Election 2020

The 2020 Election Is Guaranteed to Leave Many Americans Bitterly Unhappy

Americans are deeply divided about our political options and even about each other’s fundamental decency.

|

Do Americans support the push to impeach President Donald Trump? Do they see the Democratic Party as embracing extremism in its frantic efforts to take control of the federal government?

It probably won't surprise you to learn that citizens of these disunited states of America are deeply divided in their opinions of efforts to oust the president and of the ideological positioning of his main political opponents. They also don't have high opinions of either of the main political parties. Then again, Americans like each other even less than ever when it comes to politics, agreeing only that their opponents are awful while sharing mutual glares.

It'll be interesting to see whether the victors in next year's election can begin to reconcile with the large numbers of fellow citizens who view them with outright hostility—or if they even try to make the effort.

Presidential impeachment draws 48.3 percent support in FiveThirtyEight's average of polls on the issue, while opposition draws a close 44.1 percent. Unshockingly, in these tribal times, Democrats back efforts to oust the president to the tune of 83.8 percent, while only 10.9 percent of Republicans feel the same way. Independents split the difference at 44.6 percent.

Those sentiments were reflected in an initial House impeachment vote on Halloween, which saw no Republicans vote in favor of a resolution setting out rules for the impeachment process and only two Democrats break ranks to oppose the measure.

But disagreement isn't confined to Democrats' efforts to unseat the president—it also revolves around their party's overall shift to the progressive left on issues ranging from health care to gun control to identity politics.

A whopping 47 percent of Americans surveyed by Quinnipiac University in October said the Democratic Party has moved "too far left." By contrast, only 37 percent say the GOP has moved "too far right" even after the party's much-publicized embrace of populism.

Not that Americans as a whole are huge fans of either of the legacy political parties. Both the Democratic and Republican parties draw higher negatives (51 percent for Republicans and 47 percent for Democrats) than positives (35 percent for Republicans and 41 percent for Democrats) in the Quinnipiac survey. And, yes, those numbers do break very starkly along partisan lines—with both parties viewed negatively by more independents than see them in a positive light.

The political polarization and hostility that has occupied pundits' attention in recent years seems to be getting worse.

"Three years ago, Pew Research Center found that the 2016 presidential campaign was 'unfolding against a backdrop of intense partisan division and animosity,'" Pew Research noted last month. "Today, the level of division and animosity – including negative sentiments among partisans toward the members of the opposing party – has only deepened."

That divide, Pew emphasizes, extends well beyond views of specific politicians, policy preferences, or even over-arching economic systems. It involves complete alienation between the camps and dismissal of opponents' basic decency.

"For example, 55% of Republicans say Democrats are 'more immoral' when compared with other Americans; 47% of Democrats say the same about Republicans," Pew reports. "Majorities in both parties say those in the opposing party do not share their nonpolitical values and goals."

That echoes language from a paper published earlier this year that found over 40 percent of Americans say the political opposition is "downright evil." Against such evil opponents, "violence would be justified" if the opposing party wins the 2020 presidential election, according to 18 percent of Democrats and 13 percent of Republicans. Anticipating an election win increased support for violence among strong partisans.

With more than a year to go before the election, political antagonists are already throwing accusations of "treason" at one another, raising the question of where the rhetoric goes from here. It's hard to see how the divisions don't continue to deepen—and even harder to imagine election day victors building bridges and putting everything back together as if this was all just a game.

With the legacy political parties and the president (whose approval has never exceeded 50 percent) held in such low esteem by so many of the people over whom they wield power, it would seem a perfect time for alternative parties and candidates to enter the scene and try to capitalize on widespread discontent with the Democrats and Republicans.

The problem is that Americans have wedded themselves to their political tribal divisions—people may strongly dislike both legacy parties and the president, but all still retain large loyalist bases. And those loyalist bases hate each other as much as they despise the politicians of the opposing parties. They're not looking for new political options—they want to emulate Arnold Schwarzenegger's Conan and totally crush and humiliate their enemies.

The only possible bandage for that gaping political wound is to assure partisans that they won't be subject to the whims of "immoral" and "downright evil" opponents. A promise that whoever wins will just let them alone might leave Americans still contemptuous of one another, but with less to fear from the victory of opponents. But for this to happen, politicians would have to stop talking about fundamentally transforming the country over dissenters' protest and instead confine themselves to more modest goals. That's asking a lot of the creatures vying for government office.

Failing an adoption of such limited political ambitions, we enter a high-stakes election year with a deeply divided country, hard feelings, mutual contempt, and choices that are guaranteed to leave whoever loses the election bitterly unhappy with the winners.

NEXT: The Largest Single-Day Commutation in History

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. good. Can’t wait. Trump Season 4 will be lit.

    1. +100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

      Lefties had their chance to have Republicans and Libertarians work with them in government.

      Lefties have shown their true colors and there is no incentive anymore to work with them. They are not in power, so government will be rolled back and civil rights restored.

      1. Donald Trump through a fundraiser for own veterans .. then the SLIME pocketed THEIR money

        https://abcnews.go.com/US/president-donald-trump-ordered-pay-2m-collection-nonprofits/story?id=66827235

        President Donald Trump ordered to pay $2M to collection of nonprofits as part of civil lawsuit

        President Donald Trump has been ordered by a New York State judge to pay $2 million to a group of nonprofit organizations as part of a settlement in >a civil lawsuit stemming from persistent violations of state charities laws.

        The payment is the final resolution to a case brought by the New York attorney general’s office after the Trump Foundation held a fundraiser for military veterans during the 2016 campaign.

        The televised fundraiser took in nearly $3 million in donations that were dispersed on the eve of the Iowa caucuses as directed by then-campaign chief Corey Lewandowski.

        The two million must be paid by President Trump himself for breaching his fiduciary duty to properly oversee the foundation that bears his name.

        “I direct Mr. Trump to pay the $2,000,000, which would have gone to the Foundation if it were still in existence, on a pro rata basis to the Approved Recipients,” Judge Saliann Scarpulla wrote.

        The lawsuit filed by the state’s attorney general accused President Trump — along with his children, Donald Jr., Eric and Ivanka — of conflating charity with politics, repeatedly using charitable donations for personal, political and business gains, including legal settlements, campaign contributions and even to purchase a portrait of Trump to hang at one of his hotelsThis was a civil verdict for repeated criminal actions. Guess what’s next?

        Remember, Trump was the first President EVER forced to pay a $25 million settlement … for FRAUD … while in office.

        What kind of SCUM screws veterans charities and nonprofits … to enrich himself …. and his campaign … by FRAUD?

        Look for MANY more crimes and/or lawsuits, as Trump is forced to provide ever mote financial records.

    2. How’d they get a picture of Tony for the article?

      1. The other one is Hillary.

      2. Uncanny resemblance.

    3. Hillary Clinton leads Trump in a new Fox News poll. Yes, in November 2019.

      A Fox News poll released Sunday did not have great news for President Trump. His approval rating was 42 percent, with 57 percent of registered voters disapproving of his job performance and 46 percent strongly disapproving. A year before the 2020 election, he is behind all of the top-tier Democrats, including former Vice President Joe Biden (51 percent to 39 percent), Sen. Elizabeth Warren (46 percent to 41 percent), and Sen. Bernie Sanders (49 percent to 41 percent). Even worse, Trump is losing to Hillary Clinton, who isn’t even running, 43 percent to 41 percent.

      More …..

      1. Those same polls showed HiLIARy as a shoe-in, in 2016.

        1. LOL … When was Hillary ahead, 51% to 39%???
          She won the popular vote.
          10 million voted against him.
          He got a record number of “anti” votes — AGAINST Hillary, NOT FOR TRUMP,He won the Electoral college with … 39,000 voters, (NOT a misprint) in three states COMBINED.
          Russia
          Wikileaks
          Comey.

          And now this …

          Trump was just ordered to pay a $2 million settlement. HIMSELF … for DEFRAUDING our veterans .. through “persistent violations of state chaties laws. He ran a $3 million fundraiser .. the POCKETED the money, personally and for his campaign.

          The verdict states that his children, .. Donald Jr., Eric and Ivanka (conflated) charity with politics, repeatedly using charitable donations for personal, political and business gains, including legal settlements, campaign contributions and even to purchase a portrait of Trump to hang at one of his hotels

          SCUM
          A Criminal Enterprise.

          Details posted here at
          https://reason.com/2019/11/04/the-2020-election-is-guaranteed-to-leave-many-americans-bitterly-unhappy/#comment-8002963

  2. Never understood why people get excited and cheer about anyone that wants to control their lives, but the other guy on the other team that wants to control their lives is bad, and anyone that cheers on the other guy is bad.

