Donald Trump

Whether Trump Stays or Goes, We Need To Rein in Presidents and Congress

The impeachment process will be nasty, brutish, and long. It also won't cure the problem of expansive government.

|

As the impeachment process gets underway—and grows more partisan and frenetic with every passing minute—it's important to keep our eyes on the big picture that actually affects all Americans. For decades, the presidency has been getting more and more imperial, with Oval Office occupants openly flouting constraints on their exercise of power and Congress abdicating its role in doing anything other than spending more money and acting out of partisan interests. This process didn't begin with President Donald Trump and it won't end even if he is removed from office. From this libertarian's perspective, impeachment is a distraction from the far more important—and daunting—problem of a government that costs more of our money and controls more of our lives with every passing year.

Does Trump deserve to get the hook? There's no question that he has acted abrasively since taking office, always pushing the envelope of acceptable behavior, decorum, and policy, whether by issuing travel bans specifically (and illegally) targeting Muslims, staffing the White House with his manifestly unqualified children and their spouses, or redirecting money to build his idiotic fence against the phantom menace of Mexican hordes bum-rushing the southern border. Is any of that, or his actions regarding Ukraine, impeachable? As Gerald Ford said in 1970, an impeachable offense "is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history." So we'll be finding out soon enough.

But except for sheer coarseness and vulgarity, none of this is new or shocking. Barack Obama was mostly polite and more presentable to the public, but he similarly evinced nothing but contempt for restraints on his desired aims. His signature policy accomplishment, Obamacare, was built on the novel idea that the government couldn't just regulate economic activity but could actually force individuals to buy something they didn't want. Given such a break with tradition, it's unsurprising that it was the first piece of major legislation in decades that was pushed through on the votes of a single party (a feat matched by the tax cuts passed in late 2017). Even then, it took the fecklessness and rewrite skills of Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts to make it constitutional. On other matters, Obama famously ruled with his "pen and phone," issuing executive orders and actions to implement policies for which he couldn't muster support from Congress. When it came to war and surveillance, he simply ignored constitutional limits on his whims or lied about his administration's commitment to transparency even as he was spying on virtually all Americans.

It's needless to say but always worth remembering that George W. Bush was not particularly different. Though Bush conjured bipartisan majorities for awful and budget-busting programs such as wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Medicare prescription drug plan, and No Child Left Behind, his administration also implemented secret torture programs overseas and mass surveillance programs domestically, all while being "pathological about secrecy," even to the point of urging federal agencies to slow down or deny Freedom of Information Act requests.

To such executive branch flexes we must add the brute reality that Congress has been mostly AWOL for all of the 21st century, apart from taking nakedly partisan jabs at chief executives from the other party. Democrats mostly went along (at least at first) with George W. Bush's big-ticket, disastrous foreign and domestic policy priorities. They only cared about limiting government when their guy wasn't sleeping at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. On the road to becoming the first female Speaker of the House after the 2006 elections, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D–Calif.) promised she would oversee federal budgets with "no new deficit spending," a pledge that lasted until she actually became Speaker of the House and pushed a budget-busting farm bill.

Republicans spent like drunken sailors and regulated the hell out of the economy when they controlled the purse strings and got to pick winners and losers in the economy. They only talk about cutting spending and limiting government when a Democrat is in charge. Back when Obama was president, GOP representatives and senators were constantly going on and on about "Article I projects" and the desperate need to revitalize the separation of powers and tame the presidency. That all ended the minute it became clear that Donald Trump had beaten Hillary Clinton.

This is the essential context for the impeachment of Donald Trump. The size, scope, and spending of the federal government won't change regardless of his fate. Like his predecessors, he has arrogated more power to himself while also driving up deficits and diminishing trust and confidence in the ability of government to perform basic functions. All of the Democratic candidates for president have pledged to spend trillions of dollars on an ever-proliferating series of new programs such as Medicare for All, free college tuition, the Green New Deal, a universal basic income, and more.

All of that is why I'm less concerned with the fate of Donald Trump per se than I am about the persistence of an expansive federal government whose spending is suppressing growth and whose programs are typically inefficient at best and counterproductive at worst. Without addressing the bigger picture, the battle over Trump's fate will be an exercise in futility, a partisan plot climax that will thrill one set of partisans for a while but give no relief or release to the plurality of Americans who identify as independents.

Advertisement

NEXT: Did Trump Commit a Crime by Seeking a Ukrainian Investigation of Joe Biden? And Does It Matter for Impeachment Purposes?

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. Is this reasons attempt to slowly back away from the TDS ledge and actually offer a libertarian position?

    1. Not for Gillespie. He has his fingers crossed that Trump will be out and Chocolate Jesus can return to the White House somehow.

      1. Opposing Trump means you must love Obama? Stellar logic. Very Reason-able. Like the low key racist nickname too. Classy af.

        1. So, Shreek. When you were running Esmeralda/Tony, did you realize it was always obvious?

        2. Well, yes, Obama’s and the Democrats’ repeated references to Obama’s race were quite racist; that is what “chocolate Jesus” is intended to criticize. Thanks for spotting that!

          1. (laughing). Obama was racist about HIMSELF! … as lc1789 goes careening totally off the rails … while 55% of Americans now support impeachment and removal if Trump did, what Trump now defends. doing.

            BOTH parties now in a deeper death spiral.

      2. I cannot wait to vote for Trump so he can have governments investigate, indict, and prosecute criminal Lefties like Joe Biden and Hunter Biden.

        1. It doesn’t really make sense that Trump, the most corrupt President in US history, would suddenly have an interest in fighting corruption.

      3. I believe its bigger than that. The fact that this Trump takedown (it was a Kavanaugh takedown 14 days ago) is happening at the same time as the Brexit/Johnson takedown and diversion of news of the latter is alarming.

        1. It’s a conspiracy. Space aliens trying to bring down both the US and Britain. They began by spreading hysteria, through folks like you.

    2. I’m sure it’s just an attempt by Reason to provide a thread for libertarians for an imperial presidency to opine on how important a strong arbitrary state is for libertarian ideas.

      1. Can yiou state that again, withjo0ut the mindless ba

        1. Can you state that again, without all the mindless babble?
          (What did you hope to convey?)

    3. They might be more credible had they addressed this issue back when Joe Biden confessed to using US government power to protect his son’s international business dealings.

      1. Trumptards are exploding with lies and stupidity!
        How gullible can anyone be?


  2. There’s no question that he has acted abrasively since taking office, always pushing the envelope of acceptable behavior, decorum, and policy, whether by issuing travel bans specifically (and illegally) targeting Muslims, staffing the White House with his manifestly unqualified children and their spouses, or redirecting money to build his idiotic fence against the phantom menace of Mexican hordes bum-rushing the southern border.

    Again with the ‘Muslim ban’ canard. How was it a Muslim ban when the vast majority of the Muslim world wasn’t banned?

    The rest seems to be your typical ‘pack positions with supporters’ that’s been going on for roughly 250 years. Putting unqualified people in positions of power is something literally every President has done since the founding of the nation. What’s the solution, having Congress tell the President who they can appoint to their own administration? News flash, they already go through confirmation hearings if the position is considered vital.

    1. The President can choose anyone he wants to staff his white house. Nick is a fucking moron. He really is. He has no idea how government actually works or what the law actually is. What he has are a series of warmed over conventional wisdom talking points. The man has literally never had an interesting or innovative thought in his entire life.

      1. What if the staff keeps quitting and calling Trump a “fucking moron”?

        The good ones did so (Tillerson, Cohn, Mattis, so many more – and even the Bolton head case types do it.

        1. Not sure what this has to do with anything anyone actually said, but you do you.

          1. John just remarked that Trump can choose anyone to staff the White House.

            But they hate him and turn on him. Trump is like an STD that is immune to penicillin.

            1. So, you agree with the points raised that Trump can indeed choose who he wants to serve. And, notably, he can fire them or they can quit if they so choose.

              One might wonder why you would care that the specific people named left. In fact, is Bolton cursing Trump’s name a good thing? It would seem a lot of people that hated him previously are now working overtime to reform him. Curious.

              1. It is indicative of what an authoritarian nutcase Trump is.

                1. A nut case statement if I ever saw one Buttplug

                2. It’s indicative of your TDS dildo.

                  1. This TDS dildo of which you speak… Is it pro-Trump or anti-Trump TDS here? And WHERE can I buy one? PLEASE don’t leave us hanging here… Can you provide us with a link? Is it teledildonic? Have you tried it, and did you like it? Is it hack-proof? I’d hate to be using it, and get hacked in mid-stream!

                    I think I recall you from your past posts… It must be a PRO-Trump TDS dildo you’re writing about! Do you know anything about the opposite brand perhaps?

                    1. Tiresome squirrel

                    2. Right but you admitted you eat shit PutinTrump LoveChild Russia Bot and your German sucks.

                3. This is a non-sequitur. Especially since you include Bolton in your list.

                  1. The establishment loves Bolton.

                    What is amazing is that Trump is the most dovish prezidink we’ve had since “Who but Hoover”.

                    I don’t like Trump’s trade policies and I dislike his immigrant demagoguery but at least he’s not Hillary Clinton.

                    1. reI don’t like Trump’s trade policies and I dislike his immigrant demagoguery but at least he’s not Hillary Clinton

                      So you don’t actually like Trump. It’s your psychopathic tribal hatred for Hillary.

                      Would Hillary have totally disgraced the office, lying through her teeth, to defend racists and nazis in Charlottesville. Might that suggest YOU are an alt-right bigot … since we see you’re so consumed by raging hatred? A witless tool of the political elites?

                    2. Oh, Michael.

                      Would Hillary have totally disgraced the office, lying through her teeth,

                      Absolutely. Endlessly. With impunity. Because she’d have the media–and low IQ fools like you on her side.

                      to defend racists and nazis in Charlottesville.

                      Poor Michael. This wouldn’t have happened if Hillary had won. There would have been no push to tear down statues of Democrat heroes if Hillary was in the Oval Office. Don’t you know that?

                    3. (sneer)
                      Now Trump’s totally shameless lie about Charlottesville, sucking up to white supremacists and neo-nazies. Bad enough that he said both sides were to blame. But he also went bat-shit crazy, saying the counter-protesters charged the nazis, swinging clubs. TOTAL psycho.

                      Initial assault, Charlottesville– Nazis and white supremacists attacking ith clubs, against peaceful protesters
                      “Alt-Left” standing peacefully, no visible clubs or bats.
                      Alt-Right Fascists/Racists crash into them en masse, swinging clubs.
                      Fascists are carrying the same shields as cops in riot gear. The motherfuckers CAME for violence.

                      Cont’d

                    4. Part 2

                      The actual video …Trump’s own voice … stating a PROVEN lie… as the snotty punk he is.

                      “What about the alt left that came charging at, as you say, at the alt right? Do they have any assemblage of guilt? What about the fact that they came charging with clubs in their hands swinging clubs? Do they have any problem? I think they do.”

                      Trump lied … shamefully — to defend Nazi and racist assaults.
                      Alt-left initiated violence. PROOF: Alt-right
                      Wearing black helmets. PROOF: Alt-right.
                      Charged with clubs. PROOF: Alt-right
                      Trump saw it personally on TV! PROOF: Obama born in Kenya.

                      PROOF. Trumpsters DEFEND such blatant bigotry … racists AND neo-nazis?

                      “But Hillary used a private email server!”

                      (vomit)

                4. What a wimpy authoritarian Trump is.

                  A real authoritarian wouldn’t let his underlings quit and badmouth him, he’d take them out to the garden, shoot them in the head and have the Marine guards bury them to fertilize the roses.

                  Trump’s a pussy.

                  🙂

        2. Why do you jerk off to child porn all of the time and try to show others how to do the same?

          1. Your erudition is profound and Deep! The wisdom we have all been looking for, is here now among us! Could I please-please-PLEASE, could I, could I be on Your cabinet?

            With Your Unsurpassed Level of Genius, Joker-like, I bet that You could help me debug the following source codes:
            CallSourceFile Smegmatronic Boogatronic Bionic Include $BR$549cell begin {( Pupate Infinite_Time posedge_CLK<= 6.02 ^ 10 x 23d ) || ( Infinity_&_Beyond_negedge_CLK[23:0] ) && ( arachnoids[23:0] || Orange_Man_Bad[23:0] ) }
            DisplayModuleCall "Your WoW dragon just ate your avatar. Pay your over-due user fees.", end; end module ;

            If You would stoop so low as to help me, a mere grasshopper, debug this code, then the Church of the Sub-Genius might FINALLY welcome You back!

            1. Still not funny squirrel.

      2. John, are you calling Nick the Thomas Friedman of the libertarian movement?

      3. Remember how Obummy had over a dozen so-called “Czars” who basically ran agencies & made policies , but were never confirmed in any official capacity!!!

        1. I remember when that idiot has-been Glenn Beck made up the term “czar”. Are you a Beckerhead? Why did the wingnut set turn on him?

            1. Yeah dildo’s comment did seem to come out of nowhere, but I was to lazy to look it up.

              1. Your mastery of all of the facts is indeed insipidly indisputable! WITH impeccable citations, too! If I wear something nice, to include high heels, can I be your arms bearer?

                With Your superb mastery of the Cosmos, in the Sight of Goober-Mint (sneer) Almighty , can You please review the following source codes:
                Include Hashtag (#Orange_Man_Bad_UberTruth) Begin OutPort [ Paint_Screen ( VSynch[1:0], Hsynch[31:0] ), PixelGrabber ( Red, Collard_Greens, Rhythm & Blues ) ] ; Loop_Count <= Loop_Count + 1'b1 ;
                Invoke DisplayModule "You are being reported to the KGB for your insubordination.", end; end module ;

                If You'll please apply Your genius talents to help debug this code, Al Gore Vidal Sassoon might give us some FREE samples of shampoo!!! Or maybe even REAL poo!!!

                1. Right but you eat shit and speak German like a retard.

                2. I literally said I was to lazy to look something up and your jackass made a joke about my cites.

                3. Fuck off and die, retard.

                  1. Count the cyber-bullies, as the Trump Presidency now collapses and 55% of Americans now support impeachment AND removal.

                    But that just gives us Pence and his Christian Taliban. Yep, both parties’ leaderships in terminal collapse. Let ’em die quickly

            2. Obama used the term “aide” – a flunkie. You think Obama was the first to hire aides?

              “Czar” was the wingnut term to make “aide” sound nefarious.

              Goddamn, you wingnuts are so gullible.

              1. You’ll notice he focuses on the word and not the unelected part.

                Because he does that. He constantly deflects. Otherwise, he’d have to deal with getting outed as a pedophile.

                  1. I’m curious, is every investigation true before any facts are out or just this one in particular? I would wonder why any Federal bureaucrat would carry out the orders of someone not in the command chain.

                    Not that I don’t discount the possibility, rather there is no proof cited in your article that what they allege happened actually occurred.

