Election 2016

The Libertarians Reluctantly Voting For Hillary Clinton Because #NeverTrump

Fear of a Trump presidency has put a number of libertarian-ish thinkers "with her."

|

Yeah, this hurts us too.
MOLLY RILEY/UPI/Newscom

It's Election Day and for a significant number of politicos, intellectuals, writers, artists, and other notables in the libertarian-ish sphere of thought, it's a day few expected: the day they vote for Hillary Clinton for president.

They are all generally united by a profound revulsion at the prospect of Donald Trump occupying the White House for the next four years. Some suggest the very fate of the American experiment is at stake, some point to a desire to see Trump's race-baiting demagoguery soundly rejected by overwhelming numbers in the popular vote, others cited a responsibility as swing state voters to make their protest vote against Trump one that has the best chance of hindering his potential election.

We've rounded up a cross-section of notable libertarian (and fellow traveler) reluctant Clinton voters below.

Legendary illusionist and longtime friend-of-Reason Penn Jillette says he swallowed his pride and voted for Clinton in the hotly contested state of Nevada after convincing "about 11 or 12 people" in deep blue states to pull the lever for Gary Johnson in exchange for his vote for the Democratic candidate. Jillette admits he felt "pretty shitty" about casting a vote for someone he doesn't want to be president, but admits that peer pressure convinced him that Clinton "is not as apt to blow us to kingdom come with nuclear weapons as Trump."

Former National Lampoon editor, author, and Cato Institute fellow P.J. O'Rourke was an early conservatarian member of the #NeverTrump bandwagon, even if it means voting for "Jimmy Carter in a pantsuit." Writing in The Daily Beast, O'Rourke declared, "Better the devil you know than the Lord of the Flies on his own 757. Flying to and fro in the earth, with gold-plated seatbelt buckles, talking nativist, isolationist, mercantilist, bigoted, rude, and vulgar crap." O'Rourke said on NPR's Wait Wait…Don't Tell Me he thinks Clinton is "wrong about absolutely everything, but she's wrong within normal parameters." He also thinks a Clinton presidency will be an inadvertent "miracle" for conservatives, leading to a "Second Coming" of the GOP.

Three writers at The Washington Post's libertarian legal blog Volokh Conspiracy each expressed their intention to vote for Clinton as motivated primarily by their aversion to Trump.

Ilya Somin wrote, "a Clinton victory would not make either major party significantly worse than it currently is, while a Trump victory might well result in the GOP becoming a white nationalist Republican Party far more hostile to freedom and constitutional restraints on government power than previously."

Orin Kerr says that he'll vote for a Democrat in a presidential election for the first time since college because despite Clinton's big-government spendthrift tendencies, she "understands and has internalized the norms of constitutional governance," while Trump is " the anti-constitutionalist candidate."

David Post says he understands some Trump voters' desire to blow up the whole damn system, but he warns soberly, "after the pleasure of having delivered the message wears off, we will all be saddled — indeed, the world will be saddled — for many years with a chief executive who is, by any and every criterion of judgment — personal integrity, temperament and understanding of the world — unfit to lead this country."

Andrew Sullivan, who has openly loathed Hillary Clinton for decades, now says he will vote for Clinton because Trump is a "unique actor who could deploy demagogic talent to drag an advanced country into violence and barbarism."

Business Insider's Josh Barro not only plans to vote for Clinton but also abandoned his longtime affiliation with the Republican Party to become a Democrat in part because, "the Republican Party was hijacked by a dangerous fascist who threatens to destroy the institutions that make America great and free, most Republicans up and down the organizational chart stood behind him and insisted he ought to be president."

Former talk show host and erstwhile Republican Montel Williams wrote in a USA Today op-ed, "As much as I wish the system wasn't stacked against the Libertarian ticket, it is, making it an unrealistic means of stopping Trump. That leaves Clinton."

Finally, The Atlantic's civil libertarian Conor Friedersdorf penned a long essay rebuking an article he wrote defending his own support for Gary Johnson in 2012 "that argued against holding one's nose that year and voting for the lesser evil." Now, Friedersdorf writes:

Clinton is running against a kind of candidate and campaign I did not consider in 2012, one worse than anything I imagined possible in the America of 2016. Trump is as useless as anyone else when it comes to reforming post-9/11 excesses. He wants to take torture farther than Bush, while Clinton seems unlikely to restart torture at all; he urged the invasion of Libya, like her, and though few realize it, he frequently takes positions as hawkish as any member of the Washington elite. Even now, he wants to seize foreign oil fields and kill family members of terrorists. He is no more likely than she is to reform NSA surveillance or drone killings, and is more likely, in my estimation, to transgress against norms now constraining their use.

I am voting for Hillary Clinton because whether my vote rewards her or not matters far less to me than whether it prevents Donald Trump from four years of stoking ethnic anxieties of whites, disparaging Hispanics and Muslims, insulting women from the biggest bully pulpit in the nation, destabilizing the economy and the world order, feuding on Twitter when he ought to be focused on the nation's problems, and generally causing much more harm and misery than the country or the world would have had to suffer if voters had been sensible enough to defeat him.

I'm not "with her."

You can see who Reason writers and other "libertarian-relevant human beings" are voting for here.

Advertisement

NEXT: High school student allegedly ordered to change out of 'Hillary for Prison' T-shirt

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. As I told my boss yesterday, the only principled stand if you don’t like a candidate is to NOT VOTE FOR THEM.

    1. This x1000.

      1. x1000 – just like this comment thread

        1. At least the clicks ‘n comments will go to a good cause, instead of Shiksa’s click bait and Soave’s Stable of Robby Horses.

      2. Fully agree. Also, thanks to Anthony Fisher for a concise list of people I will never take seriously in the future.

        1. I don’t know how exactly Penn’s ballot-swapping worked, but doesn’t he have absolutely no way of knowing those other people didn’t also wind up voting for Clinton? If somehow he did know for certain that they voted for Gary, which I don’t think would be legal, then I guess it’s okay. I hope these #NeverTrumpers at least vote Republican in the close Senate and House races to block Clinton.

          1. Like a good Vegas man, he’s playing the odds. Once he got to first dozen, he can safely assume at least one person did not renege. Everything above that is pure win.

            1. Actually it’s only a win if he got multiple people to verifiably vote L in states where those votes are actually needed for both ballot access in those states and the national 5% fedfunding. LP can’t afford to ‘swap votes’ when the very act of swapping also sends the message ‘Vote L if its meaningless but if its important vote D/R’. That is a deadly message and he’s one of the few L celebrities so it hurts doubly.

          2. They also don’t know that he actually voted for Hillary. Maybe he announced that he did publicly to further lock in their votes for Gary.

          3. Anyone know how many voters paired off under that balanced rebellion thing?

            1. No.

              All I found just now was the original video and the regular link.

              If you find anything, PD, I am interested in learning of what transpired.

              1. I think Matt reported a preliminary figure a few weeks ago. Hopefully he’ll provide an update

        2. P.J. ” wrong within normal parameters” O’Rourke: Dead to Me.
          Penn “not as apt to blow us to kingdom come” Gillette: Dead to Me

          1. I used to be a fan of PJ’s writing. No more. He’s dead to me, too.

          2. Re: Penn
            Exactly my sentiment when I read that article this morning.
            Yah dead ta me Penn, dead ta me.

    2. Thanks for that

    3. Exactly.

      Wtf was that, Sullivan? You have no balls. She gets the last and eternal laugh on you.

      1. I stopped paying attention to Sullivan years ago.

      2. I stopped paying attention to Sullivan years ago.

    4. I haven’t filled out my ballot yet, who should I not vote for?

      1. You should not vote for Commies.

        Given that you live in Seattle, that probably means eating the ballot.

        1. You should not vote for Commies.

          Given that you live in Seattle, that probably means eating the ballot.

          In most places they run that’d be a vital source of nutrients.

          1. And fibre.

    5. pretty much. How someone can use libertarian (even with an ish) and vote-for-Hillary in the same sentence is oxymoronic on a weapons-grade level.

      1. No libertarians were listed here.

        Most libertarians are with Trump because Hillary is calling for much bigger government than him in nearly every facet.

        1. Really? Penn Jillette has ridden the l-train, large and small, for a long time.

        2. “Libertarians” voting for Trump is oxymoronic on a slightly, but not much, lower weapons grade level.

          Sorry, but if you are voting for Trump, you are making just the same sort of compromise and rationalization.

          I tend to agree that Trump is slightly less worse for several reasons. But none of those reasons are that Trump sounds the least bit appealing to a libertarian.

    6. Nobody cares about whether you were principled for 5 minutes in a private booth.

      1. Morals are for knuckle-draggers, amirite?

      2. You seem to care quite a bit.

      3. Maybe – just maybe – he does, cockroach. Although I’m sure the concept of personal honor and integrity is completely foreign to the likes of you.

        1. Tony doesn’t believe in morality. He calls himself a pragmatist, but he’s not actually smart enough for that to mean anything. It’s sad.

  2. but admits that peer pressure convinced him that Clinton “is not as apt to blow us to kingdom come with nuclear weapons as Trump.”

    Where did this idea ever come from? Clinton has a documented history of warmongering, whereas Trump has said/done what, exactly, that lends any credence to this fear?

    1. That he intends to stop being the world policeman and to end alliances for which we gain nothing but liability, which of course would lead directly to the Norks, Chinese and Russians all simultaneously launching a preemptive nuclear strike.

    2. I’m with you on this, wtf are people thinking here?

      1. They are worried about his “temperament”.

        Of course I’ve read many stories about Hillary losing it and blowing up on people close to her in public, while Trumps closest aides have nothing but nice things to say.

    3. Where did this idea ever come from? Clinton has a documented history of warmongering, whereas Trump has said/done what, exactly, that lends any credence to this fear?

      Forget it, they’re all rolling.

    4. Yeah Trump knows that thermonuclear war is great for global hospitality/country club/golf course business! [sarc]

    5. Also this big nuke button, it has gotta be an app now, right?

      1. I see you’re not familiar with the state of government technology. Unlike what the movies would have us believe, most government technology is shit that was obsolete before ever going operational thanks to the ridiculously long development times. They don’t even know what these “apps” that the kids are always talking about these days are: “Is that a reference to appetizers? How are snacks going to help?”

        1. So it is really just a lever in a basement somewhere that doesn’t even work? Well that’s disappointing.

          1. that doesn’t even work

            Which is actually quite fortunate because maintenance personnel accidentally pulled the lever years ago and now its rusted stuck in the “Doomsday” position.

            1. From my time in the Navy, I can honestly say that you REALLY don’t wanna know how close you’ve come to the truth.

              *shudders*

              Let’s just say that I don’t always drink to forget only about my exes.

              1. Swamp Rat,

                On a couple of occasions I’ve interrupted one of my buddies (who is in the Navy) to insist that he keep me ignorant of his experiences and impressions.

                I shall omit details, yet some of his (pre-interrupted) anecdotes reminded me of the time I worked on an Army base, which in turn reminded me of this scene . The beginning isn’t as significant as what begins around the 1:19 mark.

                *toasts Swamp Rat with a bottle of purified water*

                1. I was a bit horrified when I learned the ICBM codes were set to all zeros.

                  1. “That’s AMAZING! I have the same combination on my luggage!”

                    1. Funny thing is, that was also the administrative password to Hillary’s server…

                    2. By the way, congratulations on your ode to Reno this morning. I think you’ve been accepted as an acolyte to His Saccharineness

                    3. My thoughts and prayers are with me.

                  2. I always interpreted that as a bureaucratic workaround. Some Air Force general’s boss told the general that he had to add some additional layer of security (codes) to his ICBMs when the general felt that his ICBMs were already perfectly secure, so he followed the letter of the law while avoiding the additional hurdle to launch.

    6. I think the idea that Trump would use nukes come from this.

      That being said, Clinton is definitely far more likely to get us involved in Yemen’s civil war, Syria’s civil war, and possibly a conventional shooting war with Russia thanks to her idiotic “no fly zone” idea.

      1. And her desire to appear strong despite being weak and completely incompetent. She’s dangerous.

        1. Not to mention her neurological problems, her drinking, her top aide’s connections with Islamists, her bad temper in private, her weird psychodynamics with Bill, etc….

          1. And her idiotic commitment to R2P (responsibility to protect).

            1. Great. I had forgotten about Samantha Power. I’ll bet Shrill-Bot keep her and the other Weird Sisters of War around for all the invadin’ and protectin’ they plan on unleashing.

              1. I expect this coven to be in charge of the State Department.

        2. It’s the incompetence that stands out. How anyone misses her legacy of failure is mind-boggling.

          1. There’s a part of me that thinks if Hillary wins, the shitstorm that’s coming sometime in the next couple of years will at least be blamed on her — she’ll be this century’s Herbert Hoover.

            But given the one thing that Democrats are good at — mostly thanks to their lickspittle dominating the media — is putting blame for their failures on others, I fear that somehow no matter how bad she screws up, the blame will end up being on Bush (or maybe even Reagan).

    7. And why is he buying into it? Doesn’t he know a ruse when he sees one?

      1. “I don’t appreciate your ruse, ma’am.”

        1. Oh, nice one , Thomas.

    8. “Where did this idea ever come from? Clinton has a documented history of warmongering, whereas Trump has said/done what, exactly, that lends any credence to this fear?”

      Same place as the claim he’s going to round up the Jooz and toss ’em in camps; voices in peoples’ heads.

    9. This is part of why I c spider so many people so stupid.

    10. Trump has been successfully framed as crazy/impulsive/unhinged. His general style doesn’t help this. So people genuinely have it in their head that Trump would react to a minor slight by launching his full arsenal.

      1. Much as a detest Trump, that narrative pisses me off to no end. Even if he were unhinged and ordered a nuclear strike on some country whose leader slighted him, I don’t think it’s a matter of sulking off to the oval office and pushing some red button and that’s it. That’s from cheesy movies. In reality, I’m sure he’d have generals talking him down and, ultimately, military people who suddenly discover their communications systems are on the fritz and orders are not being relayed.

        Contrast that to a certified warmonger who wouldn’t miss any opportunity to get deeper and deeper in any conflict, anywhere, and wouldn’t hesitate to bomb Russian anti-aircraft installations and shoot down Russian jets.

        It’s a conventional war between nuclear armed states, gradually ratcheted up, which is likely to lead to a nuclear incident: not some president getting incensed because some other leader called him a nasty name.

        1. That is a good point. I had never thought how profoundly insulting to the military that claim is. Do these assholes actually think that a President could just one day go Jack Ripper and order a nuclear strike for no apparent reason and without any consultation or okay from Congress and the military would just go “Roger that sir” and do it?

          Trump really has laid bare for the entire world just how stupid and delusional our media and political classes are. Who actually thinks that? Or even if you didn’t, who thinks claiming something that self evidently stupid is a good idea and is going to convince people not to vote for Trump?

            1. That changes everything.

          1. Wel, back in 2012, a friend told me that his son’s friends (20 somethings) opposed Romney because if elected he would “ban birth control”. So people believe all kinds of stupid shit.

    11. Should have listened to Scott Adams. It’s all about persuasion.

    12. Completely agree. Remember the old joke about 1964-“They told me if I voted for Goldwater, there will be war. Well, I voted for Goldwater, and sure enough, there was war.”

    13. Last time I checked Clinton was antagonizing the Russians, not the Trump-Duck.

  3. TL;DR version:

    GOOBLE GOBBLE, GOOBLE GOBBLE

    ONE OF US! ONE OF US!

    1. Pretty much, yeah.

      On the other hand, if there’s a group of people whom are more likely to _say_ they’re voting for someone without ever actually going to bother actually voting for that person, this might very well be that group.

  4. Sorry, but trotting out clinton voters who call themselves libertarians won’t convince me to vote for her. They have about as much influence over my choice as the shills in Hollywood (in other words, zero).

    Seeing as there is at least 1 supreme court seat (most likely more) on a divided bench makes it impossible for me to vote clinton, no matter how much I detest Trump.

    1. Yep. That , and her ineptitude likely causing a war with Russia are two major reasons why anyone who votes for Clinton is a traitor to the republic, the constitution, and humanity.

    2. trotting out clinton voters who call themselves libertarians won’t convince me to vote for her

      I’m pretty sure that is not the aim of this post.

  5. You fucking people are delusional. I get voting for Johnson. I get not voting. I can even understand a fuck you vote for Stein, because what the hell!

    So don’t vote for Trump. Fine. But, to actually vote for Hillary because she is bad “within normal parameters” is asinine.
    The Republican is a blowhard and a bit of a prick.

    Clinton is probably the worst example of corruption in modern American politics. SHE is the one who wants to enforce a no-fly zone in Syria, which could trigger a shooting war with Russia (all while protecting ISIS!). SHE is the one who will try to overturn Citizens United and completely reduce the 2A (with several SCOTUS picks, she will probably succeed in both).

