Donald Trump

President Trump Is No Good Reason to End a Relationship

A disagreement over who to vote for, or not vote for, isn't a good reason to end a relationship, whether familial, intimate, or just friendly. Even if the politician voted for does great harm.


Many Americans are very, very angry or distressed that Donald Trump became president of the United States today. In looking for someone to blame, I've seen many swing at what's closest: relatives, friends, or business associates who either voted for Trump, or did not contribute to his possible defeat by voting for the candidate most likely to beat him, Hillary Clinton. In the dock, then, for what might happen to America in the next four years are not just conscious Trump voters, but Jill Stein and Gary Johnson ones, as well as the usual huge percentage of Americans (45 percent this time around) who choose not to vote at all.


If your communities in social networking and real life have given no examples of angrily writing off or at least deeply straining relationships over Trump, you are fortunate, and can read up on aspects of this line of thinking at any one of these links.)

Some relationships may in fact be entirely based on the joys (they can be real, and libertarians for whom true political value affinity is rare know it well) of amity on big questions of politics and policy, the ethical and prudential role of government, what candidates or parties are best for your vision of America.

If you have a relationship entirely based on patting each other on the back for thinking properly about politics, and that is strained when someone you thought you understood failed to vote for Clinton, perhaps goodbyes in that case are for the best. For some, the sweet pleasures of soulful agreement can shift to the more piquant but still real joys of arguing about politics, but that's hard to do if you know in your bones that political opposition is or must necessarily be a sign of pure evil.

Being mellow about political disagreement might come easier to a libertarian than to most anti-Trump Americans. Libertarians often believe many of the activities furthered by Republicans and Democrats alike constitute grave evils, from wars to big chunks of criminal justice to the way even seemingly minor or benign business regulations can crush dreams, halt wealth creation, and prevent good things from happening. Libertarians have mostly learned to get along with our fellow Americans regardless. The alternative is shoving ourselves to literal margins, unable to happily commune with anyone. No offense to bold embracers of the hermit rebel life out of a sense of righteousness—but that seems like an overly arid existence, lacking in the glories of human companionship.

If you aren't a total policy nerd obsessive, those glories of human companionship shouldn't have much to do with agreeing on who should be president, much less agreeing on how much action on your part was necessary to stop Trump, or whoever, from becoming president. (Trump's success might be particularly unnerving to many who managed to build a personal life where core political agreement can be simply presumed—not that hard when your politics are within a certain narrow range many other Americans agree with. Most polite people seeking a calm, happy social life would rather shut up about politics than argue about it anyway, so such disagreement is often, for all the right reasons, hidden anyway. The widespread adoption of Facebook and other social networks alas makes that a lot harder.)

Whatever pleasures or advantages you get from the vast majority of personal relationships, then, whether it be honoring the bonds of family, a shared past, or just the ability to pass time together in an atmosphere of pleasant mutual affection, amusement, or caring, had nothing to do with the disagreement-free sharing of opinions about the president.

But I'm soft pedaling what's really at issue here, evading the vital point, a passionate anti-Trumper could say. The problem isn't something as bloodless as someone's "opinions about politics."

What's at stake is that it's a very bad thing that Donald Trump is president. (No arguments here, and see contributions from earlier today from Peter Suderman and Nick Gillespie for some of the reasons why.) Anyone who didn't contribute to Trump losing via voting for Hillary Clinton is for that reason responsible for him being president.

That is distinct from, and far worse than, merely wanting him to be president, or not having been sufficiently motivated by the urge to make sure he is not president to vote for Clinton. Not prioritizing preventing a Trump presidency, you might think, is sin enough, and somehow proves that whatever the worst aspect of Trump being president might prove to be, the non-Clinton voter demonstrates that they desired or are responsible for that outcome specifically.

I, and other libertarians including Reason editor-in-chief Katherine Mangu-Ward, have long been attracted to arguments about the ultimate pointless fecklessness of voting. I confess I considered it mostly an intellectual curiosity, a point it was admittedly fun to argue about since it went so against the civic religion, while almost impossible to argue against except with fanciful calls on some sort of meta-will that is supposedly being expressed or suppressed in a single act of voting which in and of itself would not and could not change any actual outcome in the world.

But maybe we libertarians kept that argument alive because we knew clandestinely the day would come when the very foundations of civic peace in a violently divided America might rely on understanding that your vote doesn't really count, creates no actual effect in the world.