                    1. I put links to more complete sources, but someone flagged my comment for review or I had too many links. Check out propublica’s report on the matter, if you are interested.


                    2. I put links to more complete sources, but someone flagged my comment for review or I had too many links. Check out propublica’s report on the matter, if you are interested.

                      Unless other sources have a smoking gun that for some reason was omitted from your actual linked source, I really can’t be bothered with another scandal that rests on hearsay. Wolf has been cried too often at this point, and so far I haven’t seen any wolves.

                    3. BYODB
                      September.26.2019 at 8:23 pm

                      I put links to more complete sources, but someone flagged my comment for review or I had too many links. Check out propublica’s report on the matter, if you are interested.

                      Unless other sources have a smoking gun that for some reason was omitted from your actual linked source, I really can’t be bothered with another scandal that rests on hearsay. Wolf has been cried too often at this point, and so far I haven’t seen any wolves.

                      This one is pretty well confirmed. Multiple VA and white house officials corroborate. It affects me personally so I followed it closely. As for no wolf, 10 counts of obstruction from a president is deeply worrying to me, but I like a republic based on democratically elected leaders who are beholden to the law, so your mileage may vary.

                    4. Admitting you dont know the meaning of obstruction is deeply worrying to me. guess we are both worried.

                    5. “JesseAz
                      September.26.2019 at 9:00 pm
                      Admitting you dont know the meaning of obstruction is deeply worrying to me. guess we are both worried.”

                      So you haven’t read the Mueller report? Here’s the summary, for your convenience.

                      FACTUAL RESULTS OF THE OBSTRUCTION INVESTIGATION

                      The key issues and events we examined include the following:

                      The Campaign’s response to reports about Russian support for Trump. During the 2016 presidential campaign, questions arose about the Russian government’s apparent support for candidate Trump. After WikiLeaks released politically damaging Democratic Party emails that were reported to have been hacked by Russia, Trump publicly expressed skepticism that Russia was responsible for the hacks at the same time that he and other Campaign officials privately sought information [redacted, “Harm to Ongoing Matter”] about any further planned WikiLeaks releases. Trump also denied having any business in or connections to Russia, even though as late as June 2016 the Trump Organization had been pursuing a licensing deal for a skyscraper to be built in Russia called Trump Tower Moscow. After the election, the President expressed concerns to advisors that reports of Russia’s election interference might lead the public to question the legitimacy of his election.

                      Conduct involving FBI Director Comey and Michael Flynn. In mid-January 2017, incoming National Security Advisor Michael Flynn falsely denied to the Vice President, other administration officials, and FBI agents that he had talked to Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak about Russia’s response to U.S. sanctions on Russia for its election interference. On January 27, the day after the President was told that Flynn had lied to the Vice President and had made similar statements to the FBI, the President invited FBI Director Comey to a private dinner at the White House and told Comey that he needed loyalty. On February 14, the day after the President requested Flynn’s resignation, the President told an outside advisor, “Now that we fired Flynn, the Russia thing is over.” The advisor disagreed and said the investigations would continue.

                      Later that afternoon, the President cleared the Oval Office to have a one-on-one meeting with Comey. Referring to the FBI’s investigation of Flynn, the President said, “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.” Shortly after requesting Flynn’s resignation and speaking privately to Comey, the President sought to have Deputy National Security Advisor K.T. McFarland draft an internal letter stating that the President had not directed Flynn to discuss sanctions with Kislyak. McFarland declined because she did not know whether that was true, and a White House Counsel’s Office attorney thought that the request would look like a quid pro quo for an ambassadorship she had been offered.

                      The President’s reaction to the continuing Russia investigation. In February 2017, Attorney General Jeff Sessions began to assess whether he had to recuse himself from campaign related investigations because of his role in the Trump Campaign. In early March, the President told White House Counsel Donald McGahn to stop Sessions from recusing. And after Sessions announced his recusal on March 2, the President expressed anger at the decision and told advisors that he should have an Attorney General who would protect him. That weekend, the President took Sessions aside at an event and urged him to “unrecuse.” Later in March, Comey publicly disclosed at a congressional hearing that the FBI was investigating “the Russian government’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election,” including any links or coordination between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign. In the following days, the President reached out to the Director of National Intelligence and the leaders of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the National Security Agency (NSA) to ask them what they could do to publicly dispel the suggestion that the President had any connection to the Russian election-interference effort. The President also twice called Comey directly, notwithstanding guidance from McGahn to avoid direct contacts with the Department of Justice. Comey had previously assured the President that the FBI was not investigating him personally, and the President asked Comey to “lift the cloud” of the Russia investigation by saying that publicly.

                      The President’s termination of Comey. On May 3, 2017, Comey testified in a congressional hearing, but declined to answer questions about whether the President was personally under investigation. Within days, the President decided to terminate Comey. The President insisted that the termination letter, which was written for public release, state that Comey had informed the President that he was not under investigation. The day of the firing, the White House maintained that Comey’s termination resulted from independent recommendations from the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General that Comey should be discharged for mishandling the Hillary Clinton email investigation. But the President had decided to fire Comey before hearing from the Department of Justice. The day after firing Comey, the President told Russian officials that he had “faced great pressure because of Russia,” which had been “taken off’ by Comey’s firing. The next day, the President acknowledged in a television interview that he was going to fire Comey regardless of the Department of Justice’s recommendation and that when he “decided to just do it,” he was thinking that “this thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story.” In response to a question about whether he was angry with Comey about the Russia investigation, the President said, “As far as I’m concerned, I want that thing to be absolutely done properly,” adding that firing Comey “might even lengthen out the investigation.”

                      The appointment of a Special Counsel and efforts to remove him. On May 17, 2017, the Acting Attorney General for the Russia investigation appointed a Special Counsel to conduct the investigation and related matters. The President reacted to news that a Special Counsel had been appointed by telling advisors that it was “the end of his presidency” and demanding that Sessions resign. Sessions submitted his resignation, but the President ultimately did not accept it. The President told aides that the Special Counsel had conflicts of interest and suggested that the Special Counsel therefore could not serve. The President’s advisors told him the asserted conflicts were meritless and had already been considered by the Department of Justice.

                      On June 14, 2017, the media reported that the Special Counsel’s Office was investigating whether the President had obstructed justice. Press reports called this “a major turning point” in the investigation: while Comey had told the President he was not under investigation, following Comey’s firing, the President now was under investigation. The President reacted to this news with a series of tweets criticizing the Department of Justice and the Special Counsel’s investigation. On June 17, 2017, the President called McGahn at home and directed him to call the Acting Attorney General and say that the Special Counsel had conflicts of interest and must be removed. McGahn did not carry out the direction, however, deciding that he would resign rather than trigger what he regarded as a potential Saturday Night Massacre.

                      Shadi Hamid: The fundamental legitimacy of Donald Trump

                      Efforts to curtail the Special Counsel’s investigation. Two days after directing McGahn to have the Special Counsel removed, the President made another attempt to affect the course of the Russia investigation. On June 19, 2017, the President met one-on-one in the Oval Office with his former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski, a trusted advisor outside the government, and dictated a message for Lewandowski to deliver to Sessions. The message said that Sessions should publicly announce that, notwithstanding his recusal from the Russia investigation, the investigation was “very unfair” to the President, the President had done nothing wrong, and Sessions planned to meet with the Special Counsel and “let [him] move forward with investigating election meddling for future elections.” Lewandowski said he understood what the President wanted Sessions to do. One month later, in another private meeting with Lewandowski on July 19, 2017, the President asked about the status of his message for Sessions to limit the Special Counsel investigation to future election interference. Lewandowski told the President that the message would be delivered soon. Hours after that meeting, the President publicly criticized Sessions in an interview with the New York Times, and then issued a series of tweets making it clear that Sessions’s job was in jeopardy. Lewandowski did not want to deliver the President’s message personally, so he asked senior White House official Rick Dearborn to deliver it to Sessions. Dearborn was uncomfortable with the task and did not follow through.

                      Efforts to prevent public disclosure of evidence. In the summer of 2017, the President learned that media outlets were asking questions about the June 9, 2016 meeting at Trump Tower between senior campaign officials, including Donald Trump Jr., and a Russian lawyer who was said to be offering damaging information about Hillary Clinton as “part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.” On several occasions, the President directed aides not to publicly disclose the emails setting up the June 9 meeting, suggesting that the emails would not leak and that the number of lawyers with access to them should be limited. Before the emails became public, the President edited a press statement for Trump Jr. by deleting a line that acknowledged that the meeting was with “an individual who [Trump Jr.] was told might have information helpful to the campaign” and instead said only that the meeting was about adoptions of Russian children. When the press asked questions about the President’s involvement in Trump Jr.’ s statement, the President’s personal lawyer repeatedly denied the President had played any role.

                      Further efforts to have the Attorney General take control of the investigation. In early summer 2017, the President called Sessions at home and again asked him to reverse his recusal from the Russia investigation. Sessions did not reverse his recusal. In October 2017, the President met privately with Sessions in the Oval Office and asked him to “take [a] look” at investigating Clinton. In December 2017, shortly after Flynn pleaded guilty pursuant to a cooperation agreement, the President met with Sessions in the Oval Office and suggested, according to notes taken by a senior advisor, that if Sessions unrecused and took back supervision of the Russia investigation, he would be a “hero.” The President told Sessions, “I’m not going to do anything or direct you to do anything. I just want to be treated fairly.” In response, Sessions volunteered that he had never seen anything “improper” on the campaign and told the President there was a “whole new leadership team” in place. He did not unrecuse.

                      Efforts to have McGahn deny that the President had ordered him to have the Special Counsel removed. In early 2018, the press reported that the President had directed McGahn to have the Special Counsel removed in June 2017 and that McGahn had threatened to resign rather than carry out the order. The President reacted to the news stories by directing White House officials to tell McGahn to dispute the story and create a record stating he had not been ordered to have the Special Counsel removed. McGahn told those officials that the media reports were accurate in stating that the President had directed McGahn to have the Special Counsel removed. The President then met with McGahn in the Oval Office and again pressured him to deny the reports. In the same meeting, the President also asked McGahn why he had told the Special Counsel about the President’s effort to remove the Special Counsel and why McGahn took notes of his conversations with the President. McGahn refused to back away from what he remembered happening and perceived the President to be testing his mettle.

                      Conduct towards Flynn, Manafort [redacted, “Harm to Ongoing Matter”]. After Flynn withdrew from a joint defense agreement with the President and began cooperating with the government, the President’s personal counsel left a message for Flynn’s attorneys reminding them of the President’s warm feelings towards Flynn, which he said “still remains,” and asking for a “heads up” if Flynn knew “information that implicates the President.” When Flynn’s counsel reiterated that Flynn could no longer share information pursuant to a joint defense agreement, the President’s personal counsel said he would make sure that the President knew that Flynn’s actions reflected “hostility” towards the President. During Manafort’s prosecution and when the jury in his criminal trial was deliberating, the President praised Manafort in public, said that Manafort was being treated unfairly, and declined to rule out a pardon. After Manafort was convicted, the President called Manafort “a brave man” for refusing to “break” and said that “flipping” “almost ought to be outlawed.” [redacted, “Harm to Ongoing Matter”]

                      Conduct involving Michael Cohen. The President’s conduct towards Michael Cohen, a former Trump Organization executive, changed from praise for Cohen when he falsely minimized the President’s involvement in the Trump Tower Moscow project, to castigation of Cohen when he became a cooperating witness. From September 2015 to June 2016, Cohen had pursued the Trump Tower Moscow project on behalf of the Trump Organization and had briefed candidate Trump on the project numerous times, including discussing whether Trump should travel to Russia to advance the deal. In 2017, Cohen provided false testimony to Congress about the project, including stating that he had only briefed Trump on the project three times and never discussed travel to Russia with him, in an effort to adhere to a “party line” that Cohen said was developed to minimize the President’s connections to Russia. While preparing for his congressional testimony, Cohen had extensive discussions with the President’s personal counsel, who, according to Cohen, said that Cohen should “stay on message” and not contradict the President. After the FBI searched Cohen’s home and office in April 2018, the President publicly asserted that Cohen would not “flip,” contacted him directly to tell him to “stay strong,” and privately passed messages of support to him. Cohen also discussed pardons with the President’s personal counsel and believed that if he stayed on message he would be taken care of. But after Cohen began cooperating with the government in the summer of 2018, the President publicly criticized him, called him a “rat,” and suggested that his family members had committed crimes.

                      Overarching factual issues. We did not make a traditional prosecution decision about these facts, but the evidence we obtained supports several general statements about the President’ s conduct.

                      Several features of the conduct we investigated distinguish it from typical obstruction-of-justice cases. First, the investigation concerned the President, and some of his actions, such as firing the FBI director, involved facially lawful acts within his Article II authority, which raises constitutional issues discussed below. At the same time, the President’s position as the head of the Executive Branch provided him with unique and powerful means of influencing official proceedings, subordinate officers, and potential witnesses—all of which is relevant to a potential obstruction-of-justice analysis. Second, unlike cases in which a subject engages in obstruction of justice to cover up a crime, the evidence we obtained did not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference. Although the obstruction statutes do not require proof of such a crime, the absence of that evidence affects the analysis of the President’s intent and requires consideration of other possible motives for his conduct. Third, many of the President’s acts directed at witnesses, including discouragement of cooperation with the government and suggestions of possible future pardons, took place in public view. That circumstance is unusual, but no principle of law excludes public acts from the reach of the obstruction laws. If the likely effect of public acts is to influence witnesses or alter their testimony, the harm to the justice system’s integrity is the same. Although the series of events we investigated involved discrete acts, the overall pattern of the President’s conduct towards the investigations can shed light on the nature of the President’s acts and the inferences that can be drawn about his intent. In particular, the actions we investigated can be divided into two phases, reflecting a possible shift in the President’s motives. The first phase covered the period from the President’s first interactions with Comey through the President’s firing of Comey. During that time, the President had been repeatedly told he was not personally under investigation. Soon after the firing of Comey and the appointment of the Special Counsel, however, the President became aware that his own conduct was being investigated in an obstruction-of-justice inquiry. At that point, the President engaged in a second phase of conduct, involving public attacks on the investigation, non-public efforts to control it, and efforts in both public and private to encourage witnesses not to cooperate with the investigation. Judgments about the nature of the President’s motives during each phase would be informed by the totality of the evidence.

                    6. That says no obstruction or Collusion. I guess you didn’t read it.

                    1. Ad hominem. You have no argument then? Just admit that you are a hypocrite. It’s much classier.

                    2. yes it’s an ad hominem which is not actually necessarily a fallacy and frankly you’re a pedophile so I don’t care

              2. Nixon was the first to hire people like this, and they were also terrible just like the more recent crop. They were already nefarious, now the title just reflects what they actually do.