    But after all, he calls people names and is vulgar so we CAN’T vote for him.

    1. You know, if Trump just let his opponents campaign for him as “libertarians” above, he coulda won. But nooo, he had to open his damn mouth….

      1. And gnaw on his toes until the blood ran.

        1. After which he starts grabbing other people’s feet (they let him!) and showing them into his mouth, too.

    2. Personally, all these people above abandon their right to criticize her afterward. They knew full damn well who they voted for.

      O’Rourke especially disappoints me. Down a notch.

      1. ANYONE who votes for Clinton is our enemy and should be made to suffer as much as possible.

      2. Yeah, P.J. is the biggest disappointment to me. Trump is to a great degree an embodiment of the Republican Party Reptile, but now P.J. goes all Beltway establishment.

          1. So is Ron Paul. Age has nothing to do with it.

            These bozos listed are just the tip of the iceberg of the SJWfication of the USA, assuming they are all telling the truth, instead lying just to curry favour with those stricken with Cosmosis. (Which would be even more reprehensible, IMHO).

      3. Exactly. At least lie, and say you didn’t.

        1. Indeed. It has worked for Shrill-bot for nigh of 4 decades. Why not be even more like her? Everyone likes being associated with a winner, right?

      4. Has he stuck with what he said? I have no idea. But it is worth remembering that the “wrong within normal parameters” statement was on a comedy game show on NPR.

    3. Like having SCOTUS picks until 2024 will have any effect on the country.

      1. That is the one issue sitting out there, but I still voted for Johnson. Nothing is going to change for the better unless we start exhibiting signs of displeasure. Frankly, I think the LP should focus on being a protest vote.

        1. Nothing is going to change for the better unless we start exhibiting signs of displeasure.

          Free Shit(tm) is the antidote to those rumblings, Pro’L Dib. TEAM BE RULED counts on it, and it nixes all sorts of electoral unpleasantries.

          Frankly, I think the LP should focus on being a protest vote.

          When Free Shit(tm) doesn’t work, then they release the Kraken send out the SJW horde to reeducate their peers, be it in person, or within the Social Media Laandsrad.

          Face it, the USA is pretty much the United Kingdom of America (without a Parliament), as the parallels to Euro-landia are too great to ignore otherwise.

          1. It’s as much about a cultural change as anything else.

            1. Yes, but in which direction? SJWfication and prudent fiscal policy are naturally repellant. SJWfication *always and without FAIL* leads to, “It’s not freedom unless there’s an app for it and subsidised by EVERYONE!”

              1. Well, my point is that we need to have a change toward more libertarian and free market values, or nothing good will happen. At least, not as far as the government is concerned.

      2. Has the 2020 election been cancelled or something?

        Leaving aside whether Trump would be any better with SCOTUS picks. Yes, I know he read a list handed to him by somebody else — that doesn’t bear any relationship to what he’d actually do in office.

    4. You fucking people are delusional.

      Who are you addressing?

  6. Clinton seems unlikely to restart torture at all

    Oh, you stupid, stupid people.

    1. Funny story. It was The Atlantic that eventually led me to Reason, through a McArdle detour.

      That cannot happen anymore.

      1. At least you didn’t have to detour through National Review like I did.

        1. Was Mark Steyn a columnist at the time? He at least knows how to write well.

          1. I like Kevin Williamson

            1. Actually, I often enjoy reading Jonah Goldberg.

              1. I like Goldberg too. Williamson wasn’t there when I was – he’s hit or miss for me.

                But it was mostly their socon & warmongering positions that drove me away. Well, that and one too many Catholics in the kitchen.

                1. Goldberg is okay but he is basically George Will with fart jokes. And Williamson is just a hack. He is a hack hacking for things I mostly agree with but a hack none the less.

                  The people who need to go at NRO are David French and Kathryn Jean Lopez. Both of them are smug, moralizing assholes who make up for it by being stupid.

                  1. Jesus, John. You knocked the cover off the ball on that one. On the other hand, I’ve been gone from NRO for almost a decade and find I don’t miss it, so their staffing choices affect me about as much as TNR’s, which I also don’t read.

                    1. Thanks Brett. I appreciate that.

                  2. Definite yes on French.

                    1. He was OK as the nanny for Buffy and Jody.

                  3. Both of them are smug, moralizing assholes who make up for it by being stupid.

                    Yeah, I could not have put it better myself.

          2. Not there. This was more than 10 years ago, so there’s that.

          3. I always thought that regardless of your political leanings, Steyn is a great and entertaining writer. If you don’t like the politics, read his movie reviews.

            1. Me too. I don’t always agree with him but he never bores me and I never feel like he is being dishonest. I can’t say that about many writers.

              1. This is why I visit his blog every day. He is…strident on issue of Muslim immigration but at least he knows how to write, he knows how to persuade, and, as his movies and music posts show, he’s able to appreciate things in life without tainting them with politics.

                I’m seriously tempted to take the $100 I had slated for Reason pledge drive and redirect it at him, to stave off Mann’s lawfare by….what, 45 minutes?

        2. Yeah. Back when Buckley was still alive to rein in KJL.

    2. If anybody but Bush had been doing the torturing we would have never heard of it since for them its party over national security

  7. I don’t really have any respect for any of these rationales. At least point out some things Clinton would do that are good (I know, difficult).

    It’s people like these who cement the belief that two bad parties are the only possible victors.

    1. At least point out some things Clinton would do that are good

      That is the whole point here – no one can do that, just like no one can point to worthy accomplishments. Because none exist. There is no secret how Hillary would govern. Past performance is a good indicator of future expectations, and let me join the amen! chorus in saying I will have zero time for those who bitch about her after making her election possible.

  8. but admits that peer pressure convinced him that Clinton “is not as apt to blow us to kingdom come with nuclear weapons as Trump.”

    That’s interesting. Regarding Clinton, I’ve never seen a candidate more hungry for war and more nonchalant about starting another one with a major nuclear power, whereas with Trump I don’t recall any Republican nominee in my lifetime that was more vociferous about scaling back US intervention and military entanglements. But yeah Clinton is totally the safer choice on the issue of nuclear war…

    Peer pressure can convince people of all kinds of dumb shit I guess.

    1. Remember, Goldwater was going to turn the world into a nuclear wasteland.

      But who was it that got us into a proxy war with the Soviet Union that ended up killing tens of thousands of Americans?

      1. Don’t forget the hysteria over Reagan starting ww3

        1. Instead Reagan brought all that horrible peace and prosperity. The bastard!

          1. There seem to be a whole lot of people who fundamentally do not understand “peace through strength” or else think, for whatever demented reason, that the U.S. is singularly responsible for starting and ending all wars, as though every person outside of our borders lacks moral agency (but that’s totally not a condescending, self-centered attitude, no sirree). Peace reigns when no one wants to fight. You can’t control what other people want, only influence them through incentives. Make it painful enough to start a fight and few people will do it.

            1. something about incentives come to mind here, doesn’t it.

            2. As one who is large and powerfully built, I understand the value of having the capacity to intimidate an antagonist into less or non-aggressive forms of action. A principal that absolutely applies to dealings with regimes lead by aggressive strong men.

              1. Yes, but how regularly do you persue regime-change when somebody get the last donut?

        2. Well, not yet. I’m sure when it finally happens, revisionists will point to something the Gipper did or said.

          1. That Genesis video with the puppets will be mistaken for a documentary, revision complete.

            1. I thought it was Peter Gabriel. Same difference. But you’re right. That’s how retarded it gets.

              1. It was post-Gabriel Genesis.

                But its easy to see how you confused the two, as they were once one and the same.

                1. It’s like you all are living in the land of confusion.

                  1. But its easy to see how you confused the two

                    Sacrilege!

                    *dons flower suit*

                    1. Seconded. In no world could I imagine confusing the two.

      2. Hitler?

  9. And you thought Bill Weld was bad. Anyone voting for Clinton (or Trump) is voting for the opposite of liberty, in exchange for the near zero chance that their vote will affect the outcome.

  10. And the bullshit about invigorating the GOP. We heard that in 2008 when it was McCain, and again in 2012 when it was Romney. And yes, the GOP took the House back, and recently the Senate. But, ObamaCare STILL GOT PASSED.

    1. And isn’t the GOP very vigored?

      1. “But, ObamaCare STILL GOT PASSED”
        Thanks to Al Franken, who won by 300-odd votes on a recount. A recount that had all kind of shenanigans including felons voting. Had Franken’s opponent won, the Senate would have been 1 vote short of the number needed to pass ObamaCare.

        1. as I recall those 300 odd votes came from one location as well

          1. Ballot box coveniently forgotten in the trunk of a car. They didn’t all come from there though.

    2. And those pussies, McConnell and Ryan, didn’t do a fucking thing to stop it. They need to go.

      1. The idea that Congress could have done anything about it is one of the stupidest memes out there, and the persistence of this myth is one of the main causes of the GOP base turning to a very winnable election over to a neophyte with a penchant for sticking his foot in his mouth on those rare occasions when he actually dislodges it from his own ass.

        1. Because Congress was required to fund it? Because Congress is just a debate society instead of a co-equal branch of govt? Because Congress could have blocked Medicaid expansion? The base turned to Trump in large part because the Congress did less than nothing. It bitched, it threatened, it promised, and those hayseeds voted Pubs into a majority only to be let down, much like Browns’ fans.

          1. Because Congress was required to fund it?

            They couldn’t have defunded shit; Obama would have shut the government down even if they tried and then would blame the old people not getting their SS checks on those Republican meanies in Congress (to which the press and public would near universally agree). Throngs of moderates would jump to the Democrats and turn even safely red seats blue, unchaining Obama for another period.

            The GOP made a calculated gamble that they would win the Presidency in 2016 and gut Obamacare on either the first day of the new administration or wait it out until 2018 when they held wide majorities in both chambers. Their shortsighted base went “RABBLE RABBLE WHERE MY COUNTRY GONE!?!?” and threw a wrench in their cunning plan.

            Because Congress is just a debate society instead of a co-equal branch of govt?

            Once laws are passed they sure as shit are, especially if the President is against the proposed repeal of a law.

            1. Yes, they could have defunded it and let Obama shut down the govt. So fucking what? As it is, the result is what any sane person knew it would be and it’s only going to get worse. And if a president opposes repeal, then let him oppose it but at least give the impression of having some value system and make him do it.

              1. If they had some deft leadership they could have done something once they got the Senate: piecemeal budgeting. Pass all of the important/third rail stuff a year before the budget is due, make Obama veto social security and military spending dozens of times until that part of the budget actually passes into law, and then let the rest of the government shut down to defund Obamacare (and anything else you don’t like and popular opinion is against). I don’t think there’s anything that mandates the budget/appropriations to be a single, monolith bill.

      2. In 2009/2010 when that shit was goign through, and we had Democrat majority/control everywhere, what did you expect the Republicans to do? didn’t they party vote no on everything?

        1. I think the bigger complaint is that the Republicans cave when it comes time to funding the government. The President won’t sign a bill that doesn’t include funding for his pet causes, and the Republicans (despite all evidence to the contrary when you look outside of the DC beltway) believe they will be solely shouldered with the blame for a government shutdown (which, incidentally, is also not seen as all that big of a deal outside of the DC beltway, either).

          1. Hasn’t the deficit been fairly flat since the Republicans took over? sure they haven’t been able to get it to go down but “not winning” =/= “not fighting”.

            1. The problem is that a high deficit is still a high deficit, the rough lack of increase notwithstanding.

      3. They did get a bill through both houses. It was vetoed by the President. They probably could have done and still could do more, but they didn’t do nothing.

  11. Here, let’s make this simple.

    If you can conceive of any ‘good’ reason to vote FOR Hillary Clinton, you are not now nor were you ever a libertarian–or a Libertarian.

    Hillary Clinton is an unabashed statist, everything she wants is statist, there is no position she has ever taken that is anything but statist.

    She is the quintessential anti-libertarian.

    And, if you vote for her, So. Are. You.

    1. I agree with you to the power of 10. Maybe they mean “libertarian” in the Bill Maher/Jon Stewart Vein.

      I’ve always been suspicious of O’Rourke. Now I’m suspicious of Reason.

      1. Now? I’m just here for the commenters.

        1. Huh?

          Isn’t everyone here waiting around for The Great Libertarian Ganbang Moment?

          I was told that there would be Cool Whip and Deep Dish…

      2. Why are you suspicious of Reason?

        1. maybe because no one at Reason is calling bullshit on the people cited in this article, like the commentariat is doing. I get opposing Trump; lots of reasons for doing so. But there is not, nor has there ever been, an affirmative case to be made for Herself, and definitely not one from a libertarian perspective.

          1. It doesn’t read to me like any of the people cited in this article are making an affirmative case for Hillary. It reads like they are making a less-bad case against Trump.

            1. You answer the question of why some are suspicious of Reason: when your case relies on Hillary being less bad, despite her track record, then it’s a lousy case.

              1. But none of those people works for Reason. And no one who does work for Reason is voting for Clinton.

                1. Except for Dalmia and Chapman.

          2. Even Susan Sarandon condemns Hillary. Susan fucking Sarandon.

      3. Now I’m suspicious of Reason.

        Uh, why? They have not published anything the least bit supportive of Clinton. None of their writers, except maybe Dalmia, who everyone thinks is an idiot anyway, have said they would consider voting for her.

        If they wanted to support Clinton, why wouldn’t they? All the glory of writing for a low-circulation magazine with a libertarian POV?

    2. So let me see if I understand this. If someone devotes their professional career to analyzing and arguing news, economics, and politics from a libertarian perspective, or become notable in some other profession and spend some of their money and celebrity on libertarian politics and causes, but then with a single act that has no measurable impact on anything casts a vote for one anti-liberty candidate over another, then they were never a libertarian. Is that about the size of it?

      1. Worse. They’re an anti-libertarian.

      2. That’s what you say 10 times a day about libertarian trump voters, so I guess your answer is yes.

        1. First of all, it was never ten times a day. Second, I don’t say they’re not libertarian, I say they’re retarded. There’s a difference.

          1. Voting is retarded. Even a smart and sensible human being votes for irrational reasons. Me included.

            1. Did you intentionally do that, waffles?

              Your comments remind me of examples in the Critical Thinking book I used in a Philosophy Class.

      3. No, that’s not the size of it.

      4. “Is that about the size of it?”

        No. But they certainly undermine their own credibility as opinion-mongers.

      5. Your description is a distorted straw man. To reiterate: VOTING FOR HILLARY IS EVIL, AN ACT OF TREASON AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION AND THE REPUBLIC, AND MAKES THEM AN ENEMY OF THE HUMAN RACE.

        1. look a self constructing strawman.

          1. Just a totally accurate observation.

        2. If HILLARY WINS, THE WORLD IS LITERALLY GOING TO END! LITERALLY!

          1. WORLD IS LITERALLY ON FIRE.

          2. No, but it may well be the end of the constitution.

        3. Yeah, but you can say that about anyone who ever votes for either major party.

      6. Yes. Knowing that they do not actually hold the key to the cruel choice between Hillary and Donald, they still vote Hillary.

    3. I don’t know.

      She supports free trade in secret. That’s way more libertarian than Trump. +1 for Hillary.

      Already voted for the big johnson though.

      1. See, that isn’t a horrible argument.

        I don’t think it outweighs the fact that she wants to change the constitution so she can ban criticism of Herself, but it’s not a horrible argument.

      2. that so called free trade is oppressive against most everything but the largest of contribution companies aka friends of clinton foundation

      3. You can’t even say that for sure (even though it’s likely)

        All you can say for certain is that she tells people who support free trade that she supports free trade in secret.

    4. +1000000000000000

    5. Agreed that she is a statist and even when she advocates the libertarian position (abortion for example) she does it from a positive rights standpoint. But how does that make her different than Trump in that regard? He’s just as much of a statist (authoritarian) as she is (socialist). I’ll take her deference to state institutions to his deference to his own brilliance and amazing skill, good looks, rapier wit.

      1. I’ll take her deference to state institutions to his deference to his own brilliance and amazing skill, good looks, rapier wit.

        The important difference is that the former actually exists and has a demonstrated propensity to fuck with people’s lives.

        1. Government will always fuck with people’s lives. To what extent is what we have to decide. Trump could care less for the concepts of liberty, free association or anything codified in the Constitution. He votes his gut and will change his mind if it suits him. And if he does, who will stop him after he’s destroyed the institutions set up to provide checks and balances.

          1. same question could be asked of Herself, who has a history of using govt and its power for both fucking with other people’s lives and enriching her own. Worst you can say about Trump is he played by the rules that the elected class made.

            1. I can say worse.

          2. Trump doesn’t have the bureaucracy on his side, and he will likely only have tepid support from Congress even though it will (probably) be controlled by the party that nominated him.

            Clinton’s ability to weaponize the bureaucracy is a thing few can dispute. Hell, a number of her supporters use it as a selling point for her candidacy. She can get things done! She knows government inside and out!