    1. “”Never understood why people get excited and cheer about anyone that wants to control their lives,””

      This.

    2. “Never understood why people get excited and cheer about anyone that wants to control their lives, but the other guy on the other team that wants to control their lives is bad, and anyone that cheers on the other guy is bad.”

      Yeah. I wonder: do sheep worry about the “color” of the wolves who prey upon them?

    3. yeah totes this. gooooooooo Tryants!

        1. I like tryants.
          Indicates a lack of complete success

    4. If you happiness depends on the outcome of an election, you need to reevaluate your life.

    5. Never understood why people get excited and cheer about anyone that wants to control their lives, but the other guy on the other team that wants to control their lives is bad, and anyone that cheers on the other guy is bad.

      It’s a fanatical desire of mainly the younger generations to trade away all freedom, good faith, personal responsibilty, and reason, just for the illusion of “safety” and “equality”, “justice” etc. It’s impossible to reason with that cult, despite the naive, and futile efforts of Reason “editors” and contributors to do so.

      It will get a lot worse before it gets better. It is the way of things. Either we have Trump, and some small, piecemeal, incidental “libertarian moments” along the way, or we have full on socialism and nannying. The first option comes with all the rancor and turmoil that left-wing opposition and the media can muster, and the second comes with a great acceleration toward complete ruin.

      1. For example, Deconstructed Potato here is showing why they get “excited” for Trump. You may think their concerns and fears are over-wrought, but if you start from the assumption that they’re sincere about their stated world view, it becomes trivial to understand why they’d get “excited” for someone they see as trying to stop their fears from becoming reality.

        Understanding is not agreement.

      2. What they fail to consider is that they already live in a safer,wealthier , and more egalitarian society than any other people in history.
        They feel that they are living in an oppressive dystopia, but it is only because they are comparing it to an imagined utopia.

    6. Are you confusing “agreeing” with “understand”?

      ’cause partisans aren’t shy about why they support their chosen candidate. They’ll talk your eye off about it. You don’t have to agree with their reasoning to understand why they do.

    7. People generally vote with their own perceived self-interests. Typically if someone is excited for a candidate who is going to control their lives that control generally isn’t over something they exercise in the first place or they are in the group which be excluded from that control. As an example, celebrities are more than happy to vote for gun control in CA since they can afford to fly to a red state to go shooting if they want and they can afford to have armed security around them when they travel.

    8. Never understood why people get excited and cheer about anyone that wants to control their lives, but the other guy on the other team that wants to control their lives is bad, and anyone that cheers on the other guy is bad.

      Left – Right = Zero

      Curiously, some of the moist rabid tribal partisans on this board claim to agree with you. They do not agree. But they do prove your point! 🙂

  3. To be fair, it is the Democrats that are taking the more intrusive positions on almost everything — at least as far as general liberty is concerned. Republicans may have their misguided positions, but the Democrats have made it clear that they want to confiscate guns, eliminate private health insurance, take complete control of the economy, criminalize speech, eliminate immigration laws (or, alternatively, cease all enforcement), fundamentally rewrite the Constitution on the ground that it is too “permissive,” and subject those who disagree with them to any ever expanding array of “social” consequences, including violence.

    You can call it a partisan divide all you want, but it is the Democrats, not the Republicans, that are increasingly embracing totalitarianism. The disheartening part isn’t that half the country opposes such totalitarianism, but that half the country emphatically supports it.

    1. If Trump wins it is difficult to see how the typical Democratic voter’s life will be any different. If Trump loses, the typical Republican faces the prospect of having his health insurance declared illegal, his guns confiscated, it becoming illegal for him to say anything deemed “hate speech”, his car regulated out of existence, if he works in the energy sector, his job regulated out of existence, and a host of other things.

      Yet, somehow both parties are guilty of being “divisive” and both sides have equal claim on being angry should the other side win.

      1. Maybe sometimes you have to be divisive. Having a legitimate complaint doesn’t mean one’s approach to politics can’t be divisive.

        Also, it’s hard to separate cause and effect here. It could be that part of the reason for the Democrats’ swing leftward is the increasingly divisive political climate.
        Democrats exist and are a big chunk of the voting population. You have to work with them some way or other. It could be that they are so far gone that the only way is to make a huge culture war out of politics. But I’m not convinced that’s going to yield very good results.

        1. Thing is, what’s a moderate Democrat to stand for today? Mostly it’d seem they’d be truly conservative, i.e. wanting to keep things just about as they are, because the Democrats have won practically everything they were for over the past century. But they’re not “allowed” to sound conservative, which is what they’d be if they took traditional Democrat stances, because you always have to have complaints about the status quo to be taken seriously in politics or social movements. Movement indeed makes a movement.

          1. However, I forgot that the Democrats still lack one feather in their cap/headdress: medical care guaranteed from birth. They’ve wanted that for about 70 years. Only thing is, they want it in some imaginary way that doesn’t disrupt existing delivery of medical care; but they’re pretty sure that’s possible, they just don’t know how!

    2. “To be fair, it is the Democrats that are taking the more intrusive positions on almost everything….”

      Yeah. I read your post three times before deciding that I couldn’t really disagree with you on this, in spite of the fact that I really, really don’t like Trump, and really don’t like some things he is doing. Again, I will, most likely, vote third party, even if my only reward is that I can say, “Don’t blame me, I didn’t vote for him/her.”

      1. I always ask people the same question “how is Trump trying to restrict your freedom or interfere with your life?” and I have yet to get a coherent answer from anyone.

        1. His taxation by eo is interfering with my life.

          1. Really? How so. Name one thing you can no longer buy that you could before? Name one thing that you have purchased that is more expensive than it was before?

            1. 4″ galvanized elbow 26 ga.

              1. The price of steel is lower today than it was 7 years ago.

                http://www.focus-economics.com/commodities/base-metals/steel-usa

                Try again.

                1. Ok, what was my price before and after eo? Hint it wasn’t cheaper.

                2. Ok, how about your 4″ galvanized goal posts?

                  1. You… Don’t understand what moving the goalposts means apparently.

                    When John effectively refutes your position, in the future just shut up and move on so you don’t look like an idiot again.

                    1. Fuck off, Tulpa.

                3. I shuttered one of my businesses that was importing Chinese components for wholesale. 3 employees laid off. the parts are still coming to America, there is no American option, but the only company that is doing it now is a very large publicly traded company that is either selling at a loss or is somehow getting around the 35%+ tariffs.

                  1. No kne believes for one minute that you own any businesses or shutters them. You’ve been lying about being a sockpuppet for months now, so that’s all your credibility gone.

                    1. Typical projection from psycho conspiracy theorists. This is your what, 4th account? Go back to your hole, Tulpa. Or go find a cop to blow.

              2. That is more expensive now.

                1. It is no more expensive than it has been at other times. you can’t claim it is more expensive because the tariffs when the price is still within the normal range of fluctuation. The tariffs are on one country. They make steel in other places. They also make steel here. The tariff doesn’t necessarily translate into a higher price here. It is not that simple

                  1. 1. You asked how he was interfering with my life and I answered.
                    2. Tarriffs were enacted on more then just China. See EU, Mexico and Canada.

                    1. On different products and in different ways. The point that they don’t necessarily directly translate into higher prices at your end still stands.

              3. 4″ galvanized elbow 26 ga.

                Are we talking ducting or pipe?

                Because I’ve got a 4 inch galvanized 26 gauge adjustable elbow that I picked up years ago that I never took the price sticker off.

                It feeds from the furnace into the kitchen heating vent.

                And I got it about 10 years ago. The price is comparable to the ones I see offered for sale today.

          2. Ran across an interesting hypothetical the other day.
            What if Nazi Germany had refrained from war, hadn’t invaded anybody, just carried out the Holocaust within its own borders?
            Would trading with them be ok?
            Would restricting trade, through tariffs etc, with them be ok?

            1. The whole “meh princples” argument on trade is absurd. Suppose Nazi Germany had invaded Eastern Europe and made peace with France and England. Should we have traded with them and helped them finance these operations? Should we have sold them weapons? Why not if the only and last word on international trade is “meh principles” and those principles say I should be able to sell anything I want to anyone I want. Hey, I can make a good living selling gas to the Nazis to use in their chambers. How can the government tell me no?