                1. Yeah, Reagan let the unelected Nancy run things while he drifted off into Alzhiemers. And the dumb bitch hired an astrologist to tell her things.

                  1. Hey you took time off from molesting kids to lie more.

                  2. Yet no mention of a more recent example RE: Michelle Obama and school lunch programs. Yeah, Nancy was a loon. So what. We were talking about people who are actually in the government, not their wives. And notably, even with her being a loon and consulting astrologers the Soviet Union still collapsed and Ron and Nancy didn’t start World War 3 as many claimed they would.

                    Glad you agree that czar positions are terrible, even while you bitch that they quit or are fired more often under Trump.

                    Another own goal, congrats.

              3. ‘Czar’ in this context is a media term dating, as near as I can remember, back to the George H.W. Bush administration. The first person I can remember it being applied to was drug policy ‘czar’ William Bennett.

                1. Media and today’s dominant tribal partisan psychos.
                  Good memory. Thanks!

            3. Whining about czars … like a pussy … NEVER even trying to show any usurping the power of Congress …. OBAMA TDS!

              The nigger from Kenya.
              /sarc

          1. That term has been around since they dubbed the drug czar last century, lying fuckhead.

      4. WTF happened to this place? I can recall illuminating conversations between supposed tribal enemies about the most interesting things that had never even occurred to me. Conversations that delved deep into statistical analysis, or a dive into particle physics, and every now and again, an actual legal analysis from some of our resident Attorneys. The kind of shit that would make you spend the afternoon googling just so you could almost wrap you head around what everyone else was talking about.
        At one time, not so long ago, there were some intellectual giants around here. Folks who, just by reading what they wrote, you knew they knew their shit. I don’t know who they were. Some I reached out to for help, and the ones I reached out for reached back and lifted me up to where I am today.

        1. A Whole AirBnb to Myself
          September.26.2019 at 7:50 pm
          Can you stop lying bro?

          You whined in this thread about the history of reason, which was never more than an agglomeration of socially inept losers and dumb stolen one liners from canceled cartoons.

          Enough already. Your memory is wrong. Badly.

        2. Reason articles have deteriorated into click-baity TDS nonsense and Reason’s journalists are as scared about having to learn to code as their counterparts in other corporate media. That’s what happened.

        3. Most of the intelligent people fled when Reasons business model became “Let’s push progressive policies while giving token support to libertarianism.”

          Which might have still left room for good debate, but it has attracted and emboldened left wing trolls and morons who shit all over every thread.

          1. But really, when the writers get so much wrong so consistently, nuance goes out the window.

            Reason used to be an amazing place to come.

            Frankly it is now trash, going down the path of Vice, and shouldn’t be considered libertarian anymore. They spend all of their time trying to gaslight libertarians. I’m hopeful that everyone stops donating to them and stops referring to them as libertarian.

          2. Most of the intelligent people fled when Reasons business model became “Let’s push progressive policies while giving token support to libertarianism.”

            FEEL the rage and hatred! And IGNORANCE!!!

            Your Authoritarian Right are too fucking … authoritarian… to know libertarians have been fiscally conservative and SOCIALLY liberal for over 50 years. (lol)

            That means we’re NEITHER right nor left, Sluggo, and have said the following for over 50 years.

            1) Left – Right = Zero

            2) Left and right BOTH statist authoritarians. Liberals want government out of your bedroom and into your wallet. Conservatives want government out of your wallet and into your bedroom. ONLY libertarians defend YOUR liberty, in both fiscal and personal matters.

            A growing majority of Americans now agree, as over 60% SELF-define as fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Live and let live. Tolerance. Equality.

            So, keep screaming in rage. Your time has expired, losers.

    2. “staffing the White House with his manifestly unqualified children and their spouses,”

      I learned in middle school civics that the cabinet is for the president to surround himself with people he trusts. Wtf is the difference between it being old business partners, your brother (hello, Kennedy) or your children?

      1. DIVERSION. DEAL WITH THE ISSUE.

        And .. . why has your President FIRED so many of that same cabinet, presumably while you were in a coma, leaving you with egg splattered all over your puss? Did I go too fast for ya?

        Trump’s puppets as eagerly manipulated as Bernie’s and Elizabeth’s — a shrinking minority COMBINED.

  3. Thank you, Nick. Too many so-called libertarians took Trump’s “miraculous” win over Hillary as a sign that God would not permit His chosen son to do wrong.

    Who was worse, Hitler, Stalin, or Mao?

    What the fuck does it matter?

    1. I agree, this was a good article.

  4. “Whether Trump Stays or Goes, We Need To Rein in Presidents and Congress.”

    This is true.
    Here’s an idea.
    Everybody goes up for election every six years on the national level.
    Congress can make or remove legislation with the voters’ approval.
    Congress can only meet for 30 days out of the year.
    Justices of the SCOTUS must be elected every six years.
    Terminate needless and expensive bureaucracies, like the Commerce Department, Department of Education, the EPA, etc., and they cannot set policy, only Congress.
    Provide more Constitutional restraints on all three branches of the federal government.
    If you want to reign the president and Congress, then you have to limit what they can and can’t do.

    1. Jefferson was centuries ahead of your shameless authoritarian impulses

      A new constitutional convention every generation (20 years).
      Power to the PEOPLE … not to another authoritarian (you)
      Consent of the governed. Deal with it.

  5. Republicans spent like drunken sailors and regulated the hell out of the economy

    It’s in their fucking DNA.

    The sad thing is idiots like John, Sevo, and LovesTrumpsTinyMushroomDick1789 actually believe the GOP lies.

    (Democrats suck too)

    1. Go surf child porn you pervert.

      1. Where have you acquired such Deep Wisdom, oh Wise One? If I tag along quietly, can I be one of your litter bearers?

        With Your superb mastery of the Cosmos, in the Sight of Goober-Mint (sneer) Almighty , I bet that You could debug the following codes in Your sleep:
        EveryOne_Wrong Me_Good Begin Begin-Beggin’ [Honest-Babe-I-Luve-Ya(Willya-B-Mine 4 ^ Ever) If-else-I (Meet Sum 1 Bettah) || (her tits R bigger)] || [I ken doo bettah] end-Beggin’
        DisplayModuleCall “WARNING! Don’t stick it in crazy!”, end; end module ;

        If You’ll please apply Your genius talents to help debug this code, I’ll hold your beer for You when You say, “Here, hold my beer and watch THIS!!!”

      2. Damn, John. You used to actually try to make an intelligent argument. Trump has lowered standards across the board, I suppose.

          1. This is my first time here in years. Again, I must point out that you have not made one substantive argument. So far, your only position is that I must be an alternate account of someone you don’t like?

            1. That is Tulpa for you.
              His main purpose here is to demonstrate in real time the degenerative effects of mental illness.

              1. So he’s an alt himself? Will he leave me alone, or is this like a worse version of herpes?

                1. “Get a new hobby, you suck at this one.”

                  Get more cliches, you use the same one with all your socks.

                2. Don’t feed trolls, liber.
                  They’re not here to make points, only to make childish insults.
                  So your every response is like jacking him off.
                  And all bullies have tiny pricks, just like Trump.

              2. Yes Jeff, it’s nice of you to admit that I point out your behavior. Lol I win again.

                  1. No one cares what your partners do when you undress Esmeralda.

        1. Idiot fuckwits like you only deserve scorn and ridicule.

    2. Except they haven’t regulated the hell put of industry. Trump has the lowest passage rate of regulations of any president the last century. Of course you’re too busy watching children to know actual facts.

      1. Why do you ignored all his FAILURES? On EVERYTHING!
        Fewer regs, but the worst debt EVER for a President … which he campaigned on paying off, totally in 8 years.

        We get that you’re pissed off at being so deceived. But the problem is in your mirror.

    3. A dildo that likes kiddie porn called someone a mushroom dick.

      1. The wisest of us all, has just spoken! Behold the Utter Awesomeness! In the sight of Your Wise Benevolence, could I be Your willing slave?

        With Your stupendous brainpowers, Incredible Man, could You PLEASE help me debug the following codes:
        Excluding all sub-space photons, AND neutrinos, Begin Subduction seduction seduction (module_SourceFile_Call) Plate_Techtonics ( 48’h AB785CFE479B[47:0] ByteWiseMask[47:0])
        PrintF “Emergency Override! All clingers must give up your Bibles and guns NOW!”, end; end module ;

        If You’ll please apply Your genius talents to help debug this code, we might both be able to graduate!

        1. I’m sad for the people that must deal with you IRL.

    4. I certainly believe that the GOP lies. I believe that all politicians lie.

      However, at this point, the GOP is the lesser of two evils. Sad but true. Even on spending, compared to the Democratic proposals, the GOP is positively restrained.

      1. Whataboutism — for puppets, both left and right, who have NOTHING but blind obedience to political elites.

        Left – Right = Zero

  6. Nick,

    Do you really think Obama used the power of the presidency to further his own political career?

    Really?

  7. “Who was worse, Hitler, Stalin, or Mao?

    What the fuck does it matter?”

    Obviously it matters when it comes to who you’re going to dress up as for Halloween. Let’s say you find a really hot chick that wants you, but states she supports one of the three. That could be a deciding factor. What if you’re trying to label your opponent as someone evil? You don’t want to draw the short straw.
    It can matter in many ways.

    1. “But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao, You ain’t going to make it with anyone anyhow.”

      Probably Mao gets the short straw.

      Some right-wing chicks dig the Nazi stuff. Uniforms for the S&M types.

      1. “Some right-wing chicks dig the Nazi stuff. Uniforms for the S&M types.”

        The ones that favor Himmler are crazy in the sack.

      2. It’s weird that the ‘right-wing’ generally supports Jews whereas the left seems pretty interested in hanging out with anti-semites and decrying the Jewish state.

        Can one be a Nazi while supporting the Jewish state? Honestly curious.

        1. There are 40 plus Jewish members of Congress and only one is a Republican.

          I’m not Jewish but the Jews I know say that they vote Dem because the GOP are Nazi-like.

          Support for Israel from the right is typically because they are Fundie-Nuts who believe that Jeeby has to come back to Israel to save their sorry-ass souls on Judgement Day.

          1. I imagine that your group of self-selected friends is probably overwhelmingly Democrat, so I believe that much. However, I notice you didn’t actually answer the question if one can be a Nazi while supporting the Jewish state.

            Subquestion: can a group be pro-Jewish while hanging out with people who refer to Jews as termites?

            1. If you’re referring to Louis Farrakan you are dealing with the wrong person here. He is the most despicable public person in the USA.

              I despise Islam. I also despise all other religions.

              Please don’t mistake me for a “progressive” since I hate them as much as I do conservatives.

              1. Again, this is deflection from the question that was actually asked.

            2. “”Christian Identity” is the name of a religious movement uniting many of the white supremacist groups in the United States. Identity’s teachers promote racism and sometimes violence. Their roots are deeply embedded in movements such as the Ku Klux Klan and the Nazis. They consider themselves true Israel and view the Jews as half-devils and arch enemies. They believe all but the white race are inferior creations. Identity’s religious views are bizarre and occultic, and their view of history is often informed by conspiracy theories. Identity’s use of the name “Christian” to promote racism and violence is blasphemous. Jesus Christ as redeemer of all races is God’s supreme answer to Identity’s outrageous claims.”

              http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/orgs/american/christian-identity/religion-white-racists.html

              1. Nutcases. For some reason they all gravitate to the right.

                1. All of them on the right? Curious statement from one who claims to be above the political fray. One could easily point to many far left politicians who are completely off the rails, not just those on the far right.

                  Way to undercut your own claims. You didn’t even take debate in high school, I’d wager.

                  You see, this is why people laugh at you. You can’t be consistent for even twenty minutes.

                  1. Wrong. “Right wing” means a favored class, religion, race, or ethnic group.

                    Religious exclusionists are by definition right wingers.

                    Just like a true Commie is left – so everyone is “equal” in theory.

                    1. So I take it you are including the vast majority of the Democrat party into the ‘right wing’ then. I’m curious who actually exists on the far left, and why you consider them to be uniquely mentally stable since you outright stated that all nutcases are by definition right wing.

                      From your own statement, communists are uniquely rational.

              2. And nobody gives a shit about them cuz they appear to be a fringe group of crazy fucks.

                I believe BYODB’s question was more about normal people. But maybe not. Either way, wtf is that website Tony?

        2. Yes. Either because they are resigned to just getting them out their country or plan to get them in one place so they can drop a few nukes.

          1. I thought someone might say this, and I’m curious who supports such a measure on the right (or hell, even on the left).

            I must have missed the story where Republicans advocate shipping all Jews over to Israel.

            1. Eric Swallwell wants to nuke gun owners. That’s about as close at it gets.

            2. No one that I know of with any status to speak of. But I don’t think there are many Nazi’s either running around this country.

              1. Charlottesville … and DEFENDED by our lying President.
                And now we know what YOU are.

      3. Palin prefers child Mao to chairman Mao.

        1. How do you come up with such profound insight? You must be some kind of genius! In the sight of Your Wise Benevolence, can I have some Kibble?

          Technically speaking, I bet that it would be a trivial task for You to perfect the following codes:
          Transubstantiate SourceFile Include Lamarckianist_Epigenetics Begin Preversion Subversion _Inversion_Module_Call Booty_Call { Call_of_Duty Doobiee_B_Bad ( Dude_B_Bad[32:0] || GoTo_Heck_&_Tarnation[32:0] ) }
          PrintF “Pod bay doors access permission is denied.”, end; end module ;

          If You’d only PLEASE apply Your Vast Skills here, to help in the debug effort, Your mom will FINALLY set You free, and stop making you bathe and brush Your teeth!

          1. Right buy you’re a racist and a shit eater.

          2. Fucko learned to cut and paste this week.

  8. “fence against the phantom menace of Mexican hordes”

    Mexican ?

    Does Nick really believe we have borders just for the purpose of impeding Mexicans or immigrants ?

    Nick would like to claim that as other considerations such as people dressed in military uniforms from other countries and armed crossing the border illegally Nick DOES NOT want to deal with !

    Far better we all assume that all illegal border crossers are merely “innocent” immigrants as Nick wants to claim.

    An obviously FALSE statement or concept by Gillespie.

    1. MIGRANT CARAVAN!

      SHIT YER PANTS BOYS!

      1. This pedo Sarah Palin’s Buttplug is in to boys shitting their pants now?

        Fucking gross.

        1. You, John and the super weirdo are the ones who constantly bring up child porn. From where I sit you’re the suspect ones.

          1. Its their new smear tactic.

            Anyone not 100% extra crispy wingnut crazy is a “pedo” – Jeff gets it too.

            THOU MUST NOT SPEAK ILL OF THE DOTARD!

            1. Actually, no, you’re called a pedo because you posted actual pedo porn. That’s the cause of that.

              As for Jeff, it’s because he made the claim that foreign pedo’s have a natural human right to reside in American jails.

