Bill Weld

Bill Weld's Apostasy on Rachel Maddow's Show

Whose Veep is he anyway?


A candidate for Veep has two jobs: Dissing other candidates and shilling for his own. But Bill Weld seems to have fallen on both, I note in my morning column at The Week. Last week he was

Gage Skidmore via Foter

telling voters not to vote for Donald Trump rather than for Gary Johnson. This week he went further on the Rachel Maddow show and told voters to vote for Hillary Clinton rather than for Johnson. It's almost as if he's lost interest in his own candidate and is now vying to get back that ambassadorship to Mexico in the next Clinton administration that Jesse Helms blocked in the last Clinton administration.

This may sound cynical, but libertarians have every reason to be depressed:

The Libertarian Party was never going to win. However, it had a rare opportunity to exploit the sordid choices this election to propel itself from the margins and become a political force to be reckoned with. But thanks to Johnson's gaffes and Weld's apostasy, things haven't worked out that way.

Weld was a good gamble — but his Clinton-hugging is just a bad joke, which is a pity for his adopted party, his candidate, and the country.

Go here to read the whole thing.

NEXT: Bill Weld Criticized by Warm-up Speaker, Heckled by Audience Member at Rally (UPDATE: Rhode Island L.P. Withdraws From Weld Rally)

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

Please to post comments

155 responses to “Bill Weld's Apostasy on Rachel Maddow's Show

  1. "Weld was a good gamble"

    No, he wasn't. He was a bad choice, end of story.

    1. Yup. His statements on Madcow just confirm Libertarians concerns that he was bad, based on his history as a politician.

      1. You are both talking in hindsight. Most LP voters did not expect this level of treason from him, so yes, it was a good gamble, at the time.

        1. Nope. The posts are right here on H&R. I said it from the get go. No, I didn't expect him to pull any stunts like that, but I knew he was bad for the LP.

          1. What part of "most" don't you understand -- most of it?

            1. I think Hyperion's point is that Weld being a horrible candidate to nominate was obvious long before he was nominated to anyone who had done any due dilligence. Thus anyone paying attention would know he was a horrible gamble.

              I think your point, that most LP didn't know he would horrible does not contradict that statement; To people who hadn't done any vetting Weld might have looked like a great gamble.

              For the record, I think you both are right.

              1) Weld's entire career is full of episodes where he lets people who counted on him down. Hell, he fucked over the LP in NY a few years ago.

              2) A significant number of delegates for the LP convention got greedy and didn't really consider the madness of nominating Weld in their excitement at the prospect of finally breaking the 5% barrier. They thought it a good gamble because they were ignoring the warning signs.

              1. No, what I said was that most people, even those who thought he was a terrible choice, did not expect him to come so close to endorsing Hillary, that most people knew *at the time* that he was a gamble, and that it was not a horrible 100-1 longshot gamble. Obviously hindsight shows it was a horrible choice, but a gamble is before you know the results, and it was NOT a horrible longshot gamble.

                Trump vs Hillary is another gamble -- Hillary is guaranteed to do her damnedest to eviscerate the Constitution, spend like Obama was a miser, and probably be the most corrupt President in US history. Trump is so volatile, defocused, and disliked that he's unlikely to ever come up with a coherent plan, let alone stick with it, and Congress s likely to ignore his plans as much as possible. BUT he is volatile, and there is a chance he will fly off the handle and get the country into the swamp just by chance.

                It's the same thing, a gamble -- do you go for an almost guaranteed 1% LP vote, or take the chance on more and actually winning a state or two? Do you go with the guaranteed bad, or the likely not-so-bad possibly worse?

                Calling a past event a horrible gamble pretends current knowledge was known in the past.

                1. I agree with this. I really thought that Weld was savvy enough to understand that plan A (getting in debates and winning) might not work and that plan B (getting a third party viable in future so voters need not depend on D's and R's 'getting it right') was a very good outcome as well.

                  I don't mind him praising Clinton and dissing Trump if the question is about Clinton or Trump. But Maddow (a bit surprisingly) asked him an actual legitimate question - what should a voter in a swing state do vote lesser of evil D/R or vote L to get the 5%? And rather than hit that sort of question out of the park, he waffled and gave up.

                  Weld - the correct answer is - Your vote is always important and I can understand the hesitation to 'waste your vote' in swing states. But what is clear this year is that a lot of voters don't like the D or R nominees. There is an L option. This country desperately needs a viable third party when both the D's and R's screw up. And the reality is that an individual vote has a much higher chance of helping that third party to reach a critical threshold than it does of being a deciding vote between D/R. So even in a swing state, its important to vote libertarian this year.