Everyone mad at their loved ones or friends or associates over the fact that Donald Trump is president might be better off understanding that, really and truly, it isn't their fault.

It isn't their fault if they didn't vote. It isn't their fault if they voted for Stein or Johnson.

It isn't even their fault if they actually voted for Trump.

It isn't their fault because on most common-sense definitions of "fault" something that would have happened regardless of what a given person does or doesn't do can't be properly seen as their fault. Every single person any one of us knows could have voted for Clinton and Trump would still be president. The act, or failure to act, of a non-Clinton-voting loved one did not make Donald Trump president, though the mystical and misleading way we tend to think of voting in our democracy confuses this issue.

Other cases of making tiny contributions to an overall problem that would still be an overall problem whether or not you acted don't fall into the same category. For example, if you are one of 10,000 people pissing in someone's drinking water, that person would still have pissy drinking water whether or not you acted.

But this does not absolve you of blame. You did add piss to the drinking water, which is wrong. Voting isn't analogous, as a single vote in and of itself, whether it happened or didn't, caused nothing bad to happen and could not have prevented something bad from happening.

While it may feel good to hold the people who failed to vote for Clinton responsible in some spiritual, cosmic, sense, in a literal real sense no one you know's actions caused Donald Trump to be president. (Remember all the chatter about how people would have voted differently if there were not an electoral college? While I don't know how to test this hypothesis, it seems quite likely that if people actually really believed that their vote decided who was president, the results would have been very much different. That is, not only did no specific single or even large group of Trump voters literally cause him to be president, it's not even a sure thing that they wanted him to be president.)

What you really have against any present or former loved one or friend, then, can't reasonably be that any of this is actually their fault, in any everyday sense of "fault."

What you are against, then, is that they don't share your sense of urgency about the crisis presented by Trump being president. As above, this needn't have anything to do with whatever reason you had to have a relationship with them in the first place, unless that relationship was based on, say, working together on immigration or trade policy.

But doesn't this still mean that they desire all the evil things the most stern anti-Trumper fears Trump will do, or support all the evil things Trump already is, regardless of what he does moving forward?

Here is where some other seemingly recondite points libertarians tend to like to make about electoral politics come to play.

For one thing, before you assume that "not sharing your passion for keeping Trump out of office" must equal moral culpability for "all the damage you are sure Trump will cause," remember a couple of important aspects of American politics.

The first is that electoral politics presents a crummy indivisible package deal. You can't pick and choose specific aspects of any national leader. (Even if you think you know what a politician will do, there is little chance that they will actually do it.) Someone who didn't vote for Clinton may indeed have felt that someone with Trump's history with expressed attitudes toward woman, haunted by accusations and confessions of sexual assault, should not be president.

But maybe they wanted someone who promised to bring jobs back to America. Or wanted someone they thought was less likely to start a war with Russia over Syria, and were willing to overlook that he was a bad man, even a criminal, for those reasons. (If you voted for Clinton and think everyone who didn't is directly responsible for every bad thing Trump might do, or does, or did, do you accept that your Clinton vote would have made you responsible for the carnage and chaos of any future war with Syria?)

Maybe that voter fell for the constant drumbeats in our culture that told you your responsibility to democracy was to, absolutely for sure vote, and yet also to only vote for someone who "had a chance to win."

And lacking any choice that voter could actually stand behind in good conscience, made a choice based on a perceived least-bad option, not able to give every separate aspect of the candidate's records full weight in and of itself.

But shouldn't everyone have known every bad thing that Trump is sure to do before they vote, and come to the same decision about the meaning of those things in comparison to Clinton on balance? Voters in general also don't know much, as libertarian philosopher Jason Brennan has recently argued effectively. (You might think this mass voter ignorance doesn't apply to the specific guilty-of-Trump people you know, but it probably does.)

You might have voted for Trump because you liked what he said about bringing jobs back, and you thought that was more important than whether he was, say, prejudiced against or wished harm on Mexicans or Muslims. (You might even believe, quite sincerely, that booting those who violated immigration law from the country is a good idea without being prejudiced or hateful toward Mexicans in general. I know it's a little hard to imagine, but it's possible; it is uncharitable to presume that everyone who didn't vote for Clinton acted out of the worst possible motive you could imagine, even if you know that lots of Trump supporters definitely did act out of those bad motives. Just because it is difficult for you to imagine how that could be true isn't sufficient reason to believe that a loved one or friend is lying to you when they say that they failed to vote for Clinton but do not in fact hate Mexicans or women or Muslims or the atmosphere and want to see them harmed for the sheer sake of it.) (It might even be possible that not every bad thing Trump's opponents believe he will do, will actually happen; Obama was also elected and governed with a series of fears about his actions that didn't come true.)