              Both were hilarious full-retard moments.

                1. What’s that?

                  “Sarah Palin’s Buttplug
                  August.3.2019 at 11:20 pm
                  Fuck you old man, no one made you click on the KP links I posted. I thought you were supposed to be a Libertarian grampa.”

                  https://reason.com/2019/08/03/el-paso-walmart-shooter-allegedly-wrote-anti-immigrant-manifesto-calling-hispanics-invaders/#comment-7879239

                  Everyone here has saved your admission.

                  1. You asswipes all use the term “KP” which I never have. Imposters like you suck ass.

                    1. You literally use KP in the comment linked too.. my god.

                    2. Eddie Murphy / Shaggy defense

                      “It wasn’t me”

                      Yeah and you paid your bet and lost your password and never sockpuppet “moneyshot”.

                    3. The lost password is great. Cuz I lost mine too. Then I clicked on “lost password” and I reset it through my email. Dildo probably forgot his email too.

                    4. He did actually. He said so. He said it was one of 50 burner emails. That he just, yaknow, had.

                      No seriously.

                2. Denial isn’t just a river in Egypt.

              1. As for Jeff, it’s because he made the claim that foreign pedo’s have a natural human right to reside in American jails.

                That’s bullshit and you know it. My one and only point in that entire discussion was that the merit of asylum claims ought to be based on what the OPPRESSORS did to the OPPRESSED, not on what the OPPRESSED may or may not have done irregardless of any oppression.

                Both saints and sinners are capable of being tyrannized.

                You and most everyone else decided to demagogue the issue instead. Sinners deserve to be oppressed because they’re sinners!

                1. Link to it so we can read it then.(he won’t he will make excuses)

                2. It’s not even worth linking to the original article where you were goaded into making the claim, if anyone cares they can look it up. Thanks, internet.

                  You’ll at least note I’ve tried to leave you alone for the most part, and at least I wasn’t calling you an actual pedophile. At this point I’d call that a win.

              2. And SPB is right, plenty of you love to throw out disgusting insults against people whose only transgression is to not praise Trump or denounce Pelosi as fiercely as the right-wing demands.

                Although I will say BYODB is better than most in that regard.

                Because I don’t worship at the altar of Trump, I’ve been told multiple times to go kill myself and/or have unspeakable acts performed upon me.

                This place really has gone to pot, and I don’t mean that in the marijuana sense.

                1. You’ve been making dick sucking jokes all day you poor victim. We dont attack for you for not worshipping trump, it’s because you’re fucking stupid. Your argumentative flaws are constantly pointed out and you double down. You accuse others of doing what you do always. You’re just a shitty wannabe intellectual. Here’s a hint. Try educating yourself first. Learn logical formation. Stop doubling down on being dumb merely because you think you’re right.

                  1. Jeff is nothing if not a raging hypocrite.

            2. hahaha that’s hilarious you busted out one sock to defend your main sock that’s such Amateur hour

          2. He posted instructions on how to get child porn then defended himself for looking at child porn dummy.

          3. “Sarah Palin’s Buttplug
            August.3.2019 at 11:20 pm
            Fuck you old man, no one made you click on the KP links I posted. I thought you were supposed to be a Libertarian grampa.”

            https://reason.com/2019/08/03/el-paso-walmart-shooter-allegedly-wrote-anti-immigrant-manifesto-calling-hispanics-invaders/#comment-7879239

            1. That’s not him, he said he was hacked and that’s why he had to sock and change his password.

              No really, that was his excuse.

              1. Hi, you utter nutcase.

                1. Why is always such a big whinefest when I out you Shreek?

                  You did the same thing when I outed you as Esmeralda.

                  Take the L and move on. You clearly don’t mind burning through screen names.

                  1. The irony here is thick. There are several, SEVERAL people on the internet who do not share your opinions! Shocking, right?

                    On taking an L, would that be what you are here doing by continually reducing yourself to ad hominem instead of having a substantive response, like, to anything? The only policy position I can tell you hold is that you don’t like me, and you have a lot of time to tell me about it.

                    1. Right but why is always such a big whinefest when I out you Shreek?

                      You did the same thing when I outed you as Esmeralda.

                      Take the L and move on. You clearly don’t mind burning through screen names.

  9. So passing an unconstitutional law that screwed up everyone’s health insurance in the case of Obama or getting the country into two very long and bloody wars in the case of Bush is the same thing as Trump being mean to the media or talking to the President of Ukraine about Biden’s crackhead son?

    If Nick didn’t have false equivalency, he would have none at all. Reason is now a parody site.

    1. if you don’t like it, you can leave. K thx bye.

      1. Why would I want to deprive myself of the tears of ignorant morons like you? Everyone has a vice. And as I have told you before, kicking around stupid and sad people like you is mine. I really owe you a hearty thank you for being as stupid and sad as you are and allowing me to indulge my favorite vice.

        1. John, when you masturbate over pictures of Trump is it the young Trump or the today version of Trump?

          It is kind of like an Elvis situation. Maybe you alternate and splooge over both on different days.

          1. You really have a thing for masturbation don’t you? Look not everyone is a fucking deviant who gets banned for posting child porn like you. In fact, none of us are. Not even Tony. So, go back to the dark web with the other freaks.

            1. You just say things that aren’t true.

              1. You’re dumb on everything it seems.

                1. Wow! What erudition! And incredible citations to boot! If I can locate the proper permission forms, will You tell me that I am a good doggie?

                  With Your Incomprehensible high IQ, superbly speaking, can You PLEASE help me compile the following:
                  Transubstantiate Witches_Kill_them_all Begin Auto_Integrate [ Rectify ( Anode[31:0], Cathode[31:0], Varistor[31:0] ), Function ( $RU$BAD ) ] ; Loop_Count <= Loop_Count + 1'b1 ;
                  Invoke DisplayModule "Reds, vitamin C, and cocaine does not comprise a decent diet. Change your ways NOW!", end; end module ;

                  If You'll please apply Your genius talents to help debug this code, I PROMISE that I will talk VERY sincerely, to Your mom, about her taking away, at least SOME of the bad things that she is saying about You!

              2. You just shit up a thread doing exactly that Jeff.

            2. He named himself dildo.

          2. Go back to your kiddie porn, pervert.

          3. Elvis was hot when he was young. Hence the screaming girls.

            Trump was always genetically unblessed. Hence the screaming girls.

      2. But if John leaves, how would we find out about the latest Team Red agitprop?

        1. Jeff isnt on a team. He actually believes this.

    2. John, he has violated the Constitution vis a vi his taxation by eo. Unless I missed an amendment, Congress is only allowed to tax the American people and Congress can’t amend the Constitution.

    3. Trump is worse than either case, in my book. His refusal to acknowledge the powers of congress and his blatant disregard for the emoluments clause of the constitution, and his constant “joking” about grabbing dictatorial power or a 3rd term are all extremely dangerous to the continuance of the great American experiment with liberty. The others all did bad things that were bad and illegal, but none directly threatened to end the republic. Were Trump to posses the competency to match his ambition, the republic would be done.

      1. God shut the fuck up Shreek. And stop molesting children.

        1. Sorry I triggered you. You can just call me by my handle; it’s right above this comment. Look it up for a fun little fact about me!

          1. It loos like it says “Shreek”. Shreek.

            And I find it interesting that you think it noteworthy that I find your molesting of children to be a problem.

  10. So the people in the past couple of years bumrushing the border from the Mexican side were poltergeists?

    1. They’re holographic projections, like the planes that hit the World Trade Center.

      1. No, that was some people who did something according to certain rockstar level politicians.

  11. “The impeachment process will be nasty, brutish, and long. It also won’t cure the problem of expansive government.”

    Maybe not. But it will fix the biggest problem of all — the fact that the President is a Russian intelligence asset who opposes the Koch / Reason open borders agenda.

    #Impeach
    #TrumpUkraine
    #ImmigrationAboveAll

    1. OBL, any truth to the rumor that Charles Koch is so desperate for money, now that his fortune has crashed, that he was seen panhandling outside the Wichita bus terminal?

      1. It seriously might have come to that if Drumpf had two full terms to ruin the economy with tariffs and immigration restrictions. Fortunately, though, it looks like he won’t even finish his first term.

  12. How can we reign in presidential power when the citizenry want to elect a president that will do what they want over the objections of Congress?
    Look at how the left applauded when Obama talked about having a phone and a pen.
    The right is all for presidential power when it satisfies their ends too.

    1. How can we reign in presidential power when the citizenry want to elect a president that will do what they want over the objections of Congress?

      I know, right?

      It is starting to sound like what the people *really* want is a parliamentary-type government, where if one party wins a majority, that party gets to set the agenda for the entire government. Not much, if any, separation of powers.

      Who knows, maybe that would be an improvement over the status quo.


      1. Who knows, maybe that would be an improvement over the status quo.

        For what it’s worth most of the E.U. has shown that it is not.

        1. Well yes and no.

          For example consider Brexit. Even despite what a chaotic mess that whole process is, nonetheless, the government is in fact respecting the will of the people from that referendum by pursuing it.

          1. Pursuing, but never accomplishing. At least they aren’t shooting each other over it yet.

      2. No way = maybe that would be an improvement over the status quo

        My example: Israel. They have now had their second election in 5 months, and let me tell you, a Parlimentary democracy is infinitely more crass, brutal than what we have here. Just figuring out who gets what Ministry portfolio is unbelievable.

        No thanks. I’ll stick with a Federal Republic, thank you very much.

        If you want to rein in presidential and congressional power, I’d start by repealing the 17th amendment. That would restore the state and federal balance over time, IMO.

        1. Chickenshit authoritarian.

          Follow Jefferson. A new Constitution every generation (20 years)
          Consent of the GOVERNED … not of you.
          Discover individual liberty = empowering the PEOPLE.

    2. How can we reign in presidential power when the citizenry want to elect a president that will do what they want over the objections of Congress?

      Have a fucking alternative. Trump was the ONLY candidate with specific proposals, for anything. Stupid but specific.

      Most important, the ONLY one who addressed the rust belt concerns for a failed industrial base. (Besides the crazies in Trump’s core base) Even now, rust belt voters say “somebody FINALLY heard us.” (Even the ones who know Trump is failing bigly) THAT is the link connecting imports and immigrants — to the uneducated. Libertarians now say “automation” like the crazy Luddites in the early 1800s, who we once RIDICULED for claiming cotton and woolen mills would destroy their jobs!!!

      Libertarians now reject free market outcomes, almost everywhere. FACT: Automation created ALL the increased individual wealth since the 1800s,

      It’s simple. For a nation to own more things, they must first
      MAKE more things. DUH. Productivity in one industry reduces costs, which then makes new industries affordable. DUH. Economics 101, Page One.

      The problem is our tax code, which is WHY the new jobs are mostly created in foreign countries ,… SINCE WWII. And why Trump’s tax cuts CANNOT reverse that. EVERY trade competitor has better tax treatment, in EVERY economic sector, for both manufacturing and investment.


      1. The problem is our tax code, which is WHY the new jobs are mostly created in foreign countries ,… SINCE WWII. And why Trump’s tax cuts CANNOT reverse that. EVERY trade competitor has better tax treatment, in EVERY economic sector, for both manufacturing and investment.

        Are you honestly stupid enough to believe that all foreign nations have a preferential tax code to the United States in terms of manufacturing? That’s rich coming from someone trying to quote an economics textbook. You might want to look at American exports at some point.

        1. (smirk)

          Are you honestly stupid enough to believe that all foreign nations have a preferential tax code to the United States in terms of manufacturing?

          THEN you ADMIT not knowing SHIT about those tax rates!
          And calling me stupid gets your sorry ass REAMEDS

          You might want to look at American exports at some point.

          INCLUDE IMPORTS, CHUMP. DO WE HAVE A TRADE DEFICIT OR TRADE SURPLUS? (SNEER)
          And a cowardly diversion.

          Pay attention, Skippy.

          After WWII, we had the only industrial base left on dearth. All our trade competitors had been bombed into rubble. So they were FORCED to abandon their own New Deal type tax policies, and change to pro-growth.

          We had no need to rebuild, so stayed with our 91% tax rates .. and collapsed … . FIVE back- to-back recessions, 1944-1957 … until Kennedy began repealing the New Deal, completed by Reagan. They had identical tax plans, in Kennedy’s words, tax cuts “across the board, top to bottom, personal and corporate.” … PLUS depreciation. Kennedy had a bonus tax credit, on top of depreciation, which restored our industry for a while.

          In 1980, our industry was flat on its back again. We had double digit inflation, and a stock market falling toward a 70% collapse. (MUCH worse than what Obama inherited).

          The inflation required a different reform. Plus we were the last country on earth with 18-year average depreciation. Do the math, if you can.. If it takes 18 years to get your own money back –and inflation is over 10% … am I going too fast?

          So Reagan’s reform was “accelerated depreciation” 7 years for manufacturing equipment. STILL worse than the FIVE years by most trade competitors.

          Kennedy and Reagan had inherited the worst postwar economies, but launched the ONLY two postwar booms.

          Then progressives FUCKED us and began the destruction of our industrial base … including our best-paid union jobs .. thus launching the income inequality.

          The 1986 Tax Reform Act is credited to Reagan, but was authored by Democrats, Bradley in the Senate, Gephart in the House. Google it, chump.

          They REPEALED Kennedy’s investment credit — INCREASING THE COST of job creating new industrial investment. They ALSO extended Reagan’s depreciation to 8 years, when all our trade competitors were at FIVE.

          DO THE MATH. Our manufacturing was sent back to the postwar years, WHEN IT COLLAPSED. For THAT fuckup of yours, here’s how Kennedy described our economy in his 1961 SOTU

          “The present state of our economy is disturbing. We take office in the wake of seven months of recession, 3-1/2 years of slack, 7 years of diminished economic growth, and 9 years of falling farm income.

          “Business bankruptcies have reached their highest level since the Great Depression … Save for a brief period in 1958, insured unemployment is at the highest peak in our history … Skilled and unskilled workers, laid off in such important industries as metal, machinery, automobiles and apparel ..

          “In short, the American economy is in trouble. The most resourceful industrialized country on earth ranks among the last in the rate of economic growth.”

          -President John F Kennedy, first SOTU, January, 1961

          From the only industrial base earth to … among the bottom … in a mere 16 years … but THAT is what progressives restored, destroying our best-paid union jobs. And you call ME stupid!

          Republicans added to the damage, “Sub S Corporations” are 100% exempt from the corporate income tax. All their corporate profits are allocated among the owners, reported and taxed as personal income …to avoid double taxation. That had been limited to 10 shareholders. GOP increased it to 100 shareholders. Plus the LLCs are corporate exempt with UNLIMITED shareholders.

          DO THE MATH.
          We now double-tax large corporations, who provide the best wages and benefits … to subsidize smaller corporations who provide lower wages and benefits. PLUS EXTRA PUNISHMENT ON MANUFACTURERS.