                  I hope the LP convention asks the 2020 candidates about how they will respond to 'wasted vote' type questions from media. A bit more useful than all the crappy purity questions.

                  1. Even if the followup question from Maddow was 'the spoiler' question. eg - People who thought that way voted for Nader who spoiled the election. Do you want to be thought a spoiler who ends up electing Trump? There is an answer - even for Weld.

                    Weld - Rachel, you know I prefer that between Clinton and Trump that Clinton wins. I've worked with Hillary and I like her and blahblahblah. But this is politics and in politics you have to earn your own victories and earn the votes you get. You can't blame anyone else if you don't win. It would be silly for me to say 'vote L because it's important. Unless its actually important, then vote D'.

                    I suspect this is actually Weld's fear. Being potentially seen as a spoiler at his cocktail party circuit. And its possible that this could have been unearthed during the LP convention - if there wasn't so much ideological purity nonsense.

                2. "Calling a past event a horrible gamble pretends current knowledge was known in the past."
                  Not really what's going on here actually. Some people had the knowledge of, not specifically what Weld was going to do, but that he wasn't really sympathetic to libertarian ideas and that he wasn't a good candidate, for reasons which relate very closely to this recent event; most people may have refused to listen to such Cassandras, but that doesn't mean they have a right to throw their hands up and say 'well, you can't blame us, who could've known?"

                  So yeah, this does definitely vindicate people who opposed him from the start that were screaming that they should bet on someone else. Absolutely. It's not like he was a good running mate and by some fluke a bunch of child porn was found in his basement. People were saying he wasn't really 'with us/' And his remarks on Maddow just confirm this. It was a bad bet. Ignoring wisdom in the past only to realize its truth too late is not the same thing as 'there's no way anyone could've known.'

        2. Didn't he already stab the New York LP in the back years ago?

  2. Maybe he just didn't want to get the Ron Brown treatment. Brown was a Clinton campaigner and ally, but he apparently ran afoul of the Clintons. And Weld likes to be able to take an airplane places now and again.

  3. I think the quote has been sanitized. It should actually read 'bucket of warm piss'; Mr. Weld seems qualified.

  4. Shikha,

    You live in Michigan, VOTE TRUMP.

    1. Did you forget this is Sikha?

      Shikha Dalmia

      Shikha Dalmia is a senior analyst at Reason Foundation.

      Who are you voting for? There has never been a time when the Libertarian candidate has been so superior to the two sordid mainstream offerings. But this time I am seriously contemplating going with Hillary Clinton (provided she gets no worse) for the simple reason that there is no more important task than defeating Donald Trump.

      Kind of ironic for Sikha to be concern trolling over the ticket she's not even voting for.

      1. She's concern-trolling over Trump?

        1. Bill Weld.
          Why would she be upset that Weld favors Clinton, when she also favors Clinton?

          1. I'm glad you reminded me of that, Micro. I am glad she appears to realise what a terrible mistake The Gelded One is, despite his Cosmosis bona fides.


          2. There has never been a time when the Libertarian candidate has been so superior to the two sordid mainstream offerings.

            1. There has never been a time when the Libertarian candidate has been so superior to the two sordid mainstream offerings.

              She was referring to GayJay, not Weld. Notice singular, not plural. Not one of the Reason Editors in that Election Sewing Circle mentions the Veep noms, be it Kaine, Pence, or Weld.


              But this time I am seriously contemplating going with Hillary Clinton (provided she gets no worse) for the simple reason that there is no more important task than defeating Donald Trump.

              (emphasis mine)

              To infer that Shikha will accept Shrill-Bot over Troomp is pretty self-evident. Also, Shikha, has Shrill-Bot gotten sufficiently worse yet?

              1. He was referring to "the ticket," not Weld.

                Microaggressor was clearly wrong. She indicated that she wants to vote for Johnson, but may change her mind since she lives in a swing state and dislikes Trump that much.

                It's just more of the usual derp about how 90% of Reason is for Hillary.

          3. Considering voting for Clinton, and thinking Clinton is good or trustworthy, are two different things. Are the people here who've considered voting for Trump doing so because they think Trump's actually a good candidate? No, except for SIV and we all know he's retarded.

            1. I think John also thinks he's good because pissing off progressives and saying "fuck you" to the media is the most important thing there is in his worldview.

          4. Perhaps she believes Clinton has gotten even worse and has decided that Johnson is the way to go. If you are going to point to what she wrote as evidence of who she supports, you should probably believe all of what she says and not just the parts that support your assumption.

