."

      The man who thinks A-1 means the xians WIN!
      Stuff your superstition, eddie.

        1. Oh, passive aggression is so attractive on imbeciles who have no other option.

          1. Hey, it's the jerk store on line one, they have a sevo shortage!

            1. Hey, it's the stupid store on line one wondering where eddie wandered off to.
              Stuff your superstition up your ass.

              1. Oh, yeah? Well, the Dillweed Warehouse is holding a sale, but nobody's buying any sevos because you're a dillweed.

                1. Stuff your superstition up your ass.

                    1. Stuff your superstition up your ass.

                    2. Stuff your superstition up your ass.

                    3. Stuff your superstition up your ass.

                    4. Stuff your superstition up your ass.

                    5. Stuff your superstition up your ass.

                    6. Stuff your superstition up your ass.
                      I can do this all night long eddie, so long as an ignoramus continues to post 'cute' shit in support of his stupidity.
                      Repeat stupid, get response, asshole.

                    7. Stuff your superstition up your ass.

                    8. Speaking of doing it all night long, I better go see your mother.

                    9. Asshole, my mother's been dead for years, so I have no doubt your really interested. I have no interest in your mom; I presume she's as fucking ignorant as you.
                      Got more 'cute' links to post? I'm sure someone is looking.
                      Stuff your superstition up your ass.

                    10. Stuff your superstition up your ass.
                      Yes, asshole, that's intended for you.

                    11. Holy shit, you fell for it *again!*

                      I linked to Daniel Dennet's atheist book *Breaking the Spell,* and you dissed it!

                      What's with all your atheist-bashing all of a sudden?

                    12. Stuff your superstition up your ass.

                    13. You fell flat on your face.

                      I gotta go now, and pay a visit to someone special...if your mother's tomb's a rockin', don't come a knockin'!

                    14. stuff your superstition up your ass.

  57. The socialist is against massive govt surveillance - free Chelsea Manning and Snowden and Assange!

    Police institutions which are enemies of the people should be shut down.

    (what about police institutions which are *not* enemies of the people?)

    1. Castle would pardon all 3 of the whistleblowers?

  58. Fuente: As the 2nd Amendment protects gun rights, whistleblowers will protect us from our government.

  59. Overincarceration?

    (Do we actually have more prisoners than China? How does Asner know this - has he checked China's figures?)

    1. "Yes, U.S. locks people up at a higher rate than any other country"

      "The US incarcerates the largest number of people in the world.
      The incarceration rate in the US is four times the world average.
      Some individual US states imprison up to six times as many people as do
      nations of comparable population.
      The US imprisons the most women in the world.
      Crime rates do not account for incarceration rates."

    2. It's obviously bullshit since North Korea is a prison, along with Cuba. China isn't much better and you certainly can't trust anything they say anyway. There's also the issue of justified prison since the U.S. has more blacks who for whatever reason commit violent crimes at rates other countries don't so comparing like populations of whites to Switzerland would be more revealing. Even if Saudi has lower prison rates because chucking gays off buildings and raping people is okay that's hardly a lofty goal. Or you could just have mass violence like Africa, no prisons= libertopia I guess. In reality it's probably about the same as most of Europe for similar demographics, but with fewer speech crimes.

      Yeah the U.S. Puts too many people in prison but anyone claiming that is a retard.

      1. Are you trying for bone-head of the week?

        "It's obviously bullshit since North Korea is a prison, along with Cuba. China isn't much better and you certainly can't trust anything they say anyway."
        Nice try at shoving them goal posts miles down the road. The question is not whether there are nasty governments, but whether the US incarcerates more than any other country in the world, either by percentage or sheer number.
        "In October 2013, the incarceration rate of the United States of America was the highest in the world, at 716 per 100,000 of the national population. While the United States represents about 4.4 percent of the world's population, it houses around 22 percent of the world's prisoners"
        Wiki; but don't bother 'cause YAY USA!

        1. So they're not prisons just places where people are kept against their will. Like John below you've decided that labor camps aren't prisons and therefore we can reduce the incarceration rate with them. So yeah herpderp Sevo, if other countries don't call their prisons prisons they aren't. I got a new healthcare plan, let's just call dead people, breathing impaired people and we'll have the longest life expectancy in the world.

          1. Possible Bot|10.26.16 @ 1:24AM|#
            "So they're not prisons just places where people are kept against their will."