Regarding the "bringing jobs back" thing, a Trump voter might not, indeed likely does not, fully understand the likely effects on most Americans' standard of living of Trump actuating his trade protectionism. Maybe it is grossly irresponsible to vote for someone when you aren't sure of the long-term or even immediate effects of everything they might do. But such gross irresponsibility surely applies to every voter, not just the ones who didn't vote for Clinton.

Libertarians have long shouted about the realities of (single) voter powerlessness, (mass) voter ignorance, the absurd package deals of having to vote for candidates and parties, and even, on a meta-level, the problems with centralizing so much decision-making power over our lives and our regnant cultural systems of social aid in one lever whose control can be won or lost so easily. (Perhaps all the time and money spent in political activism encouraging government to perform certain acts of social care might be better spent providing the care, and this might be worth considering whether or not Trump won.) It may be, and perhaps should be, that those horrified about Trump should turn that into at least a little bit of horror over the machine Trump now has vast influence and power over.

Goodness knows we all have the right to hate or cut ties with anyone we want for any reason we want. But those who do so over the results of this election under the belief that the non-Clinton voter caused Trump, or hoped for the worst imaginable outcomes of Trump's presidency, or acted or failed to act out of the worst motives one could imagine, is likely underestimating the benefits that family and friends can bring, and the reasons why comity and companionship are more important than opinions about politics, which are generally the least distinctive, least interesting, and least important aspect of any normal human being.

The more nervous you are about the outcomes of life in Trump's America, the more you should value family and friends. This remains true even if those family and friends aren't as sure as you are that Trump's presidency will lead to a string of intolerable moral wrongs, especially given the choices they were presented with.

NEXT: Senate Confirms Gen. James Mattis as Defense Secretary By 98-1 Vote

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

  1. It depends on how hot she is.

    1. No, it does not. The novelty wears off and the crazy wears on you. You have to have certain standards for looks, but beyond that, it is all about emotional health and stability.

      1. I think ARV was primarily typing in jest, Chipper.

        Having written that brief opinion I would like to quote your response for reasons of appreciation: "The novelty wears off and the crazy wears on you. You have to have certain standards for looks, but beyond that, it is all about emotional health and stability."

  2. Wow, that's a lot of words.

    In meatspace, I neither seek nor avoid sharing my views on political matters. To those who share theirs, I share mine right back.

    I once made the mistake of volunteering an opinion that arson and looting was bad, and that the social-justice pretensions of some arsonists and looters was utterly risible and deserving of scorn. In retrospect, the angry reaction that triggered was symptomatic of why Trump won.

    1. You should've robbed them and lit their clothes on fire, then asked them if they felt arson and looting were good or bad.

      1. But the arsonists and looters were fighting racism, hence I was a racist, plus when I say "looter" they hear "black" and that makes me a racist.

        1. Wouldn't that make them racist?

          1. No, no, not at all. They're just extra-sensitive to my code language.


            1. What is amazing is you say looter and they think black suggests they think looters are black

              1. The particular looters were probably black (in Ferguson), so I suppose the idea was that if only they'd been white I wouldn't have minded their activities. Though I had previously discussed historical examples of white rioting without approval.

                1. I mean, I'm usually so easygoing about arson and robbery, it's only when black people do it that I invoke their behavior as a pretext to justify my racial animus.


              2. Not so bright, are you?

                1. Me, in general? Perhaps, what specific non-brightness did you have in mind?

                  1. Not directed at you Eddie. I quite like you. My comment was directed to the Amsock.

                    1. Ah, now he's got a doppelganger.

                      And I hope the phrase "I like you" isn't followed up by something about killing me last.

                    2. And by "quite like you" I mean "you're annoying as hell". But you seem like a decent person, and occasionally you get off a good one liner. Have a good weekend, buddy:-)

                    3. That's much better than killing me last. Or at all. Have a nice weekend.

    2. Smart, Eddie. I also eschew politicall discussion unless someone else initiates, and then I just chew on the edges of their turtle shell.