  5. But at least Hillary probably has the correct position (even if it's only her "private" position) on THE most important libertarian cause of all: unlimited immigration.

    1. As a Libertarian, I think the USA has every right to create and protect a border from armed invaders and persona non grata

  6. Very OT, but Dalmia's story is old news at this point -

    I can't wait for Trump TV (or MAGA News). It'll be all derp all the time (not that that's any different from CNN, MSNBC, etc.... just different principals and target audiences)

    1. On the plus side, Trump TV will suddenly make leftoids realize that maybe Fox News wasn't the work of the devil after all.

      1. True. I'm mostly looking forward to looking at the ever-widening gulf between "left" and "right" and explain that it's actually all just advocates for Statism (for "us" not "them", of course). Maybe the third way will become more clear once the two sides become more clearly authoritarian.

        1. You know who else advocated for a third way?

          1. Jack Tripper

          2. GK Chesterton. You're talking about GK Chesteron, right? This time I know it's Chesterton.

        2. That's crazy. Next thing you'll say is that fascism and socialism have some things in common.

      2. So basically Fox will just be Republican CNN, while Trump TV becomes Republican MSNBC??

        1. Yes, precisely. And it's going to be awesome/horrifying

          1. Plus Trump TV will have a swimsuit segment.

      3. A significant minority of Trump's support comes from libertarians.

  7. I'm planning to spend the next 5 days in an alcohol-induced stupor.

    1. I'm planning to spend the next 5 days 4 years in an alcohol-induced stupor.

      1. My god there's nothing more depressing than realizing we've got at least four years with one of these assholes.

        1. Has been and will be a lot more than 4 years and more than one of these assholes. Just sayin'

          1. Add in the last 8 years and you're working on decades of incompetent government.

        2. I had one of those moments the other day where you imagine the future. I imagine waking up to hear that Trump has been elected. That's really weird, and probably going to suck.
          Then imagine Hillary being elected. That's a lot less weird. Trump is really a surprise. But god damn that is going to suck.

          I've got to figure out how to stop caring.

          1. Part of why I kinda want Hillary to win is because then I think there may be some semblance of a 'return to normalcy' in the water cooler conversation realm of life at least. The lefties have such a boner for a vaginous president, and their ire is growing, so I fear that if Trump wins the blowback is going to be bad. Boxcars for cishet white males and such. It'll be all the bullshit of the week before voting day, but for four straight years.

  8. "A candidate for Veep has two jobs: Dissing other candidates and shilling for his own. But Bill Weld seems to have fallen on both,"

    It's either "seems to have fallen down on both" or "seems to have failed in both".

    1. And "Who's Veep..." should be "Whose Veep..."

      1. I thought it was "Whomse' Veep"

      2. English isn't her native language you racist pig.

  9. "Weld was a good gamble"

    No, a good gamble is doubling down against a dealer's 5. This was more like Russian Roulette.

    1. With a semi-automatic.

    2. with 6 bullets in a 6-shooter.

      1. While standing next to a pit filled with hungry crocodiles.

  10. Weld was a good gamble

    Nope. Even at the very beginning, when it wasn't an issue of 'expecting him to shill for the other teams', no one saw the potential upside.

    Matt claims that he somehow brought needed additional media-attention. I don't buy that. Gay Jay /Other would have been #3 in the race even if there were no Weld, and #3 would have gotten similar attention merely due to the exceptional awfulness of #1 and #2.

    The attention given has been adversarial regardless; having Weld along didn't diminish the dismissiveness and gotcha-bullshit.

    And Weld actually continued to act as though he had zero concern about the actual party he was running for - making statements about issues like Gun Control or others which were 180 degrees from the party line.

    He was a net-negative even before he became a turncoat. He did nothing good at all for Gary's campaign.

    1. I suspect Weld was a large factor in GayJay's repeated "flip-flops" where he'd take the wrong position first and then hastily clarify/walk-back/disavow etc. once the backlash started.

      1. That too. He was a terrible influence who didn't understand the niche he was filling.

        Everyone seemed to laud him as a good governor. But i think he misunderstood the praise he received for being a "compromise-governor" as indicating that he should run as a "compromise candidate", and try to get his primary candidate to pretend to be the same.

        He was a useless sack of self-important dogshit

    2. It did dilute the "who?" effect between two candidates rather than Johnson alone.

      1. that mattered for about 5 minutes in the very beginning of the campaign. 90% of the public doesn't know any politicians at all except the ones who've already been president... and many, not even those.