            Trump doesn’t. He’s an egomaniacal blowhard (… and so is Clinton, to a good extent) but he’s not nearly the evil genius people make him out to be.

            He is not a libertarian. He is probably not even going to advance libertarianism in any meaningful way, despite what SIV would have you believe about his alleged bona fides. But his statism is largely that of the status quo; hers is an advancing statism trampling over fundamental liberties like speech, religion, self-defense, and yes, association.

            1. She’s probably going to win and I won’t be able to say I told you so.

              Anyway. Things are going to get ugly when/if she does win. His useful idiots are going to go full retard. I’ve prepped for 3 months of SHTF. Hope I’m wrong.

              1. The problem is that I’m not exactly clear on what it is I’m being “told” in the first place. The means by which Trump carries out any number of dystopian predictions never seem to be identified.

                And riots and other malfeasance have been predicted in lots of elections. Hasn’t happened yet.

                1. “The problem is that I’m not exactly clear on what it is I’m being “told” in the first place.”

                  That’s the problem with Trump. Nobody knows how things will manifest. I could hand over my car to a crooked mechanic (Hillary) and know that I’m going to get ripped off, but my car will probably be fixed. Or I could hand over my car to a retarded orange bonobo (Trump) and have no idea what said bonobo is going to do…but I know it’s not going to be good.

                  1. That is unfair to bonobos.

                    More seriously, these are politicians we’re talking about. Trump’s lack of a track record in politics means you don’t know what he’s going to do. That much is true. But to assume that means literally any conceivable action is possible from him is absurd. He’s opened the Overton window a bit; that’s not the same thing as saying he’s a Monte Carlo simulation of a human being.

                    Moreover, to say that Hillary’s behavior will be tightly constrained to just the “predictable criminality” she has shown thus far is also a bit absurd. Are we supposed to believe she’s the first person lusting after power with no ambition?

      2. How does that make her different? She has a genuine track record of this shit. He’s just a lot of talk who, if elected, would be more results-may-vary than anything else. There is zero mystery about who she is. And her entire record in public service is pocked with either failure or incompetence.

      3. The funny think is that the kind of people who are voting for Trump are the same people who used to say they would never vote for a RINO (Republican in Name Only) – better vote for the socialist who is upfront about it than the one wearing a mask. The irony is that Trump is pretty much the quentissential RINO, and theyre too fucking stupid to recognize one when it’s standing right in front of them.

        1. I’m certain they’re the exact same people. Now go start a war with Russia like you’re dying to.

        2. No Hazel, the Republicans who are refusing to vote for Trump because he is not a “real conservative” are the same people who happily voted for McCain and Romney. The people voting for Trump are not the ones who were demanding purity tests. There never was a purity test in the GOP. If there had been, people like Romney, Mcain and Bush never would have been nominated. No, the people voting Trump are the ones who voted for Romney and McCain and now look in askance at the various “true blue conservatives” who said that was necessary but are now claiming their principles won’t allow them to vote for Trump.

  12. Does anyone really believe that people use reason and evidence when it comes to voting? It’s all FEELZZ!!

    1. I wouldn’t say all, but I’d bet the vast majority of people vote mostly with their emotions.

  13. Andrew Sullivan is voting Hillary because he’s gay.

    1. And he is likely obsessed with her uterus. Andy likes uterus.

      1. Actually, I think he went through a pretty rigorous Buddhist meditation detox and got (mostly) better. Which never made him a libertarian, but he wasn’t originally toting water for the Democratic party, either. If he were to restore some of his iconoclast opinions, he might catch up to Kinky Friedman. Okay, not really. He never had the style that Kinky has. Or the writing chops.

        1. I still wish we could’ve elected Kinky for gov here in TX. He had the best campaign slogan ever IMHO.

        2. I still wish we could’ve elected Kinky for gov here in TX. He had the best campaign slogan ever IMHO.

          1. Squirrels for Kinky!

    2. Please tell me he didn’t compare her to Thatcher.

  14. They have basically all proven themselves to be morons. O’Rourke’s claiming that “Hillary is wrong about everything but wrong within the normal parameters of being wrong” is my favorite because it gets it exactly backwards. Trump may turnout to be a bad President but if he does he will turnout to be a bad President within the normal parameters of bad Presidents. Hillary, in contrast, would be beyond any normal parameters of bad Presidents. We have had dishonest Presidents. We have had Presidents who were guilty of crimes. We have never had a President who was obviously guilty of multiple felonies before the election and was only elected after the corrupt FBI and DOJ said the laws didn’t apply to her. That is something this country has never experienced.

    To not support Trump and vote third party is one thing. We have all debated the issue of strategic voting to death. But to vote for Hillary in light of her 25+ year history of criminality and incompetence is completely indefensible for any reason beyond blind partisan loyalty and certainly indefensible for someone who claims to be on the right.

    These people are voting for Hillary because they are assholes who are more worried about their class loyalties and ensuring the same class of people who have been running the country in the ground over the last 50 years stay in charge than they are about the country or anything else.

    1. Elect Hillary and get two fucking grifters in the White House for the price of one!

      1. “Elect Hillary and get two fucking grifters in the White House for the price of one!”

        And get to bid for the WH silverware on ebay a couple of weeks after she takes office!

        1. Pretty sure she’ll melt it all down for buttplugs first.

        2. At least you know the silver is relatively new.

          Didn’t they steal it the last time they left the White House?

    2. If the Democrats had any shame*, they would be aghast at having nominated such a criminal. They allowed their party to be taken over by a corruptocrat of the highest order and her cronies, and they are almost gleeful about that fact in light of the Republicans nominating a “deplorable” lifelong Democrat who their own nominee repeatedly schmoozed with. This whole election is a farce.

      * = yes, yes, “then they wouldn’t be Democrats”, cue rimshot

    3. What John said. I can understand libertarians not voting for Trump, but not voting for Hillary.

      1. This is how the duopoly maintains it’s power. By convincing everyone that the Republicans/Democrats are such absolute evil, that they HAVE TO vote for the Democrat/Republican candidate to stop them.

        1. Today, a vote for Trump does more to change the landscape in favor of libertarians than a vote for Johnson, for reasons I don’t have time to list. #Disruption

        2. There is no convincing where Hillary is concerned. She is a monster, and one of the greatest threats the republic has ever faced.

    4. The argument boils down to: Hillary is a standard politician, one who’s on the sleazier side of things. Imagine if you could that you also hold some of the Clinton scandals to be a bit overblown and overstated. You hold them to be corrupt, but normal corrupt.

      Hillary’s positions are within the normal range of democrats, and when she fluctuates it’s within those parameters. She’s wrong in predictable ways. Trump vacillates all around the place landing on often insane sounding positions, and sticking to them with childish intensity. He has shown a fondness without political power to use the machinations of the state to punish his enemies and enrich himself.

      And again tell me why it’s so shocking that people look at this guy who’s spewing shit so far out of the normal bounds of American discourse, who looks at concepts like constitutional limits on power with dripping contempt, and tell me why you can’t possibly understand PJ O’Rourke’s comments.

      1. Can you name a single Constitutional limit on power that Hillary accepts?

      2. Because Trump is doing none of that. You can disagree with banning Muslim immigration, but it is not out of the normal range of things this country has done in the past, at least not if you know the world began before the year 2000.

        Moreover, this country restricted immigration to nearly zero from the 1920s until 1965. So saying we should do so again, may be a bad idea but it is hardly out of the norm.

        The country also was deeply protectionist for most of the 19th Century. As recently as the 1980s conservative hero Ronald Reagan slapped tariffs on Japanese goods. Dick Gebhert made an entire political career promoting deeper protectionist measures than Trump has ever proposed.

        Trump thinks we should get rid of the reckless disregard standard for slander actions brought by public officials. Well that standard is a judicial creation that dates to the early 1960s. We had a Republic for 175 years without that standard and seemed to do okay.

        Yes, these people are morons. You can say Trump is wrong. But if you say anything he has proposed is beyond the parameters of normal politics, you are either lying or you are a fucking moron. I am sorry but there is no polite way to put it. It is really that simple.

  15. My worthless CA vote went to Gary Johnson. I left the senate race blank. The legal weed prop was a bunch of bullshit so I voted No on that one. The sticker makes it all worth it.

    1. What’s bullshit with the prop? Did they opt for a monopoly in the ballot wording?

      1. “What’s bullshit with the prop? Did they opt for a monopoly in the ballot wording?”

        Not quite, but it will take all of 6 months for it to become totally under the control of those with political connections.
        I went with ‘yes’, but it wasn’t easy.

        1. Seems like that’s a given for California, the land known for it’s noxious mixture of cronyism and leftist goodthink. I tend to regard California as a dumping ground for the stupidest people on the continent.

        2. Notwithstanding the genuinely intelligent people that are outvoted by the tards 1mil to 1.

        3. Just stick with the black market. Support local small business.

          1. “Support local small business.”

            Entrepreneurs, as it were!

      2. Even if it was for a legal monopoly, isn’t that better than a zeropoly, where nobody’s allowed to market it legally? Isn’t having 1 legal source to buy from better than 0 legal sources? Isn’t the person who’s allowed to buy pot freer than the person who isn’t?

        1. Actually, no, that person is not more free. Genuinely free people do as they wish by right – not because someone gives them permission to do so.

          1. Then only psychopaths are free.

    2. My worthless CA vote went to Gary Johnson.

      Congratulations you basically voted for Hillary Trump.

      The sticker makes it all worth it.

      Worth drink specials here in LA for ugly people, it’s pretty much the only reason I vote anymore.

    3. I’ll vote for Johnson to keep a vote away from Clinton or Trump. (If the vote actually meant anything, I’d vote for Trump.) I’ve voting for Sanchez for the same reason I’d vote for Trump. She’s the lesser of two evils.

    4. I voted same, same and same (and to end the death penalty). I have a medical marijuana certificate, as does everyone I know who requires one, and the system works fine until we can get something simple like “marijuana is legal for adults to own and use and anyone in jail for doing that is hereby released” — which sounds nothing like Prop 64.

      1. Good thinking. I did the same on I-502 here in W? The combination of medical dispensaries and the black market was better. Our evil shitbag governor signed away the dispensaries last year,, as his cronies were losing some business to them.

    5. Just got back from the polling place. One thing weird with our local system (fill out ovals SAT-test style) is that you have to go and feed this huge 11×14 ballot into a machine that looks like an office printer. A poll ‘worker’ looks at you doing it alongside you ‘to make sure you do it correctly’ but he was clearly able to see all my votes. Fuck him.

      I also voted for GJ, and left the Senate race blank. Both Sanchez and the AG are so very evil and statist, there’s no way I could vote for either, and you aren’t even allowed to do write-ins on that race.

      Yes on 52 (any of you CA folk who haven’t voted yet do give that one a yes — it allows for hospitals to pay a fee to get matching Medicaid funds — doesn’t cost any of us in CA a cent, but helps keep safety-net hospitals open, and if the federal government is going to give money for Medicaid anyway, might as well get it here to do some actual good for the poor and indigent). NO on the plastic bag ban; I like having something to carry my purchases in, and we re-use those bags over and over until we use them to clean the cat litter box. They’re anything but single use!

      1. Also yes on the two CA sunshine-type laws, one requiring 72 hours after introduction before a state bill can be voted on — no more of those ‘last day of the session’ episodes of sneaking through hundreds of bills, and yes on the let us vote on those bonds over $2 billion (Jerry Brown spent tons of his own money to stop this one, so you know it must be good).

        Most everything else was a ‘no’ vote. Too many initiatives trying to add new taxes, especially sales taxes! If all the ones on today’s ballot pass, our sales tax will go into double-digits. Yikes. Buy a car now while you can.

  16. The morning news has a %$@$@ 6-year-old on muttering through their allegiance to Her Highness, because vagina. I wanted to throw up my Quaker Oat Squares.

    1. Great cereal choice. Those are a favorite in our house as well. Also, Fuck Hillary! Additionally, Fuck Moobs Schumer; I’m looking forward to voting for Alex Merced in an hour or so.

      1. I had no idea there was a (L) running for Senator here. Yeah, I’m not voting.

        1. Not voting is likely the best choice. Wifey and I were either disregarding the election or voting for Johnson; Weld so enraged the both of us that we are voting for the Short-Fingered Vulgarian out of spite. Damn… I really miss Spy Magazine.

      2. I’m sitting here contemplating whether it’s worth wasting my time voting so I can vote not Chuck Schumer. I live two doors down from my polling place, so I may get high first and dull the senses.

      1. Oh, those Golden Grahams.

    2. Fuck them.
      Fuck them all to hell.
      The next decade of strife and suffering is on their heads, not mine.

  17. Anybody want to hear my thoughts about what the consequences are of voting for an executive despite knowing that they disregarded the rule of law–does to the rule of law itself?

    I didn’t think so.

    The short version is that giving an executive whatever legitimacy an election bestows after it has become public knowledge that the executive in question has disregarded the rule of law–effectively gives that executive a mandate to disregard the rule of law.

    Hillary Clinton will walk into the White House with the following toolbox:

    1) Executive Privilege
    2) The Power to Pardon
    3) Control of the Department of Justice
    4) The Bully Pulpit
    5) An Adoring Press Corps

    6) An Effective Mandate to Disregard the Rule of Law

    Hillary Clinton has a demonstrated record of abusing public office for personal gain stretching all the way back to her days in Little Rock.

    How can electing her to be the President possibly be in the interests of libertarianism?

    1. Short answer: cocktail parties.

      Long answer: they never believed in all this crap about ‘liberty’ and stuff to begin with. It’s a hipster fashion statement for them.

      1. Pretty sad if you ask me. I have lost all respect for each and every person mentioned above.

        1. I pray for their suffering to be great and unending.

          1. + my thoughts and prayers are not with them

    2. How can electing her to be the President possibly be in the interests of libertarianism?

      Is that a joke? Because Trump called Rosie O’Donnell fat and he once pointed out that many women’s vaginas are guided by star power. Not Okay.

      1. The biggest thing that keeps Libertarianism a fringe movement is the power of the major media to determine the parameters of what can be discussed in this country. Libertarian ideas never get a fair hearing because the media just dismisses them out of hand and puts them beyond consideration.

        So here Trump comes along and stands up to try and break the power of the media to determine what can and cannot be said and what do Libertarians do? Immediately jump in on the side of the media because Trump said things they don’t like. Hey dumb ass, if Trump doesn’t have the freedom to being up the issues he is, you won’t have the freedom to bring up yours. If we can’t even talk about the possibility of stopping Muslims from coming into the country because that is THE RACIST and the media forbids it, then we won’t be able to talk about any other subjects the media forbids us from debating and that includes pretty much all of Libertarian thought.

        1. If anyone out there should be wanting to see the media go down in flames, if anyone should want to see them with a tremendous amount of egg on their face, if anyone wants to see some part of them realize that constantly lying and spreading misinformation will not yield rewards, it should be libertarians at the front of the line.

          I for one, will savor their tears. If Trump gets elected and starts doing dumb shit, I’ll join the choir roundly criticizing him. But unlike much of the rest of the choir I’d be criticizing him on substantive issues, not icky things he said about some fat female celebrity. I want the left to know that their control of the media, of academia and bureaucracy was not enough to win for once.

          1. If Trump can tell the media and the elite both major parties to go fuck themselves and get himself elected President, why can’t a libertarian do the same?

              1. And it requires opposing illegal and Muslim immigration.

                1. I have it on good authority that no number of Muslims could possibly overwhelm the (political) culture of the country and the electorate. More Muslim migrants means more liberty. Fact. Principles. Science.

                  1. Just look around the world: the more Muslims in a country, the more liberty.

                    1. the more Muslims in a country, the more liberty.

                      You misspelled terrorism.

        2. The biggest thing that keeps Libertarianism a fringe movement is the power of the major media to determine the parameters of what can be discussed in this country. Libertarian ideas never get a fair hearing because the media just dismisses them out of hand and puts them beyond consideration.

          If I could write this on the inside of eyelid of every Reason staffer, so they see it every time they blink….

          You know who got this? Cathy Young on GamerGate.

        3. It’s fringe because people see politics as a football team. How can three teams play in a football game at the same time? No if they saw it for what it really is, a circus, they’d understand that three things at once works just fine.

          1. No that is not it. There is nothing to say one of the teams couldn’t pick up the libertarian football once in a while. they only don’t because the media declares it off limits.

            1. Liberty is too dangerous. There are crazy people out there! That’s what unites everyone against libertarian thinking: fear.

              1. “Oh, you’re a libertarian? I wish I could be one, but there’s just too many idiots out there.”

        4. Libertarian ideas don’t take hold for the reason Rhywun stated above: “you stupid, stupid people”. That is what most of this country is composed of, at least when it comes to politics. Jonathan Haidt co-authored a piece yesterday on resolving our tribal division. That of course is the problem right there – tribal thinking/identity. As long as small minds congregate, small ideas will hold power. Our own bubble is arguably no better – Libertarian Moment anyone?

