Debates 2020

The Democratic Debates Are Downers. That's a Big Problem for All of Us.

Being relentlessly negative is no way to win votes, even against someone as dark and divisive as Donald Trump.


I found last night's Democratic presidential debate to be profoundly depressing and downbeat, yet I struggle to explain why exactly. As a small-l libertarian who is unaffiliated with any party, my vote is up for grabs and I pay attention to these sorts of events out of more than just a sense of professional responsibility. There is plenty wrong with the country, on levels big and small, and politics can—and should—address some of that.

Yet listening to the candidates last night, I mostly didn't recognize the country they were describing. They live in a world where dark, shadowy forces—billionaires, corporations, Russian operatives especially—conspire with near-perfect success to make us all poorer and sadder, dumber and sicker, more alienated and hopeless. According to the candidates, nobody can afford the doctor, college, or child care. The whole planet may be baked in a decade because of fossil fuels, but we shouldn't really talk about expanding nuclear power or even using natural gas and fracking as a bridge fuel. Sexism, racism, homophobia, Islamophobia, police violence, and more are worse than ever.

Ironically, their collective inability to see little if anything positive in contemporary America mirrors that of the man they seek to remove from power. President Donald Trump's fixations are of course different but the net effect is the same: These are the end times unless I wield power.

But being relentlessly negative is no way to unseat an incumbent president, even one as temperamental and divisive as Trump (this is the guy who invoked "American carnage" in his first inaugural and says he's been treated worse as president than good, old, shot-in-the-head Abe Lincoln). At least, it's no way to win my vote and, I suspect, the votes of the 41 percent who consider themselves independent. As CNN's Van Jones (a Democrat) put it, the level of "vitriol was very dispiriting. Tonight was dispiriting. Democrats are going to have to do better than what we saw tonight. There was nothing I saw tonight that would be able to take Donald Trump out."

As it happens, just a day before last night's debate, researchers from Tufts University and the University of Vermont announced the creation of what they're calling "xenobots,"the "world's first living, self-healing robots created from frog stem cells" that "could be used to clean up radioactive waste, collect microplastics in the oceans, carry medicine inside human bodies, or even travel into our arteries to scrape out plaque." Holy hell, it's like Fantastic Voyage, but without the high-grade Cold War hysteria! In profound ways, this sort of invention typifies life in the 21st century: a moment when we take life-enhancing technology for granted, surround ourselves with hot and cold streaming media that was unimaginable even a few decades ago, and, for the first time in human history, "half the world is now middle class or wealthier."

Even in a moment when military tensions are idling warm, opioids are still taking a toll, and the federal government has racked up a trillion-dollar deficit, this is a hell of a time to be alive. Forests are expanding, the amount of "stuff" we consume on a per-capita basis peaked around 2000, and infant mortality rates continue to decline, leading writer Matt Ridley to declare the 10 years that just concluded "the best decade in human history." The U.S. economy has been growing without interruption for over a decade, wage parity between women and men is growing, and the percentage of high school grads immediately attending college is at a historically high level. About "three in four adults—and the overwhelming majority of poor children—live better off than their parents after taking the rising cost of living into account," writes economist Scott Winship.

None of that made it onto the stage at last night's Democratic presidential debate, and unless it does, why would enough people vote for a Democrat to take over the country? I'm not talking about some sort of phony, upbeat, Panglossian message—the electoral equivalent of telling a woman on the street that she should smile. But if you're promising (threatening might be the better term) major transformations of the economy, health care industry, education system, and more, having a positive vision of the future rather than a punitive one seems to be a prerequisite. Yet with the possible exception of Andrew Yang, the long shot candidate who didn't make the cutoff to appear last night anyway, all of the remaining Democrats talk more about settling scores than about creating a richer, smarter, more innovative world.

About a year ago, Trump spoke at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), shortly after progressive Democrats unveiled the Green New Deal, a set of programs whose sponsors promised would radically transform many aspects of American life. Sensing an advantage, Trump uncorked a two-hour stemwinder that was by turns mean, nasty, funny, and, above all, optimistic about the future. I prophesied then that he might win the 2020 election because "Trump is becoming sunnier and sunnier while the Democrats are painting contemporary America as a late-capitalist hellhole riven by growing racial, ethnic, and other tensions." The president has since retreated back to his darkness and will likely stay there, especially as impeachment proceedings get underway.