              1. The irony, again and again. “Meh principles” doesn’t hold up when supporting Trump ever. What principles, exactly, does Trump hold dear?
                How is lifting sanctions on Chinese companies that are violating IP laws and infiltrating our IT with spyware consistent with his trade war? Oh, that’s right, Ivanka needed those trademarks and patents, and Daddy Trump needed a new loan.

                https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-zte-order-after-china-gave-millions-to-trump-organization-tied-project-2018-5

                1. Hihn, go rant and rave somewhere else. We are trying to have a conversation here you crazy, stupid bastard. Stop trying to hijack it. No one cares what you think about anything, an no one is going to engage you on here.

                  1. So, no response? Not a single principle? Color me not surprised.

                    And you’ve joined the sockpuppet bandwagon now that you can’t argue in good faith. It’s obvious what you are doing.

              2. Damn straight! You stick up for those hard working stiffs in the noxious gas industry.

            2. I would say yes if our legislator voted to sanction or levy tariffs against Nazi Germany then they would be constitutional for whatever reason. That is one of the big problems I have with the Trump tariffs, bypassing the legislature and unconstitutional taxing by the executive branch is a serious overstep like Obama invading Libya.

              1. Congress gave him the power to do that. They passed the law that says that the President can do that when he sees fit. If you don’t like that, take it up with Congress. To the extent you have an objection, your objection applies to the entire regulatory state and says nothing in particular about trade and tariffs.

                1. The people to take it up with is SCOTUS. It’s a violation of the separation of powers (commerce clause) to allow Congress to permanently and preemptively transfer its powers to the Presidency.

            3. Whatever the answer, I think there should be a supreme executive bureaucrat who makes that decision for me, so I that I’m not left to make that judgement on my own. You know what happens when free people are left to make decisions.

            4. Realistically, people probably would’ve been upset with the Nazis for a while, and then after enough time passed, forget about it. Once the Jews were gotten rid of in your scenario, there’d be no more holocausting, right?

              In reality the only way they could’ve stayed in power would be to find another set of scapegoats, and after a few generations there’d be nobody in the country, because the last 2 Nazis would’ve killed each other (albeit very nicely and politely).

        2. I guess it depends on what one terms a “restriction.” I consider the overall growth of the national debt, the needless growth in the military budget, the ongoing wars, the silly trade war, and a host of other things, as “restrictions.” Especially when one considers what is going to happen when the bills come due.

          Don’t get me wrong, it would be worse with Hillary, and much worse with any of the current crop of Dem wannabes, but wouldn’t it be nice if SOMEONE decided to rein in the MIC just a little bit, de-militarize the police, and actually do something about the size of the government? (obviously rhetorical)

          1. The debt is a fair criticism. But, that is not a direct restriction, so not quite what we are talking about. But even if it is, the debt is the result of both parties and Congress just as much as Trump. So, it is hard to say that is a unique criticism or a compelling one since it is true of every politician.

            1. “So, it is hard to say that is a unique criticism or a compelling one since it is true of every politician.”

              Yeppers. Which is why I pointed out that the alternatives to Trump in this election, even for my slightly-left-leaning libertarian wife, are simply unacceptable.

        3. “how is Trump trying to restrict your freedom or interfere with your life?”

          Uhhh, he’s making the stuff I buy more expensive with his trade war?

          1. And no I don’t have any specific examples. I don’t track the prices of things I buy down to the penny. But tariffs are a tax on consumers. Period.

            Is it a big deal in the grand scheme of things? Not really. But he is still interfering with my ability to trade freely with foreigners.

            Otherwise I don’t really have any gripes about the job he’s doing.

            1. So the restrictions, whatever they are, are such that you can’t name them with any specificity. Fair enough, but that whatever those restrictions are, they are obviously very small since you can’t seem to notice or describe what they are. If that is all you have, you have nothing except the theoretical.

              1. Your argument is the same as those who support raising the minimum wage. “Tell me exactly who lost their job or wasn’t hired because of this! Who! I want fucking names or else you have nothing except the theoretical!”

                If you admit that the increase is small, then it isn’t theoretical. Is it having a huge impact on my daily life? No. Neither does adding a couple points to the sales tax. But it still increases the price of things. And small increases add up over time.

                1. I can tell you how the minimum wage restricts me. I can’t hire someone to work for me without paying them the mandated wage. There is nothing theoretical about it.

                  If you can name a restriction that specific, do so.

                  1. I’m not in the business of importing things so I don’t see it directly. Someone else gave you a specific example and you waved it away. I hate it when you get like this. You can be a good debater but when you dig in your heels and get all lawyerly it isn’t worth having a conversation with you. Sorry.

                    1. “it’s your fault I won’t prove my point”

                    2. sarcasmic…I have an answer for you. It is true when you say But he is still interfering with my ability to trade freely with foreigners my response is this: WRT China, we had to act. What alternatives do we have to address a serially lying, serially cheating, and serial thieving country like China? We had decades to address this. No one did.

                      I totally get what you are saying, and in a theoretical way, I agree. But we live in the real world, and in the real world, our options to deal with China (and others) are somewhat constrained.

                      I guess what I am saying to you is given the choice between making some products more expensive to buy versus dealing with dishonest trade partners….which becomes more important in the long term? I submit it is dealing with dishonest trade partners.

                    3. Then Atlas Shrugged supports
                      *a growing trade deficit
                      *the latest stock market crash
                      *China hold so much of our debt, and their government has a SURPLUS, so they could destroy our currency (even if their US bonds go to zero, still have a cash surplus, and wipe out their biggest trade competitor.) There are offsetting risks, but how big an economic dumbfuck must Trump become to outweigh those risks.

                      Meanwhile, immigrants and imports are his biggest links to industrial jobs creation — where his FAILS are massive. His tax cut reduced only about 60% of our tax code’s punishment for creating industrial jobs, against EVERY trade competitor in the world

                      Canada’s corporate rate is 15% vs our (now) 21%. Progs WHINE about our preferential rates on cap gains and dividends. Dividends are double-taxation of corporate profits, and we’re the ONLY major nation that taxes them at all, and the only nation that refuses to index gains for inflation.

                      Corporate tax cuts are NOT the solution. Liberals babble about demand-side stimulus. Conservatives (and the libertarian establishment) babble about supply side. Both have ALWAYS failed,

                      Anyone with a brin should know — or realize — that the economy is a three-legged stool, consumers, employers and investors. That’s why the ONLY economic booms since WWII (74 years) were created by the Kennedy and Reagan tax cuts, which were identical. In Kennedy’s words “top to bottom and across the board, personal and corporate.”

                      The “real” John Galt would know all this. Even without that, you’ve got Ayn Rand puking in her grave, yet again.

                2. Your argument is the same as those who support raising the minimum wage. “Tell me exactly who lost their job or wasn’t hired because of this! Who! I want fucking names or else you have nothing except the theoretical!”

                  Except we have actual examples of how the $15 minimum wage has affected local hiring practices and costs after it’s been implemented.

                  If these tariffs have made it more expensive for Americans to buy consumer goods, there must be something out there which quantifies the increase. So far, the only real example I’ve seen is Hollywood celebrities like Charisma Carpenter bitching about how the soybean tariff made her soy latte from Starbucks more expensive. Considering how detached from reality those people are, I’d say an increase in the cost of soy would probably do the nation more good than harm.

                  Maybe the geek class will even have to grow their bitchtits the old-fashioned way, by consuming mass quantities of Mountain Dew and Ho-hos.

                  1. Except we have actual examples of how the $15 minimum wage has affected local hiring practices and costs after it’s been implemented.

                    And the supporters will wave it away just as John waved away the example higher in the thread.

                    Fact: tariffs increase the price of imported goods.

                    Maybe it’s a raw good and the importer switches to a substitute. That substitute could be comparable in price but of lower quality. Is it seen directly? No. Is it a change? Yes. Maybe the importer absorbs the cost. That still means someone is losing money. It could mean workers don’t get a raise this year.

                    Making stuff more expensive raises prices and/or changes behavior. That’s basic economics.

                    1. “John waved away the example higher in the thread.”

                      By pointing out that it’s cheaper now? Are you high? Maybe get high then?

                  2. You’re familiar with Bastiat, right? So you know about the seen and the unseen, right? Just because something is unseen, like someone not getting hired because of minimum wage, or something not being imported because of an tariff, doesn’t mean it isn’t real.

                    1. “You’re familiar with Bastiat,”

                      To be absolutely fair here, this is not the first time you’ve told someone to go get the explanation for your position from a name you dropped.

                      It’s not convincing, and makes you look uninformed and intellectually incurious.

                      No bullshit. Don’t do that. Not trolling you. Be ready to support the position yourself, or spend your time getting ready instead of posting half-baked assertions about the position online.