        5. The biggest challenge for libertarians is that their appeal is as an alternative solution to problems where Reps and Dems agree.

          How much time does the media spend pondering questions that are “settled”?

    3. It can’t be. And it takes a certain kind of beltway moron to convince themselves that Trump, a guy who is barely liked by his own party and loathed by the media, is more of an authoritarian threat as President than Hillary, someone who would command zombie like loyalty both from Democrats in Congress and the media.

      These idiots have frankly gone insane. The things they say about Trump are either out of touch with reality, inconsistent with other claims they make or both. I am sorry Trump is not emotionally unbalanced or some toxic sociopath. The guy has exwives and kids from previous marriages. If he were any of those things, his exes and kids would know it and be telling us as much. But his family all seem normal and hell even his ex wives seem to like him. That doesn’t’ make him fit to be President but it makes saying he is unbalanced idiotic.

      When these idiots are not claiming Trump is a Putin plant, they are claiming Trump is a crazed nationalist who is going to start World War III with Russia. Remember, it is Trump who is a danger to start World War III, not the people accusing Russia without any evidence of committing an act of war by trying to fix our election. When they are not claiming Trump is an authoritarian American Chavez, they are busy claiming he is a secret Democrat who loves the Clintons and only ran so Hillary could get elected.

      1. Yes. Clinton would have the loyalty of the Media and Democrats. What would Trump have? If you have two terrible choices for President, why choose the one that would have more power? This is especially strange if you call yourself a “Libertarian”.

        1. Trump would have a Republican congress.

          1. Have you not noticed that there is a certain lack of enthusiasm in the GOPe for Trump? What makes you think Congress wants to work with him?

            1. And how does that lack of GOP enthusiasm not equate to a Hillary landslide victory? She has the machine behind her, greased with more than $1 billion. Are there really enough pissed off people willing to not align behind Team D and join a smaller pile of pissed off Team R voters who haven’t also been scared by the media into backing her?
              I’m beside myself that this election of all elections people couldn’t break themselves of the 2-party mindset. Who has the link to the 55 gallon drum of lube? I need to get ready

            2. They will work with him, but they will also turn on him in a heartbeat and impeach him if they think doing so is in their advantage. And that is just fine. In fact, I wish the Democrats were the same way about Hillary but they of course are not.

      2. True, Hillary has already consecrated the bond of obedience within her party and the media.

    4. It is not that there are not valid criticisms of Trump. There are. It is that these people have obviously lost their minds and are unable to make any valid criticisms of him or in fact even think rationally at all concerning Trump. They are just pathetic. The whole lot of them.

      1. If you vote for Trump, you ARE Trump, a vile racist and you HATE strong women. That is what everyone has allowed the narrative to be, which frankly is ludicrous because plenty of people who are not racists and love strong women (such as Maggie Thatcher) will be voting for him.
        I won’t be but I won’t shun anyone who does just like I won’t shun anyone who votes for Hillary.
        I will vote for someone, not sure yet. But mostly I’m going to vote for liberty minded people in the other races like Railroad Commissioner.

        1. My favorite is the people who claim Trump is going to make the GOP a “white nationalist party”. Trump is likely going to get just as many Hispanic votes as Romney and will almost certainly get more black votes. So if he made it a “white nationalist” party, what the hell was it in 2012?

          1. Their retort would likely be, “It has always been a white nationalist party. Now they’re just being honest about it!”

            Of course, they rest on their laurels of having the “minority” vote (which somehow includes women, who make up a majority of the population, go figure) but their repeated failure to deliver on their promises to those voters is not going to be ignored forever.

            1. No self respecting white nationalist would spill his seed in an eastern european.

              I think this shows just how sheltered and othering the lefties are. They don’t even pretend to try to understand the feelings of white nationalists!

          2. Some Hispanics are white. I know. It sounds unpossible.

            1. Just the George (((Zimmerman))) variety.

          3. If I remember the 2012 race correctly (and I wasn’t paying much attention), it was a “white nationalist party”.
            And I know it was that in 2008.
            Also, probably 2004.
            Definitely 2000.
            Prior races I didn’t follow at all.

            1. Everyone was a white nationalist back then.

        2. “You HATE strong women”

          I’ve worked for some amazing women over the years.

          My mom unit is a big shot.

          Calling Hillary Clinton a role model is an insult to all of them.

          I’ve dated women who are more impressive than Hillary Clinton.

          1. I don’t know any women who intentionally destroyed victims of sexual assault.

        3. Maggie Thatcher, being both dead and not American is probably voting straight ticket Democrat in Chicago.

    5. 7) a smug attitude towards everyone who doesn’t agree with her

    6. So do you or do you not think that Hillary disregarded rule of law and is being given a free pass?

    7. Completely agree! I’m a libertarian and voted Trump without hesitation. Hillary would push more socialism in our faces and absolutely nothing would get done. She openly supports higher taxes, globalization, suppressing the 2nd amendment, suppressing the 1st amendment, and has no concern for anyone in the middle/lower class. She, with proof from Wikileaks, does what is best for her and supports the corruptive system in place which continues to suppress any upward mobility for folks in the lower and middle classes. She has proven to be corrupt and surrounds herself with corrupted people. Look at her brat of a kid. Look at Trumps kids. Anyone notice a difference? I am blown away at this article. It is such bullshit and everyone I know and am friends with who is libertarian is voting for either GJ or Trump. Sounds like a Clinton supporter trying to make one last push. God I hope to hear her concession speech tonight. We need a serious overhaul of this government.

  18. That Andrew Sullivan is voting for Clinton is, by far, the least surprising thing on this list. I figured it was implied he’d be For Her.

    1. Agh….cheap “gay guy = Johnson fan” joke just…won’t quit…must fight…like Captain Kirk would…

      *rips shirt*

      1. Don’t resist it. You’ll feel better afterward.

        1. Just relax and let it happen.

          1. Oh no, Crusty pulled that on me and that’s the last time I fall for it!

  19. The suffix “-ish” should be understood to mean, “not really at all; its more of a fashion-statement

  20. Thanks for this year’s list of liberaltarian suck ups who want to continue to be invited to the right cocktail parties. A few of them are actually interesting writers who I will continue to read, and one of them even wanders the streets I do and goes to my gym (saw him with his trainer yesterday).

    But now I know who to remember is full of shit, despite whatever talents they may have.

  21. I can’t believe that people are upset that some libertarians would vote for an anti-First Amendment, anti-Second Amendment, big-government war monger. There are cocktail parties to consider, people. Stop focusing on silly things like ‘liberty’. All the cool kids are voting Clinton and voting Johnson is not cool anymore, OK. The Washington Post and New York Times said so.

    Sure, it’s weird that the same people who justified voting for President Obama in 2012, because they thought Romney was a war monger, are now saying they’ll vote for Hillary, even though she is a war monger with a proven track record. But, there is a simple reason for this. Romney was not ‘hip’, OK. President Obama was ‘hip’ and now so is Hillary.

    You people need to grow-up. Cocktail parties and looking ‘cool’ comes first.

  22. “Some suggest the very fate of the American experiment is at stake, “

    WTF?

    And electing a Felon with a history of corruption that spans more than 4 decades will be just hunky dory for the American experiment?

    I’m sorry but the US can EASILY withstand a President Trump, Trump will get into office as the most unpopular President in history and his popularity will only go down from there. Further he won’t have ANY support from the Congress as both Republicans and Democrats there will oppose most of what he wants to do so he will be a largely do nothing President looking at 4 years of gridlock (an unqualified good thing) until his carelessness, impulsivity, and lack of any real moral grounding has him Impeached for some type of corruption.

    HIllary on the other hand will either have impeachment hearings begin against her within her first month in office or her many crimes will once again be swept under the rug driving the final nail into the Republican party’s coffin (If the Republican Congress does not press impeachment over her Emails the Republican Base will totally abandon the party en masse) and what little pretense of respect for the rule of law remained will be officially buried and on that day the American Experiment is over.

    1. I’m sorry but the US can EASILY withstand a President Trump, Trump will get into office as the most unpopular President in history and his popularity will only go down from there. Further he won’t have ANY support from the Congress as both Republicans and Democrats there will oppose most of what he wants to do so he will be a largely do nothing President looking at 4 years of gridlock (an unqualified good thing) until his carelessness, impulsivity, and lack of any real moral grounding has him Impeached for some type of corruption.

      This right here.

      Forget “which one is worse”; Rasilio nails it by turning the question to “which one will do more damage”. I have no doubts that President Trump would be hamstrung in just this manner.

    2. Exactly. All this is just rationalizing voting for Clinton. Trump will be gone in four years. Not much will be different by then. The mindset the Clintons represent will be around much much longer. Reason apparently wants to perpetuate it.

    3. What if they warm up by going after Huma?

  23. I, for one, can’t wait to cast my vote for the nation’s first midget trans gender-queer pansexual person of color.

    1. Where is Episiarch, anyway?

      1. I have some vague memory that he recently took a gig which pays well, but strictly bars internet-yakkity-yakking.

      2. He went to visit Nikki. She ate him and then returned to her natural state.

        1. So Lee,

          Nikki was in disguise all along?

  24. What’s notable about this list is that these are mostly people i stopped reading* a long time ago

    (*technically, i kept reading, but stopped caring what they had to say.)

    The only ones that grate are PJ …. and to a lesser-degree, Friedersdorf. I might try to read his new-rationalizaton, but don’t think i’d get through it.

      1. I got halfway though, and quit when he started handwaving about how “but Everyone Lies”

  25. feuding on Twitter when he ought to be focused on the nation’s problems

    For “focused on the nation’s problems”, read “how to break 100 at Avanel”.

  26. convinced him that Clinton “is not as apt to blow us to kingdom come with nuclear weapons as Trump.”

    I guess they found another sucker.

  27. I appreciate this list of people I can ignore.

  28. some point to a desire to see Trump’s race-baiting demagoguery soundly rejected

    As if the other side isn’t selling us their own brand of race-baiting demagoguery.

    Make no bones about it, racists are lining up on both sides to vote for their candidate. It is sad to say that one type of racism is branded much better that it almost doesn’t look like racism anymore and is growing in influence, and it’s not the type of racism that the media constantly warns us about. It’s the type that the media perpetuates and nurtures.

  29. Anyone can call themselves a libertarian so…

    1. Is Bill Maher voting?

    2. Until Hahn shows up and denounces them!

  30. Long list of people whose noses can be rubbed in their own words when the Clinton administration becomes a disaster.

    1. I’m just hope Republicans can hold the Senate. If Democrats get it, the “nuclear option” will be used for SCOTUS appointments, too. (Speaking of Hillary and nukes.)

    2. Yeah, how did that work out with Obama?

      The man still has high approval ratings and a cult of apologists a mile long.

      1. And yet no one can point to a positive accomplishment of his.

        1. Racial healing and national unity.

          Or haven’t you heard?

          Also, the oceans receded, the Earth “healed”, and peace reigned throughout the world.

          Amen.

        2. A woman in the break room was creaming her panties over obama playing basketball on tv. He’s so dreamy and wouldn’t it be great if he could stay president. God this has been a horrible year in progville.

      2. He has high approval ratings because his potential successors are Turd Sandwich and Giant Douche. People are already wistful for a shitty President because they expect the next one to be worse.

        1. His approval ratings were still high even before the current crop of potential replacements were well established. He’s the teflon man. Corrupt, lazy, and sneering are apparently exactly the ways to go through life, if you want to be a well liked President.

        2. It’s because of virtue signalling and cult of personality. The polls also show people aren’t happy with the economy, foreign policy, direction of the country. His policies certainly aren’t popular, but he’s half black and drops cool play lists.

    3. Now, *that* is satisfaction.

      *** starts sobbing ***

      1. Gotta take it where you can find it. Watching these leading intellectual lights be so wildly wrong shoukd hopefully relegate them to increasingly vanishing audiences.

  31. “Better the devil you know than the Lord of the Flies on his own 757. Flying to and fro in the earth, with gold-plated seatbelt buckles, talking nativist, isolationist, mercantilist, bigoted, rude, and vulgar crap.”

    Mercantilist and, to a lesser degree, nativist, ideologies are not libertarian. Isolationism is. Flying on your own 757 with gold-plated seatbelt buckles sure as hell is. Judging by the commentariat, rude and vulgar crap is the essence of libertarianism.

    1. Judging by the commentariat, rude and vulgar crap is the essence of libertarianism.

      Hey, fuck you!

    2. Depends on definition of Isolationist, if it means withdrawing from foreign trade then we’re in disagreement.

      1. That’s covered by “mercantilist”. “Isolationist” refers to the foreign policy.

  32. i’m going to need a lot of citations to believe any of these idiots is the slightest bit libertarian – even Gillette who does some signalling then comes home to a big government corrupt nanny-state tyrant.

    1. Eh, at least Penn sold his vote for something real(ish).

      1. At best he got played. He sold his vote for actions by others that cannot be proven.

    2. Penn makes enough $$$ that statism doesn’t really affect his lifestyle. He can afford the great money managers, lawyers and accountants that the rest of us can’t.

      1. He lives in a no-income tax state and is rich enough to move if Nevada ever imposed one. That’s gotta be nice.

  33. Man, Penn’s Sunday School is some boring ass shit.

  34. What about we Libertarians that are voting for Trump because 1) Bill Weld opened his fucking mouth and basically endorsed Clinton (which pissed me off just enough to vote Trump just as a “fuck you” to him), and 2) just to see the shit hitting the fan after a Trump win. As an anarcho-capitalist, I am waiting for my Nero to come burn the mother-fucker down. I think Trump is the nearest to a Nero I will see in my life.

    1. Literally worse than Hitler.

    2. Quite a few ancaps see the same appeal.

    3. I don’t necessarily want to see Trump win, but between Weld’s mouth, Johnson’s Nazi cakes stance, and Stein’s batshit insane eco-communism, Trump is the preeminent protest vote in my solidly pro-Clinton state.

      1. Vote Johnson/Weld because 5% something something.

        There is no risk of him being president, so it doesn’t matter if he is a doofus. he’s a place holder.

        1. Sometimes the “Libertarian”Party needs to be taught the same fucking lesson the Dems and the GOP get taught periodically–don’t keep offering up shit for us to vote for.

  35. After four years of Hillary (in addition to what we suffered under Obama), we may need to find a Kwisatz Haderach to go full Emperor to get back on the road to capitalism and the rule of law.

    When people get paid $100,000 a year to screw in lug nuts for eight hours a day, it’s bad for the economy. But pulling the plug on that activity still has a harsh effect in the short run.

    Recessions are good things when they correct bad activity. What’s worse, the recession pulling the rug out from under bad lending practices, or bad lending practices continuing unabated?

    In other words, once Hillary does what she’s about to do, we may not be able to save the patient with diet and exercise anymore. We might have to crack open the patient’s rib cage and cut into his heart.

    Are we going single payer?

    Will the Supreme Court be stacked with judges who are hostile to the First and Second Amendments?

    Chile is a capitalist country today. Freer than the United States. That isn’t because they came together as a nation and decided to be capitalist. It’s because a local Kwisatz Haderach went full Emperor on their asses.

    That isn’t something I want to see happen in the United States, but there’s a possibility something like that could become the only way forward. Avoiding that eventuality was a great reason to stick to the high road, but if we lose that battle and they take both capitalism and the rule of law away, the only way to get that stuff back may not be so high minded.

  36. Trump promised to nominate originalists to the SC and cut government regs. Everyone who votes Hillary deserves the thorough fucking they will receive if she wins. The rest of us, not so much.

  37. I will say it’s fascinating that Reason will publish this article, but not one titled “Libertarians that are reluctantly voting for Trump”. That list would include actual libertarians (no offense to the shallow beliefs of a magician) like pretty much everyone at the Mises Institute and Justin Raimondo. You know, people who are actually anti-war and not just against wars started by Republicans.

    1. Well, at least they found one guy, Walter Block.

      Watching that debate was painful, though. I get the impression that there’s some serious bad blood that goes beyond Nick libeling Block that one time.

      1. That’s probably why there is no “Libertarians that are reluctantly voting for Trump” article. Nick is holding a grudge.

    2. I think Penn is getting a bad rap. He’s only voting Clinton to the extent he is pushing Johnson toward 5%.

      That’s not irrational, and isn’t an endorsement of Clinton.

      1. Penn’s reasoning only works if you actually trust those doing the voting for Johnson to actually do so. Anyone douchey enough to try and find someone else to vote for their preferred candidate in another state “that counts” is someone douchey enough to not do as they ask.

        Source: I’m living in NC and promised some “Stop Trumpers” I’d vote for Hillary if they voted for Johnson. Didn’t take me too much digging to find they’d made the same promises to others regarding Stein. Joke was on them anyway; I’m a Texas resident and voted for Johnson weeks ago.