            Do you really want to keep proving you're an ignoramus?
            The question involved those sentenced to a prison by the legal entities of a county, in which the US is a leader beyond any possible measure.
            And here you are trying to make some bogus argument that the population of Cuba somehow means that the the US incarceration population of 2.2M is equivalent?
            I want what he's smoking...

      2. It's obviously bullshit since North Korea is a prison, along with Cuba.

        That's not prison population, that's you going "well they're shithole dystopias so they should count as prisons".

        U.S. Prison Population: 2.2 million

        Chinese Prison Population: 1.6 million

        Not sure if they count the forced labour camps, but much of China's 'compliance' system is less "jail time" and more "these guys will kick the crap out of you and wreck your stuff if you don't obey". Same goes with North Korea and Cuba (and North Korea has a lot of...'prisoner turnover' in their camps). Also, China has a lot of executions. We're talking almost a hundred times the amount of the United States in 2014.

        1. Good point, if we turn our prisons into labor camps the prison population drops to zero.

          1. Possible Bot|10.26.16 @ 1:12AM|#
            "Good point, if we turn our prisons into labor camps the prison population drops to zero."

            Pretty sure no one here is gonna buy that happy horse shit. If you're not embarrassed you should be. But you're in bad company; the imbecile eddie is more than willing to join you in stupidity.

            1. no one here is gonna buy that happy horse shit

              Yet you have to buy that to get to the U.S. Having the highest incarceration rate in the world. I accept your apology.

              1. You are full of shit. Fuck off.

  60. Castle would stop War on Drugs: "monstrosity" - "disgrace."

    Mandatory sentencing - "as a lawyer," Castle knows that state prosecutors can extort guilty pleas by threatening federal prosecution and higher sentences.

    God is the only way.

    1. And Jesus is God. Therefore Jesus is the only way. QED

    2. Stuff your superstition up your ass.

        1. Stuff your superstition up your ass.

            1. Stuff your superstition up your ass.

              1. OMG, I can't believe you fell for it!

                I linked to Christopher Hitchens' classic work *God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything.*

                You just dissed your own atheism!

                1. Stuff your superstition up your ass.

                  1. Man, I just gave you an Internet wedgie and you're trying to nonchalantly walk away like it didn't happen.

                    1. Stuff your superstition up your ass.

                    2. I gotta visit your mother now...if the tomb's a rockin', don't come a knockin'!

                    3. Possible Bot|10.26.16 @ 1:12AM|#

                      Good point, if we turn our prisons into labor camps the prison population drops to zero.

                    4. Oopa. Reply to another ignoramus.
                      eddie, stuff your superstition up your ass.

  61. "People don't know that Iraq had free health care, free education..." before the embargo and the two wars.

    Libya was a progressive nation calling for union of African nations against U.S. imperialism, then Hillary destroyed that.

    US out of Puerto Rico, long live Palestine!


  62. Castle: "I find myself agreeing with my socialist friend on a few things, not all of them."

    1. Kadaffi wanted a gold-based currency, their gold mysteriously disappeared...

      Never change, Darrell.

      1. What's in the water in Boulder? Castle is saying JFK was planning to abolish the Fed and break up the CIA..."I'm no conspiracy theorist...."

        1. (And JFK was *totally* going to pull out of Vietnam)

        2. Look up thread. I said something about the People's Republic of Boulder. If you expect anything except good music and retarded politics out of Boulder, then, well, you don't know Boulder.

          1. Well, Castle is an East Tennessean, maybe he's been drinking too much of their moonshine.

  63. There's a Trolls movie.

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

    ........ http://www.jobprofit9.com

  65. TPP (yeah you know me)

    Socialist: Free trade sucks

    Castle: Free trade rulz, national sovereignty rulz, down with TPP and its anti-sovereignty provisions!

  66. Rocky: For good trade, the right trade, not wars, but NAFTA and TPP leaves out American workers

  67. 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

  68. Asner: Fight free trade if it impoverishes Americans

  69. Castle: Demopublicans can raise campaign $ from other countries and use State Dept. as a slush fund

    Unofficially and informally (and contrary to his own party's platform) he suggests that candidates be offered public funds which, if they accept, is to the exclusion of private donations.

  70. Rocky: Campaign reform and electoral reform. Dems stole election from Bernie.

    They'll steal your votes. Fire all the Congresspeople.

  71. Socialist: This is a capitalist democracy, not a real democracy. Capitalists and landlords can oppress the workers and the people.

    We need a people's democracy - all the wealth people create should be shared by all, owning the means of production

  72. Rocky: 70% of Obamacare can be salvaged, the rest is bad because Congress did it wrong.

    Malpractice insurance reform

    Then we can have socialized medicine!