      1. Well, I try to learn from my mistakes, and I like to think I'm *highly* educated in that regard.

  3. You did add piss to the drinking water, which is wrong.

    Really, Doherty? You're just going to claim that as a universal, urolagnia be damned?

    1. Just make a joke about weak beer like a normal person.

    2. Video bloggers man... At least some are hot.

  4. A shorter article would be ,"Quit being a wanker, it shouldn't matter anyway."

    By the way, when do the purges and roundups start? I haven't seen the sky raining blood or anything. With the world ending, I expected an Earth shattering kaboom.

    1. Hitler only staged Krystallnacht five years after taking office, don't be so impatient.

    2. They're waiting for the protest rallies. It will be easier to round them up then.

    3. I heard a comedian point out recently that groups who Trump has never said anything about are trying to get in on the oppression game

      "Well I'm a redhead and I'm left-handed, so Trump's gonna haul me off to a death camp soon"

      1. I am friendly with Mexican Muslims, and would also like to import some cheap crap from Stanstanstanstanistan, so as to be able to afford to live on my limited, bitty budget, after taxes... So I, too, am afraid that ... "Trump's gonna haul me off to a death camp soon"...


      2. Oh, crap! I hadn't heard about that one! I'm a redheaded, left-handed libertarian woman - time to barricade myself in the basement with our AK!

      3. Gingers and the sinister have always been persecuted. Kids can be cruel.

  5. So Doherty wins the "Most Sane Trump Column" on inauguration day?

    Didn't see that coming. Well done sir!

    1. Doherty is usually the most sane writer. Or at least the most libertarian, which amounts to the same thing.

  6. RE: President Trump Is No Good Reason to End a Relationship

    There are only three reasons to end a relationship.
    1. They voted for Trump.
    2. They voted for Hillary.
    3. They're a lousy lay.
    I think we can all agree on that.

    1. Also please add...

      They do ***NOT*** worship Guv Almighty the RIGHT way!!!!

      Scienfoology Song? GAWD = Government Almighty's Wrath Delivers

      Government loves me, This I know,
      For the Government tells me so,
      Little ones to GAWD belong,
      We are weak, but GAWD is strong!
      Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
      Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
      Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
      My Nannies tell me so!

      GAWD does love me, yes indeed,
      Keeps me safe, and gives me feed,
      Shelters me from bad drugs and weed,
      And gives me all that I might need!
      Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
      Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
      Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
      My Nannies tell me so!

      DEA, CIA, KGB,
      Our protectors, they will be,
      FBI, TSA, and FDA,
      With us, astride us, in every way!
      Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
      Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
      Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
      My Nannies tell me so!

  7. The more nervous you are about the outcomes of life in Trump's America,

    This is not Trump's America. He is like the Presidents before him, hired help. He doesn't own the country. Can you please retire that idiotic phrase once and for all?

    1. I bet he doesn't do windows.

      But he *does* do widows.

    2. For some, the President is a father figure (like pony tail guy from the 1992 town hall debate, as someone on the Federalist recently reminded us). Imagine if your mom informed you that effective next week, dad was getting tossed out and being replaced by Obama.

      For some, he is a king or emperor or even a Messianic Figure.

      Imagine if you went to church and the pastor informed you that effective next week, Jesus was going to be replaced with Hillary Clinton. And every other formerly Christian church was going to do the same thing, so there was nowhere else to go. I imagine it may cause you some distress.

      That is what those on the left are feeling now. They look to the great god in the White House for guidance and somebody to worship and pay homage to, and aren't happy about the new occupant.

      1. I'd just grab a handful of cash out of the collection basket and say thanks.

        1. Not that I would actually go to a church except as a social obligation.

          1. That being said, church isn't that horrible. Lots of dressed-up women to ogle.

            1. Plus, many offer free donuts and coffee after services!

    3. Yea agreed with John.Wtf is trump's america

  8. When I hear the words President Trump I laugh every time. Not just because he beat Hillary and all the prog tears. Because people voted for this clown. Those were the two' best' choices? It's a dark comedy.