    3. I thought the article was nothing else than a troll of the H&R commenters who tirelessly plump for Trump.

      1. I can think of one. Who are these multiple Trumpalo commenters?

        1. Really? Only one?

        2. John and SIV by my count.

          Possibly Groovus – he may as well be a Slav by this point.

          1. Possibly Groovus

            How so? When I have expressed discrete support for Troomp? As it have been exhaustively pointed out by many, highlighting the fact what Shrill-Bot has actually done in her extremely long time in government “service” v. what Die Troompkinder has said is not actively supporting Troomp.

            I will say, especially in the light how poorly GayJay ran his campaign (I called out Weld immediately, by the by. Poor, poor judgement Gary), that I hope Troomp squeaks out a win, for nothing else than he is demonstrably the biggest middle finger to The TEAM BE RULED Establishment and the lulz. GayJay has better SCOTUS picks, but he will never be in a position to nominate them, to say nothing of actually getting them confirmed, which is the other half of the battle.

            And yes, I already voted via absentee almost a month ago. Cruz suggested I, “Vote my conscience.” So’s I did.

            My priority is down ballot races, and State Questions, since I am still legally a resident of Oklahoma (and they have my by the short and curlies WRT medical licensure). Those affect me most directly, and those are where my vote actually matters statistically.

            he may as well be a Slav by this point.

            Heh. Not quite. That my and Troomp’s appreciation of the Slavic Wimminz is purely and entirely coincidental.

      2. It got almost 400 replies. Mission accomplished.

  38. LOL, although we can all be weak at times, this article, on its own, is proof that the State will be fought boots on the ground by the grunts of the world.

    Signed,

    A grunt

  39. I am hard pressed to come up with a better argument for Trump winning than because it would be so upsetting to these assholes. And the best thing about Trump winning would be that his victory would be just the beginning of their nightmare.

    Here is the thing that everyone with any sense should understand; the people who run are government are not as a rule that bright and many of them are dumber than posts. What scares these people so much about Trump is not that he would be some kind of uniquely horrible President. That doesn’t scare them. They would love that because it would allow them to say I told you so and smell each other’s farts about how smart they are. It would be bad for the country but make no mistake, none of them give a shit about that. No, what terrifies them about Trump is that he wouldn’t be a uniquely bad President. That America would finally realize that there is nothing special about our governing class or media elites and they can be replaced by virtually anyone. If a realty TV star and real estate hustler can do even a credible job in the “world’s most important and tough job”, then which of these assholes can’t also be replaced and likely replaced with someone better by picking a name out of the phone book if necessary? That is what scares them about Trump.

    1. the people who run are government are not as a rule that bright

      That’s one thing that really struck me reading the emails – starting with the DNC leaks. The emails are mostly politicos and media-types, but they all write like 5th graders. I assumed that “the blob” weren’t as smart as they thought they were, but not that they were outright dimwits. They are just kinda dumb.

      1. They are all like that. There are smart people in government, but they are generally in the civil service. The politicals are nearly all as dumb as dog shit. Smart people don’t become journalists or political toadies as a rule.

      2. They’re the people who were interested in politics in college. The ones who had no other skill set but wanted to “contribute”. The ones who wanted to make the world a better place but didn’t know how. The ones that were always the first to sign up for a cause because it seemed like what everyone else was doing. The ones who wanted influence and to be a guiding force for others who although it seemed like they didn’t know how the larger world worked, were actually too busy being productive.

        Basically, douchebags.

    2. Concise, eloquent, and beautifully true. That is all I have to say.

    3. At least Ronald Reagan had the respect to go become a governor first.

    4. what terrifies them about Trump is that he wouldn’t be a uniquely bad President. That America would finally realize that there is nothing special about our governing class or media elites and they can be replaced by virtually anyone.

      It’s what I’ve been saying for mos.

      Not only that, but I suspect Prez Trump will actually be good for individual liberty in the USA & elsewhere, which will say to libertarian activists, “How could you have been so incompetent all those years, not advancing liberty with your efforts, when here’s somebody who wasn’t even explicitly trying to, & he succeeded?”

      1. Trump has some pretty good ideas about killing off the regulatory state. If he did even half of them, it would be a huge boon for freedom. Sadly, Libertarians have a bad habit of giving economic freedom short shrift. They support economic freedom but you rarely hear them talk about the regulatory state in the same kind of language or with the same kind of conviction they do when talking about the drug war or free speech or privacy, even though they should.

        1. Weird, because economic freedom is what libertarians have been most known for. Maybe that was only when economic freedom was unpopular; as soon as libertarians couldn’t own it, they tried to identify themselves w less popular causes.

  40. So “libertarians” voting for the embodiment of big government corruption. Meanwhile my socially conservative mother and mother-in-law both voted for Gary Johnson. Most bizarre election ever.

  41. 2 anecdotes:
    I know an entire family of Hispanics( half PR, half Ecuadorian) from the bronx who are voting trump, including an 18 year old.
    I know a lifelong dem jew from Brooklyn who is voting trump.

  42. “Better the devil you know than the Lord of the Flies on his own 757. Flying to and fro in the earth, with gold-plated seatbelt buckles, talking nativist, isolationist, mercantilist, bigoted, rude, and vulgar crap.”

    Otter: Now we could do it with conventional weapons, but that could take years and cost millions of lives. No, I think we have to go all out. I think that this situation absolutely requires a really futile and stupid gesture be done on somebody’s part!

  43. This story is yet another symptom of the shift (by a certain segment of left-ish libertarians) from actual libertarianism toward progressivism. As a libertarian, I see precisely zero selling points in Clinton’s platform, yet Trump has two major ones: (1) his non-interventionist foreign policy stance (and this is an issue with a huge impact, as war hysteria generally provides a convenient excuse for authoritarian policies across the board), and (2) his rift with the bi-partisan ruling establishment.

    Johnson failed to muster enough support to matter, so Trump it is for me.

  44. “after the pleasure of having delivered the message wears off, we will all be saddled ? indeed, the world will be saddled ? for many years with a chief executive who is, by any and every criterion of judgment ? personal integrity, temperament and understanding of the world ? unfit to lead this country.”

    Yeah, but what happens if Trump wins?

    1. *RIMSHOT*

  45. The Libertarians Reluctantly Voting For Hillary Clinton Because #NeverTrump

    Johnson and Weld?

  46. You know, these are the sort of people who make the most noise but when it comes down to it, they have no balls or principles. They just find excuses to justify falling in line. None of the excuses above are acceptable in my view.

  47. “Some suggest the very fate of the American experiment is at stake, some point to a desire to see Trump’s race-baiting demagoguery soundly rejected”

    …in favor of Hillary’s race-baiting?

    1. And as far as I can tell, Trump hasn’t baited any races. He’s a nativist, which explains his lack of respect for Mexicans (which is a nationality, not a race). Just about every person in this fucking country is a victim of terrorism (in their own minds), so his fear of Muslims is justifiable by tribalism (though wrong). Islam is a religion, not a race.

      He’s wrong about all of it, but Hillary supplies us with the other brand. She actually is race-baiting and takes advantage of the race-baiting that the media perpetuates, given that actual races are involved and are who she needs to win.

      Neither is healthy and neither is better. Both are deplorable. Maybe we should weave some baskets for them.

      1. They’re both weaving a basket for the whole country.

      2. Trump is not “wrong about all of it.” There is a lot of crime associated with illegal aliens, and a lot of terrorism associated with Muslims. And you can never know which Muslims (or their kids or grandkids) are going to take up jihad.

        1. Trump doesn’t care about crime amongst the little people. He cares about the labor market as any “proudly made in the USA” sticker could be. It doesn’t stop him from hiring illegals when push comes to shove, but he’d rather that “true Americans” get those jobs.

          An unintended consequence of immigration laws makes people sympathetic to illegals who come here to work but can’t get visas to do so. Those well-intentioned sympathetic people turn a blind eye to crime. Being an illegal alien may also encourage someone to turn to crime because finding legitimate work is hard and there are lots of people who are not sympathetic to them. Both sides are wrong.

          I personally don’t support illegal immigration because illegal immigrants bring bad politics here. The naturalization process is supposed to ease them into our way of life, but the unchecked migration and tribalism causes them to glom together and avoid learning the language, learning how our political system was envisioned to be and adapting to it instead of trying to change it.

          Muslims are a whole different problem. The vast majority are just like anyone else, peaceful and want to live unhindered by others. Their religion is definitely problematic, but no more so than Christianity (the Bible is no less filled with commands to violence than the Quran). For some reason, Islam is much easier to radicalize people under. Who has the solution to religious extremism while still permitting religion? What do you propose?

          1. Their religion is definitely problematic, but no more so than Christianity

            The last few centuries, and especially the news of the last few decades, thoroughly refutes this. And yes, the Quran is much more violent. Muhammad was a caravan robber, warlord, mass murderer, slaver, and rapist. Jesus was a pacifist carpenter. Their respective religions are very different.

            1. You’re going to ignore the entirety of the Old Testament then? Every one of those things you’ve mentioned (you neglected pedophile, by the way) have been done in the name of Christianity.

              I’m not talking about what mythical figures are supposed to represent. I’m talking about the violence that adherents of both religions have committed and that both holy books support. The dark ages were dark both because of the spread of Christianity and Islam, both by the sword.

              Something happened with Christianity though. Maybe people got fed up with burning witches, slaughtering heretical sects of their own religion, putting people of other religions to the sword in pogroms and crusades. America certainly rejected one aspect of Christian faith that went unchallenged for a long time: the “divine right” of kings. America tolerated the heresy of Joseph Smith while there were still plenty enough of the violent types in Europe who’d have sought his blood for it.

              Islam still doesn’t tolerate heresy very well, but that is improving in some places while getting worse in others. Stability of societies seems to be key. Instability leads to discontentment which leads to looking for a scapegoat, and when religion is your entire life, then religious leaders can supply all the scapegoats you’ll ever need. America causes instability, so the scapegoat becomes westerners in general. We won’t fight our own imperialism and nation-building experiments, so they fight it.

              1. Christians do not focus on the Old Testament. I do not have the time to, once again, to relate all the differences between the Bible and the Quran, and how they are considered by their followers. Suffice to say: the Bible is not a perfect copy of the eternal one in Heaven, was not dictated to Jesus, is not error-free, unedited, and untranslated, and not expected to be read only in the original language (which is the language God speaks).

                Islam is far more “fundamentalist” than any Christian sect.

                1. It doesn’t matter because plenty of people have a hard time with telling which passages come from the Bible and which come from the Quran when tested on it. And it does not matter, because people can and have used all the terrible shit in the Bible to justify the same kinds of shit that fundamentalist Islamists use from the Quran.

                  Wahhabism is newer than you’d think. The Taliban is younger than you’d think. Dressing up women in tents is newer too. Protestant fundamentalist vs. Roman Catholic fundamentalist, what does it matter? It’s a new veneer on an old problem. The kind of people who would murder doctors and firebomb abortion clinics aren’t committing less of a crime than burning witches and they’re no different from the people who strap on bombs and walk into cafes.

                  1. Add up all the anti-abortion violence of the last 40 years, and it’s equivalent to a slow week in Islam. No comparison.

      3. Hillary campaigned in 2008 on “white people will vote for me, they won’t vote for Obama.”

  48. he frequently takes positions as hawkish as any member of the Washington elite.

    So Trump takes positions as hawkish as Hillary? Kay.

  49. Andrew Sullivan, who has openly loathed Hillary Clinton for decades, now says he will vote for Clinton because Trump is a “unique actor who could deploy demagogic talent to drag an advanced country into violence and barbarism.”

    And people say Trump fans are delusional paranoiacs.

    1. These people really have deluded themselves into thinking the President is some kind of all-powerful monarch. There’s a fucking Congress, not to mention 330 million or so people of diverse backgrounds and beliefs.

    2. “demagogic talent to drag an advanced country into violence and barbarism.”

      As opposed to?

  50. “Fear of a Trump presidency has put a number of libertarian-ish thinkers “with her.””

    Yeh….never underestimate the complete, unredeemable stupidity of voters.

    1. Yeh….never underestimate the complete, unredeemable stupidity of voters journalists.

      It seems like journalists, through their constant exposure and inbreeding with the broader media, are some of the most prone to TDS. Do you think Trump is more likely to start a nuclear war? TDS. There’s no explaining it, because it’s so aggressively at odds with reality. When you read a lie enough times it makes a subconscious impression on you.

  51. Stupid article is stupid. If you vote for a Ruling Party narcissist, you’re not a libertarian. Yes, that includes Walter Block.

    -jcr

  52. I am voting for Hillary Clinton because whether my vote rewards her or not matters far less to me than whether it prevents Donald Trump from four years of stoking ethnic anxieties of whites, disparaging Hispanics and Muslims, insulting women from the biggest bully pulpit in the nation.

    Hillary Clinton is a “safe space” I guess.

    “Help me, Mommy! That bad man says things I don’t want to listen to!”

    Fuck

    off.

  53. What a shame, there are several people I like and respect on that list.

    “Say it ain’t so, Penn!”

    1. Eh, I have long ago learned to not care about who someone votes for. But there are lines that I draw. If your support for a particular candidate infects your way of thinking, or if you think your politics are “so important” that you corrupt an unrelated medium to push them, that’s when I find other outlets.

      1. Eh, I have long ago learned to not care about who someone votes for.

        If he’d said, straight up and from the beginning, “I’m voting for Hillary.” I wouldn’t have had a problem. If he’d said, “I’m voting for Trump.” and then changed his mind because pacifism. I get it. Being as socially aware or active as he is, talking up his pacifism and libertarian credentials, and then voting HRC because he got a handful of other people in Blue States is a special kind of evil. The kind of worthless shitheel you’d expect to vote for the libertarian ticket because of Bill Weld.

        1. Don’t get me wrong. I think Penn Gillette’s justification for his vote is terrible. That is the sort of thing that crosses the line I mentioned. But the mere fact that he voted for Clinton is immaterial to me.

          1. Interesting. I find it to be the opposite. He is leveraging his vote for Johnson. His rationalization, I agree, is shit.

            1. I like it. He negotiated more overall votes for a candidate that can’t possibly win but wants to get 5%. He then took a stab at the corrupt oligarch he thought would be least ridiculous and calls it a day.

            2. Gillette has no guarantee that anyone he allegedly traded his vote with is going to vote as they say. It’s a fool’s errand to hinge your vote on someone else being honest.

              1. We don’t know that he actually voted for Hillary.

                1. We don’t know that he actually voted for Hillary.

                  So, just an endorsement then?

                  Nothing says, “I’m a libertarian.” like compromising principles and voting major-party.

                2. We don’t know that he actually voted for Hillary.

                  Ok, sure. I’m commenting on his stated rationale for his stated vote. If he didn’t vote that way, then it’s all just a pointless hypothetical.

              2. We don’t know that he actually voted for Hillary.

              3. Step 1: Convince others that a single Hillary or Clinton vote is worth as much or more than several Johnson/3rd Party votes.
                Step 2: Convince people in contested states that their votes mean something and they should vote 3rd party by voting partisan in a contested state and pointing to all the 3rd party voters you ‘created’ in uncontested states.
                Step 3: Hit 5% or don’t.
                Step 4: Profit!!!!

                I swear to God, if the TPD doesn’t succeed in killing the LP, libertarians will.

  54. The Libertarians Reluctantly Voting For Hillary Clinton Because #NeverTrump

    are useful idiots.

  55. Legendary illusionist and longtime friend-of-Reason Penn Jillette says he swallowed his pride and voted for Clinton in the hotly contested state of Nevada after convincing “about 11 or 12 people” in deep blue states to pull the lever for Gary Johnson in exchange for his vote for the Democratic candidate. Jillette admits he felt “pretty shitty” about casting a vote for someone he doesn’t want to be president, but admits that peer pressure convinced him that Clinton “is not as apt to blow us to kingdom come with nuclear weapons as Trump.”

    And… Jillette fully confirms every repulsive inkling I’ve ever had about him.

    1. So, Hillary Clinton’s idiocy has almost had the U.S. in a shooting war with Russia over two different regions and Trump is the guy at risk to triggering a nuclear holocaust.

      Some illusions are just too hard to pull of, Mr Gillette.

      1. A year before the Cuban Missile Crisis, Kennedy was demanding nuclear arms reduction. A year after, he was demanding nuclear arms reduction. If you believe any politician about nuclear weapons, you’re stupid. If you think they’re special because they aren’t as hawkish or have a D after their name, you’re a special kind of stupid.

        Espousing a pacifist, pro-liberty message while playing idiotic rationalization shell games that allow you pick between the candidate who would kill a million people to save a child and the candidate who would kill a million people *and* the child is a special kind of evil as well.

        The kind of soul-less, non-corporeal malevolence who would vote to see someone shot in Reno just to watch them die.