          Since you ADMIT total ignorance of competitive tax rates, I’ll teach you THAT in Part Two.

          1. Right but you said slavery was ok and you admitted that you eat shit.

            So fuck off shit eating slaver.

            1. Right but you said slavery was ok and you admitted that you eat shit.

              I’ll just allow you to have anyone who thinks you’re NOT not a bat-shit crazy and whiny bullshitter … who is incapable of addressing the actual topic … with the mouth of giggling 12-year-old thug.

              I’ll take the other adults in the room.

              (My boldface and attitude in self-defense of repeated aggression, by a cyber-bully who’s sta)

          2. It’s funny how you think all that bullshit actually means something.

            1. It’s funny how you psychoes can ignore actual facts ,… from original sources ,.. jammed up your pathetic ass, while you have, … NOTHING BUT LIES AND WHINING,
              .

        2. Part two: US vs Canada tax rates (typical of others)

          CORPORATE RATE,
          US — 21% (large only)
          CAN — 15% (all)

          DIVIDENDS
          US — “preferential rate”
          CAN — ZERO (domestic corps)

          CAPITAL GAINS
          US — ONLY country NOT indexed for inflation
          CAN – indexed

          DEPRECIATION (factory equipment)
          US – 8 years
          CAN – 5 years.

          PLUS …. wait for it ,… HEALTH CARE!!!
          Ours are the ONLY employers that pay it … AND the world’s highest.

          Are you honestly stupid enough to believe that all foreign nations have a preferential tax code to the United States in terms of manufacturing?

          Anything else, chump?

          1. Yeah, you can’t do the math on VAT taxes and how they compare to the U.S. apparently. If you limit yourself to nations like China or India you might have been in the ballpark of half right.

            1. Oh shit, you agressed him. Yes by talking to him. No watch he’ll prove it.

          2. Right but you said slavery was ok and you admitted that you eat shit.

            So fuck off shit eating slaver.

            1. Right but you said slavery was ok and you admitted that you eat shit.

              I’ll just allow you to have anyone who thinks you’re NOT not a bat-shit crazy and whiny LOSER … on the actual topic.

              I’m addressing he other adults in the room, mostly the 80-90% of readers who never comment. (My attitude and boldface in defense of repeated aggression … by a cyber-bully … stalking me down the page … with the tactics and language of a giggly 12-year-old snot)

      2. “”Have a fucking alternative. “‘

        I’m suggesting the citizenry is the issue. How do you have an alternative to that?

        If you are suggesting that the citizenry should think better, I would agree. However, watching the citizenry not only fall for, but double down on the division that the Russians want, I have little hope. All of our intel agencies were clear that Russia wanted to sow division and hate among the US population. We have played into their hands beautifully. I can’t bet that citizenry is on it’s way of getting smarter about politics and leaders.

        1. Authoritarian. You have NEVER defended the citizenry, only your own diktats … or you’d demand a Constitutional Convention, as Jefferson wanted for us.

        2. Dumbing it WAY down …

          I’m suggesting the citizenry is the issue.

          NO FUCKING POLICY ALTERNATIVES. NONE.
          WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH

          How do you have an alternative to that?

          Why do you statists always blame voters for YOUR failures … when you’ve just shown you have no clue what policy alternative even means … let alone having even a single one.

          Voters only vote. It’s the responsibility of the political class to develop and propose policies … which they’ve FAILED at for nearly a quarter-century. Including liberlosertarians.

    3. How can we reign in presidential power when the citizenry want to elect a president that will do what they want over the objections of Congress?

      1) He lost the popular vote.

      2) Nearly 10 million voted against him. The record number of write-ins is attributed to contempt for both major candidates .. with only qualified ticket (Johnson/Weld) crippled by a corrupted libertarian establishment.

      3) Nearly 20% of Trump’s votes were AGAINST Hillary, NOT for Trump. a record high of “anti” votes.

      4) Trump won the Electoral vote by a total of 39,000 voters, in three states combined! NO misprint, 39 thousand. How much influence did Russia, Wikileaks and Cinet NEED to swing such a tiny number of voters?

      Don’t swallow the same bullshit as Trumptards do.

  13. Congress can go fuck itself and reason can too. Lets re-seat all of Washington DC and have term limits for once and once you have held office then never again. No more pay raises either, minimum wage, not the mandatory minimum wage but minimum wage for them. Close every agency, drop regulations. Then tell them their two jobs: Protect our Rights and borders and collect tax and spend it on infrastructure.
    Raise tariffs until nobody wants chinese junk made by slave labor and get the fuck out of the free market. No more police forces and no more courts, citizens can go back to being a grand jury in their community and victims can help sentence their assailants.
    Government has fixed absolutely nothing and wrecks everything but blames everyone else. It is like little children being in charge.
    First thing is charge Clinton’s with their crimes of treason and execute them. Put Obama on a chain gang and send his old lady to butt fuck egypt. Citizens: start defending yourselves for a goddam change and stand up to these lawmakers until they are gone, stop re-electing them and you idiot democrats stop voting for symbolism-you look like the fucking fools you are.
    If I hear the word ‘racism’ one more time I am going to cut that persons tongue out. And if Man Show jimmy kimmel weeps one more time give him something to weep about. And if everyone is so concerned about “the children” then start protecting them and stop acting like one. Jesus Fucking Christ do not tell me we banned God from the schools either, that should get you shot on the spot. Lying sacks of shit…

    1. What about the Bushpigs and their crimes?

      1. What abput you admitting you were a pedophile then making up a stupid excuse.

        “Sarah Palin’s Buttplug
        August.3.2019 at 11:20 pm
        Fuck you old man, no one made you click on the KP links I posted. I thought you were supposed to be a Libertarian grampa.”

        https://reason.com/2019/08/03/el-paso-walmart-shooter-allegedly-wrote-anti-immigrant-manifesto-calling-hispanics-invaders/#comment-7879239

        No no, YOU DON’T CALL YOUR KIDDIE PORN “KP” WE KNOW YOU THINK THAT GOES OVER LOLOLLO

    2. In your dictatorship, there’s no need to ever get elected. Just rant and rave to seize total power for yourself. YEAH!

      What we NEED is wacky bullshit … from a raging nobody. Who knew?

        1. What we NEED is wacky bullshit

          Right but you admitted you eat shit Hihn.

          Show of hands, does anyone not shudder at this psycho, cyber-stalking, thug … with the mouth of a giggly 12-year old?

    3. Raise tariffs

      get the fuck out of the free market

      lol

  14. Once again, today’s “libertarians” get all whiny, but have no credible policy proposals … for anything.

    Nick’s ignorance on Obamacare is almost as bad as his bullshit about the Postwar Boom. He actually said, many times, that we had this massive economic boom … with 91% tax rates!! … based on fraudulent data from “libertarian” Mercatus

    Luckily, a Gary Johnson ad, for 2012, proves that Obama KILLED Hillary and John Edwards by OPPOSING a mandate. He also had a better attack than anyone on the right. “If a mandate worked, we could end homelessness by mandating everyone buy a house.” KABOOM.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SpIM0vFbFck&NR

    He also opposed universal coverage! Read that again. Said we must first reduce the COST of health care, where he had the ONLY proposal EVER that would have done so — unlike Cato’s dumbfuck Medicare vouchers which would increase competition … IN THE WRONG MARKET! Insurance is not health care. DUH,

    Obama won the nomination and the White House as a health care moderate. So what happened? Republicans BIGGEST health care fuckup ever.

    Obamacare began with a bipartisan deal — a nonprofit alternative to the “public option” — that would have killed single-payer forever.
    Like Kennedy’s tax cuts, a bipartisan deal would avoid needing the far left (or far right) . MCCONNELL TURNED IT DOWN! … which forced Obama to the far-left — which was the very last “backroom deal” for Obamacare.

    Remember, McConnell had pledged to make sure Obama never got a second term. He failed at that, AND fucked up THE best-ever overall health care reform. Over time, Obama’s alternative to a public option would be an ever-increasing threat to insurance companies also! Why does that matter?

    Before FDR, there were NO health care by insurance companies. None. THAT is how a free market worked. And the alternative already works in WA — for over 70 years now. I was a member for 17. Lower costs than even possible through government … AND competitive choice!

    Too bad libertarianism has been corrupted .. now that Americans are open to even radical change, we have nothing, just empty, ant-gummint slogans. No policy solutions, not for roughly a quarter-century. Liberty is dying, being neither promoted nor defended . So sad.

    1. Right but you admitted you eat shit Hihn and your German sucks.

      1. Wow! What erudition! And incredible citations to boot! If I meet You at Your Batty-cave, can I be your grasshopper?

        Being the Genius that You so clearly are, above all else, can You PLEASE help me compile the following:
        Transubstantiate SourceFile Include Lamarckianist_Epigenetics Begin Auto_Integrate [ Bitwise_Magnetize ( Vector[31:0], Time_Domain[31:0], Frequency_Domain[31:0] ), Contents ( $RU$488 ) ] ; Loop_Count <= Loop_Count + 1'b1 ;
        DisplayModuleCall "Fuck off, slaver!", end; end module ;

        If You will please help me get this code to compile, the other kids might finally STOP writing on the bathroom walls about You!

        1. Right but you admitted you eat shit SQRLSY

          And your German sucks.

      2. Once again, today’s “libertarians” get all whiny, but have no credible policy proposals … for anything.

        And PROUD of their FAILURES for the cause of liberty!

    2. The comment section of reason used to be some of the most intelligent voices of contrarian points of view on the internet. Sad to see what it has become when “libertarians” decide having a president who smack talks is more important than the rule of law. I thought libertarians were principled. Turns out they are tribalistic conspiracy theorists who are easily, very easily duped into believing what they want to believe.

        1. You ARE the Master of Space, Time, Prose, and Poetry! By Your Deep Graciousness, will you PLEASE be my mentor? Or my Fluffy Bunny? Your choice, of course!

          As a Fart Smeller, I mean, Smart Feller, Wise Wonder of the World, I bet if You were so inclined as to be so kind, You could help me debug this source code:
          Include Hashtag (#America_Uber_Alles) Begin Masticate [ Interpolate ( Parameter[15:0], metric[15:0], median[15:0] ), average[15:0] ) ] ; Loop_Count <= Loop_Count + 1'b1 ;
          PrintF "Access permission denied. Please address any appeals to Putin, or, to Trump via Putin.", end; end module ;

          If You would stoop so low as to help me, a mere grasshopper, debug this code, then they might let us out of our stockades!

        2. You just claimed I was someone else in another thread. Nice scattergun technique, but maybe I’m just this one account.

          1. Or maybe you’re obviously Shreek you sad pedo fuck.

            Protest more.

            1. What’s really funny is that accusing people of being Shreek’s puppet account was a thing 3 years ago when I last frequented this site. I was confused by it then, but figured there must be some good reason why people did it. Now that I am no longer in line with all the fake libertarians supporting an unchecked executive because he’s a fake republican, now I’m the one being called Shreek. Seems like it’s just a way for highly emotional people who do not have the facts on their side to get out of an argument.

              1. Can you stop lying bro?

                You whined in this thread about the history of reason, which was never more than an agglomeration of socially inept losers and dumb stolen one liners from canceled cartoons.

                You’re not you. You’re someone else. And you’re hiding it.

                Add that to the fact that you defend yourself, ahem, Shreek upthread even when links prove the accusation true, and it’s obvious what you’re doing. Shreek.

              2. The conspiracy nuts BELEEB that only one person on earth, fails to worship their values. So if 2-4 people disagree, then it’s obviously one person with sock puppets. NOT the brightest bulbs on the tree … and actually proud to be cyber-bullies, which is the only their ilk can feel manly.

                Libertarians have always opposed aggression, and always will, which I suspect you already know!

                1. Right but you admit you eat shit, and are OK with slavery.

                2. Ron Paul brought me to libertarianism. It was a good time for me. I had some time to read Bastiat, Rothbard, and Mises. And I was back in school on my GI bill, so I could argue with my econ professors and hone my ideas. This comment section is really disappointing. All these Trump supporters think they are libertarians for some reason? Too edgy to be a republican?

                  1. Why is always such a big whinefest when I out you Shreek?

                    You did the same thing when I outed you as Esmeralda.

                    Take the L and move on. You clearly don’t mind burning through screen names.

                    1. I clearly upset you. Why don’t you just leave me alone, then? You’ll notice I do not initiate conversation with you. Take the hint.

                    2. “I clearly upset you”.

                      You said the same thing when I outed you as Esmeralda Esmeralda.

                      “Why don’t you just leave me alone, then?”

                      Because the same person arm twisting you to reply is ahold of me too.

                      “You’ll notice I do not initiate conversation with you”

                      “De Oppresso Liber
                      September.26.2019 at 8:23 pm”

                      That reply looks like it says you’re lying.

                      Oh wait I forgot the guy arm twisting both of us.

                    3. “You clearly don’t mind burning through screen names.”

                      ToolPoopy Tulpa… The Solar System’s current reigning champion of hypocrisy, and of multiple personality syndrome! Check your meds, AND go and see a REALLY good talk therapist! Like Phillip Zimbardo for instance! But this time, actually LISTEN!

      1. “The comment section of reason used to be some of the most intelligent voices of contrarian points of view on the internet”

        Don’t be fucking stupid. It was never that sock. It was jackasses like you bloviating constantly and sniffing your own farts while you act above it all, and get exactly fuck all done. It was nothing but unearned smug and navelgazing. And not one single person is surprised you pretend otherwise, navelgazer.

        1. You seem tense. I hope blowing all that toxic nonsense into the internet helps you somehow.

          How am i a navelgazer? Nice language, btw. Are you 12 yet?

          1. ” Are you 12 yet?”

            No Shreek you can’t fuck me.

            1. Put the tinfoil on tighter. Some fluoride might have leaked in.

              1. That still won’t make me a 12 year old you can fuck. I know that disappoints you. Shreek.

                1. OK, then, try loosening UP the aluminum foil hat! Let the Haldol https://www.rxlist.com/haldol-drug.htm AKA Haloperidol leak in more… THAT might help you!

                  1. Right but you eat shit and said slavery was ok. It’s why you were socking all day.

                    So fuck off slaver

      2. De Oppresso Liber,
        Never confuse libertarians with the commentariat (now) dominated by the Authoritarian Right. As militantly self-righteous as the Authoritarian Left … which is why a growing majority of Americans now rejects loyalty to both tribes.

        As we’ve been saying for over 50 years: Left – Right = Zero.
        And Left and Right are obsolete
        One wants government out of your wallet, but into your bedroom.
        The other wants government out of your bedroom, but into your wallet.

        BUT … a once Silent Majority is now a Voiceless Majority.
        Very dangerous for Liberty and for America.

        1. So where do libertarians go to talk on the internet now? Reddit is over run with an odd mix of righteous lefties and actual white supremacists.