        I think there was a poll once that showed that about 5% of the public could name the attorney general of the country, and like 1% of their own state.

    3. To be fair, Weld framed himself as an extremely good fundraiser. And there's reason to believe he was. He simply didn't deliver on that.

      1. I will concede that as a legitimate reason to defend his nomination.

        In theory, he could have pulled in some bigger funds in. But he didn't. And i don't even think he necessarily tried, tho i don't really know.

        If he'd just kept his trap shut and ran around trying to get money, i would have argued he was an 'unfortunate necessity'. Instead he was like fart in the Libertarian-Party elevator.

      2. This claim is false.

        Johnson 2016 has brought in about $11.4MM to date, Johnson 2012 brought in about $2.4MM through the entire campaign. That's an order of magnitude higher with the only difference being the Vice Presidential candidate.

        There are many criticisms one can make of the VP nominee, but lack of fundraising skill is not one of them.

        1. That's an order of magnitude higher with the only difference being the Vice Presidential candidate

          well, that and the fact that the main-party candidates are Zombie-Hitler vs. Zombie-Stalin

        2. Is that turd shiny and burnished enough yet? You'll still have a hard time finding the clean end.

        3. But since most of that money came from small donors I doubt dick stick had much to do with it. He was supposed to be the "big bundler" ala the Clinton machine I thought. You fuck wits couldn't even get that out of him. Do the honorable thing and kill yourself.

  11. Weld was one of the first people to ring the alarm on Trump - "I can hear the glass crunching on Kristallnacht." He's a hero and a patriot. He is ensuring that the sacrifice of millions of Americans who fought and died for our freedoms was not in vain. He is doing exactly what he has to do. At least with Hillary we'll avoid the Trumpocalypse and have a country in 4 years (to hand to Rand Paul?). Yes his promise to beef up the FBI to track down terrists is misguided. No one's perfect.

    1. I'll be kind and presume this is sarc.

      1. I'll be kind and presume this is sarc.

        1. "I'll be kind and presume this is sarc."

          Awfully sorry. Didn't realize you're a fucking ignoramus.

      2. There's nothing sarcastic about it. Weigel is a manic-depressive, mentally ill JournoList. Almost the entire state of his well-being depends on Hildog winning the election. He may actually be one those poor souls who kills himself should Trump actually win.

        1. Nope - I'm voting for Rand Paul. I despise Hitlary, though I'd vote for her if I were in a swing state. Why? Because Trump is way worse.

          Jill Stein approves this message.

          1. How, for all his faults, is Trump 'way worse'? When did he take money from foreign govts while holding public office? When did he engineer the blowing up of a country like Libya? When did make a huge show of something that blew up so badly like the re-set with the Russians? And even Jill Stein takes Orange over Mao-suits.

            1. Trump has laid out systematic plans to undermine every clause of the Bill of Rights. He will launch new wars and witch hunt against illegals, black and muslims. And women. And anyone else the Trumpkins get excited about. Yes Hillary is bad. Trump is way worse.

              Jill Stein approves this message.

              1. He has done none of the kind, Donna. This may explain why CNN finds you toxic but the DNC believes you chairman material. Unlike Hillary, Donnie has no qualms with the Second Amendment, so your "every clause" talking point falls flat early. Thanks for playing.

              2. "Trump has laid out systematic plans to undermine every clause of the Bill of Rights."

                And a *lying* fucking ignoramus.

              3. Hillary has actively undermined the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.

                He mishandling of classified information is treason if you ask me. She purposely circumvented US IT procedures to try and protect classified information. It is reasonably safe to assume that the information was hacked by foreign agents. She is up there with Secretaries of State during FDR's era that allowed Russian spies to infiltrate the State Department either as one of the most incompetent appointees ever or she didn't give a fuck.

                Either way, Americans died because she made bad decisions and risked US security.

            2. When did he take money from foreign govts while holding public office?

              And Hil-Dog never has either.

              I know you wingnuts need to conflate the Clinton Foundation with her bank account but most of us don't.

              1. "And Hil-Dog never has either."

                See? See? I told you he was gonna get dizzy.

              2. Your tears will be delicious on November 8th.

            3. The only reason Trump hasn't made the same mistakes as Hillary is because he hasn't been in the position to yet.

      3. I'd use the word "unhinged".

  12. "Weld was a good gamble"

    Like Yudhistira gambled away Draupadi in the Mahabharata and got 14 years of exile instead, the LP gambled away better candidates and ended up with Bill Weld.