    1. Americans are either masochists are master trolls.

  9. This is another good article by Doherty, in my opinion.

    I think he sums up a common thread among commentators who have posted here at H&R (likely elsewhere as well)

    Some relationships may in fact be entirely based on the joys (they can be real, and libertarians for whom true political value affinity is rare know it well) of amity on big questions of politics and policy, the ethical and prudential role of government, what candidates or parties are best for your vision of America.

  10. I'm not ending any friendships, but I've done a heavy culling on Facebook. It's just So.Fucking.Tedious.

    I don't dislike you per se, just your horrible, tribalistic views and screechbabbling about orange hobgoblins.

  11. On the other hand, it's the perfect excuse to not invite the drunk uncle over for Thanksgiving. You've been looking for a reason for years, and this one just fell into your lap.

    1. As a drunk uncle, I find your racism appalling.

      1. Agreed! I take pride in my drunken hi-jinks around my nieces and nephews!

    2. Isn't the drunk uncle the most entertaining aspect of the dinner? I guess there are different species of drunk uncle.

      1. If not for your drunk uncle, you'd have to learn about motorcycle jousting and Roman Candle wars on the street.

        1. We participated in roman candle wars. My drunk uncle introduced me to gambling.

  12. I know there's a bunch of pseudonym using assholes on this website I frequent that I'm close to disavowing.

      1. As far as I can tell, that does nothing.

        1. It flags the reporter as a trouble maker.

  13. Wow, the Trumpocalypse has actually began! Something tells me I'm gonna enjoy this more than not. I mean, I'm not expecting anything good from the Trump admin, and what good if any there will be, It will just be a bonus. It's 4 years of massive butthurt and unhinged whining from the snowflakes that I'm going to enjoy.

    BTW, Reason writers, I'm selling some Trumpocalypse proof safe spaces, get your order in today for a discount!

    Also, Obama is GONE! Woot woot! DRANK!

  14. Oh hell, I hung out today with some folks who I'm 100% certain hate Trump and I'm 100% sure will vote for anyone with a D by their name and I'm also nearly 100% sure they know I'm a right wing radical, and nothing has changed. Only truly ignorant people let politics get in the way of personal relationships. One of my wife's Derpbook friends unfriended her for supporting Trump. I told her, 1. That's not your friend. 2. Get off Derpbook, those people are retarded.

  15. If you wear your politics like a clown nose, don't bother to act surprised when somebody comes along and gives a good squeeze.

    1. So, what you're saying is that I should put a clown nose on my penis?

      1. We've all been thinking it, HM

        1. Well... not all.

      2. Why would you want two clown noses on your penis?

        1. I'm not that pale. You can barely tell when I'm blushing.

      3. Grab her by the clown nose!

  16. ...and that is strained when someone you thought you understood failed to vote for Clinton, perhaps goodbyes in that case are for the best.

    This is Reason's way of saying they're shutting down commenting.

    1. That would truly be a bold move.

      1. Either crime would rise or productivity would skyrocket, I'm not sure which.

      2. The thing is i would have no reason to come here then.

  17. I quit going into a particular place of business, which cost me a couple of friends, but I just couldn't take the Obamabots' incessant yapping about politics. That, and, "If you don't worship him as a god, you're a racist."

    In my estimation, he was utterly fucking incompetent, a trait completely unrelated to skin color or ethnic heritage. But try telling some people that.

    1. I hear you. A shop owner in my area kept posting homages to the Obamas, even referring to Michelle as a "literal queen". Couldn't take it.

  18. Anyone who didn't contribute to Trump losing via voting for Hillary Clinton is for that reason responsible for him being president.

    Guilty. I'm one of those incorrigible non-voting monsters. And I'll (not) do it again.

  19. That's a lot of parentheticals. I liked the article, though.

  20. So, what you're saying is that I should put a clown nose on my penis?

    Dicks out for Hillary!

  21. Just like "if you give a friend $20 and you never see them again, it was worth it." Anyone who stops talking to you because of who you voted for has done you a favor.

  22. If you wanna torch some friendships, insist on calling him "President Trump" every time

    1. Or just call him 'the D.' Makes it funnier when you hear talk of 'ladies wanting the D.'

  23. I still cannot understand how a decent person could vote for Hillary Clinton. Or didn't think that she was much, much worse than Trump (that's for you, Doherty). So I'm glad that I'm not in a relationship with a Clinton supporter.

  24. Terminating relationships for politics is no different than terminating them for any other reason. Either your friend is providing a net benefit to your life or you should ditch them. If being an insufferable cunt about politics puts you below the "ditch" line, it's not really my problem.