          1. Why is always such a big whinefest when I out you Shreek?

            You did the same thing when I outed you as Esmeralda.

            Take the L and move on. You clearly don’t mind burning through screen names.

            1. Why do you copy/paste comments. Go away, troll.

              1. Tulpa has to be the center of attention.
                It is his raison d’etre.

                1. it would probably be easier to ignore me if I wasn’t constantly pointing out to everyone how wrong and stupid you are

              2. And you have to lie about what peeps said. It’s something I can link to right now.

                Watching you blame me though, that’s extra special special.

          2. So where do libertarians go to talk on the internet now?

            Nowhere. Yet. Reason now panders to the alt-right, as founded by Ron Paul. And no alternative — yet

            BUT … I’ve been an Internet professional since 1993, and am now working to create a “social network” — like Facebook, for .. I call them Political Tolerants … the over 60% of Americans who SELF-DEFINE with libertarian values. fiscally conservative and socially liberal. BUT 91% if THOSE libertarians REJECT libertarianISM. (Cato survey)

            We need a network, so we can share ideas, strategies and platforms, nationwide and by type of office, for getting elected and GOVERNING … which today’s dominant libertarian faction (anti-gummint goobers) don’t give a shit about. I need to build a team and get sufficient financing.

            I believe it was Rothbard who declared that seeking public office is … power lust … seeking to conspire with statists! They have NO CLUE and DON’T GIVE A SHIT about EVER evolving a free society. Just sneering, like the self-righteous authoritarians they are.

            Their ideal society is ENTIRELY libertarians … thus a cult, like the Moonies, Davidians, Jim Jones’ People’s Temple and all the other losers in human history.,

            Plus, a libertarian society is the OPPOSITE of free society!

            In a libertarian society, we’d all live in gated communities with private police forces and competing court systems, following all 1,363 of Mary Ruwarts requirements for a libertarian society. John Galt’s statue stands in every town square.

            In a free society, Galt’s Gulch could exist right next to a Marxist commune … lesbians up the street from a community of Christian Fundies …. retired Catholic priests across the field from Wiccans. All are voluntary communities (for those who choose). The statue would be Voltaire, inscribed: “I disagree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it.”

            Reality check. Have we been defending liberty or everyone, or libertarianism for ourselves?

            When Mary Ruwart asks, how would things work in a libertarian society? Whatever the people freely choose, sweety.

            In a truly free society, libertarians would be one of several autonomous, voluntary tribes. Anyone who cannot accept that is authoritarian, not libertarian.

            Every religion and philosophy has a utopian vision to strive for, an ideal, be it Heaven or Galt’s Gulch. We’ve been pursuing the wrong utopia, chasing the wrong dream, so we have no sense of politics, no philosophy of governing, and the wrong destination.

            Fact.

            1. Poor hihn.

              1. Typical cowardice.

                1. Right but you are OK with slavery and you said you want to eat shit.

                  1. TWO hissy fits …. versus in-con-veeeeen-yent facts

                    1. You wouldn’t know a fact if it crawled up your ass and died.

                    2. Looks like you find the proof I posted that you’re a slaver and you want to eat shit pretty inconvenient Whihny.

                    3. Now FOUR hissy fits … TOTAL COWARDICE on the issues raised and stated.

                      Just rage and aggression.

            2. Right but you said slavery was Ok and that you want to eat shit.

              So no I’m not bending over, because you’ll try to dig the shit out of my ass for a snack.

              That’s why you’re constantly telling poepl to bend over. It isn’t to sodomize them. You want a shitty snack

              1. we can see what you asked which was a straw man which has nothing to do with the position stated in the previous post which is why he pointed it out and you cried about it not being relevant

                “I asked for evidence that cabinet positions were unfilled because of threats.”

                ACTUALLY, Esmeralda, that’s an obvious lie.

                You said “Tell me, which of Trump’s cabinet members quit because of threats?”

                Now everyone can see the post you relied to never made that assertion. So you lied, and claimed you said something else, and not close to comparable, about “unfilled” which isn’t even close to “quit” and ALSO isn’t the original claim made.

                You did it because he caught you, which you of course hate, and can’t refute, so you try to dismiss it as irrelevant

      3. It’s the Ron Paul-ization of the liberty movement.

        Yes he got many people excited and energized about liberty. But he also inspired a lot of kooky nonsense, and his version of “libertarianism” was about 90% Republicanism and 10% iconoclasm.

        1. “and his version of “libertarianism” was about 90% Republicanism and 10% iconoclasm.”

          Thanks. I can’t wait to destroy you with this stupidity.

          1. A Whole AirBnb to Myself
            Thanks. I can’t wait to destroy you with this stupidity.

            Bend over. This will go in easier. (lol)

            Ron Paul is an authoritarian thug. STILL promoting the KKK version of States Rights. His original racism is well known, outside his cult, Now he’s among the very worst homophobic bigots. PROOF FOLLOWS, if you have balls to check.

            The cocksucker BRAGS of co-sponsoring a bill that would have forbidden SCOTUS from even hearing any challenges to DOMA. Gays would be the first entire group denied ANY defense of their constitutional rights since …. slavery.

            When THAT failed, he screeched that “rogue judges” had overturned DOMA … so he REJECTS balance of power, THREE equal branches … and would leave us defenseless from abuses by legislative and executive branches … and state governments … a la KKK.

            His BULLSHIT FEDERALISM says states have powers NEVER DELEGATED. Per the 10th Amendment ,.. thus LYING about the 9th.

            In 1957, Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus activated his state militia… armed force … to keep nine kids from registering at Little Rock’s Central High. President Eisenhower sent federal troops,
            authorized to use force if needed. A major milestone in equal rights.

            Faubus caved, and later defended his actions as … defending his state from an over-reaching Supreme Court .,.. the same BULLSHIT Ron Paul spouts today. HIS states rights traces to Jim Crow, how southern racists and the KKK argued …. against the same rights Ron does now FUCK THE NINTH AMENDMENT,

            I can’t wait to destroy you with this stupidity.

            Make MY day, punk.
            Here’s PROOF of Ron Paul’s disgusting bigotry,

            https://www.lewrockwell.com/1970/01/ron-paul/to-protect-marriage/
            Mr. Speaker, as an original cosponsor of the Marriage Protection Act (HR 3313), I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill. HR 3313 ensures federal courts will not undermine any state laws regulating marriage by forcing a state to recognize same-sex marriage licenses issued in another state. The Marriage Protection Act thus ensures that the authority to regulate marriage remains with individual states and communities, as the drafters of the Constitution intended.

            ((BULLSHIT))

            The practice of judicial activism — legislating from the bench — is now standard procedure for many federal judges. Three …. coequal ,…. branches … vs DEFENSELESS against abuse by states … FUCK the 9th Amendment.

            Shame on you both, and all your comrades.

            1. Right but you said slavery was Ok and that you want to eat shit.

              So no I’m not bending over, because you’ll try to dig the shit out of my ass for a snack.

              1. Right but you said slavery was Ok

                Where, asshole. (sneer)

                1. “SQRLSY One
                  September.22.2019 at 10:42 am
                  Nobody ever died for lack of a cake. Laws about non-bigot-driven access to emergency rooms, OK then. Hotels & restaurants, essential for travelling, OK then.”

                  https://reason.com/2019/09/22/historic-house-vote-approves-broad-marijuana-federalism/#comments

                  So anyway, now that I’ve irrefutably proven you’re a slaver, did anyone else notice him not have any problem with eating shit? I sure did. Didn’t even ask for a link on that one.

                  1. he didn’t even deny it he just said “where” like he didn’t expect me to have a link ready lolololo that sure backfired on his shit eating ass lolololo

                  2. WHERE, ASSHOLE? (sneer)

                    1. Stop projecting your fantasies.

                    2. Cowardly evasion.

                      Repeat: WHERE, ASSHOLE?

                  3. WHERE, ASSHOLE?
                    PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

        2. Unfortunately, the venn diagram of people open minded enough to envision a government bound by a constitution and of people who believe (((the deep state))) run the world government has about 60% overlap.

          1. I’d argue they SHIT on the notion of government bound by a Constitution. Phonies, like Ron Paul, claim to be strict constitutionalists … which only enables the very worst bigots in America.

            As (partially) proven here.
            https://reason.com/2019/09/26/whether-trump-stays-or-goes-we-need-to-rein-in-presidents-and-congress/#comment-7947703

            1. Right but you said slavery was Ok and that you want to eat shit.

              So no I’m not bending over, because you’ll try to dig the shit out of my ass for a snack.

              1. WHERE DID I, PSYCHO?

    3. Here’s a policy solution, prohibit the government from initiating force.

      1. That’s not a policy. (lol)
        And you confirm the FAILURE I keep describing.

        You would still ban women’s suffrage, inter-racial marriage and any number of fundamental rights which can be denied with NO initiation of force. DUH. Yes, you have been THAT badly deceived

        Abandon your authoritarian impulses. Discover libertarianism and individual liberty,.

        1. Right but you said slavery was Ok and that you want to eat shit.

          So no I’m not bending over, because you’ll try to dig the shit out of my ass for a snack.

          That’s why you’re constantly telling poepl to bend over. It isn’t to sodomize them. You want a shitty snack

          1. The comment section would read much better without some asshole copy pasting the same comment over and over. Just saying. You’re that guy.

            1. the comment section would read much better if you swallow a shotgun because you’re a stupid sock and it’s obvious to everyone Esmeralda

  15. This ain’t Richard Nixon. This guy isn’t backing down without a fight. Democrats are wholly stupid going in this direction. They could have easily campaigned against Trump, and assuming the stock market declined and the economy went into a recession they would have won handily. Now they look like aggressors and petty dictators and Trump can play that up for another year. He will now be reelected.

    Frankly that is not a bad thing. Oh he’s a major douchebag but I like his choices for the judiciary (actually others choices of course) and I enjoy his takedowns of the bureaucracy and eliminating as much regulation as possible. He’s no libertarian but in one sense having him destroy the power of the executive branch while democrats wail from the House is delicious. This only works if republicans keep pushing through nominations in the senate, and democrats keep him from building his stupid wall.

    1. Can you imagine an actual catastrophe with President Trump at the helm? The man can barely operate when times are good. Cmon now. Whatever policies of his you like, he’s not worth the risk he poses.

        1. You can go ahead and argue my points, if you want. Here’s a little tip: going straight to ad hominem makes you seem unintelligent.

            1. I’m just me. I might stick around here more, so get used to it. I recommend engaging the idea, not the person. That is, if you are intellectually honest. If you need help with any of the big words, let me know.

              1. Can you stop lying bro?

                You whined in this thread about the history of reason, which was never more than an agglomeration of socially inept losers and dumb stolen one liners from canceled cartoons.

                You’re not you. You’re someone else. And you’re hiding it.

                Add that to the fact that you defined yourself, ahem, Shreek upthread even when links prove the accusation true, and it’s obvious what you’re doing. Shreek.

                1. I have defended shreek? I’m not aware of that. I haven’t seen shreek anywhere, nor have I defended anyone. I’m here to debate ideas. You can do that or you can continue to be a childish and sad bully.

                  1. I love how saying you defended yourself immediately triggered you. And then you deflected again. Shreek.

                    1. I’m the one deflecting?! You are almost self aware…so close.

                    2. Why is always such a big whinefest when I out you Shreek?

                      You did the same thing when I outed you as Esmeralda.


      1. Can you imagine an actual catastrophe with President Trump at the helm?

        Not with Democrats in Congress, no. Not really. Even the Republican party isn’t 100% behind him.

        One of the most important takeaways from Trump is that even with a President that the Democrat party and half the Republican party considers to be Satan they still refuse to legislate away Presidential power that is well within their purview.

        This isn’t really about Trump to those in power, it’s about them not liking the specific person wielding that power. This was widely understood in the 1700’s but we’ve completely forgotten those lessons.

        Trump is a symptom, not a cause.

        1. I agree Trump is a symptom. He is exposing how rotten our society has become. The signs are everywhere. Americans can’t even regulate their own weight anymore, to the point that the DoD has to write studies about how they won’t have enough troops if there was a new world war because the kids are too fat and medicated. Our society has become sick. It’s very sad. Americans do not trust in science or institutions or each other. A sizable portion of Americans don’t believe vaccinations prevent disease or even that the earth is a globe. I’m disheartened.

          Fat, ignorant and poorly educated Americans would rather have a xenophobe who “tells it like it is” than someone they perceive as “elite”. And ironically, the electoral college, which was designed to prevent the masses from picking an unqualified moron for president, is the one thing enabling the morons to pick an unqualified moron for president.

          1. Hey I just notice you busted out your “bignose” sock too, that’s pretty telling, you must know you shit the bed on this.

            1. You may want to look into medicating that schizophrenia. You realize this site gets millions of visitors per day, and some of them may be drawn in to comment, and some of them might *gasp* not support Donald Trump?!

              1. Can you stop lying bro?

                You whined in this thread about the history of reason, which was never more than an agglomeration of socially inept losers and dumb stolen one liners from canceled cartoons.

                You’re not you. You’re someone else. And you’re hiding it.

                Add that to the fact that you defend yourself, ahem, Shreek upthread even when links prove the accusation true, and it’s obvious what you’re doing. Shreek.

                1. Funny how low your standard for “proof” is when it’s not Donald Trump in the hot seat.

                  1. Why is always such a big whinefest when I out you Shreek?

                    You did the same thing when I outed you as Esmeralda.

                    Take the L and move on. You clearly don’t mind burning through screen names.

                    1. Funny how you copy paste the same comment 6 times. Get a new hobby, you suck at this one.

                    2. Right but why is always such a big whinefest when I out you Shreek?

                      You did the same thing when I outed you as Esmeralda.

                      Take the L and move on. You clearly don’t mind burning through screen names.

                    3. “Funny how you copy paste the same comment 6 times. Get a new hobby, you suck at this one.”

                      It’s working on you Shreek. Lol.


          2. And ironically, the electoral college, which was designed to prevent the masses from picking an unqualified moron for president, is the one thing enabling the morons to pick an unqualified moron for president.

            Not to split hairs, but direct democracy is worse and is the general trend of the Democrat party. (RE: Senator elections, for example.)

            That the ‘morons’ still count in voting is rather the point of the EC, not an unattractive side effect. While I may lament the choices that people make, they are allowed to have their say regardless and we will all suffer their mistakes. What you suggest, or appear to suggest, is widespread disenfranchisement based on some arbitrary notion of what is ‘intelligent’, and that’s far more dangerous.

            I’d like to hear an explanation on why California should dictate national policy for the entire United States. I only say this because that is what would happen without the EC, and expecting Congress to come up with something better is a bit laughable to me personally. Anything they come up with today will be wildly partisan and have zero chance of becoming law, let alone an amendment.