    2. Can we now stop taking him seriously as an observer of the scene.

    3. Wasn’t this just one of those vote swapping arrangements where third-party voters in a contested state agree to vote for one of the major party candidates in exchange for multiple third-party votes in uncontested states? It doesn’t look good to say “Penn voted for Hillary” but on the other hand the arrangement raises the national total for Johnson by ten votes. At least until someone says “oh hey Penn voted for Hillary I’ll do that, too”.

  56. Clinton is going to be the President this country deserves.

  57. P.J. O’Rourke called Her, “Jimmy Carter in a pantsuit?”

    I’m no fan of Carter, but that’s an insult he doesn’t deserve!

    For all his faults, Carter always gave the impression that he has a kind heart and is an honest person. In that way, he is practically her opposite.

    At any rate, these people’s comments read like they’re all victims of TDS. Seriously, in what reality has Clinton “internalized constitutional norms?” And less likely to start a war? What, you mean by shooting down Russian fighter jets?

    1. Much as Carter was hopelessly lost on the world stage, he was undoubtedly a thoughtful liberal who didn’t see government force as the solution to every problem. At least, not while he was President.

      I would take him (in his Presidential prime) over Obama or Clinton any day and twice on Sunday.

    2. “in what reality has Clinton “internalized constitutional norms?””

      By devouring them. Now they’re inside her.

    3. yes. I never thought Carter was a bad person, just not a very good POTUS. She is malevolent, the embodiment of everything wrong with the system.

      1. He gave us the Carter Doctrine, so he’s not exactly a pacifist.

        His PLO nonsense is insufferable.

    4. P.J. O’Rourke called Her, “Jimmy Carter in a pantsuit?”

      Did Jimmy Carter accept money from foreign governments while he was the Secretary of State?

      1. Calling her that is a huge insult to Jimmy Carter. And I despise Jimmy Carter.

  58. Sorry, New Zealand. You used to be the country with more sheep than people.
    Now the U.S. has taken over the #1 spot. Make America Baaaaaaaaaa again. Thanks media

  59. I’ve been saying that Pennsylvania is the key to this election.

    Well check this out!

    “Philadelphia Republicans Say Their Inspectors Are Being Tossed Out”

    “Joe DeFelice, the chairman of the Philadelphia Republican City Committee, said numerous Republican poll inspectors have been denied entry or thrown out of polling stations across the city and that in at least one case a poll worker was spotted entering a machine and pushing buttons for a voter.

    “It’s voter suppression, disenfranchisement and intimidation,” DeFelice said. “Everything they claimed we were going to do.”

    The Department of Justice has contacted DeFelice about the issue with inspectors, he said. DeFelice also filed a complaint with the Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office and plans to send more this afternoon. Cameron Kline, a spokesperson for the District Attorney, said the Office is aware of three incidents regarding Republican poll inspectors being turned away. With one Republican inspector per polling place, there would be about 1,600 in the city.

    The DA’s office has scheduled a press conference for 2:30 p.m.”

    http://fivethirtyeight.com/liv…..-coverage/

    That press conference should start in 18 minutes.

    1. Especially this bit:

      Cameron Kline, a spokesperson for the District Attorney, said the Office is aware of three incidents regarding Republican poll inspectors being turned away. With one Republican inspector per polling place, there would be about 1,600 in the city.

      The DA’s office is admitting that GOP poll inspectors were turned away.

      WTF?!

      1. These are court appointed inspectors. WTF^2

    2. That, right there, is what you are voting for when you vote Democrat.

    3. “we take these allegations very seriously…shocking allegations…fully investigate…”

      A few months later: “No reasonable prosecutor…insufficient evidence of criminal intent…”

      1. Yeah, knowing that the Department of Justice is looking into the matter doesn’t exactly fill me with confidence.

        If this goes according to suit, the people accused of stuffing the ballot box will suddenly be offered immunity for no apparent reason, and all their laptops will be destroyed by the FBI . . . for some reason.

    4. Here’s video of some of the polling inspectors saying that the witnessed fraud.

      http://billypenn.com/2016/11/0…..imidation/

      1. It’s Philadelphia. They won’t even prosecute cops that are caught on video shaking down business owners.

        Nothing will ever come of this.

    5. Nice, cheat where you don’t need to by humiliating your opponents and reminding them they only get to do things at your pleasure.
      Too bad Milosevic died, he’d have had a sensible chuckle at this.

    6. This is totally okay.

      Now long lines at polling places? RACIST VOTER SUPPRESSION!

  60. I voted in California. It was great, felt like taking a huge dump.

    1. LOL

      So who’d you pick to watch over Hillary’s Supreme Court nominees in the Senate?

      Did you go with the Democrat or with the Democrat?

      1. I voted for the Democrat that did the dab in the debate and is likely to lose. But I got some “feel-good” voting in the propositions so at least I have that going for me.

      1. 2 waffles, 1 cup

  61. “Andrew Sullivan, who has openly loathed Hillary Clinton for decades, ”

    Sullivan’s statement about Trump is a fill in the blank utterance; it would be the same regardless who got the GOP nomination.

    Fisher, do realize how inane you sound when you people who have professed slobbering love for Barack Obama?

    Asking for a friend.

  62. OH GOD I HOPE TRUMP WINS.

    Jill Stein approves this message.

    1. “Pay attention to meee!” the troll explained.

  63. Yeah, Trump will lead us to violence and barbarism. You can tell by how often his lawn signs, campaign offices, and supporters are physically attacked.

    1. And by his emails disclosed by WikiLeaks detailing his contempt for anyone and everyone, to include his own supporters. Oh, wait; wrong candidate. If the coverage of those releases is the winner of Least Covered Story Ever award……

    2. And how often he sends people to protest and incite violence at Hillary rallies.

    3. You like being physically attacked. It feeds your persecution complex.

      1. “I didn’t rape her, she was asking for it!”

      2. Don’t waste too much time posting here, Hazel. Those Republican poll inspectors aren’t going to turn themselves away from polling stations.

      3. HazelMeade|11.8.16 @ 2:50PM|#

        You like being physically attacked. It feeds your persecution complex.

        Said HazelMeade to all the rape victims in Euro-landia and the USA. It’s a 10-year old boy’s solemn duty to be forcibly buttfucked for Open Borders, amirite? Just like the Yazhidis? You know, ISIS believes that borders are a mythical construct, too.

        I guess you just don’t like how Die Troompkinders are dressed. That makes it all OK.

  64. I’m not voting because the system is rigged. But I’ll be rioting with the Trumpkins when Hillary wins. Might be our last chance before she sics her police state goons on us.

    Jill Stein approves this message.

    1. Do you need a hug?

    2. I wish a member of the Philadelphia chapter of the Black Panthers would play the Knockout Game on your dumb ass.

    3. Just copying and pasting from this morning now? Bad, lazy troll.

  65. God damn. P.J. O’Fucking Rourke voted for Hillary?? Kill me now.

  66. The Libertarian Establishment doesn’t seem very libertarian…

    1. It’s Weigels all the way down.

    1. I was wondering what that smell was.

    2. These euphemisms, etc.

  67. Stupid, stupid anarch0-Trumpkins. Where oh where did you go wrong???

  68. Libertarians who vote for Clinton form a very special wing of the libertarian movement: they’re the shitweasel libertarians.

  69. OT: Lady Gaga, Bon Jovi, Madonna and More Rally for Clinton in Days, Hours Leading Up to Election: She ‘Is Made of Steel’

    Says the person wearing the red armband on her Hug Boss uniform. “Woman of Steel”, why does that sound familiar?

    1. Margaret Thatcher reference? I believe in original Soviet article she was called “Steel Lady”, and that’s what she was called behind the iron curtain.

      1. Thinking more along the lines of “Stalin, man-o-steel”. She might be some sort of Communazi.

        1. I was being silly.

          I’m well aware that Thatcher comparison would be intolerable for them. Stalin, now, had some good points….

  70. I never thought Carter was a bad person, just not a very good POTUS.

    Carter was probably the last President to meaningfully reduce regulation.

    1. He was truly a mixed bag.

      Nixon, on the other hand.

  71. Thanks for the list. Good to know who to disregard in the future. Though, to be fair, I already knew that about many of them.

  72. Thanks for highlighting the pro-war, big government wing of Libertarianism. I’ll be sure to avoid them like the plague.

  73. The upsides of Clinton:

    1. She’ll be under investigation and at risk of impeachment from day 1. Hopefully this will distract her from her everyday grifting activities.

    2. She’s already sick and unlikely to finish a term.

    3. Her complete lack of political skills and competence of any kind will probably prevent her from getting significant legislation passed.

    That’s all I can think of…

    1. 1. But the press, the bureaucracy, and the establishment will cover for her.

      2. True.

      3. But she’ll have the press, the bureaucracy, and the establishment on her side.

      I would add that she’s somewhat better than Trump on trade, but that pales as a plus compared to all her other negatives.

    2. Hillary is under no risk of impeachment. The Republicans will never get the 2/3rds majority necessary to remove her from office and the Democrats will never vote to do so. And the investigations will be meaningless kabuki dances where the Republicans uncover unbelievable corruption and criminality and the Democrats say “nothing to see here” and nothing else happens.

      1. And the investigations will be meaningless kabuki dances where the Republicans uncover unbelievable corruption and criminality and the Democrats say “nothing to see here” and nothing else happens.

        i.e. “the Republican witch-hunt found no evidence of wrongdoing, and once again the hearings served only to exonerate Mrs. Clinton.”

  74. I voted for Gary Johnson and a straight libertarian ticket. I also convinced my leftish-leaning husband to vote a straight libertarian ticket on the grounds that putting the LP over the 5% threshold would give us more options next time around.

  75. I tried to imagine a scenario where I could vote for Hillary and came up with this:
    First, drink an entire fifth of Jim Beam and chain smoke all the way to the polls.
    Stumble in if I can make it and mark my ballot for H.
    Vomit all over ballot, invalidating it.

    1. You could also fall down after all that alcohol, hitting your head and suffering brain damage. That might be enough.

      1. It worked for Hillary.

      2. Good one!

  76. No matter who gets elected you will always have the Agora, and by default, the Black Market. =D

  77. He is dangerous 50% of the time. She is dangerous 100% of the time.

  78. A thought occurred to me this morning? Trump appears on the CA ballot for both the Republican and American Independent parties? if the LP nominated someone from the DP or RP and that got candidate got 5% of the vote, would the LP get that magical major party status and automatic ballot access in several states?

    1. That’s how it works in every state where ballot access is predicated on a previous vote for some office. In NY the minor parties frequently cross-endorse major party nominees, getting them another line on the ballot under their party. It’s the vote for governor that determines ballot access & position in subsequent elections.

  79. If you held a gun to my head and forced me to vote for one or the other… I’d let the gun go off.

    Now if you did that to my wife or daughter, and I really had to choose… I’d probably choose Trump.

    I mean, he’s terrible. But he’s a wild card. There’s chances of him being halfway decent (if only because he’ll get pushback from both the right and left and nothing will get done), unquestionably terrible, or (most likely IMO) right in the middle, a standard politician.

    We know Hillary will be a standard politician.

    So right now I’d rather take the devil I don’t know. If I had to choose.

    I’m glad I didn’t have to choose.

    1. Hillary has never been standard – she has always been spectacularly corrupt and incompetent. She’s far more likely to start WWIII because she feels slighted or just by accident.

  80. For a libertarian to vote Hillary is just idiotic. Nobody’s vote is going to change the outcome of a presidential election.

    It does, however, a vote for the winner contribute a scintilla of support to the winner, and a vote against the winner expresses a scintilla of rejection to the winner.

    These so-called libertarians did nothing more nor less than express a scintilla of support to Hillary Clinton.

    And that makes them shitweasels.

    1. . Nobody’s vote is going to change the outcome of a presidential election.

      Yes, but a very-public announcement about your personal-struggle and ultimate conversion to the Correct Cause will ensure you don’t ever have to worry about being Othered by your professional peers

      1. This year, I don’t think any liberals or progressive are bothered by a vote for Johnson.

        The tragedy is that the duopoly once against suckered everyone into voting for someone they hate, just to stop the other person they hate.

        1. Honestly Hazel I don’t want to stop them. I just want to see rioting, and drink in the tears of infinite sadness.

          =D

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owzhYNcd4OM

        2. I don’t think any liberals or progressive are bothered by a vote for Johnson.

          That’s what you think

          Johnson was considered a non-thing, but around late sept/early oct, the media went gangbusters explaining how Johnson was the Anti-Clinton, and therefore support for him must be purged from the ranks of all GoodThinking people.

          Obama was not alone in making this case.

        3. I don’t think any liberals or progressive are bothered by a vote for Johnson.

          Go post that line on any Team Blue blog and see what happens.

      2. Yeah. Cocktail parties.

  81. Couldn’t this have waited until after today, Reason? All these people reinforcing the old “they’ll eventually fall in line” trope. Way to discourage would-be Johnson voters, dude.

    1. “When you’re a professional fake libertarian, you shill for big government left liberals like Obama and Hildog. It’s what you do!”

    2. I think Weld did the most to discourage would-be Johnson voters.

      1. ^This.

        For a microsecond, when I was in the voting booth, I considered a protest vote against Weld, which would of course be a vote for Trump. I then voted for the least of four evils, which was Johnson.

  82. One of the things we’ve been talking about around here is how Latino voters impact elections, both now and in the future.

    I’ve argued around here before that fourth generation Latinos aren’t likely to be much different from fourth generation Italians and fourth generation Irish. Many Italian-Irish also skew Democrat, but immigration isn’t necessarily the reason why. Just because you’re Latino, doesn’t mean you only care about immigration.

    Anyway, I just saw a little evidence for that separation I was talking about earlier up the food chain.

    “One potential reason for the polling errors? Not all polls interview Spanish-speaking voters, and their attitudes differ from English-speaking Latinos. With the support of the Russell Sage Foundation, Cheryl Kaiser, Efr?n P?rez and I just completed a survey conducted through GfK of 452 Latino adults. Thirty-five percent of our respondents took the survey in Spanish, while the remainder took it in English. And attitudes differ markedly between the two groups. Among those taking the survey in English, 51 percent backed Clinton to 18 percent for Trump, giving Clinton a 33 percentage-point margin. But among Spanish speakers, the gulf was much more pronounced, with 74 percent supporting Clinton versus just 7 percent for Trump.”

    http://fivethirtyeight.com/liv…..-coverage/

    1. I mean, if they don’t speak English, where exactly are they going to get any pro-Trump viewpoint from?

        1. Considering how much and how often Reasonoids, past and present, such as Krayewski, Beloved Lucy, and 2Chillay, appeared on RT alongside Mnogo Babushka Alyoooona, they may not want to throw that stone.

          1. That was before Putin Went Bad (on gays). Now they shun it like all the right-thinking people should.

          2. If the Putin wants to pay to spread libertarianism over the airwaves, I saw we let him.

      1. Yeah, all the Spanish language media is all Trump all the time.

        Like American news was all about ObL after 9/11.

  83. Gillette has no guarantee that anyone he allegedly traded his vote with is going to vote as they say. It’s a fool’s errand to hinge your vote on someone else being honest.

    I’m willing to believe in the honesty of most of the people, most of the time, but a promise a dedicated Hillary voter is going to “squander” her chance to vote for the First Vagina President just doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

    “Whoopsie! I pulled the ‘Democratic Party slate’ lever by mistake.”

  84. Those people who prefer their surveys in Spanish are presumably more first and second generation immigrants. The ones who prefer English are more likely third and fourth generation.

    Progressives like to imagine that demographic changes will cement their leadership in perpetuity, but the fact is that the more Americanized Latinos become, the more they become like other Americans. As the white, blue collar, middle class becomes more Latino, Latinos become more like blue collar, middle class, whites.

    Only 51% of the latter are backing Hillary.

    Despite all the bluster about deportation, walls, and anti-immigration, Trump still scored almost 20% of their support.

    1. There was a poll out yesterday that had Hillary getting 69% of the combined black Hispanic vote with 13% still either undecided or voting third party. If that poll is even close to right, Hillary is in trouble. It is gravely bad news for her not so much because she is in danger of only getting 69% of that block, but because if she is only drawing that amount of support at this late date, neither group is that motivated to vote for her and is almost certainly not going to turnout in the numbers she needs to win.

      1. I find it stunning.

        As much hate as has been thrown at Trump over Latino issues, Hillary can only muster 51% of their support.

        Immigration may be one of those issues that rallies a certain breed of white bleeding heart liberal more so than it does fourth generation Latinos.

        And if somebody can keep their mouth shut about it–or if the Republicans run a Latino–Hillary might have been crushed.

        That 51% support presumably includes all the Latinos who just hate Trump over immigration. If it weren’t for that, she’d presumably slip under 50%.

        1. I don’t know if you’re spinning each other or are both being spun, but Hillary is receiving record Latino support, Trump is receiving record low Latino support, and Latino turnout is at record numbers.