    1. Oh yeah. I've ditched friends that are self described libertarians because they couldn't fucking laugh at themselves. One of my good friends is a hardcore lefty that can't help but regurgitate the sophistry coming out of the media, but will concede a point when it's too clear to dismiss.

    2. This. Only lost one but it had been building for many years largely based on divergent underlying views of the world and culminating in Trumpism. As we spoke nearly every day, it just became a huge downer and time sink even as I tried to avoid those topics.

      I have another who, though of late a bit annoying, catches on quickly and moves to happier/mutually agreeable topics of which there are many. The rest, if they said they voted for him and may have suggested I should to, never went far down the road of the whys. Sometimes the less you know the better, eh?

      As an aside, I have left/right low/high friends but this election cycle I was *constantly* assualted by the RHS to vote team Trump, something that the LHS never did for Osama, even though all of them knew that I was voting 3rd party the past four elections. It was disturbing.

  25. So the trump admin put a further freeze on all regulations until further notified. He is already turning out to be hitler!

    1. Indeed, Hitler is infamous, more than for anything else, because of his undeniable zeal for deregulation.

    2. Damn! We need elections every 60 days.

  26. The problem with this article is that you should have noticed your FWB was a lefty twat long before today.

    That and about 5,000 too many words.

  27. Ending a relationship over Trump has nothing to do with politics. The hatred of him is not directed at his policy positions, mostly because he doesn't have any that are coherent enough to hate.

    It's all directed at what a huge bag of sleaze he is, and how openly he doesn't seem to care if anyone knows it. He doesn't even pretend to be anything but a skeevy, thin-skinned perv.

    1. You say perv as if it's a bad thing.

      1. I hope it's not a bad thing. I've known many humans who sport a Y chromosome. I suspect that what comes out of the Mouth of Trump (regarding women), is pretty similar to what plays on the inside voice channel of the average male. Does this suggest that his actual crime is... honesty?

  28. It's not who they voted for (or didn't vote for). It's that they've gone completely off the fucking rails and are totally unhinged by his election.

    Mrs. DesigNate and I have lost a fair amount of respect for many of our friends and family through this whole process.

  29. Perhaps all the time and money spent in political activism encouraging government to perform certain acts of social care might be better spent providing the care, and this might be worth considering whether or not Trump won.

    Although tangential to the article, ^^^^ THIS right here cannot be stressed enough.
    I'd like to see a whole article devoted to this.
    It could/should be appended to almost every single Reason article.

    Can you imagine how much actual GOOD could be done for society if this were an actual thing?

    Facto non Verba, motherfuckers.

    1. Good idea. Some teenager spends $2K to go to Honduras for a week to help the locals build a clinic and does a half-assed job and U.S. airline and travel agent gets a good chunk of the money. Another teenager raises $2K and sends it to Honduras locals who hire a professional carpenter for two months who builds a fine clinic and feeds his family and supports his local economy.

    2. Perhaps all the time and money spent in political activism encouraging government to perform certain acts of social care might be better spent providing the care

      The point of the political activism isn't to provide care, but to compel your neighbor to provide care.

      Progressive Theocracy

  30. I knew some couples in Venezuela who almost divorced over Chavez' reign. Fortunately most of the chavistas woke up after awhile.

  31. A disagreement over who to vote for, or not vote for, isn't a good reason to end a relationship, whether familial, intimate, or just friendly.

    Faith based communities often engage in banishing and shunning unbelievers. It's how the Faith protects itself.

    Progressive Theocracy

  32. Republicans suck on environmental and social responsibility. Democrats suck on personal responsibility. Libertarians combine the worst of both. To Dems who claim to be for personal responsibility, three words: Blaming the Victim. A catch-all denial for any kind of personal responsibility. I don't care how responsible you are as a person if you elect politicians who will appoint judges that undermine it. Libertarians are all for personal responsibility. They're for holding people responsible for things they'll never be able to do. Like work a blue collar job, save enough for a house, college tuition, and a heart transplant.

    Is there an alternative? Yes, but we'll never see it:

    1. Well that sucks. The link as truncated doesn't work. Try "" /



  33. My wife has told me I can never tell her mother how I voted. Although I am tempted to just to make her go, "Reeeeeeeeee!"

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.