    1. Jesus, this is abstruse even for H&R....what the fuck are you talking about?!?

      1. The Mahabharata is right up there with the bible in fame.

  13. "but his Clinton-hugging is just a bad joke"

    something something pot meet kettle shika.

  14. "but his Clinton-hugging is just a bad joke"

    something something pot meet kettle shika.

  15. It's almost as if he's lost interest in his own candidate

    So he's only the second person on the ticket who has lost interest in Gary Johnson.

  16. Bill Weld rescued Johnson from further obscurity. He redeemed him during the town halls, even as Johnson kept diving into new steaming piles of stupidity. And Johnson knows this - he often implied that Weld was more qualified than him. That Johnson didn't fail even more miserably can be credited to Weld. I'm sure Johnson would be quick to admit that - he seems to have some awareness of his dopeyness. So Weld can do whatever the hell he wants at this point, as far as I'm concerned. The key is to avoid the Trumpocalypse.

    1. Weld is a LINO and he proved Libertarians correct in being suspicious of him. The Republicans have seen numerous RINOs expose themselves as Hillary supporters too.

      It why we need to drain the swamp!

    2. Your tears will be delicious on November 8th.

  17. Weld went from "disaffected Republican" to "disaffected disaffected Republican"

    1. Weld was a Republican and never a conservative. Conservatism is the disease that is rotting the GOP. Thankfully, Weld's conservative nemesis (Jesse Helms) is long dead.

  18. after all the buildup and all the manufactured excitement over a libertarian moment, it comes to this. It's not even like being told your blind date "has a good personality." At least with that, you know she may not be great looking but it might be fun anyway. This is more like "she's ugly, can't dance, but she makes up for it by being stupid."

  19. "It's almost as if he's lost interest in his own candidate and is now vying to get back that ambassadorship to Mexico in the next Clinton administration that Jesse Helms blocked in the last Clinton administration."

    This is exactly what I've been saying since the moment I heard about this.

    If Hillary Clinton will pay people to instigate violence at Trump events, there's no reason to think she won't stoop to patronage, and handing out ambassadorships in exchange for endorsements is as old as campaigning for President.

    I have two competing, mutually exclusive desires on this:

    1) Somebody ask Weld on the record:

    a) If he's been offered an appointment by anyone in the Clinton campaign

    b) whether he will accept any appointment offered by Hillary Clinton should she win.

    2) Stop talking about this.

    The more we discredit the Libertarian ticket by talking about Weld being a sell-out, the more Johnson supporters, with their disproportionately pro-Hillary demographics, will dump Johnson and vote for Hillary in swing states.

    I say we do the following:

    1) Stop airing out the LP's dirty laundry until after the election.

    2) If and when President Hillary nominated William Weld to an ambassadorship somewhere, we organize a grass roots campaign to deny him confirmation.

    1. a) If he's been offered an appointment anything of value by anyone in the Clinton campaign

      Clinton has a lot of strings she can pull. Something this publicly visible might be too toxic, and I think they're smart enough to know it. We should keep a close eye on Weld after the election.

    2. Kenny,

      The class of people who prefer Hillary over Trump yet nevertheless are supporting Johnson are not going to change their votes to Hillary because people with integrity denounce Weld's turning coat.

      Rather they are going to flee to Hillary because they see her support collapsing while Trump's holds steady. And Weld will have 0 effect on that.

      In the meantime, I doubt Weld is going to get any appointment at all. After all, should they betray him after the election, what's he going to do about it? Complain?

      1. Nothing in theory stops them from betraying Weld. But if the Clinton's want their promises of future favors to retain value, they'll live up to it.

        1. Their promises of future favors?!?

          Who will know?!?

          They fuck over people all the time, people who take the fucking quietly because if they complain their lives will be made even worse.

          Put yourself in Weld's shoes. How can he hold them to the promise? IF he complains that they didn't come through, he'll be a laughingstock. He literally has no power to enforce any agreement. If he complains, he will look weak and lacking in integrity.

          1. Every President appoints dozens, sometimes hundreds, of supporters and donors as ambassadors.

            I linked to some studies showing that a couple days ago.

            Yeah, the patronage system works on faith, but that faith is usually pretty well-founded.

            President Hillary Clinton will want people to know that she takes care of people who flip to her side and do her bidding.

            She doesn't have to say that out loud on camera.

            She just has to make Bill Weld the U.S. Ambassador to Italy.

            1. And why would she waste an appointment on Weld, when there are supporters whose continued loyalty she needs that also need appointments?