But as incumbent, Trump merely has to hold onto office while his challengers need to vault into power. If last night's rhetoric is any indication, the Democrats might have one more thing to be depressed about after election day. More importantly for the rest of us, we will still be without a major political party that can paint a positive vision for the country. And voters like me will still be searching for presidential candidates for whom we can vote.

NEXT: Democrats Chased the Peace Vote Last Night, but Can We Trust Them to Follow Through?

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

  1. Just to state the obvious, but one major driver is democracy is predicting an apocalyptic future so dire, that only a totalitarian leader (from the right party) can save us.

    Of course the other driver is promising free stuff.

    1. + 1 Never Let a Crisis Go to Waste.

      Yes, totalitarians of all stripes have always sought to undermine lawful governments in hopes the resulting crisis will force the public to support their lawless rule.

      1. These people belong in front of a firing squad. Not on a debate stage.

        1. LOL!!!!…………….+1,000,000!!!!!

      2. It’s more than undermining governments, it is specifically engineering the actual crises….See: The FED RESERVE BS, The War on Terror just to name 2!

    2. The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

      H L Mencken

    3. That’s not a function of democracy. It is a function of a duopoly system that is confident that it has suppressed all potential competition. In that environment, you only need to mirror the other side. If 90% of the people don’t vote, that’s no problem. Not voting doesn’t count in our system. ‘Democracy’ merely requires 50%+1. It doesn’t require that the 50% be based on a large denominator.

      It is far easier and cheaper to throw red meat to the base and repel bystanders. As long as the other side isn’t messing with that calculus by reaching out to bystanders (and again – there is no ‘surprise’ possible with no competition from outside the duopoly), then the election becomes solely about which base is more motivated to show up on election day.

      1. No, not a function but a VERY effective method to get votes. Only unusual people would support the candidate who says “everything is pretty much OK, and I can’t do much to help anyway”. The rest of the emotional, childish voters will flock to whoever gives them the biggest scare about the world and promises to save them, no matter how many parties are involved.

  2. Let’s examine the facts.

    The current occupant of the White House is a Kremlin asset installed by Russian hacking.
    Our economy is in ruins because of his high-tariff / low-immigration policies.
    He started World War 3 a week or two ago to distract from impeachment.
    We’re seeing a dramatic rise in hate crimes (for example the attempted lynching of Jussie Smollett).
    There are literal concentration camps in which kids are caged and people are forced to drink from toilets.
    The US is now virtually indistinguishable from The Handmaid’s Tale.

    It’s impossible not to be negative in this situation. If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.

    1. Hillary used a Kremlin-originated opposition research paper to accuse Trump of pissing on hookers. The Russians government trolls are here to create chaos – don’t really think they have a huge preference to who wins.

      Our economy is in ruins? News to me…

      World War 3 started? News to me…

      Jesse Smollett filed a false police report and even so, one anecdote does not indicate “a dramatic rise in hate crimes.”

      The “literal concentration camps” have been around long before Trump.

      I hate Trump with a burning passion, but unless you’re trolling, I think you should re-assess your “facts.”

      1. I accidentally flagged this comment for “review”. Goes without saying, no review needed by the powers that be at Reason…

      2. FYI, OBL is a resident troll.

        1. Sorry – been a while since I’ve been here so I guess I should have suspected this. No libertarian I’ve ever met considers open borders the top priority issue.

          1. You really have been away for awhile.

            Buybuyanddavis will be by the thread soon to sprinkle some quotes from Gillespie and others at Reason on how open borders is a cornerstone of modern libertarian thought

            1. I mean, ideally relatively open borders is libertarian in a world without a welfare state, pension program, public health care, poverty-based tax credits, etc. The Democrats keep forgetting that that most people recognize you can’t have it both ways.

              A massive immigration enforcement state is obviously NOT libertarian either, which is why siding with Trump’s hardline stance makes no sense either.