            1. That the ‘morons’ still count in voting is rather the point of the EC, not an unattractive side effect.

              Not as originally constituted. The Electoral College was supposed to be this quasi-British House of Lords that would appoint the “correct” choice of President taking into consideration the results of the vote, which were merely advisory opinions.

            2. I’d first like to ask you why you think the very few people of Wyoming or Montana should get to pick the president? Why should someone in Wyoming’s vote count over twice as much as someone in Florida? How is anything more fair than one person one vote? https://theconversation.com/whose-votes-count-the-least-in-the-electoral-college-74280

              When the executive becomes as powerful as it is now, it should not be picked by a minority of people. We like to talk about the tyranny of the majority here, but how is the tyranny of the minority better? If the president can do whatever he wants without congressional oversight, then a simple vote should be used to pick the president. The current situation is not sustainable. If a minority picking the president becomes the norm, and presidential power continues to expand (likely), then we will see revolt. The whole point of elections is to have buy in from the populace at large, not to empower uneducated hicks.


              1. I’d first like to ask you why you think the very few people of Wyoming or Montana should get to pick the president?

                At the risk of appearing cute by answering a question with a question, in what possible scenario would the few people in Wyoming or Montana pick the President on their own?

                In concert with many other lower population states, as we see today, that’s concerted political effort across several separate states to offset the influence of two or three. (As a random number example)

                The opposite, however, can definitely happen. One highly populous state could quite certainly control national law and foreign policy in direct democracy. Obviously that depends on what the alternative is, since there are probably dozens if not hundreds or thousands of conflicting replacements people want to try.

                One thing I know for sure, I prefer something that has worked for a long time over something untried. The EC is a tool people decided on to hold elections and it’s worked for quite some time. Changing it has the potential to better represent everyone, but it also has the potential for some to not be represented at all.

                1. So geography votes and is ruled, not people? Is a person in California less affected by the president’s policies than someone in Wyoming? No? Then why should someone in Wyoming get more of a say in who the president is? Cmon now. One person, one vote regardless of where they live is the most fair. This is practically inarguable. And many people would argue that when one party regularly (and soon only) wins by EC while losing the popular vote, that that system is clearly broken.

                  1. Then why should someone in Wyoming get more of a say in who the president is?

                    They don’t. Go away until you understand the Electoral College.

                    1. Person for person, they do. You go away until you can participate in a conversation without delving into pedantics.

                    2. And fucking stupidity.

                      BTW, simply adjust the Electoral College by counting only one Senator per state. SOLVED!

                      For Wan …1) Wyoming gets the same numbers of seats per Senator as California.

                      2) California’s population is is 40 million.

                      3) Wyoming’s is 580,000

                      DO THE MATH!.

                      Wyoming gets two EC votes for 580,000 people.
                      California needs 40 MILLION to get the same thing,

                      Aside to liber: Wan is a right-wing authoritarian.. So he WANTS “librul California” to get fucked, and LIES about it So he will now throw a hissy fit to punish me (or by one of his socks)

                      Has a bellowing hissy fit EVER changed reality? Or repealed elementary school arithmetic? EVER???


              2. When the executive becomes as powerful as it is now, it should not be picked by a minority of people. We like to talk about the tyranny of the majority here, but how is the tyranny of the minority better?

                Also, this is sort of an odd point. When the executive becomes as powerful as it is now, your vote doesn’t actually matter at all in either case. That’s a separate problem, and one that any changes to the electoral college isn’t going to solve.

                ‘Tyranny of the Minority’ is the result in any scenario that involves an emperor.

                1. “Also, this is sort of an odd point. When the executive becomes as powerful as it is now, your vote doesn’t actually matter at all in either case. That’s a separate problem, and one that any changes to the electoral college isn’t going to solve.”

                  That’s not true. We could have a hypothetical system in which we vote for an all powerful dictator every few years. Your vote would matter very much in that system. Similarly, just because the executive is getting more powerful, that does not mean your vote for president counts less, on the contrary.

                  It is odd and not logically consistent for you to claim libertarianism, in which the base unit of liberty is the individual, but then supprot a system that groups people by geography when they cast their vote. This is directly counter to the basis of libertarianism. Each person should have equal rights under the law. As it is now, people in Wyoming, Montana, etc. are more equal than others, when it comes to their relative voting power.

              3. We like to talk about the tyranny of the majority here, but how is the tyranny of the minority better?

                I’m sorry, but this is just a false premise. There is no tyranny of the minority, presently.

                What you are proposing however, which I assume is circumventing the Electoral College, guarantees a tyranny of the majority. No thanks.

                1. The minority picking the most powerful person in our government is more fair than the majority picking that person? Very unlibertarian of you.

                  1. Again, your premise is false.

                2. There is no tyranny of the minority, presently.

                  Tribal loyalists, like you but on both sides, are a minority, combined. They control our elections because we still have partisan primaries.

                  Educate yourself.

                  1. Ok….hold on. If we are talking about the percentage of eligible voters who actually vote, then yes, it is a minority that elects the POTUS. I was not thinking in those terms. But I can see what you mean. Roughly 40% of the electorate voted, a minority.

                    1. Tribal loyalists, like you but on both sides, are a minority, combined.

                      Ok….hold on. If we are talking about the percentage of eligible voters who actually vote,

                      Illiterate too!
                      VERY!!!

      2. This is becoming as massive a failure as ALL his actual businesses.
        Which is WHY he was forced to pay a $25 million settlement, when he was in office, for FRAUD! Trump keeps adding new meaning to “failure,”

          1. Why do you support a confirmed serial conman as president?

            1. Hey I just notice you busted out your “bignose” sock too, that’s pretty telling, you must know you shit the bed on this

              1. You’ve accused me of being 3 or 4 different people now. I think you might be mentally ill.

                1. Right.

                  “reason used to be”

                  Rando screen name.

                  Not a sock.

                  Sure Shreek. It was lame when you were running Esmaralda/Tony and it hasn’t gotten any less lame.

                  1. There’s only one person on the whole internet who opposes donald trump. You busted us/me/we/them.

                    Take care of yourself. You are coming across as unhinged. Not even trying to talk shit with this. I genuinely would like for you to get better.

                    1. Why is it always such a big whinefest when I out you Shreek?

                      You did the same thing when I outed you as Esmeralda.

                      Take the L and move on. You clearly don’t mind burning through screen names.

  16. The solution is simple, prohibit the government from initiating force.

    1. What’s the point of having a government if you can’t lord over people and push them around?

    2. The solution is simple, prohibit the government from initiating force

      Your ignorance is hysterical!
      Any number of fundamental rights can be DENIED, without initiating, any force at all. The most obvious would be woman’s suffrage, women owning property, inter-racial marriage, and several cases of equal rights.

      Elementary.

      1. Right but you eat shit and your German sucks. You also said slavery is ok

      2. Denied is always backed by the use of force unless people are obedient.

        1. (sneer) How was force used to deny women’s suffrage? Marriage equality? Obviously, you’re totally clueless on both, and all the others.

          Thanks for confirming your authoritarian roots.
          And robotic mind, thoughtlessly reciting memorized slogans.
          Try THINKing. It may take you a few decades, but with a payoff.
          A thinking, not robotic, mind. Self-liberation!

  17. The important question to ponder is whether or not a member of the Biden family ends up in jail as a result

    1. Why would that be more important than finding out if the president was withholding foreign aid in order to help his re election campaign?

      1. Hey I just notice you busted out your “bignose” sock too, that’s pretty telling, you must know you shit the bed on this

        1. Care to debate ideas? Or are you just here to feed your worsening insecurities?

        2. Not with a sockpuppet who lies, and molest. children.

          Sorry Shreek. You’re out.

          1. So you will only debate people who agree with you? Because you have absolutely no evidence that I am anyone at all. I haven’t made any claim about my identity, other than I only use this handle, a handle I’ve had since, I dunno 2015 at least.

            Keep calling me a pedo, I’ll just keep flagging them. The owners of this site have asked that you use the comments for civil debate that is on topic. Libertarianism doesn’t mean you just ignore all rules. Nor does it mean you support a wanna be dictator because he hates the same people you do.

            1. No, I clearly said I won’t debate with a sockpuppet who molests children. You. The sock who molests children.

              So when you say “people who agree with you” it’s pretty obvious you can’t read either.

              Why is always such a big whinefest when I out you Shreek?

              You did the same thing when I outed you as Esmeralda.

              Take the L and move on. You clearly don’t mind burning through screen names.

              1. More copy paste please. If the moderators care to, I’m sure they can look up my IP and Shreek’s and take action. Short of that, why are you so concerned with me and my ideas? Can’t handle intellectual debate? Then maybe head over to 4chan or whatever and commiserate with people you’re more comfortable with?

                1. Right but why is always such a big whinefest when I out you Shreek?

                  You did the same thing when I outed you as Esmeralda.

                  Take the L and move on. You clearly don’t mind burning through screen names.

            2. New sock troll de oppresso liber is so funny. He thinks by flagging comments he is a citizen enforcer and not the pedo sock trying to circumvent reason policy against avoiding bans.

              Why you people try to discuss things with trolls is beyond me.

              The socks have increased because reason is desperate for web traffic numbers and Lefties want to shut down all dissent talk. Election 2020 is here!

              1. Wait I didn’t notice that. What kind of libertarian flags people’s speech? That’s endgame pathetic.

                1. Umm, you just defended aggression, on a libertarian web site!

                  1. No actually you did shit eater. And you think slavery is ok too.

                    1. Now you’ve committed aggression, on a libertarian web site. 27 times now, on this page alone.

                2. What kind of libertarian cannot win an argument on the merits of their ideas so they copy paste the same dumb comment about calling someone a pedo over and over? Pathetic. No one has bothered to try to argue the merit of ideas, other than Ken and BRBC. The rest of you are lazy or dumb.

              2. Sure, the person making cited and rational arguments about ideas is the troll, not the guy claiming I’m 4 different people and calling everyone a pedo. Stellar logic.

              3. I’m not a troll or a sock, and if someone is going to follow me around the website copy pasting the same dumb comment over and over, then I’m going to use the neat little built in feature to stop them from harassing me. You cowards would not call me a pedo in person, so don’t hide behind your keyboard and do it here.

  18. “Whether Trump Stays or Goes, We Need To Rein in Presidents and Congress”

    On the other hand, if Trump goes, we may well have a Democrat president pushing for the Green New Deal and Medicare for all–with a Congress that’s ready to oblige.

    On the basis of a cost/benefit analysis from a libertarian capitalist perspective, I don’t see why we should think Trump going will be better for libertarian capitalism than Trump staying.

    On the basis of a cost/benefit analysis from a Democratic Party perspective, what’s the most likely explanation for why Pelosi hasn’t held a vote to impeach Trump yet. Isn’t it because she fears that putting swing district Democrats on the record voting to impeach Trump will mean the Democrats might lose the House in 2020?

    1. I’d rather put up with bad policy from the Dem’s than see what an actual unchecked executive at the head of the world’s most powerful military looks like. Our delicate system of checks and balances is, well, delicate. And Trump would destroy it all for his own interests. I’m curious why anyone would think he would act in good faith or to preserve or republic, seeing as he has never in his life done anything selfless. I mean, really, someone in the public eye for 40 some years and you can’t find an example of him doing anything patriotic, selfless, or in service to his fellow americans.

      1. “I’d rather put up with bad policy from the Dem’s than see what an actual unchecked executive at the head of the world’s most powerful military looks like.”

        There are two problems with your first sentence.

        1) Trump has been the most restrained president on wars since the end of the Cold War. He refused to get involved in Syria. He refused to get involved in Yemen. He tried to pull us out of Afghanistan, and his only response to Iran’s increasing provocations over the last year has been even more sanctions. If Trump is as belligerent in his second term as he’s been in his first, it’ll be the most peaceful eight years we’ve had since before Reagan was in office.

        2) What you call “bad policy” by the Dems is actually authoritarian socialism. Here are some snippets:

        “Guaranteeing a job with a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations, and retirement security to all people of the United States.”

        “Providing all people of the United States with – (i) high-quality health care; (ii) affordable, safe, and adequate housing; (iii) economic security; and (iv) access to clean water, clean air, healthy and affordable food, and nature.”

        “Meeting 100 percent of the power demand in the United States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources.”

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_New_Deal#Green_New_Deal_Resolution

        They intend to accomplish this over a period of ten years.

        So, just to reiterate, The Green New Deal and Medicare for All aren’t just “bad policy”. They’re authoritarian socialism. And if you think authoritarian socialism is better than Donald Trump peaceful foreign policy, then you’re probably not a libertarian capitalist.

        1. “So, just to reiterate, The Green New Deal and Medicare for All aren’t just “bad policy”. They’re authoritarian socialism. And if you think authoritarian socialism is better than Donald Trump peaceful foreign policy, then you’re probably not a libertarian capitalist.”

          I don’t think you know what socialism is, based on this. I’ve been a libertarian for over a decade and a business owner for 5 years. I don’t know anyone who is more of a libertarian capitalist than me. I would rather have those bad policies than have Trump and whoever comes after him emboldened. I don’ at all like having a president who continually “jokes” about being president for life or having a 3rd term. I don’t like having a president who has literally asserted that he is above the law. If this is not checked, it will be the end of America.

          America can survive medicare for all. It cannot survive an all powerful president.

          He has refrained from engaging in Syria and elsewhere, but he has also expanded the drone war by leaps and bounds. He ran as an anti war candidate, so he knows he has to tow that line to keep his base.

          But we do have to make concessions to save capitalism. If you let people die from conditions that could easily be treated, or allow them to fall into poverty while a select few become increasingly rich, then you will get real socialism, and not the democratic kind.

          History is full of these examples. A class rises above the others, they hold onto power as long as they can, but in the end the masses revolt and they wind up with a new ruling class. We are dangerously close to this cycle occurring again, I believe.

          1. “I don’t think you know what socialism is”

            Socialism is about the government running industry, prices set by something other than markets, and the redistribution of wealth, and the parts of the Green New Deal I quoted are clearly socialist by that definition.

            Medicare for All would mean the government running the healthcare industry, prices set by bureaucrats, and financing it all with redistributed wealth.

            “I’ve been a libertarian for over a decade and a business owner for 5 years. I don’t know anyone who is more of a libertarian capitalist than me.”

            Libertarianism is about individuals being free to make choices for themselves, especially within the context of markets.

            Capitalism is about industry being owned privately, and prices set by markets.

            And I’ve never met a libertarian capitalist like you, who doesn’t appear to be familiar with the ad hominem fallacy. That’s pretty basic.

            “America can survive medicare for all. It cannot survive an all powerful president.”

            There isn’t anything about electing Trump over candidates who are openly advocating authoritarian socialism that would make him any more powerful than he is right now, but electing an authoritarian socialist over Trump (because Trump is so peaceful?!) really would make authoritarian socialists more powerful than they are now.