                    2. Sorry if I can’t take pages and pages of deep thought and summarize it into a few pithy statements.

                  3. Red Rocks, a loyal Trumpster, so … brainwashed.

                    Trump’s tariffs damage EVERYONE, far more than even a $15 minimum wage for a tiny number of workers, so they’e BOTH stupid.

                    And, Red Rocks likely doesn’t know that Trump’s campaign included a 60% tax cut for HIMSELF, and a mere sliver of the 1%. He’d have been a billionaire paying a maximum tax rate of … 15 fucking per cent … now THE lowest late … and less than the 20% paid by so many Trumpsters.

                    For Red Rocks:
                    What’s your top rate, sucker?

                3. “Your argument”

                  I guess we’re done with you trying to support yours then?

                  1. If you’re on a supposedly libertarian site and can’t be bothered to read an essential like Frederic Bastiat, that reflects poorly on you, not sarcasmic.

                    1. You assume he’s even close to being libertarian. He’s on the Authoritarian extreme Right.
                      Even those few remaining fiscal conservatives, on the right, would know Bastiat, et al

                      Thanks for your comment in Reason’s COMMENTS, where libertarians have been a tiny majority for maybe a decade, says this guy who’s been a Reason reader since its 2nd or 3rd year as a magazine.

              2. my price on activated carbon went up $10 and change per cu ft

            2. “And no I don’t have any specific examples”

              AHAHAHAHAHAH BUT I TOTALLY KNOW IT’S TRUE AHAHAHAHAHAAHAHJA

              God you’re a fucking joke sometimes. Really, did you think that would get over?

              1. So if I couldn’t come up with specific names of people who were turned down for a job because of minimum wage, would that be proof that a price floor on labor doesn’t affect employment?

                When you raise the prices of things, it raises costs and/or changes behavior. That’s economics at its most basic level.

                So laugh all you want. You’re not laughing at me. You’re laughing at Econ 101.

                1. So laugh all you want. You’re not laughing at me. You’re laughing at Econ 101.

                  Yes, he is laughing at you. You’re arguing with a retarded 14-year old troll and he finds that funny as shit.

        4. Trump’s tariffs interfere with my life. They have made my business dealings more complicated, they have put companies I respected out of business and they have driven up prices. He’s infringed on my freedom to contract for no good return either socially, economically or politically.

          I’m also not fond of his approach to immigration but the adverse connections to my life are a step or three more removed. That’s about all I’ve got against his policies, though.

        5. ” I always ask other [rich white male Christian] people [who want to protect their ability to fvck the secretary while getting tax breaks and running up the deficit] the same question “how is Trump trying to restrict your freedom or interfere with your life?” and I have yet to get a coherent answer from anyone.

          FTFY

      2. Voting third party is passive support for Trump´s re-election. Just as ignoble as active support therefor.

    3. Agree; they are compelled [justified] by manufactured crises [the world is literally going to end, there is an “epidemic” of gun violence, health care, housing, basic incomes, are now “rights” that must be fulfilled] with a seasoning of identify politics and “oppression” in order to justify their power grab.

      1. Everything is so terrible and unfair. Guilt and grievance. Happy people not wanted. Victims only.

    4. Geraje….One ‘solution’ I see here is to try incrementalism. Really small and specific laws with few, if any, amendments. That would slow down the government to a crawl. But at least there would be more consensus, which is something we sorely need right now.

  4. I giveth not the rectum of a rodent.
    I will be dead before either party can actually destroy the country.
    (Well, OK. If AOC takes over, I might see the beggining and middle of the end)
    Let the damn kids deal with it.

    1. At least a third of the DNC contenders advocate a “Wealth Tax”. Not a tax on the rich, but actually confiscating a percentage of everything wealthy people own. How long will that take to convince people of means to get the hell out, taking their wealth with them?

      Most of the DNC field advocates for abolishing the electoral college. Most also advocate major revisions to the 1st amendment.

      All advocate major restrictions on energy use in the name of climate change – the form of those restrictions varies, but the result is the same. Manufacturing and other energy intensive industries will be dead in the US.

      All advocate a complete nationalization of the healthcare system – bizarrely without taking ownership of the health delivery system, just the payments. Nice dipsy-doo to avoid actually having responsibility for the inevitable disasters in care delivery.

      If any of these knuckleheads win with any sort of mandate and support in congress, they could wreck the place in short order. I don’t think any of them buy in to the American idea of individual freedom and responsibility. None believe there are (or should be) limits to the power of the federal government.

      If anyone other than Trump were on the ballot, this would be a walkover. As it is, there definitely is the prospect of minorities bolting en mass, given the success in bringing down unemployment in those communities, particularly if someone like Bernie or Warren get the nod.

      1. I don’t think it would matter who was running. The media would treat any other Republican exactly the way they are treating Trump. The only reason it is close is because the media and a good part of the electorate seems to have lost its minds.

        1. The media wouldn’t change… but there actually is a chunk of the public who are receptive/susceptible to the small government message and yet are completely repulsed by everything Trump.

          I know. I live with one of them.

          1. Then one of two things must be true; either Trump isn’t for small government or you are not for small government. Because if he is and you are still repulsed by him, then you don’t really care much about small government.

            In the end what is your problem with Trump beyond class snobbery towards his supporters and shallow concerns over the dignity of the office?

            1. Rump is not for small govt

              1. Depend on how you define the term. If “small government” consists entirely of open borders and reading the international commerce clause out of the Constitution, then no he is not small government. I tend to think that there is a lot more to being small government than that. But most libertarians only care about those two things. They are fine with government being limited in other ways when it happens, but libertarians like you don’t consider anything other than trade and immigration to be important enough to vote on. I disagree.

                And I don’t know who Rump is or what he thinks.

                1. http://www.zerohedge.com/political/six-charts-showing-just-how-much-government-has-grown

                  There is the tiniest of dips in regulations from 2026 to 2018… but it is a dip.
                  Unseen in the preceding bars of the graph

                  1. Even stopping the growth is a huge accomplishment and something that has eluded previous Presidents.

                    1. Yes, and that’s great. But it’s tiny fiddling around the edges of leviathan.

                    2. hey, that’s how you eat an elephant… one bite at a time..

                    3. Yes, which is a reason to be happy about at least some of what Trump is doing. It is not reason to call Trump a “small government” guy.

                2. Trump isn’t for small government either. He is the better choice on that front compared to any of the Democrats, but that’s saying very little.
                  And libertarians care about a lot of things besides immigration and trade policy. I can’t speak for anyone else, but I’d take a big beautiful wall and a bunch of tarriffs if it came with a significant reduction in the size and cost of the federal government and some major reform of business regulation and criminal law.

                  1. And libertarians care about a lot of things besides immigration and trade policy. I can’t speak for anyone else, but I’d take a big beautiful wall and a bunch of tarriffs if it came with a significant reduction in the size and cost of the federal government and some major reform of business regulation and criminal law.

                    “I can’t speak for anyone else” near literally, because the number of libertarians that fit your description would probably fit into an elevator. It’s a fraction of a fraction so small, not even the Libertarian Party cares if they lose them. Maybe at one point libertarians could’ve been mistaken for caring about more than just immigration and trade policy, but many voluntarily ended that charade when Trump got elected.

                    1. I am not convinced that your assessment is correct. The LP leadership and Reason do not represent all libertarians. And I’m not convinced that even they would not take the compromise that I laid out.

                    2. I fit in that elevator, even fat as I am. Trump’s not for smaller government on principle, but he winds up that way in practice, which is better than principle anyway. Tariffs are a relatively small bit of total federal taxation, so increasing them has relatively small effect, and the wall is a one-time expense. They’re a cheap price for the gains of Trumpdom. And Trump’s not the be-all and end-all of the trend; we’re going to see more populism for a while, and in the current context in the USA and some other countries, populism is more libertarian than stay-the-course-ism.

                3. Nice useless strawmen there.

                  Point to one post I’ve ever made re what you might call ‘open borders’. I find Rump’s flatulence on that issue repellent – but solely cuz he spends all his time/energy/attention blaming the migrant not the policy.

                  and re trade – I’ve been more than clear that I actually oppose this whole globalist ‘free trade’ agenda more than you do. The difference is I challenge that at its root – the reserve dollar and our debt. You piddle around with the exact same diversion as immigration – sitting inside Rump’s shithole blaming the furriners.

                  1. If you don’t have a problem with his immigration and trade policy, it is very hard to see how you can say a guy who has reduced federal regulations, passed prison reform, and cut taxes isn’t for small government.

                    1. He just isn’t for small government. He may be the best option available at the moment for people who want small-ER government, but he is in no way trying to create what any libertarian would call “small government”.