              But recognizing the complexities of this issue, I consider myself a moderate in favor of comprehensive immigration reform to bring in more immigrants with high skills or who match with market needs legally, while finding a realistic solution to figuring out who is here and how to get them either legal (if they are otherwise well behaved) or gone (if they aren’t.)

              1. “in favor of comprehensive immigration reform to bring in more immigrants with high skills or who match with market needs legally, while finding a realistic solution to figuring out who is here and how to get them either legal (if they are otherwise well behaved) or gone (if they aren’t.)”

                So, IOW, you basically agree with Trump…

            2. You know it!

          2. You haven’t met Ilya Somin or Shikha Dalmia then.

          3. Nick: Invasion USA is Reason’s “core value”:
            In the 21st century, libertarians are going to have make common cause with the globalists of all parties, with the people whose core value is the right of individuals to move freely around the planet.

            Watching The Brink made me think that for all the other differences Reason has with the socialist magazine Jacobin, it may matter far more that we share a belief in open borders.


            1. This cite cannot be posted enough

        2. I hated him when I first got here. Now, OBL is hilarious.

    2. Your satire is sometimes good, sometimes bad. This one is bad because it’s so over the top it’s just blindingly obvious. Come on, you can do better.

      1. I thought it wasn’t hysterical and absurd enough for proper parody. More a recitation of current talking points.

        To be fair, the Left’s insanity is increasingly difficult to parody.

    3. Not bad.

      1. Actually, you’re probably right. I initially thought it was bad. But I think his thing is to show the absurdity of progressive thinking, and in that respect it’s a winner.

  3. So you give great evidence about the Dems last night being doom and gloom. But then that good ol’ TDS has to come out. And as evidence, one statement about American Carnage (in the context of youth gang violence and drugs which can be argued about), and the thing about Abraham Lincoln being taken WAY out of context. He was referring to the way the press treated him while he was president. Not about parties such as JWB killing him FFS.

    Obviously Trump is a blowhard. But, how in any way is he contemplating the end of civilization as we know it, unless we DO SOMETHING! There is nothing comparable to the shit the Dems throw out. And as far as impeachment, this was partisan grandstanding completely on the part of the Dems. They were going to try to impeach from the day he was inaugurated. It doesn’t matter for what, they will keep looking until they find something.
    I understand voting Libertarian. I understand not voting. I understand voting for Trump. I cannot in any way understand voting for any of the Dems if you truly care about liberty.

    1. To go along with what you are saying and what squirrell says below, what exactly is “divisive” about Trump? Does he hold positions that some people disagree with? Sure. But so does every politician. Nick does not explain and indeed no one who makes this claim like it is some self evident fact ever does, exactly what makes Trump divisive.

      Moreover, I don’t think Nick even knows what the word divisive even means. If he did, he would never use it in the context of politics. The nature of politics is disagreement. If everyone agreed, there would be no politics. Things would just happen because everyone wants it that way. So every politician is “divisive” in the sense that they take positions and represents interests others oppose.

      The claims that “Trump is divisive” is just a dishonest way of saying that Trump holds positions and represents people the speaker doesn’t like but isn’t honest enough to engage so instead just dismisses as morally illegitimate by claiming they are “divisive”.

      1. Come on John. One of the reasons I enjoy Trump is because of his divisiveness.

        I think it’s pretty obvious. He yanks chains all the time. He doesn’t really give a shit what people think about him. He foments us-and-them thinking all the time. He doesn’t play the game and that makes people crazy.

        Most of the time it’s pretty fun.

        1. I see what you are saying. I just don’t see that as being divisive. I see that as Trump standing up for the people who elected him. To the extent it is “divisive” it is no more divisive than any other politician. It is what politicians do. Or at least what ones who don’t just roll over and surrender to the other side do.

          1. Trump is divisive because he doesn’t back down, apologize and go away.

            Fighting back is the initial act of aggression in their world view.

        2. Everybody loves a circus

          1. And this one has quite a clown car.

        3. “”He foments us-and-them thinking all the time.””

          Trump is playing their game. Possible better than them.

        4. Obama yanked chains, would scratch his face with his middle finger while mentioning some political for in passing, etc.

          Don’t remember Pleather Jacket ever saying Obama was the problem.