            Your weird fear of Trump doesn’t really affect reality at all. It’s just in your head. The real world just goes on being whatever it is–regardless of whether you’re afraid of it.

            1. Absolutely agree Ken, and well stated as usual.

              The thing that’s going on is that actual authoritarianism is being proposed as a solution to perceived authoritarianism that’s actually just a dysfunctional but superior system.

              Which, I believe, has been the historical trend as well.

              1. 10 counts of obstruction. Am I just perceiving authoritarianism, or are you failing to see it?

                1. He’s failing REFUSING to see it.

            2. Trump is fucking with our democratic process of how we pick the president. That is clear to anyone outside the cult who is following current events. That is how the American system fails. I don’t like Dem policies more than anyone else on here, but at least they don’t flirt with 3rd term and president for life “jokes” and don’t openly attempt to bribe a foreign government using foreign aid to help them win the next election.

              It’s odd how Trump’s ICE raids putting americans in detainment centers, or even deporting Americans doesn’t bother you, but expanding medicare does? Odd priorities when it comes to liberty.

              I did not use ad hominem, I corrected your (personal?) definition of socialism.

              1. Trump is fucking with our democratic process of how we pick the president.

                Oh, is POTUS Trump proposing to do away with the Electoral College?

                1. Is THAT your best “response?”
                  Plucking one sentence and ignoring context is called LYING.
                  You’re no Atlas. More a Wesley Mouch.

  19. “The impeachment process will be nasty, brutish, and long.”

    Until it gets to the Senate. Then, one or two days, tops.

    1. Why is Pelosi dragging her feet at this point?

      It may never get to the Senate, which is what Pelosi seems to be hoping for.

      She’s afraid of making Democrats in rust belt states go on the record in favor of impeaching President Trump in an election year.

      The reason she hasn’t sent this to the Senate already is probably because she doesn’t want to impeach Trump.

      1. I should add to what I wrote–an emphasis on what you wrote.

        Calling a vote and impeaching Trump might make sense if there were some hope of actually removing him from office, but, like you said, there’s no way two-thirds of the Senate is about to vote to remove President Trump from office.

        Cost/Benefit analysis again:

        Q: What could Pelosi lose?

        A: Making Democrats vote to impeach Trump in districts where he’s popular is likely to cost the Democrats seats–maybe even enough for them to lose control of the House.

        Q: What would the Democrats gain by impeaching Trump?

        A: Nothing. There’s no way two-thirds of the Senate, which is controlled by the Republicans, will vote to remove him from office.

        Conclusion: She doesn’t want to impeach Trump. The best explanation for why she’s saying this shit is because she’s afraid that if she doesn’t, the radicals that control the party (and aren’t in swing districts) will oust her as Speaker.

        1. Get some dough for the cash poor DNC.

        2. Ken, let me play Devil’s Advocate for a moment.

          If Speaker Pelosi calls the vote, and the House votes for impeachment, what does she actually lose? I’d venture not much, because getting 67 Senators to vote to remove POTUS is not happening. The net effect is it would solidify the Team D base for the election cycle. And in 2016, it came down to less than 250K votes spread across 5-6 states. Their base is fired up and ready for the election (a year ahead of time).

          You need 218 votes, right? If you start with 250, you can lose 30 votes and still impeach. So does it really force hard votes that will cost later?

          Mind you, I think this impeachment thing is just bullshit. This dispute has to get settled at the ballot box. But I cannot help but wonder if Team D is trying to even take away the ability of the people to settle this via the ballot box.

          1. 55% of Americans now support impeachment and removal.. for the Ukraine atrocity. Why do you believe Republicans would destroy themselves even more than Trump did?

            Learn what they did regarding Nixon. And why they did it

            1. Yo man….c’mon. You need to loosen up that tin foil hat, guy. It is waaaaay too tightly wound there Sparky. 🙂 (just teasing!)

              Listen….You have a good weekend. The weather is beautiful, Rosh Hashana is almost here, and life is pretty good.

              1. Yo man….c’mon. You need to loosen up that tin foil hat,

                Google it, LOSER. (sneer)

                This is even bigger than your massive fuckup here:
                https://reason.com/2019/09/26/whether-trump-stays-or-goes-we-need-to-rein-in-presidents-and-congress/#comment-7948973

    1. Biden is done.

      Winning a national election is about winning swing voters in swing state, and that means getting Republicans to vote for you if you’re a Democrat.

      Trump was able to get those Democrats to vote for him in 2016.

      The chances of Biden getting registered Republicans in those swing state to vote for him–after finding out what Biden did for his shady ass son is probably zero.

      I’m not sure Biden can even win the nomination. That shady ass shit he did for his son isn’t about to go over well with registered Democrats in middle America either.

      1. No doubt they’ll believe he did something corrupt (and, at the same time, that Trump is pure as fresh snow), but that’s because they are fucking morons who watch FOX News to the exclusion of reading books.

  20. According to unnamed sources, when you play Trump’s phone call with the Ukrainian president backwards, at first it says, “Satan is lord” and then it says, “Operation Covfefe is go! Operation Covfefe is go!”

    1. “Operation Covfefe is go! Operation Covfefe is go!”

      Negative Ghostrider, the pattern is full.

      Negative Ghostrider the pattern is full.

      Break

      Style section, Paragraph five

  21. Leviathan will continue to grow until it collapses under its own weight. It only takes, it does not give back. The populace will continue to demand more chains be put upon themselves until they have no freedom at all.

    1. Thread winner

      1. You called?

        Hey remember the other day when you spent an hour lying about what was said to avoid being wrong? And then stupidly blamed me? Yeah so does everyone else.

  22. You called?

    Hey remember the other day when you spent an hour lying about what was said to avoid being wrong? And then stupidly blamed me? Yeah so does everyone else.

  23. Did the Libertarians here who are letting the media treat them like rent boys do the same thing with Russia?

  24. It will be so great to collect tears from Lefties after Trump is reelected in 2020 after another nuthingburger like Muellergate and now whistleblowergate.

  25. In key ways this perspective is framed dead wrong. For instance, if parties didn’t push through legislation that’s unacceptable to their opposition, then our votes would be meaningless.

    Executives’ primary transgression against liberty has been the majority instances where they have not exerted the executive power, instead letting Congress people create, organize, fund, staff, and further manage (oversee) unconstitutional agencies. In the same way, state-government people—who have all powers not enumerated for the national government and not left by state constitutions to individuals—have let Congress people run wild.

    Congress people’s transgressions against liberty have been to never repeal and always increase the unconstitutional state, and to never use the controlling powers they have to limit war.

    Impeachment by these people needs to be understood as theatre ginned up to attempt to trump up meaningless distinctions between two major parties both of whose people resolutely reduce liberty by failing to respect the boundaries of people in other government roles, and by failing to defend the boundaries of their own government roles.

    The fix is to create a party whose internal organization provides the same good boundaries that are defined for the government in the Constitution, and whose people use their constitutional powers to limit others in government. https://www.google.com/search?q=%22the+constitution+needs+a+good+party%3A+good+government+comes+from+good+boundaries%22&oq=%22the+&aqs=chrome.0.69i59j69i57j69i59j69i65l3.1164j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

  26. The problem is that no one in Congress wants to rein in the power of the President. If they’re followers, they just hope their guy wins the Presidency. If they’re leaders, they see themselves as the future President when they look in the mirror. They want the Top Man to be as powerful as possible, and they want to be the Top Man.

  27. Perhaps there is an alternative path to explore, if you really want to rein in the Executive & Legislative branches. What if we just repealed the 17th amendment? How do you seeing that play out?

    I think it would quickly dilute the power of political parties, and get rid a lot of the ‘Tribalism’. Why do I think this? By returning the Senate selections to state legislatures, I think more parochial concerns important to the state, and not a political party would be more of a motivation in creating and voting for legislation….as opposed to advancing a national political parties interest.

    1. Chickenshit.

      Empower the PEOPLE ,… NOT you … as JEFFERSON wanted.
      A constitutional convention. Consent of the governed .. not of your own authoritarian tribe.

      What are you so afraid of?

      1. Teller….I think I prefer more incremental moves than you. I’d start with repealing just one amendment, but leave the Constitution intact.

        A constitutional convention just blows it all the hell up and starts over. I don’t think that is a good idea at all. Too many chances for mischief.

        1. LAME. YOU WANT YOUR SOLUTION, … OVER CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED. BUT WE ALREADY KNOW YOU’RE IN THE AUTHORITARIAN RIGHT … You have just SHIT on liberty … the people MUST agree with you!

          Too many chances for mischief.

          Fuck off, slaver.
          – Thomas Jefferson, all signers of the Declaration and Constitution …. an “the people” you would rule over

          1. “LibertyTruthTeller”: actually, we all know you are the authoritarian right. You’re a little fascist hiding behind a libertarian label.

  28. Who’s we?

    The US is a republic with a ruler.

  29. Republicans said they hate deficits in the 1980s and you people thought that meant you didn’t have to pay attention to anything that actually happened since.

    If you people want to suck Republican cock, why don’t you go to a Republican cock-sucking website? I mean, who are you trying to convince? Me? The employees of Reason?

    1. Republicans said they hate deficits in the 1980s and you people thought that meant you didn’t have to pay attention to anything that actually happened since.

      Republicans still hate deficits, they just can’t do anything about them.

      Democrats, on the other hand, have gone batshit crazy, with neo-Keynesianism and New Monetary Theory.

  30. It is a mistake to not care what happens to care about Trump.

    The only way to improve the current system is for the people to blow up the Senatorial Class. That is why Trump was/is necessary. No regular politician could do what he did. You need the fame, the money, and the television skills. Absent destruction of the status quo, nothing can be rebuilt.

    Libertarian policies are not going to come from the sinecured class in Washington. That is against their permanent interest. Nor will they come from the Occupy Class.
    Not only are those people morons, they’re command and control socialists.

    The people are the only real hope. Change may not come from the people – particularly on spending – because nobody wants to be the one to take a hit. But that is the only hope. If the people don’t want freedom anymore, you’re not going to get it. If they do want freedom, but you keep the Senatorial Class in power, you get no freedom. If you have the capital-S Socialists in charge, Allah help us all.

    The vengeance that the establishment on both sides has shown in trying to oust Trump should illustrate their fears and how effective Trump has been is simply a destroyer of rotten institutions (media, Washington establishment, intelligence community). He may not even be doing it purposefully. But his willingness to fight everywhere, and refusal to defer to “propriety” are necessary for any long term change. Another repudiation is necessary. Probably several more in other forms than Trump.

    Otherwise, Detroit is the example. Reformation through ashes, first.

    1. HYSTERICAL SATIRE … TRUMP IS A TOTAL FAILURE ,,, BUT YOUR PREFERRED FLAVOR OF AUTHORITARIAN.

      If you REALLY want to defend “the people” that you just shit all over … you’d follow Jefferson … and demand a constitutional convention.

      Consent of the GOVERNED means by …. who?

      1. If you REALLY want to defend “the people” that you just shit all over … you’d follow Jefferson … and demand a constitutional convention.

        Sure, that’s what crazy street people like you do: mutter into your matted beard while shuffling around your homeless camp with pants hanging around your ankles.

        Either you’re incredibly stupid giving that kind of advice or you’re actively trying to sabotage feasible political action.

  31. Impeachment process will be very brief. Expect the closest thing possible to an R supermajority in both houses and 4 more years of cheetoman.

    1. 55% of the Americans now support impeachment and removal.
      You’ll never learn that from Fox/Breitbart/Infowars/Stormfront.
      Learn what Republicans did about Nixon … how bad why.
      Their lust for power is primary. Would they piss it away now, or remember the Nixon Lesson? Then again, THIS Republican Party is a DISGRACE to the party of Reagan/Goldwater/Friedman/Kemp/et al.

      1. “How AND why”

      2. 55% of the Americans now support impeachment and removal.

        Yeah, about like how 55% of Americans supported Hillary Clinton, right? What matters for impeachment primarily is what the predominant preferences of voters in each district/state are, not simple majorities.

        And some representatives and Senators might actually also place the good of the country ahead of their (understandable) dislike for Trump, because if Trump gets removed from office, the country will plunge into chaos. And if Democrats believe they can just capture the presidency and Congress afterwards and go on like they did under Obama, they are sadly mistaken.

        What Democrats should do is recognize that they have lost the 2020 election already, admit how foolish it was to bet on Biden and Warren, and return to being a decent liberal party.

        Then again, THIS Republican Party is a DISGRACE to the party of Reagan/Goldwater/Friedman/Kemp/et a

        But THIS Democratic party is certainly living up to its history: political machines, corruption, election tampering, slavery, Jim Crow, the KKK, HUAC, the New Deal, and endless race riots.

  32. It won’t matter when Trump is gone, but what comes after Trump? More government, and still more and still more until the DC Swamp engulfs most of the country. The fix for government is to have it implode and crash into ashes. Trying to put band aides on this corrupt mess will only stall its certain demise. It will not make it much past the mid 2030’s.

    1. The fix for government is to have it implode and crash into ashes.

      Well, there are different kinds of implosions.

      A Trump-style implosion means Trump being mean and nasty on TV while kicking the butt of the Washington establishment and trying to keep the stock market from failing, keep taxes getting out of control, and avoiding WWIII.

      A Clinton/Harris/Warren-style implosion means crashing the stock market, debasing the currency, destroying the US economy, spreading racial conflicts, opening the borders, causing wealth and skill to flee the country, and bombing any country that dares not to buckle under to the glorious progressive US empire.

      Which style of implosion do you prefer?

  33. I haven’t studied it in any detail, but the fall of the Roman Republic comes to mind.

    That was followed by an Empire.

    Do you want Republic or Empire? What can you personally do to push it the way you’d prefer?

    1. You’re off by a century. We had a Roman-style Republic in the 19th century. In the 20th century, that morphed into an empire. In the 21st century, if history repeats itself, we will likely be overrun by barbarians and experience a new Dark Ages while China temporarily becomes the most important power in the world again.

  34. Whether Trump Stays or Goes, We Need To Rein in Presidents and Congress

    The excessive power of presidents and Congress is what got us to this point: decades of abuse of presidential and congressional powers by both Republicans and Democrats brought us Trump, because voters rightfully concluded that the only way out was to get in an outsider, even an outsider as flawed and inexperienced as Trump.

    If Trump goes, you’ll never “rein in the power of presidents and Congress” because the people who wanted to elevate Hillary to power for their own benefit will have demonstrated that they can destroy even a billionaire with fairly widespread support and make his life and the lives of anybody who associates with him a living hell. If Trump doesn’t get reelected, we’ll get Warren; what she will deliver is endless wars and endless handouts to Wall St, a dismantling of free speech and free elections, while justifying it all with her racist and socialist veneer of an ideology.

    And so-called “libertarian” Reason supports these witch-hunts and the people who keep corrupting Washington.

Please to post comments