              1. There's plenty of gravy to go around, for those who've rendered service and those yet to do so. Yes politics is full of backstabbing, but patronage systems, categorically all patronage systems, operate on faith as the medium of exchange. Maybe he will be stabbed in the back. But I think there's a damn good chance Bill Weld will get something from Hilary, and if such promises were actually made, Bill Weld would certainly think there's a pretty good chance too.

              2. As I keep saying, . . .

                The Johson/Weld ticket has been drawing more supporters away from Hillary than it has from Trump. If the ticket loses credibility, those supporters will likely go disproportionately to Hillary.

                Weld/Johnson support is higher, as a percentage of the vote, than the spread between Hillary and Trump is a number of important swing states. If the LP ticket is discredited, there could be enough latent Hillary support there to put Hillary over the top in Ohio or Florida or both or both and more.

                Like I said, Johnson supporters are disproportionately young, female, and minority. If those people decide not to vote for Johnson, they're disproportionately vote for Hillary rather than Trump.

                And how many people are we talking about.

                Well, the LP usually gets 1% of the vote. That's from like Reasonoids.

                Johnson was getting 5%.

                That means 4% of the vote is up for grabs and likely to break for Hillary if they abandon Johnson/Weld.

                You don't think Hillary would trade an ambassadorship to Denmark for another 1% or 2% over Trump in Ohio and Florida?

                That could be the difference between winning and losing.

                1. You don't think Hillary would trade an ambassadorship to Denmark for another 1% or 2% over Trump in Ohio and Florida?

                  Not when she can trade vague, empty, promises of such an ambassadorship to a stupid old man for the same 1% or 2%. She'll save the actual ambassadorship to someone who can serve her purposes going forward.

            2. Yeah, the patronage system works on faith, but that faith is usually pretty well-founded.

              Not really. It works on the ability of the person patronized to deliver on some promise or threat in the future.

              And Weld has neither of those things. Put bluntly, there absolutely not a damn thing going forward Bill Weld can do for or to Ms. Clinton.

              If anything, leaving the old fool to twist in the wind is the safer avenue for her. She can claim his endorsement owed to her oh-so-obvious superiority, rather than a seedy quid pro quo. What's he going to do, out himself as a whore to try to collect?

        2. But if the Clinton's want their promises of future favors to retain value, they'll live up to it.

          From Weld?!?!

          HAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! (pauses to catch breath) HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

          What favors does he have to offer? He's blown the last of his credibility and no longer has any constituency.

      2. We're talking about disproportionately younger, female, and minority voters, here, who were hoping to vote with integrity.

        A lot of these people are people who didn't want to have to hold their noses and vote for Hillary, but why vote for a sell out to Hilary when you can vote for the real thing?

        A protest vote against Hillary isn't very effective when the guy you're voting for in protest is voting for Hillary.

        And if Hillary offered Weld something for his endorsement, it wasn't because she thought it wasn't likely to help her in swing states. These disproportionately younger, female, and minority voters will probably vote the same way the other people in their demographics vote--which is for Hillary.

        1. Oh yeah. It won't be the prospect of Trump maybe beating Hillary and the exhortations that they need to vote for Hillary to stop him at all costs that pushes them into Hillary's arms.

          It will be the news that a marginalized group of LP purists are calling out Weld for lying on Hillary's behalf.

          Kenny, you way overestimate the influence of libertarians on non-libertarians.

          1. "Kenny, you way overestimate the influence of libertarians on non-libertarians."

            You're ignoring the fact that 4/5 of the 5% of Americans who were supporting Johnson/Weld are not traditional libertarian voters.

            1. No I am not.

              The fact that most of Johnson's supporters are non libertarians who can't bring themselves to vote Republican or Democrat as they ordinarily would is central to my argument.

              If they decide to race back to voting for Clinton or Trump, it won't be because they hear people bitching about Weld saying Hillary was an honorable and trustworthy person. Even if every libertarian vociferously and loudly denounced Weld, most of those guys woulnd be oblivious to the phenomenon because there are so few of us!

              No, they'll flee because they think Trump or Clinton might win and the race is competitive. My guess is that the Trump-fearing Johnson supporters are going to break en masse for Clinton not because of anything Weld said, but because they get the news that Clinton's support is collapsing.

    3. What, because you think Johnson/Weld had a shot at the White House?

      What are you upset about? The man went on TV and told the truth. He's smart enough to know that Trump is absolutely unacceptable as president. And you don't have to be very smart to know that.

      1. "What, because you think Johnson/Weld had a shot at the White House?"