  73. Socialist: The fatal flaw in Obamacare is it allows health insurance companies to charge what they want.

    Government must provide health care. "Nationalize the pharmaceuticals."

    Free medical education.

    "Unlimited mental health care."

  74. Castle: Obamacare sux, he doesn't know what he'd do, he'd consult experts - as a proud capitalist he'd use the free market

    1. Socialist rebuttal to Castle: The free market causes these problems, Cuba has free, quality health care. Every Cuban citizen has neighborhood doctors at a fraction of the American cost

  75. Socialist: Student strike for debt-free education!

  76. Castle: He's been a bankruptcy lawyer. If the govt didn't guarantee student loans, they would be dischargeable in bankruptcy. Should be dischargeable. Stop govt guarantees of these loans and of other things. Reduce cost of education, less extravagance at the universities.

  77. Rocky: Free global Internet education!

    1. No...a Virtual Reality University!

      But keep brick and mortar schools so you can have sports.

    1. I'm not alone in hoping it takes out SIV.

  78. Socialist: Free shit for students

  79. Castle: Education should neither be free nor involve a lifetime of debt.

    He's had jobs since he was 9, he worked his way through undergrad and law school, if college were cheaper that sort of thing would be possible today.

    There should be more online education

  80. Castle: Because he didn't beg or pander, his campaign has less money. 3rd party funds are burned up in the process of getting access to the ballot. Demopublicans set the rules, access to the ballot is for sale.

  81. The socialist wants a nationwide process for ballot access.

    The two capitalist parties run things.

  82. Castle on the tribulations of a 3rd party campaign.

    Corruption and lobbying decried - duopolists try to destroy 3rd party candidates because they won't play the game.

  83. Concluding statements

    Rocky: check out my Web site, I'm Catholic, my wife's Muslim, I got five kids, I feel your pain

    Socialist: Civil rights, abortion rights, equal pay, you must organize, votes for ex-prisoners and permanent residents - if Trump expels the Mexicans then food will be rotting in the fields, etc. (in other words, socialism?), we need revolution

    Castle: He wants a different kind of revolution - elect him President - that would turn the world upside down - if you think the unborn are entitled to 5th amendment protection and people have the right to educate your children as you see fit, that capitalism is the greatest system ever, that foreign interventionism is bad, consider him, otherwise any of the other candidates will do.

    The socialist says the other 3rd party candidates who didn't show up were being disrespectful.

    1. (Castle gives Johnson a verbal smackdown)

      1. Rocky wants a Hail Mary by which the 3rd party candidates capture various states.

        Asner: Praises the candidates who showed up, thanks the wonderful audience, praises Tobin (sp?)

  84. Oh, and Reason, thanks for covering Justin Timberlake's ballot selfie and Amanda Hudgens' (sp?) hair, while leaving it to one of the H&R trolls to liveblog a *Presidential Debate.*


  85. McMullins is popular because he is a religious nut job, like Pat Buchanan, and also appeals to the war-hawks who want to bomb anything that moves. He panders to the obvious, that we should not have invaded Iraq, by saying he was against it. Which is very questionable because he doesn't get that we have created ISIS by toppling the government in the M.E.. Nor does he see that if we left the area the goat herder that make up ISIS would get tired of cutting off the heads of their neighbours and instead worry about who is going to buy their if they've killed everybody.

    1. Goat herding is a respectable profession, sir.

  86. I accept Gary as the most libertarian thing we can get this year. But he's being willfully obtuse on the religious freedom thing. "Oh, I guess I'm just too pro-civil-rights for them!" Give me a break.

  87. Maybe when McMullin said that he wouldn't be running if Johnson were a true libertarian, he meant that if Johnson were a purer libertarian (and less agreeable to the majority of independents), he wouldn't be polling so well, and wouldn't be a threat to the establishment. So McMullin wouldn't have to run in order to prevent Johnson from being elected. He was speaking with forked tongue.

  88. Look, to mystical bigots straining to minimize or offset the law-changing effect of libertarian spoiler votes, a True Libertarian? has to want to ban not only abortion, but birth control pills, rubbers and diaphragms, foam, IUDs and patches. The upside is that in order to be the least bit convincing while denying individual rights to half of humanity they have to cleverly ape a good many libertarian platform positions.
    You know what they say about imitation...

  89. McMullen could throw darts at a map and wherever it landed he could find a reason we should have our troops invade.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.