                    2. I don’t agree with his ‘policies’ re immigration or trade. I said my beliefs about those two issues ain’t the little strawman that is the limit of your DeRp imagination. His ‘policies’ on those two are crap cuz he’s focused entirely on creating policies based on those enemies he’s created and got you clowns obsessed about. So re immigration, he’s ignoring what’s actually needed (an actual merit-based system like Oz/CN and more judges) and instead offers a system that ‘looks like’ Oz/CN but isn’t and the fucking wall.

                      I’ll give him credit for not bombing the Iranians when that would have been very easy and for listening to Kim and Kushner convince him to support prison reform when he didn’t want that.

                      I am beyond sick of your R BS about taxes. With $23 trillion in debt and accelerating spending – IT’S THE SPENDING STUPID!!!!

            2. “Shallow concerns?” How many more felons do you need to see from his self-chosen employee/associate/attorney pool?

              How many more Crazy Rudy stories?

              Does ANY of that bother you even a little bit?

      2. Just heard Warren’s plan would tax Bezos $7 billion…

    2. My parents have already foisted enough debt on my kids and their unborn kids.

      If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace. -Paine

  5. Who really cares what morons think? It’s clear the Republicans don’t care about the constitution unless it’s leveling charges at their opponents. They’ll never self police and they’ll never stop to ascertain as much power as they can- and they’re not letting a silly thing like a constitution, or rules, laws, ethics, or norms deter them.

    They’ll sooner give up on democracy than conservatism- David Frum.

    1. All of which makes them 80% as bad as the democrats… dang!

      Are we even going to bother running a Libertarian party candidate? Or is this the year of the “screw it… there’s no point”?

    2. Well done with the David Frum quote. I really wish all conservatives could be as principled as Frum, Max Boot, Jennifer Rubin, and Bill Kristol.

      Of course Drumpf’s alt-right followers will pounce and say those are exactly the people who got us into the Iraq War. Yeah, so what? That war may have been misguided, but it wasn’t nearly as disastrous as the foreign policy blunders Drumpf makes on a weekly basis.

      #LibertariansForABetterGOP
      #PutTheNeoconsBackInCharge

    3. Who really cares what morons think?

      An excellent summation of your posting career, shitlib.

    4. “”They’ll never self police and they’ll never stop to ascertain as much power as they can- and they’re not letting a silly thing like a constitution, or rules, laws, ethics, or norms deter them.””

      Anyone not partisan that has been around for awhile would not be able to tell which party you are talking about by that sentence alone.

  6. The people who will be unhappy if Trump wins are already unhappy and will always be unhappy.
    That is their ideology.
    Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems they were pretty damn unhappy during the Obama reign, even with their messiah wielding power, no?

    1. You’re not wrong.

      Lefties are upset when this Republic is not destroyed fast enough.

    2. They got everything they want in the 08 election and they were still pissed off and unhappy. Being unhappy is their entire identity.

      1. Democrats controlled the Presidency and Congress starting in 2009. They could have completely legalized drugs, made gay marriage 100% legal, enacted massive prison reform, enacted massive climate change rules….

        They passed ObamaCare.

        The Democrat Party is a political party that is full of liars and less and less Americans are voting for that Party.

        1. All they seem to want now is revenge and to punish their enemies.

          1. It’s a symptom of decadence and sickness.
            Extremely unhappy people consumed with resentment, turned into a political philosophy (the base of progressivism), who can’t face up to their own responsibility and accept reality.

        2. Now do 2016 and “fiscal responsibility.”

      2. No, they were happy regarding foreign affairs.

    3. Yup. An entire ideology centered around guilt and grievance. Everything is so terrible and unfair. Pathetic.

  7. We have two garbage parties in the US right now. One side is outright Marxist, the other a personality cult masquerading as Populism.

    I can’t see the Republican Party after Trump leaves office. What’s left for the Republicans? They’ve abandoned every principle, they have no else that can step up and lead. They won’t be able to survive after the tweet stream stops.

    The Democrats are no better. They still haven’t learned the lesson of why Hillary lost, and so will lose again. They’re doubling down on stupid with no sign of anyone with sanity in the party. They’ve become a SNL skit.

    This does NOT mean the LP has a chance. There’s no way a third party can make any inroads in this fractious environment. Polarization means there is no room for anything but the extreme poles.

    1. The GOP will be the party of American workers but not big Unions, Religious conservatives, Neocons, RINOs, and some business people.

      The Democrat Party is already fracturing. As its members flee, I see it becoming the Party of SJWs, Public Unions, Lefty bureaucrats, and general criminals who want to have a party to control government and its will on people. The Socialists still might hide in the Democrat Party because Socialism is not popular. The Democrat Party wont be a powerful national party anymore.

      There will be a few splinter parties like the Green Party.

      The LP could fill this void and directly challenge the GOP on Social Policy Liberalism and Fiscal Conservatism.

      1. But people who care enough to vote about Social Policy Liberalism aren’t for “live and let live”. Rather, they want to know which side of the culture war you’re on.

        1. Allowing is just an intermediate stop on the way to mandating.

    2. Moving forward, the platform of the Republican party will be increasingly centered upon obstructing the transformation of the country into a Marxist republic lorded over by screeching demagogues and a secret police force beholden to “higher loyalties.”

      What is the alternative?

      Let’s be honest: Libertarians are too few and far between, and not nearly as principled or organized as they portray themselves, to avoid being swallowed up by the Marxist tide if push comes to shove. If a libertarian must choose, they have far more of a chance of reforming the Republican party from within than of hammering out any sort of compromise with the Democrats.

      Republicans may very well be unprincipled libertarians, at best, but there is no libertarian strain at all among the Democrats. I don’t think the choice is that difficult.

      1. Basically, the price of stopping Marxists from destroying the Republic is a few tariffs on China and actually enforcing the immigration laws. I am puzzled by people who are unwilling to pay such a price.

        1. I think there is much more to it than that.

          Marxism is surging because millions of millenials, born and educated here, are convinced that the answer to everything is more government control and regulation; that their superiors in Washington are enlightened individuals with their best interests at heart; and that they, the small, the frail, the average, have had their “best life” snatched unfairly from their grasp by a cabal of unaccountable billionaires, millionaires, and the well-to-do. This generation of Americans cannot envision their lives improving because it isn’t happening overnight and, in any event, life is not worth living in the doldrums.

          For this generation, envy is a preeminent virtue; they see people behaving in increasingly lawless ways, and have started believing, with a religious fervor, that bullying activism, collective crying, and violence are acceptable and productive ways of achieving their goals because, at the end of the day, in order to restore order, the government will accede to their demands.

          The contemporary Marxist counter-current in our politics is the result of abundance, which has had the unintended consequence of trapping otherwise capable adults in a bubble of extended childhood. Marxism feeds on petulance, not poverty. Because American poverty is wealthy living compared to nearly everyone else on the planet, Democrats peddle in petulance.

          Why are Leftists so constantly upset about everything? Because without the ability to embrace their tantrums, they will have to face the reality that their lives, successes, and failures are the result of their choices; the consequences of their freedom. People are terrified of freedom because freedom means one can fail — and, they do not want to fail; so, they will readily give up their freedom.

          1. Second post of note today; well said Guzba.

          2. There’s a word for what you describe: decadence. And it was diagnosed 150+ years ago.
            And you can’t blame it all on millennials (yes, I am one). While much of what you describe is accurate, this trend didn’t spring up overnight. It was present in the 90s and really growing in the 2000s. The oldest millennials were 28 at the time of Obama’s election, and that’s when grievance culture became entrenched power.
            But who led that movement? The 20 year olds? No, the leaders then weren’t millennials, they were boomers and gen xers

            1. Yep, the Boomers and Gen Xers started it, and actually compounded it by expanding occupational licensing laws, mass incarceration, HOA powers, real estate regulations, lending regulations and all the other things that make climbing the ladder to middle-class life so much harder.

              Boomers and, to some extent, Gen Xers, climbed the ladder and then cut the ladder under them so a lot of my generation couldn’t start the climb. This has caused a lot of my generation to feel like the game is rigged – and its their parents and grandparents that rigged it. Unfortunately, a lot of my generation is too stupid to realize that the key to to reduce government barriers to entry, not introduce new government programs to overcome the barriers that were caused by government overreach in the first place.

        2. It’s not just enforcing existing immigration laws. If it were just that most libertarians wouldn’t have much a problem.

          But when Republicans say “I’m only against illegal immigration” and then turn around and do their damnedest to cut back on LEGAL immigration and LEGAL refugees and LEGAL asylum seekers, then we know they’re just lying out their asses.