        If you ever want to lose the popular perception that you have no idea what we're talking about most of the time, you might want to do something about not knowing what people are talking about most of the time.

        1. You're not talking about anything. You let right-wing propaganda turn you into an anti-Hillary zombie. A guy on your team said something nice about her, and you shit your pants over it. I think I know pretty well what's going on.

          1. It's right wing propaganda that Hillary supported the Iraq War and was the architect of the illegal war on Libya?

            Everyone should take note that according to Tony, Barack Obama is a right wing propagandist.

          2. It is clear from the way you talk that your left-wing propaganda has turned you into a pro-Hillary supporter.

            You are a socialist and want to help enslave millions of free people.
            "We are against the political bourgeoisie, and for genuine nationalism! We are against Marxism, but for true socialism! We are for the first German national state of a socialist nature! We are for the National Socialist German Workers' Party!"

            -Written by Joseph Goebbels and Mj?lnir, Die verfluchten Hakenkreuzler. Etwas zum Nachdenken (Munich: Verlag Frz. Eher, 1932). Translated as "Those Damned Nazis," (propaganda pamphlet).

          3. "You're not talking about anything. You let right-wing propaganda turn you into an anti-Hillary zombie."

            Tony is only criticizing being anti-Hillary.

            Beyond that, Tony has no idea what I'm talking about and doesn't care what anyone is talking about.

            He's what political scientists call a "fucking ignoramus".

      2. "What, because you think Johnson/Weld had a shot at the White House?"

        Tony, this is about something totally beyond your understanding; it relates to a concept known as "principles".
        Please go back to your room and quit interrupting the adults.

        1. Yeah there are a lot of idiots who lecture me about principles and then claim that pissing in the wind on election day accomplishes something, so why should I believe what they have to say?

          1. Go, Trump, go!
            Go, Trump, go!
            Hey, America, what do you say
            The Donald is gonna win Tuesday

          2. "Yeah there are a lot of idiots who lecture me about principles..."

            Yeah, dimbulbs have a difficult time grasping the concept. We undeerstand.
            Now, please, go back to your romm.

        2. Sevo, leave him be.

          If Tony wants to shill for a corrupt neocon, it's really his own business.

  20. Thanks Weld. You have proved my point. ALL the pols and parties are corrupt to the core. Not just the 2 main crime families, Dumbs and repugs, but the Libs and the Green and the Commies and the ....
    As long as the average American believes their particular party is the answer, we will be mired in primitive tribalism and the country gets exactly what it deserves.
    "In a democracy people get the leaders they deserve." Although I would question the word leader.

    1. but the Libs and the Green and the Commies and the ....

      Washington State got the pleasure of including not one, but two socialist parties for the President race. And I think the communist one was there too.

      1. Correction: not quite.

        Unless you consider the Greens communist. I wouldn't blame you.

  21. Bill Weld only agreed to be on this ticket because he thought it would prevent a Trump presidency. He had no interest in growing the Libertarian party. He thought that the Libertarian party would be the anti-Trump party this year. When he realized this was not the case and the Libertarians were actually pulling more votes from Hillary, he basically gave up on being the Libertarian VP nominee. For as many gaffes as Gary Johnson has made, picking Bill Weld I think was the thing that hurt him the most. If he had a better running mate, a better VP pick would be able to mitigate the few missteps Johnson made.

    1. I think you've got it right. Preventing a Trumpocracy was Weld's real purpose. Johnson begged to have Weld as his running mate which says a lot about Johnson's judgment i.e. he has none.

      The idea of running two people with successful governorships under their belts seemed like a real winner especially against a semi-moron "Reality TV" host and someone with the anti-Midas touch that turns everything she touches into shit.

      The LP has really screwed the pooch with this nomination. Before they could argue that they just weren't well enough known to win an election. Now they're known as the intellectual suicide squad that nominated Mr "What's Aleppo?" and his sidekick "I think Hillary is better than Gary". There is no recovering from this.

      Yes, they raised a lot more money and may even get 2% of the national vote (based on the straight line decline since August). But what do people think of them now. Except for the military who appreciated the idea of interventions limited to self defense, most people regard the Libertarian party as polymorphous perverse pot heads.

      When Goldwater was massacred in 1964 many people began to realize that he had been right about a lot of things. The result was Reagan whose small government advocacy got him elected even if he never really implemented it.

      What will be the legacy of Johnson/Weld? In two years no one will be saying "I should have voted for Johnson!"

  22. Trump is that bad. Think back to 2003-07 when the Bushpigs put government growth on steroids with a GOP House and Senate. That same scenario would play out with Trump/McConnell/Ryan.