          1. I’d say you need to work on your reading comprehension, but you don’t care whether what you’re saying is right or wrong–much less whether it’s pertinent.

  85. You can tell who the real libertarians are because they agree with me which candidate is worse.

    1. Being a real libertarian isn’t about coming to any particular conclusion.

      It’s about coming to your conclusions for real libertarian reasons.

      I’m interested in hearing why people disagree with me–especially if they’ve got a legitimate libertarian angle.

      They can’t show me where and why I’m wrong if they don’t know what my position is and why.

      1. You do know that normal people don’t submit all of their thoughts to a test of adherence to a particular ideology, right?

        1. It doesn’t have to be libertarian.

          It’s that way at work, too.

          The reason I explain to the broker what I think about where his specific submarket is headed and why is because I want him to explain to me where and why I’m getting it wrong.

          You don’t operate that way, Tony, because you don’t care whether your ideas are right or wrong. With you, it’s probably a character issue.

          But the things that are most likely to be true are the things that survive the most and best scrutiny.

          That’s how markets work.

          That’s how evolution works.

          That’s how science works.

          That’s how my thinking works.

          I subject it to excellent scrutiny in places like Hit & Run, and I end up smarter because of it.

          That’s not how you work, and that’s one of the reasons why you’re such a retard.

          1. ^Bravo Ken, now stop feeding the troll.

          2. I suppose you could say that submitting your ideas to empirical tests is just another arbitrary moral code, but I’m not that much of a relativist. You’re not doing that at all. Libertarianism isn’t empirical. It knows that too; its economic concepts expressly deny that they are subject to empirical test (gee I wonder why). What you said is that you test everything by whether it adheres to libertarian sharia.

            1. Tony uses words.

              He has no idea what they mean.

        2. You do know that normal people don’t submit all of their thoughts to a test of adherence to a particular ideology, right?

          Yes, they do. They just don’t articulate it and aren’t consciously aware of it.

      2. Oh I agree. I just find it counterproductive to try and excommunicate people who end up supporting a candidate because they think the other candidate’s victory would turn out worse for liberty. I don’t think Rothbarding down our numbers until we’re even less influential is a viable path toward more support for liberty.

  86. Any libertarian voting for Clinton in a Clinton-safe state like California or New York needs to have their brain examined.

  87. I’m registered in Florida. I voted for Johnson. So suck my johnson.

    1. Congratulations! So what you’ve really done is spend time in your day taking a vote away from whichever of the two candidates who could possibly win your state you like marginally better.

      1. Nope. I voted weeks ago absentee.

        And I hate them both. I’ve attempted to set the stage for a 3rd party to actually have a real chance in the future by trying to get Johnson to 5%.

        1. So the libertarian can spoil every election going forward? 5% is a lot in Florida.

          1. So a Libertarian party can get actual National recognition and begin winning seats in Congress, giving us a legitimate 3rd option in voting booths that splits the difference between Democrats and Republicans. There are more registered Independents than ever before. People want more options.

            With the current Presidential election system, a Libertarian would be very hard pressed to win. The best they could really hope for is denying any candidate 270 votes and forcing the election to the House. But then it would just end up being whoever controlled the House that won the Presidency. An actual Libertarian president would be far down the road if it’s possible at all. But you have to start somewhere.

            1. Our system is just not set up for more than two parties. You’d do better to join one of them and become a constituent it has to pay attention to. I say the same to far lefties, who are also perpetually crying about how they don’t ever get their way (as they vow never to participate in politics as it is). Even if we had 10 parties, they’d just form coalitions that would amount to a majority and a minority. It’s not that big of a deal. And no matter how strategic you are, you’ll never get a libertarian government if only 5% of the people actually want a libertarian government.

              1. Tony|11.8.16 @ 4:15PM|#
                “Our system is just not set up for more than two parties.”

                Fuck off, asswipe.

                1. Tony,
                  You are once again proving to be the epitome of the dumbass American citizenry.

                  You make a really intelligent argument when you say that more choices is a bad thing.

          2. So the libertarian can spoil every election going forward?

            In sh’allah.

      2. I’m also in Florida, and I also voted for Johnson. Nobody’s vote was lost, because if I didn’t have a third option I wouldn’t have voted.

        And how sad is your life that you continue to troll here?

        1. So by your careful, mature assessment, Clinton and Trump are equally unacceptable as president? What an astounding coincidence that is, considering they believe opposite things on everything and have opposite qualifications and temperaments.

          And you don’t have to be mean. Sorry Hillary is gonna be the president. Perhaps I should just go away while you guys get it out of your system.

          1. considering they believe opposite things on everything and have opposite

            Yes. They are practically polar opposites. They agree on absolutely nothing. None can find even one single thing on which they agree.

            So by your careful, mature assessment, Clinton and Trump are equally unacceptable as president?

            They don’t have to be. They just have to both be unacceptable. I have very little interest in putting them in the balance, getting out my instruments and trying to figure out which one is a few microns worse and then deciding I am therefore obligated to vote for the other one.

            But then again, I have principles that one of the people running largely represents. I understand that you don’t, and can’t really sympathize, so I suppose you probably just won’t ever understand.

  88. I’m using it now and it’s awesome! I’ve signed up for my account and have been bringing in fat paychecks. For real, my first week I made $305 and the second week I doubled it and then it kind a snowballed to $120 a day! just follow the course.. they will help you out………

    …………….>>>>> http://www.NetNote20.Com

  89. Honestly, this is why I will never vote libertarian again. The party is overrun with these people who talk a big game and then default for a statist as soon as they’re pressed by rich white liberals. I really think that a lot of ‘libertarians’ are just full-on cowards who don’t believe in any of the stuff they talk about.

    1. A presidential election is a choice between two people, always a Republican and a Democrat. You can sit it out, but you’re still sort of voting the one you like the least by doing so. Why is it not completely legitimate to hate both parties and both candidates but to realize that Donald Trump is simply unacceptable? Isn’t that the brave thing to do? Aren’t the cowards the ones who refuse to nut up and choose?

      1. Tony. Tony. Tony…
        When voting becomes mandatory you get a million candidates like this.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiU1EKZKBmk

        Just visit a few South American countries.

        1. I don’t think voting should be mandatory. I just think people should stop calling themselves brave for not making a difficult choice.

          1. So If you are given an order to turn the key, and launch a nuclear, ballistic missile. Are you brave enough to not turn the key, and refuse to kill millions of people ?

            1. Either choice might be brave. No such thing as not making a choice is there? Elections are kind of like that too.

              1. So I don’t choose to kill millions of people. I am such a coward for not making a choice. =D

                1. But you did make a choice. That is rather an apt metaphor for this election.

                  And maybe that choice meant you get executed for treason, who knows?

              2. So if both candidates are going to start WW3 you have two vote for one of them.

                /Tony

                =D

          2. Do you even care about other peoples feelings ?
            Instead of forcing other people to care about your feelings, maybe you should just leave them alone.

            1. Of course no answer from Tony. =D

              Maybe later when the thread is dead, and he receives his talking points. =D

              1. I don’t understand the question.

                1. So if both candidates are going to start WW3 you have two vote for one of them.

                  /Tony

                  =D

                  1. Do understand the question now ? =D

                  2. You don’t get to opt out of having a president, no.

      2. Ezra Klein is that you?

        1. Tony is way too smart and coherent writer to be a Klein pseudonym.

          1. Nah, that dude has a sort of sense of humor. Plus he’s ethnic, and Tony hates ethnic people.

            1. Nah, that dude has a sort of sense of humor. Plus he’s ethnic, and Tony hates ethnic people.

              …………..Shreeky? AmSock?

            2. Now you’re just making shit up. But I am very white. You’d never spot me at one of your libertarian conferences.

          2. Fuck, I wish. I read a few tweets and that guy is way more fun!

    2. The simple truth is that the overwhelming majority of people who claim to be libertarians really aren’t. This is nothing new, and has been a pretty long established method of political concern trolling.

      This was just fine, until unfortunately about ten years ago or so that creep Andrew Sullivan managed to figure out a way to monetize and make a living off being a full time PFL (professional fake libertarian). And the rest is awful history. All these assholes like Dave Weigel and and Pete Suderman and the whole entire lot of them are just carbon copies of the mold that Sullivan forged.

  90. A letter in the Union Leader said this election was a choice between “democracy or dictatorship”. The writer meant Trump is the dictator. Funny how people of the left aren’t just wrong but 180 degrees backwards wrong.

    1. Same thing with these people here. Trump isn’t a test of our system. He would be a neophyte President. Big deal. What is a test to our system is electing a President that half the country is convinced is guilty of serious felonies and only got off because of a corrupt FBI. That is something new and a real test of the entire system. We have never had a President who was viewed as above the law.

      But these yahoos think Trump is the real threat. They are 180 degrees wrong about everything. They are just fucking morons all of them.

      1. Don’t you think the FBI (which is known to have a Republican-dominated culture and has never been led by anyone but a Republican) meddled enough in this election? If half the country thinks something that’s not true, why is that anyone’s fault but theirs?

        1. So Tony how violent are going to get ? And can I film you ? =D

        2. Yes, and the entire rank and file of the FBI is convinced Hillary is the anti Christ. The only reason she wasn’t indicted is because there is a Democratic hack running the organization.

          But I am sure having a President that the rank and file of both federal law enforcement and the intel community hate and are out to get will work out real well.

          1. Maybe it’s time to clean house if they can’t do their jobs without letting politics getting in the way.

            Comey is not a Democrat. No Democrat has ever run the FBI. That’s the organization you think gave Hillary a pass–despite dragging her through the mud all summer for sending emails.

          2. And if you think anyone believes your primary concern is the application of justice, you’re dumb.

            I don’t like Trump or, say, Bush, but it gives me no pleasure to think of them behind bars. You people are truly sick.

            1. PROJECTION!

      2. Hey I voted for Trump just to see all of the Hillary supporters riot, and the Trump supporters shoot them while defending their property.
        =D

      3. He would be a neophyte President. Big deal.

        A toddler with a chainsaw is a big deal.

        1. So is a monkey with a machine gun, but who fucking cares? that is not what we are talking about. And if you think Trump, a guy who has had a successful business career and in television and has been in the public spotlight for 25 years is somehow a toddler and some emotionally disturbed crazy and no one, including his ex wives, bothered to notice, you are a fucking moron.

          1. Wonder how successful he’d be without the government bailout known as bankruptcy protection–or if he paid his workers.

            1. MORE GOVERNMENT !!!!

              TONY SEX VOTE FOR HILLATRUMP !!!!

      4. In these discussions about Hillary getting a pass for being a felon I rarely hear Obama’s name mentioned. Yes, the FBI is corrupt but it is all Obama’s doing. He isnt an observer on the sidelines, this is all his doing. He is the chief LEO in the land. Hillary is getting a pass because Obama is giving her one. Comey is only doing what he is told to do.

        “But these yahoos think Trump is the real threat.”

        No they don’t. They are lying and they know exactly what is going on. Yes, they are morons. Lying morons.

      5. It’s not just that Hillary is a crook. We’ve known about that since the 90s. She also has horrible instincts and a track record of dismal failure as Secretary of State. She hates — real hate, not phony hate — a large minority of Americans, and feels comfortable about publicly saying they are deplorable and irredeemable. Even though I am not a Trump supporter, I’m pretty sure that I’m in that minority. And she’s on record against the 1st Amendment and the 2nd Amendment when they don’t suit her purposes.

        In 2008, I actually preferred Hillary when it narrowed down to a three-way race among McCain, Hillary, and Obama. Her tenure as SoS left a wake of catastrophes after which she cackled “We came, we saw, he died” and precisely zero positive accomplishments. Her campaign has made the prospect of her regime even worse.

  91. That would of course make them idiots. Voting for the hag is the opposite of rational thinking. The best thing to do is vote for none of them if you cannot make up your mind as a libertarian.

    If you think your vote counts, best to vote for the guy that is hated by all of the bad players in the world.(FED, UE, D.C., Hollywood, NATO, Middle East). Of course he sucks too.
    No professed libertarian is really for small government if they vote for her. That is the most valuable tenant of libertarianism.
    Anyone who voted for her is really not a libertarian and is really stupid. What you most likely are is someone who wants legal pot but also believes evil corporations are causing the world to get hot.

    A decent analogy is when Stephen Tyler said he tried gay sex once, did not like, and therefore he is not gay.
    Sorry ragdoll. You’re gay.

    1. Donald Trump’s principal policy idea, the world’s most pointless public works project, is not “limited government.”

      1. Neither is your gals domestic policy.

        1. She never said it was. Limited government is code words for lower taxes on the superrich. And that’s literally all.

          You people are not seriously going around town in a huff at all the liberty-killing streetlights and bridges. You’re just ideological errand boys for billionaires.

          1. Limited government is code words for lower taxes on the superrich.

            And “good government” is code words for “tax absolutely everyone without mercy.”

            See how easy that is?

            1. On the contrary it took years of study for me to figure out that “limited government” is code words for lower taxes on billionaires. You just made up a silly thing.

              1. Pssst –

                People don’t share hive minds. Some people advocate limited government because they believe it is what is best for everyone.

                But I don’t expect you to understand that. In fact, I fully expect you to make every effort to make sure you *don’t* understand. It’s what you do.

                1. I think the benefactors of this publication and libertarianism in general genuinely think they believe in some moral system that involves limited government. That the most noticeable outcome of policies they champion is a vast lowering of their own tax rates and fewer regulations on their own businesses is, I’m sure, just a happy coincidence.

                  1. I think the benefactors of this publication and libertarianism in general genuinely think they believe in some moral system that involves limited government.

                    Do you ever engage with the person that you’re actually talking to, or is it just all-strawmen-in-your-head-all-the-time?

                    1. The Kochs are not straw men.

              2. I would love to know what you studied for years.

                You’re utter stupidity gives me an educated guess that is was literature or sociology.

                Your cumulative business and economics education likely consists of you staring at your monthly bills in confusion and frustration.

                1. I would love to know what you studied for years.

                  Tony was a PoliSci/Sociology major, with a minor in Registration.

              3. You devoted years of study to decode “limited government” and still came up with the wrong answer, Tony.

                Figures.

          2. And you’re just a theft-enabling cunt. I pity you, in that your envy makes you complicit in crimes against others.

            Maybe there’s hope for you, but none of us around here sees that happening anytime soon. Well, not that anyone’s mentioned, at least.

  92. From a few days ag:

    Reported Kelly: “Mrs. Clinton argues that the concepts of liberalism and conservatism don’t really mean anything anymore and that the politics of the New Age is moving beyond ideology.” He concluded, “Returning to moral judgment as a basis for governmental policy must inevitably mean curtailing what have come to be regarded as sacrosanct rights and admitting a limit to tolerance.”

    Sorry, but no one who votes for someone with that position can plausibly call themselves a libertarian. Period, full stop. Donald Trump’s instincts may be anti-liberty. But, at least he doesn’t take the renunciation of human freedom as a defined political philosophy.

    1. Oh my god. That is not from a few days ago, it’s from 1993, and you have no idea what the fuck you’re talking about. That is the author of the piece contrasting the conservative worldview (using strict morality as a guide–same with libertarians by the way), which necessarily means curtailing liberties in the name of morality, with the liberalism of Hillary Clinton, which is more tolerant. The entire article is about HRC reconciling her religiosity with “New Age” liberalism.

      “The very core of what I believe is this concept of individual worth.” That’s her own words.

      Also, Donald Trump is an idiot who finger-rapes women.

      1. “The very core of what I believe is this concept of my individual net worth.”

        FTFY

  93. Well, if Hillary wins, tonight might be a good night to pick up some Nasty Women lookin for a good time. I say this to the single dudes here-I’m a family man.

  94. Whatever.

    Bottom line is: fuck the Republicans who gave us Trump as the nominee. If ANY of the 16 other candidates in the primaries had gotten the nom, this wouldn’t even be a debatable election. May the Trumpists burn in everlasting hell.

    1. The Republicans responsible for giving Trump the nomination deserve President Hillary, sure, but I’m not sure how many of the other choices could have beaten her. I seriously doubt Jeb Bush would have, for example.

      Months ago I thought none of the GOP candidates would beat Clinton, but now I think bland Establishment types (not named Bush) like Rubio might have done it.

    2. Not so sure about that-Team Blue I’m sure would find ways to demonize any one of the other candidates and voters would buy it (remember Mitt Romney’s dog?). To Trump’s credit- he threw their shit right back at them.

  95. Just ran across this:

    Turns out a lower percentage of Americans have private (read: real) health insurance now than in 2007.

    According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (see table 1.2b), 66.8 percent of those living in the United States had private health insurance in 2007. Now, as of 2015 (the most recent year for which figures are available), only 65.6 percent of those living in the United States have private health insurance.

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/…..le/2004964

    My suspicions that OCare accomplished nothing more than Medicaid expansion look pretty solid now.