          1. Neither asylum nor refugee law has changed one bit under Trump. The only thing that has changed is that they are now being enforced as they are written.

    3. The republican party was destroyed beginning late in the Clinton years and finished off during Bush II. For some reason they decided to try to buy their way into not being perceived as racist and sexist. All of the hard core conservatives evaporated.

      This led to a brief resurgence in the Tea Party, but it turns out that was just the death throes.

      They were laid to rest during Obama’s run and Trump used the husk of the party to claim the presidency. But there is no party left. He could just as easily have won on the DNC ticket had the roles been reversed. He’s none of the things democrats accuse him of, and none of the things conservatives hope he is.

      There is no Republican party post-Trump, because there really hasn’t been one for a decade or more.

      1. I don’t see how you can say he is none of the things conservatives hope he is. Trump is the first President since Reagan to enact meaningful tax reform and to curtail the administrative state. He is also the first President since Reagan to reject Wilsonian internationalism in foreign policy.

        Somehow “conservative” has come to mean “progressive internationalists who don’t like taxes and abortion”. Sorry but I don’t see it that way. Trump is more “conservative” in the traditional sense than the Republicans have been since Reagan. What was actual conservatism was hijacked by the establishment after Reagan left office. Trump just picked up the mantle and took back the party and the movement from those who had wasted it.

        1. Exactly John. Clearly there are plenty of Republican Conservative voters still in that Party as Trump beat out all the other GOP presidential candidates.

          It would appear that the actual GOP Congressmen had their ranks full of RINOs who were/are not fiscal conservatives and voters got pissed and voted in Trump.

          1. I would still like someone to explain to me how it is that no Republicans will vote for so much as in inquiry in the House but somehow 20 Republican Senators are going to vote to remove Trump from office. What a farce.

            1. They know it. The press knows it. They don’t care.

              They think it is a winner – they get the world’s biggest public-financed negative ad campaign. They get to hamstring the Trump administration for now 3 full years. They get to rummage about doing “investigations” that would be illegal in any other context, and they get to use anything they find to destroy their political enemies.

              Where’s the downside? The only way they lose is if the voters make them pay a price. And since none of the leaders of the impeachment are getting primaried, and they all live in massively safe districts…. none of them are going to pay a personal price.

          2. Yeah, the voters are there…. but the party isn’t.

          3. Wait what? Are you claiming Trump and or the GOP-controlled Congress deserve the label of “fiscal responsibility?”

        2. Somehow “conservative” has come to mean “progressive internationalists who don’t like taxes and abortion”.

          It’s funny, for all the kiss-assing that progressives did towards Goldwater just because he rejected the Religious Right, they conveniently ignored his very clear advocacy for a complete rollback of the welfare state and hardcore anticommunism. He was emblematic of the tension between the Taft and Rockefeller/Dewey Republicans in the post-WW2 era.

          1. Goldwater was also not an internationalist. He wanted to either go into Vietnam and finish it and go home or not go in at all. That position more than anything put him at odds with both parties.

            1. Can’t give out that sweet, sweet military contract pork if we don’t have perpetual wars to fight… Nobody is going to like anything that upsets that apple cart.

      2. This led to a brief resurgence in the Tea Party, but it turns out that was just the death throes.

        Death throes that got Trump elected in 2016?

        1. No, death throes of the Republican party. When converted democrat and populist Donald Trump is the most fiscally conservative national republican, you don’t really have a republican party any more… at least, not one that anyone from Newt Gingrich and prior would recognize.

          1. I think the election of Donald Trump will be fodder for Post Scriptum analysis for decades to come.

            In my narrow observation– it does appear that the Republican Party has swung back to its working class roots quite hard, which is partly what is, IMHO driving the Democrats absolutely batty.

            1. Maybe the Republican voters, but not the Republican politicians. The Republican politicians are all for their lobbyists and big donors, as are most Demos. Let’s think about why Trump will kow-tow to China with the promise of IP protections when he knows manufacturing and jobs will never come back from China. The IP protections are what his donors want. The only thing Republican working class voters are getting that they actually want are some anti-abortion judges.

          2. Certainly nothing that Reagan would recognize.

      3. Just think of it as a line on the ballot (which is the way most do), and you’ll see the Republican party will go on and on.

        And as long as a political party can simply be “the party of us”, self-defining, it can be self-sustaining. “We’re for whatever/whomever we’re for, and we’re primarily for each other.”

    4. Brandy seems unhappy that the Rs are no longer the party of McCain and Romney types

    5. There’s no way a third party can make any inroads in this fractious environment. Polarization means there is no room for anything but the extreme poles.

      I disagree. There is a ton of room for a third party. But they have got to avoid two things. Being their own ‘polarizer’ by being completely ideological. Or being some middle-of-the-road bipartisan compromiser.

      It’s not easy. Cuz unlike the middle-of-the-road compromiser, it has to entirely reject the very agenda of the DeRps and talk about something else. Otherwise, it’s just the armadillo running down the yellow stripe in the road and it will get hit by both lanes of traffic. And unlike the ideologue, it has to select its agenda/to-do list based on what is the most universally acceptable notion among the antiDeRp and the dissatisfied.

      1. But they have got to avoid two things. Being their own ‘polarizer’ by being completely ideological. Or being some middle-of-the-road bipartisan compromiser.

        That is impossible. Not being a middle of the road compromiser necessarily means being ideological.

        . Cuz unlike the middle-of-the-road compromiser, it has to entirely reject the very agenda of the DeRps and talk about something else.

        What would that something else be if not an ideology?

        1. What would that something else be if not an ideology?

          something that is mainly pragmatic. Which is usually the sort of thing expressed by someone who is boring. As I said – not easy – but it is doable. But impossible if one’s priorities are preset by an ideology without reference to the listening audience.

          I don’t see a single third party candidate right now who is remotely capable of this.

          1. I agree with you about that. The problem is that there is nothing dumber than an ideologue. Your principles are nice but the world is more complex than that. More importantly, I don’t care how wonderful your principles are, if they are enacted by telling people to go fuck themselves and at the price of depriving people of the right to have a voice in their government, their adoption is illegitimate because it lacks the consent of the governed. The whole point of having a Republic is for the government to act in ways that while not everyone or even anyone likes, everyone can live with and feel they have a say in. That point is totally lost on ideologues who think enacting their principles by any means necessary is the entire point of government.

            1. Feel they have a say in? That’s a great way of putting it since none of us actually have a say over shit. Feelz is all we got.

              1. People do have a say in their government. You are just pissed it is people who have a different opinion than you do. Yeah well fuck off sometimes life is like that.

                1. How many presidents have run on anti war platforms in this century? All three of them did, but yet here we are. You keep on voting and see how far it gets you. The cathedral is driving real policy in this country. You and I are not.

            2. I actually enjoy ideologues, particularly in congress. Even ones that i disagree with. I liked Kucinich for that very reason, because I could predict exactly where he would stand on an issue.

              Now, that doesn’t always hold… I didn’t particularly care for some of the socon variety… like Jesse Helms. But at least I could predict where he’d come down. Straight conservative/socon. Except on agricultural subsidies. Then he would make a leftist blush.

              1. There is a place for them in Congress. That is what Congress is for. The point is that they all have to work it out and come up with something that doesn’t likely fit with anyone’s ideology.

    6. Republican principles left the building with Eisenhower. Nixon bloated the federal government, Reagan exploded the budget and worsened the illegal immigration issue, Bush I and II got us in Foreverwar and also added more bloat. The Libertarian Party is going nowhere with open borders and one way trade as their main issues.

    7. You don’t need principles to have a political party. Anybody, any time can step up and lead anything.

  8. You think?

    “Now would be a good time to throw a big cocktail party in New York or Washington, and invite every single conservative writer you know. #RedWedding2”

    -Matt Welch

    https://twitter.com/mattwelch/status/1102654202545913857?s=12

    That’s some pretty strong “fundamental decency” right there if I’ve ever seen it.

    1. Signal harder Matt, maybe they’ll accept you one day….

  9. And it’s now only ONE YEAR away.

  10. Re: electoral college. No need to do away with it, just convert Texas to blue. An old colleague, active in GOP politics in Texas, is very worried as he sees the suburbs of Ft. Worth turning blue. He thinks it is only a matter of time and demographics, and the GOP will be finished as a national party. I can remember when California was pretty reliably Republican and NY and New England competitive.
    What happened to those states can happen to Texas and then, watch out.

    1. It is funny that people think it is the Republicans who are “finished” when they are the party who holds more elected offices than at anytime in the last century.

      I doubt either party is going to be finished any time soon.