    A vote for Hil-dog is a vote for gridlock.

    1. That's crazy talk, even for you. All the assets in place to preserve Clinton through her past and present crimes will continue to prostrate themselves over her crimes of the future.
      If Trump wins, he'll be challenged at every turn by the MSM and the entire duopoly. That's the way to create some gridlock.

      1. Her "crimes"? Are you Kenneth Starr?

        The Clinton Foundation is a reputable charity. Yet it is the 21st Century version of Whitewater - nothing there but CT.

        Rag on her for her shitty politics but making up criminal conspiracies won't stop her election and won't get her impeached.

        1. "Her "crimes"?"

          Yes, and I have no doubt a boot-licker like you will spin yourself dizzy explaining them away.

          1. I believe in Due Process - something you Team Red! hacks do not understand or respect.

            1. Staying within the law doesn't means that she's honest. That's assuming that she actually did remain within the law which many people seriously doubt.

        2. "The Clinton Foundation is a reputable charity. Yet it is the 21st Century version of Whitewater - nothing there but CT."

          And who are you ?

          Loretta Lynch

    2. She'll executive order you some cake.

    3. He's still pretending he isn't a shitlib. Ain't that cute.

  23. Weld understood the basic immutable fact that his ticket was never going to win.

    Burn him, obviously.

    1. I wonder if Browns fans would prefer their team to just shake the other teams hands instead of striving to win the super bowl every year.

      Though perhaps that's a bad example on second thought. Cleveland fans might actually prefer a forfeit.

  24. There is petition movement underway to get Mr. Weld removed from the Presidential ticket. The National Committee has the power to do this, and if we act now we will get plenty of positive publicity for being a party of principle, and not a party of "politics as usual." There are close to 300 delegate signatures now. If you were a delegate to the 2016 National Convention please sign this petition, and forward it to all the other delegates you know.

    Then select "NLP action against William Weld"

    1. What's the point? His name is still going to be on all the ballots. And I think Sarwark said there's nothing the bylaws that allows them do that this time.

    2. So your response to Weld trashing the LP ticket is to trash the LP ticket yourself? Better to just let this pass -- it's not like MSNBC has that many uncommitted voters watching, anyway. All this would do is dredge up more negative publicity for Johnson, and it's too late to change the ballots anyway (early voting has been going on for a while now). It's not like Weld is actually going to be elected Vice President; this goes away in less than a week.

    3. Too little, too late. How about if you had done the due diligence before nominating this fuck tard as the VP candidate? Would that have been so hard? It's not like he hasn't fucked over the LP before now is it? You people have set the cause back decades at least. I hope your all proud of yourselves. You will never get another vote from me.

  25. Watch Now....!!! Recomended Streaming Online :
    If This Sound Good For You
    Latest Update More HD Quality Movie Available Here:
    ? ? ? ? ? ?
    Happy & Enjoy to Watch For Free

  26. Jill Stein, a commie green, called Clinton the "Queen of Corruption" in a Bloomberg interview, yet the libertarian VP "vouches" for Hillary. This, indeed, is one strange year.

  27. I actually think he helped Trump. The polls indicate the support drifting away from Johnson got picked up by Hillary. Democrats who remain Johnson supporters aren't going to be swayed by an endorsement of their party's candidate.

    But it is really difficult to imagine many registered Republicans sticking with the ticket at this point. Obviously, not all of them will go to Trump, but they are going to go anywhere but Hillary, and that group does include Trump.

  28. Fuck him

  29. Weld was a good gamble


  30. Nobody going to point out Dalmia calling dire opinions about Trump "objectively true", or am I the only idiot who read the whole thing?

  31. am I the only idiot who read the whole thing?

    *points, laughs*

  32. Clintocracy versus the Trumpocalypse!

    Not exactly Adams versus Jefferson.

    Rand Paul, Mike Lee, Justin Amash, Thomas Massie - take some speaking lessons and push back against the tide of stupid that's engulfing the country. Forget about running for president. Just start moving that damned Overton Window towards liberty.

  33. Hey, anyone else see the new Aziz Ansari ad on youtube telling us we're idiots if we don't for Hillary? It's started interrupting my youtube experience. I would swear, if I had a higher opinion of the Trump campaign's tactical prowess, I'd suspect they put that little twat on there to try to get people to vote for Trump.

    I'm tryin', Ringo, I'm trying real hard, not to vote for Donald. But these assholes are fucking baiting me to do it.

Comments are closed.