    1. Aren’t a large chunk of medicaid’s costs incurred by the states?

      So… isn’t this basically just a backdoor way of making states “pay” for a federal mandate?

      iow, hiding the costs of the ACA in various state budgets, rather in the direct-costs of the program.

    2. But we had to do something RC. What a fucking tragedy that whole thing has turned out to be.

      1. Oh please, it gave your guys control of Congress for six years. You couldn’t be happier with the ACA if it tickled your balls with a feather. Being the Weekly Standard, it presents that figure as some catastrophe, when in reality more people are covered, just largely by Medicaid.

        So it’s win-win. Democrats got to actually help human beings, and Republicans got to use the law to make vast numbers of idiots scared enough to vote for them.

        1. Go fuck yourself Tony. You and people like you destroyed millions of people’s health insurance. You did it because you passed a mean spirited idiotic law and in spite of the fact that you were warned repeatedly what was going to happen.

          I tolerate your stupidity. But don’t come in here and fucking piss all over the millions of people whose lives you and your ilk seriously harmed. I know you don’t care that you did that because you don’t give a shit about anything but yourself and your sick ideology. But the rest of us do.

          1. I spent a lot of time here explaining why I think the ACA was an unfortunate law, but probably an improvement. And tens of millions of people with access to healthcare who didn’t have it before is an improvement.

            And I never heard of people just loving their private health insurance until now. I’ll pry your overpriced, inefficient private healthcare from your cold, dead hands, I suppose.

            1. They had access to healthcare before you imbecile. Free healthcare has always been available to deadbeats. Have you never been to an emergency room?

              Keep talking though. You’re ignorance is a good sign as you adequately represent the throngs of idiots going around doing what they have been brainwashed to do.

              You are one of the dumbest people I have ever heard try to sound smart. You’re like a kid that got locked in the closet with one phoenix book.

              1. So are you endorsing the ad hoc socialism of treating poor people in ERs that was part of the very inefficiency in our system that this legislation was meant to address?

                1. So are you endorsing the ad hoc socialism of treating poor people in ERs that was part of the very inefficiency in our system that this legislation was meant to address?

                  And what, pray tell, has changed about that?

                  1. The fact that their own coverage is paying for the ER trips?

                    1. So the benefit is less to them and more to . . . whom, exactly?

                    2. The fact that their own coverage is paying for the ER trips?

                      Medicaid is a welfare program.

        2. Democrats got to actually help human beings

          How so?

          The people who “got” coverage who didn’t have it before only got catastrophic coverage. Which they had before. Only now they have to pay for it, which they couldn’t do before, and still can’t.

          So who got helped, exactly?

          1. I’m talking about the Medicaid expansion.

            The point is creeping socialism is a win for both parties. Democrats get to help people, and Republicans get to continue being nihilistic assholes with plenty of fodder for scaremongering ads.

            1. George bush did the prescription drug benefit. prior to Obamacare, it was the largest expansion of welfare since SS and Medicaid. It was another massive boondoggle by another idiot politician.

              You are so god damn stupid, you think more of that crap will fix things.

              So guess what everyone; Tony liked George Bush and supported his policies!

            2. George bush did the prescription drug benefit. prior to Obamacare, it was the largest expansion of welfare since SS and Medicaid. It was another massive boondoggle by another idiot politician.

              You are so god damn stupid, you think more of that crap will fix things.

              So guess what everyone; Tony liked George Bush and supported his policies!

            3. Actually you were talking about the ACA, but now that we’ve changed the subject how does Medicaid expansion help the people who were already getting free care before?

              1. Medicaid expansion is in the ACA. And are you talking about the ER socialism crap like timbo above?

                The law increased the number of people eligible for Medicaid, which, as studies have shown, produced better healthcare outcomes (meaning, in contrast to expensive ER visits).

                1. The law increased the number of people eligible for Medicaid, which, as studies have shown, produced better healthcare outcomes (meaning, in contrast to expensive ER visits).

                  Um – ER visits are way up. And the law hasn’t been in place long enough for there to be meaningful knowledge about “outcomes.”

                  1. Both ER visits and primary care visits are up in states where the expansion went into effect, which is simple supply and demand. The ER visits I’m referring to prior to the ACA (or in states that didn’t accept the expansion) are ones in which the patient doesn’t pay. In those cases people go to ERs only when necessary, increasing the cost of treatments.

                    1. The ER visits I’m referring to prior to the ACA (or in states that didn’t accept the expansion) are ones in which the patient doesn’t pay.

                      Which is exactly what I said above –

                      The people who “got” coverage who didn’t have it before only got catastrophic coverage. Which they had before. Only now they have to pay for it, which they couldn’t do before, and still can’t.

                      So who got helped, exactly?

        3. The only increase in Medicaid was created by those who lost their insurance because of ACA and then states telling people they can’t afford insurance after losing it so they now have to be on medicaid . its a numbers game played by the government to make it look good when its actually worse since nwo I have nothing since medicaid does not pay for anything

    3. In addition to other missteps, Trump didn’t really play his cards well.

      He had better cards than the cards he played. Even when he talked about some of them, he didn’t do it in a way that made sense to average people.

      Let’s hope the Republicans keep the Senate, so they can offer up some defense against Hillary’s public option.

    4. Just 2% of ObamaCare subscribers have income over 400% of poverty line because that’s where the subsidies disappear and the unsubsidized premiums are astronomical.

      For the first time since 1976, I am going to be uninsured thanks to ObamaCare. The alternative is a $20,000/year premium with a $5000 deductible. Or $12000/year and a $14000 deductible to get a policy with the state’s Medicaid HMO. I’ve considered not working for half of next year so that I could get the $9000 subsidy, but I can’t afford the lost income. Before ObamaCare I paid around $7000/year for perfectly satisfactory policy (real insurance with full hospitalization benefits and choice of providers.)

      Thanks, ObamaCare!

  96. OK, getting in late, and tl;dr for this thread, BUT:

    Isn’t the problem in this case really just one of “false dichotomy”? Seriously, why do these talking heads have to go with the either/or set-up? Holy shit, write in a candidate, if you don’t like the Big Two!

    It’s almost as if these “libertarians” want to be on the winning side more than they want to exercise their vote for someone who they believe represents principled, small-government ideas. FFS, write in Rand, or McAfee, or Lily Tang Williams.

    Or, just don’t vote. Do Penn, or O’Rourke, or whoever, not realize they don’t have to give anyone their seal of approval? Do they not get that their holding their collective noses doesn’t get registered-only the vote itself?

    1. Exactly. No one is blaming them for not supporting Trump. But you could opt out or vote LP. Voting for Hillary is for anyone who claims to be on the right or a libertarian totally inexcusable.

      1. “Exactly. No one is blaming them for not supporting Trump. But you could opt out or vote LP. Voting for Hillary is for anyone who claims to be on the right or a libertarian totally inexcusable.”
        IMHO That is the vibe I get around my circle.

      2. I could have sworn you were carrying the torch for pragmatism just the other day, John. You know very well that voting third party is a complete waste of time and serves absolutely no purpose but to make people feel like they did something good when they have done fuck-all in reality.

        Thus, if you think Trump is a threat to national or global survival, you have to vote for Clinton. I’d say that’s the brave thing to do, but it’s really not. It’s just filling in a little circle.

        1. Wasting your vote is better than voting for someone as opposed to freedom and the rule of law as Hillary.

          We get it Tony, you love Hillary and are here to shill for her. You are of course free to do that. But could you at least try and not be so fucking boring. Jesus, you are tiresome.

        2. Calm down Tony-Trump is not a threat to anyone’s survival. If he wins, he is so disliked already that I doubt he will last more than 6 months before he is removed and your beloved democrats will reap the benefits even more than they did in Bush’s second term.

          1. Nick. stop giving Tony a reason to feel good. If Trump wins, he won’t be quite so much disliked. Winning solves a lot of problems. So, I doubt he will be removed in four years much less six months.

          2. Oh great President Pence. Should I just go ahead and affix my pink triangle?

            If I were worried that Trump had a shot at winning I would be well on my way to my bungalow in New Zealand. Republicans should be forever thankful for Trump. As in, each and every one forever more can say “At least I’m not as bad as…”

        3. You know very well that voting third party is a complete waste of time and serves absolutely no purpose but to make people feel like they did something good when they have done fuck-all in reality

          This has been explained to you so many times that one has to think that you just willfully indulge in dishonesty.

          But for the sake of any lurkers around, a vote for the victor is interpreted as a mandate for their policies. A non-vote is interpreted as apathy, and thus as a mandate for the victor’s policies.

          Only a third party vote sends a signal that you are not providing a mandate for the victor’s policies. It is literally your only chance at a voice.

          Voting for one of the two major candidates is tossing a brick into the Grand Canyon. It makes no difference, and it means nothing.

          Take your sanctimonious lecturing elsewhere.

          1. So surely you can point out all the third-party presidential candidates who represented meaningful movements that still affect American politics?

            Gee, hmm, there was Perot who Republicans blame Clinton on, and Nader who Democrats blame W. on. Seems that if third party candidates accomplish anything at all, it’s to get the worse guy elected, just as the basic arithmetic of a winner-take-all ballot might suggest.

            1. Eugene V. Debbs, Teddy Roosevelt, John Fremont, George Wallace, John Anderson, Ralph Nader

              That’s just off the top of my head.

            2. Or, to put it another way, as a knee-jerk Team Blue partisan, you don’t see any impact.

              You look at Nader and see someone who spoiled a Democrat’s chances at being president.

              As someone who was a pretty dedicated Green Party member all through the 90s, I saw Nader as someone who got the Democrats to realize that the environmental movement was being ignored at their peril. Now the Democrats have pretty well completely co-opted the Green Party platform, and the modern Green Party is just a clone of Peace & Freedom.

              But you would have preferred that Nader just didn’t even run – right?

              1. Of course. Whatever his influence on political discourse with respect to environmental causes, I think perhaps Al Gore’s was somewhat more. Shall we just call it tragic irony?

                1. Al Gore didn’t discover his love of the environment until well after he was out of office.

                  You’re probably too young to remember, but Gore spent the 2000 campaign bragging about what a warmonger he is and promising the country that he would draw a hard line with Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction.

                  But all that’s been pushed down the Team Blue memory hole in the nostalgia for the lost Golden Age that was the Gore presidency. Because BOOOOOOSH!!!!!

                  1. Well, the point is Al Gore is known as the single most visible environmental activist on planet earth, and Nader is known as the guy who gave us Bush. The conversation is about what third-party candidates actually accomplish.

                    1. Well, the point is Al Gore is known as the single most visible environmental activist on planet earth, and Nader is known as the guy who gave us Bush. The conversation is about what third-party candidates actually accomplish.

                      And again, you exactly make my point while thinking you are schooling me on how I’m wrong.

                      You only see Nader as a spoiler for Gore. You now see Gore as some great eco-warrior.

                      Al Gore was decidedly not an environmentalist prior to the 2000s – that’s why Nader got such big support in 2000.

                      What that third-party candidate accomplished was turning Al Gore into “the single most visible environmental activist on planet earth.” But what you remember is “the guy who gave us Bush.”

                      That’s why I say “as a knee-jerk Team Blue partisan, you don’t see any impact.”

                      And I don’t imagine you ever will, because the only principle you seem to have is “Team Blue must win.” It’s not at all clear to me that you care in any way what Team Blue’s platform actually is, such that were there no Nader, and Gore never became an environmentalist, you would simply be an anti-environmentalist who happily saw your own team elected in 2000.

      3. Honestly, I could almost see voting for Clinton on the right. At least if you’re a neoconservative, she’ll service your warboner. But, no fucking way can you vote for Clinton as a libertarian. The woman’s entire political mantra is collectivism and government power. Saying you won’t vote for Trump on libertarian grounds and then saying you’ll vote for Clinton is like saying you don’t don’t want to deal with the health risks of tobacco, so you’ll shoot heroine instead.

    2. Penn articulated his fear of a Trump presidency outweighed his support for Johnson so he made the pitiful attempt at convincing other people to vote for Johnson for him in order to contribute to Trump’s defeat in NV where people’s votes do actually count.

      My problem is that without knowing in what state any of the other people live in I cannot determine if their vote for Hillary is a pathetic exercise in virtue signaling or an actual strategic choice.

      Voting for Johnson matters if you want the LP to get minor party status by passing 5%. If you’re libertarian and hate the two party system that in of itself is a reason enough.

      1. It is not about a fear of a Turmp presidency. It is about a fear of a Trump Presidency as opposed to a Hillary Presidency. Did Gillette understand that he should fear a Hillary Presidency?

  97. http://twitchy.com/gregp-3534/…..-day-ever/

    How 2016 ends at Politico World HQ in Rosslyn: a cracked pipe in a 9th floor bathroom leaking sewage onto the 8th floor where newsroom is.”

    Perhaps this is a sign of things to come.

    1. ^Swamped.

  98. Wow, the [Weld Libertarian] contingent has come out of the woodwork to vote for the fine upstanding loving charitable (choke, choke)… excuse me, Hillary Clinton. I guess all the commercials funded by the big donors worked. I guess I am the fool for believing people couldn’t be that gullible. If Clinton loses, Trump will have ended two political dynasties and up ended the stranglehold the fops in GOP have on one of the parties. The media will go into convulsions, Glen Beck will cry and we will get more stories of how Trump is invading the dreams of little children to terrorize them.

  99. I would love for Trump to treat all these self important world leaders like the shit they deserve to be treated. Its time they were all put in their place, to bad Trump can’t win

  100. “Smart people don’t become journalists or political toadies as a rule.”

    Or write for a non-profit. Cuz inthe real world, your boss usually insist on some kind of competent work product, else they cease to be a for profit endeavour. Jesus, the fucking cognitive dissonance, to sell libertarian (the market place) ideas, you have to use government endowed non-profit protections. I wish I could get a gig like that.

  101. “Smart people don’t become journalists or political toadies as a rule.”

    Or write for a non-profit. Cuz inthe real world, your boss usually insist on some kind of competent work product, else they cease to be a for profit endeavour. Jesus, the fucking cognitive dissonance, to sell libertarian (the market place) ideas, you have to use government endowed non-profit protections. I wish I could get a gig like that.

  102. “Smart people don’t become journalists or political toadies as a rule.”

    Or write for a non-profit. Cuz inthe real world, your boss usually insist on some kind of competent work product, else they cease to be a for profit endeavour. Jesus, the fucking cognitive dissonance, to sell libertarian (the market place) ideas, you have to use government endowed non-profit protections. I wish I could get a gig like that.

    1. You really pounded that submit button, didn’t you?

    2. Have you seen anything posted on Gawker’s subsites? Huffington Post? Jezebel? These are not sites that demand ‘competent work product’ from their writers.

      Unless you’re definition of ‘competent work product’ is solely focused on clickbait to attract advertisers.

  103. Trump’s race-baiting demagoguery soundly rejected

    But its funny how they’ve ignored Clinton’s race-baiting *and* sexist demagoguery.

  104. It’s elections like this that make me feel great about living in the collectivist state of California . . . my vote won’t matter . . . my conscience is free . . . the one with the “(D)” owns the electoral college.

  105. Meanwhile, a number of #NeverTrump Republicans like me basically cancelled those out by voting Johnson/Weld!

    (I actually voted straight-LP ? outside of town council ?here in NJ, since I preferred Libertarian William Sihr to Trumpkin Bob Patterson in NJ-1’s Congressional race)

  106. Hmm – with her warmongering, support for un Constitutional war on drugs, ObamaCare, gun control, taxes, regulations, and more and more government???

  107. Hmm – with her warmongering, support for un Constitutional war on drugs, ObamaCare, gun control, taxes, regulations, and more and more government???

  108. *cough* bullshit *cough*

  109. This is just further evidence that the libertarian movement is sadly unreliable and uninspiring, just like the left and the right. Depressing.

    Hooray for drones and the ACA.

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

  111. 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

  112. 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

  113. “We know she’s the fucking devil, but she’s the devil we know, dammit!”

  114. 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

  115. 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

  116. Voting his is not a horse race where you try to choose the winner, it’s an election!

    Our biased media is horrible and a race is exactly what they offer as they live and die by ratings; sensationalism, one liners, and sound bites instead of fair and responsible journalism! In addition, their antiquated polling doesn’t reflect reality. The debate commission knowingly set the 15% polling threshold for invitations on stage, insurmountable without equal and fair media coverage and inclusive polling questions. So, ultimately, voters were offered only two options, Clinton the status quo or Trump for change!

    Voters today can not rely on quality journalism or even real facts. We need to read between the lines or eliminate them completely before we can determine whether it’s real or propaganda! It’s our responsibility to choose who we believe in. Unfortunately, we can’t move away from the two party system with it’s partisan gridlock without election reforms like changing up the debate commission for starters!

  117. 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

  118. 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

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.