      1. He’s right about Texas though. Having NY and California as stone-cold locks makes the DNC electoral map a lot easier. Florida being purple makes winning there a winner-take-all for the DNC, but not the GOP. If they could flip Texas…. well, that’s game over. At least until something really big comes along.

        You have to wonder with all the migration from California to TX and with a huge amnesty waiting in the wings…. is that flip plausible?

        1. I don’t know if he is right about Texas. The current Congressional Delegation is 23-13 Republican with both Senators being Republican. And there isn’t a single Democrat elected to a statewide office.

          It would take a real seismic shit to turn it blue. Beyond that, even if it did go blue, the type of Democrat it would take to do that would be way right of the national party. So it going blue would either make the Democratic party much more conservative and less liberal than it is today or would last a single election cycle after the voters got wise to their being lied to.

          Either way, it is not going to be another California. Frankly, I would be happy to see the Democratic party stop being crazy even if doing that made Texas competitive.

          1. ^Contains John’s best typo in years.^

      2. And yet here we are spending the most ever. And supporting possibly the most blatantly non-“Christian values” president (based on his own SELF-OFFERED actions, statements, tweets and family life) ever. After decades of listening to “conservatives” spout about family balues and fiscal responsibility, as you point out, we are in a time where (R)s are the party who holds more elected offices than at anytime in the last century. And here we are spending and whoring like crazy and acting like teenagers on Twitter.

    2. It’s true; Panther City is next to fall. Another nice town about to get wrecked by an influx of blue. It’s already started 🙁

  11. Every impeachment so far has been political payback. Not including Nixon, who was not impeached.

    Part of me hopes Trump is impeached, simply because it accelerates the impeachment train; it would be great if every President were impeached in their first term. It would also be great theater watching President Pence, and watching the GOP fall to pieces trying to either scramble to find a Trump replacement (his imitators will be a hoot) or scramble to find replacement policies.

    But impeachment is just political payback. Never has been about high crimes and misdemeanors, and never will be.

  12. Fuckin’ LOL at the “It’s Mueller Time” t-shirt that fatboy is wearing.

    Another t-shirt fashion trend to go alongside “Where’s the Beef?”, “Button/Unbutton Your Fly,” and the No Fear/Big Johnson apparel lines.

    1. They were told for two years that Mueller was going to save them only to have Mueller turn up with nothing and to be made to look like fools. I can understand that. Everyone gets taken in by something or someone at one time or another. What I can understand is how they are totally unbothered by it and willing to believe the next lie that is told them.

      1. Impeachment is happening. Aren’t you paying attention?

        #TrumpUkraine
        #TrumpRussia

  13. Proposed virtue signalling yard sign:

    In this house we believe in some shit. The shit we believe in this house might be different from the shit you believe in your house. But you’re still welcome in this house and this neighborhood, because one of the shits we believe is that we can still get along, despite differences in shit we believe.

    1. Just keep your shit off my lawn

    2. Would this sign go next to the Trump 2020 sign?

      ‘Cos that’s some crazy right-wing shit right there.

  14. A promise that whoever wins will just let them alone might leave Americans still contemptuous of one another, but with less to fear from the victory of opponents.

    You’re a funny guy, J.D.

  15. The 2020 election is guaranteed to leave alt-right white nationalists bitterly disappointed. Because their leader Orange Hitler has a 0.0% chance of winning — even if Russia helps him again.

  16. I’ve come to one clear conclusion from this article:

    The BMI of your average #Resister is a matter of grave concern.

      1. No one called the fat tucker a fat fucker, ok?

        1. Only when it involves mocking Drumpf’s orange skin. Otherwise it’s highly problematic.

  17. giant dude in “Fuck T” shirt not man enough to show his face?

  18. This is a really great argument for decentralization and federalism.

    1. Exactly right. Most of the laws that affect our every day lives are local. Yet, even looking at a populated state like New York, the participation rates among registered voters are staggeringly low. Consequential elections are literally being decided by several thousand and sometimes as a few as a couple hundred votes. And still, we have idiots running around my office building with signs and placards screaming about racism, as though Trump merely being in office somehow overrides everything else.

      1. The state elections in Virginia are turning into yet another proxy battle between the blue and red fucktards. Was at our local farmers mkt this weekend and the dems had a table, I happened to be walking past and one of the ladies sitting there asked me if I was ready to vote. I told her I wasn’t voting because I think politicians are a bunch of jerks. She was like “these are local folks” and I told her they are the worst because not only do they have the most control over our daily lives, they are all trying to make a name for themselves and will suck any dick they can to move up to higher office (I didn’t use those exact words because my kids were with me). Also, all the dem candidates where I live are running unopposed, so what’s the point?

        1. Virginia has worse politics than Maryland. The Democrats in both states are just as nuts. The Maryland Republicans are not great but they are at least not full retarded the way Virginia Republicans seem to be. I am amazed at how quickly that state has fallen.

          1. Well, we could give Arlington and Alexandria back to DC and throw in Fairfax. That would be a good start at least.

          2. “Fallen” into what, the record unemployment rates and overall economic numbers that the President tweeted about today?

            So today the President tweeted “Virginia has the best Unemployment and Economic numbers in the history of the State. If the Democrats get in, those numbers will go rapidly in the other direction. On Tuesday, Vote Republican!”

            Is anybody going to tell him/John (and will John/his blind supporters ever know or even care even if they did know) that in Virginia, the Governor, Lt. Governor, both U.S Senators and 7 of 11 seats in the US H.o.R. are all Democrats?

            1. Funny how all the prog transplants who have turned Virginia blue chose to live here instead of the democrat strongholds of DC or Maryland, isn’t it? Well, once/if they succeed in flipping the assembly tomorrow, we will see how long they stick around to suffer the high taxes, nanny state policies, and corruption that comes with a democrat power monopoly. They are like locusts and will look for another state to destroy.

              1. The only thing Maryland and DC are doing better than Virginia in is Marijuana and policing policies.

                In every other way, Maryland and DC are shit holes.

  19. Other than the true party faithful, I don’t think many people actually vote for a candidate as much as the are voting against who they perceive to be the greater of two evils.

  20. “It’ll be interesting to see whether the victors in next year’s election can begin to reconcile with the large numbers of fellow citizens who view them with outright hostility—or if they even try to make the effort.”

    Why do the victors have to be ones to reconcile? The losers are the ones needing to work on it.

    1. Nobody has to do anything. But everyone could stand to work on it.

      1. Or we could do the sensible thing and break into smaller political units.

  21. Maybe the left could grow up and quit whining.

  22. *Both sides kazoo*

    “Political polarization” is the defined, expected, and sought-for end result of half a century of political machinations by one party: the Republican party. They didn’t spend all that money making you people into morons for nothing.

    See, Jesus is a choice. You were born into a family that loves Jesus, so you love Jesus. Republicans planted a mind worm in you people that Republicans = Jesus. But Jesus is just an arbitrary demigod plucked from a history that created thousands of them. Republicans just took you by the face and shat into your ears that everything they say and do is by definition good.

    Democrats never had a chance to compete with that, because, seriously, to this day they actually care about public service and the correct use of facts. Republicans will tell you, out in the open, to your face, that they care about neither. Ask one.

    1. Yeah. Trump is Jesus. Very convincing. Republicans are just idiot worshipers of Yahway, and Democrats are “enlightened”.

      Have you looked at the history of the Democrats? Looking back, I would say the Republicans have definitely been on “the right side of history” for more than a century with Democrats representing the worst impulses, especially where slavery and freedom are concerned.

      1. I am proud that my party has repudiated its sordid history on race relations. Are you proud of how eagerly your party stepped into the breach?

      2. Republicans were good 150 years ago. I don’t know what I’m supposed to do with this information.

    2. re: “Democrats … actually care about public service and the correct use of facts”…

      And yet charitable giving by Rs is significantly higher than by Ds. (According to the Roper survey, self-identified “conservative” families give 30% more despite having 6% less average income. Other surveys consistently show that states electing R leaders give far more per capita than D states.) Choosing careers in fire-fighting, military service and law enforcement is far more common in R families than in D families. Recorded volunteer service hours at charitable organizations (food banks, blood drives, youth organizations, etc) are higher in R communities than in D communities.

      So tell us again about how Democrats “actually care about public service”? And assuming from your comment that you consider yourself a D, that you represent “the correct use of facts”?

    3. Such a self righteous post. How ironic. Haha.

  23. I am bracing myself for bitter disappointment. Or spine tingling ecstasy.

  24. Those sentiments were reflected in an initial House impeachment vote on Halloween, which saw no Republicans vote in favor of a resolution setting out rules for the impeachment process and only two Democrats break ranks to oppose the measure.

    And those numbers would be the exact opposite if Trump had a D after his name.

  25. Thanks J.D. Here’s hoping voters listen to everything the LP’s adversaries say about each other–and remember those things when they see the LIB on that election ballot. Winning is casting a vote that forces the kleptocracy to choose between repealing cruel laws and being unseated by another looter who is slightly more libertarian. Here’s hoping for 64 million libertarian votes, to stay on that logistical substitution hockey-stick curve!

  26. If it’s City politics – You have a few citizens who argue against each other. If it’s State politics – You have a mayors against each other. If EVERYTHING is Federal politics – You have a divided nation. (“Totalitarian really is the word”).

    Yes, the DNC and their “[WE] own you” communistic religion is treasonous by any angle you want to look at it — but at the root lies the very issue of the federal government becoming so powerful and center-stage most citizens don’t even acknowledge having anything BUT a federal government and thus end up lobbying the almighty King (Feds) to save their cats kittens.

    Very few R’s or D’s really go after actually turning this path around and de-powering the Feds. Trump has been the best so far in my lifetime. The Constitution works great — that’s the plan than needs to be treated as every citizens/politicians Supreme Law.

    1. The Constitution also allows for Representative Democracy (for the leftists who champion as much). You just don’t have “proper” representation at the federal level unless the subject of concern is about international matters.

      The people of NYC shouldn’t have ANY (AS IN ZERO) representation about your own personal healthcare. They shouldn’t have representation on your local community and its functions. Yet, it does on FAR FAR too many subjects.

  27. Seems that one side believes in Americanism (Framer’s term) and the Constitution; one does not… simple.

    1. Seems to me that one side lies about and pays lip service to caring about the Constitution while only believing in power and surveillance. The other side lies about and pays lip service to fighting for the little guy while only believing in power and surveillance.

      I hate both parties and their opposition to freedom.

      1. Thus is why De-Regulating (i.e. Curbing the Power) makes Trump not just a standard GOP President but one of the best in a long time.

  28. Pete Buttigieg has brought up the subject of what it will be like on the first day of a new Presidency after Trump. That President will face a massive challenge to bring people together. I find it interesting that the youngest candidate brought this up. I think much of the divisiveness is tie up in my generation, baby boomers. We have been fighting over wedge issue for so long we can’t see the real problems like debt, climate change, and a global world. I think young people are waiting for us to die off so they can have some peace and solve some real problems.

    1. This is very true, my generation sees your generation as a major problem. Your generation is mostly focused on the short term issues because you are nearing the end of your lives. We’re worried a lot more about the long term because we will need to live through it.

      What blows my mind is your generation’s complete lack of concern for your children’s future.

      1. Sadly you are right. I wish we could do better. In the end it may be that all we can do is die off and get out of the way.

        1. It’s not the generation that makes the older crowd vote against Democrats and for the GOP; Its the real-world wisdom they learned after exiting the propaganda implanted by politicians and the B.O.E. You can check the people of any generation — the older they get the less naive they become.

          Problem is; Big city dwellers never really exit the classroom long enough to see any reality. Their world is covered with classroom popularity contests and mobster bully mentality. This symptom is even surprisingly acknowledges by Hollywood and their many films about inner city learning how to be real people after exiting their tunnel vision view of their world.

        2. Moderation….You know, it is funny. My father, aged 84, is a member of the Silent generation. He now says much the same thing. Time for the Silents and Baby Boomers to get the hell out of the way, and have new people take over. You made a great point.

  29. Polls showing Demos leading are irrelevant. We do not live in a direct democracy. Voters in Wyoming have 4 times the electoral power than voters in New York. I.e. it takes 4 times as many New Yorkers to turn over one electoral vote than for voters in Wyoming. The same thing goes in many smaller rural red states. Trump can’t lose unless he loses by more than 5 million votes or so.

    The only polls that are relevant are those of likely voters in swing states that have a chance of changing their mind. Even so, many of them are un-swingable.

    The worst case is that the Demos lose by a small electoral margin while having a large popular margin. This will result in a lot of protest and the opportunity for a Trump police state to move in.

    1. The “police state” from a president who has a proven history of De-Regulating… Keep feeding your delusions.

      Just NYC has 14.5-Times the number of residents as the entire state of WY while WY has 2-Times as many acres as the entire state of NY. I suppose you also believe in your biased delusions that the group-think (closed off) mentality of JUST NYC (Not even New York State) should have the same voting power as the entire population of 30 Western States (60% of the country by area). The left really are big fans of mobster justice right down to the way they look at the electoral college.

      1. Why should a voter in a less populate state have more relative power than someone in a more populous state? IMO representatives should represent people not acreage.

        In the future frustrated American voters might no longer care about Democracy in the future if voting makes little difference as their voice continues to dilute.

      2. Are you suggesting political power be allocated on the basis of acreage rather than population?

        1. Because mobsters — We are the United ———— STATES ————- not the United Persons of America. Is it the “Law of the Land” or “Law of the Persons”…

          If you want to vote on behalf of the State of Wyoming then why don’t you move there!!! If you want a popular vote then go vote at your next City, State or County election where you won’t be voting for another state you have ZERO interest in.

          You see how that works??? If you want PROPER representation then don’t be pretending you get to representing 30-other states in which you have ZERO interest in.

          1. Move to Wyoming. Interesting idea, but what would people do for employment? Wyoming’s population is in actual decline. It is a big beautiful state that is landlocked and full of mountains. Like many rural areas it is seeing a decline as people move to cities. Why because cities are where the jobs are located. Because cities offer basic amenities people want and in some cases need. The fact is that Wyoming should likely be consolidated into another adjoining state and we should also consolidate the Dakota’s to one state.

            1. Or here’s a profound thought — Maybe, just maybe; NYC residents as well as others could just stop with this “its unfair” wishful thinking that we cannot pretend to own the entire state of Wyoming.. And accept the fact that they can already out-vote Wyoming in the House and don’t have to even consider them locally.

              After all; those big farm states are the cities bread and butter.

  30. And couple this with the UNrepresentation of our government – only only 22% of voters is required for an electoral college win of President. And a majority of the electorate is currently represented by only 18 of 100 senators.

    No wonder voters are frustrated!

  31. > The only possible bandage for that gaping political wound is to assure partisans that they won’t be subject to the whims of “immoral” and “downright evil” opponents. A promise that whoever wins will just let them alone might leave Americans still contemptuous of one another, but with less to fear from the victory of opponents. But for this to happen, politicians would have to stop talking about fundamentally transforming the country over dissenters’ protest and instead confine themselves to more modest goals. That’s asking a lot of the creatures vying for government office.

    People had a chance to have a President who wouldn’t really change anything. Hillary Clinton lost.

  32. TRUMP defrauded … OUR VETERANS with a fundraiser … then THE SLIME pocketed THEIR money

    https://abcnews.go.com/US/president-donald-trump-ordered-pay-2m-collection-nonprofits/story?id=66827235

    President Donald Trump ordered to pay $2M to collection of nonprofits as part of civil lawsuit

    President Donald Trump has been ordered by a New York State judge to pay $2 million to a group of nonprofit organizations as part of a settlement in >a civil lawsuit stemming from persistent violations of state charities laws.

    The payment is the final resolution to a case brought by the New York attorney general’s office after the Trump Foundation held a fundraiser for military veterans during the 2016 campaign.

    The televised fundraiser took in nearly $3 million in donations that were dispersed on the eve of the Iowa caucuses as directed by then-campaign chief Corey Lewandowski.

    The two million must be paid by President Trump himself for breaching his fiduciary duty to properly oversee the foundation that bears his name.

    “I direct Mr. Trump to pay the $2,000,000, which would have gone to the Foundation if it were still in existence, on a pro rata basis to the Approved Recipients,” Judge Saliann Scarpulla wrote.

    The lawsuit filed by the state’s attorney general accused President Trump — along with his children, Donald Jr., Eric and Ivanka — of conflating charity with politics, repeatedly using charitable donations for personal, political and business gains, including legal settlements, campaign contributions and even to purchase a portrait of Trump to hang at one of his hotelsThis was a civil verdict for repeated criminal actions. Guess what’s next?

    Remember, Trump was the first President EVER forced to pay a $25 million settlement … for FRAUD … while in office.

    What kind of SCUM screws veterans charities and nonprofits … to enrich himself …. and his campaign … by FRAUD?

    Look for MANY more crimes and/or lawsuits, as Trump is forced to provide ever mote financial records.

Please to post comments