      2. At the end of the day, Nick and his ilk will simply complain that “Trump supporters ” have “infiltrated” Reason and are ruining what is supposed to be a libertarian forum.

        This emotional outrage will help them avoid dealing with the obvious question, which is “Why is it that so many rank-and-file libertarians are developing a strong preference for Trump over Democrats?”

        1. I have warmed up to Trump, and may even vote for him.

          However, I do think that we now have a lot of the sycophantic kind of Trump supporters in the forums. They are the kind with the positive strain of TDS that immediately and reflexively defend Trump against any criticism no matter how valid. It’s the kind of DEAR LEADER stuff that is not compatible with libertarian thinking.

          1. I am uniquely positioned in that I work among mostly raging left-wing loons and live privately among their opposites. I also spend time on both sides’ media, though the Left’s gives me far more of a headache, leading to an imbalance in my reading of late.

            I have never encountered a person who worships Trump in the way that his critics suggest. What I find instead is a lot of projection. Bernie fans worship their guy, so they imagine that everyone else does too.

            Everywhere on the Right is awash in internal Trump criticism, yet we are told it does not exist. We are told that legitimate, rational defenses of Trump (or positive comparisons with the alternative, which are more common) are “reflexive” hero-worship.

            I just don’t see it. I mean, rationally, I’m sure it exists. This is a country of 330 million people, most of whom are buffoons. But I don’t see it in these forums, and I don’t see it in other places I frequent either.

            1. I’ve never seen a video of Trump supporters intoning “I pledge to be his servant.”, like I did with Obama.

              I’ve never seen teachers leading schoolchildren in hymns to Trump.

              I’ve never seen celebrities serenading a cardboard cutout of Trump with “To Sir With Love”

              I’ve never heard Trump referred to as ‘the Messiah’ or ‘God’.

              1. Trump has fans, but nothing like the cult of personality that was actively cultivated for and around Obama.

        2. +1000

      3. I can’t agree with you that every politician is divisive. It’s only the politicians on the other side who are divisive. Our politicians are absolutely correct in their positions and policies, and but those other guys divide us by disagreeing with all that’s good and wonderful.

    2. Bear, your last set of statements puts words to what I’ve though for a long time. Well said.

      1. Thanks! And I do try to make sure that I am not sycophantic in my support of Trump (or anyone for that matter). There are plenty of things I don’t like about Trump, and plenty of issues that I disagree with him on.
        But, both the left and the old right hate Trump and very little of the arguments against him have anything to do with policy. Combine that with the shit show that the Dems put together, and it becomes real easy to defend Trump and to actually enthusiastically vote for him.

    3. It’s almost like it’s an obvious ploy to keep trump in power. I mean, how can they fuck it up any worse? I literally thought that trump was Hillary’s back up plan. You’ll never see an election like 16 again. Trump didn’t even try. He was talking shit the whole time -ostensibly to get momentum for his next business deal. The dems for the last four years have proven that not only have they not learned from their mistakes, they’re fucking doubling down on them. 2020 should be a landslide for trump – even if every media outlet shits fury on him.

    4. I agree 100%….But, let me remind you & everyone else what happened in the 2016 election: Both candidates were perpetually bashing each other & were pretty doom & gloom overall, but about a month before Election Day Trump’s side starting releasing very well made commercials that were very positive about his vision for America & what he wanted to do & H. Rob ‘Em Clinton’s name was never mentioned! But, The Witch continued the same negative Trump bashing & it was at this point that I thought he had a chance, for many studies have shown that candidates that bash their opponents 100% of the time & never change tracks do not do well!

      Of course, it did not help that HildaBeast never thought she was gonna lose & thus, did not campaign in several swing states!

  4. This is very much a problem with politics in this country. No matter how good things actually are and no matter how much we all actually agree with each other, it is constantly painted up by the out-of-power party that everything is doom and that the country and world are coming to an end.

    Such painting is definitely more common on the left as the whole basis for progressivism is that everything it terrible and it all needs to be fixed.

    And yet, there doesn’t even seem to be the slightest bit of understanding that this over-the-top doom and gloom and hate America is literally what got Trump elected.

    1. The populism that got Trump elected IS doom and gloom. His motto was literally “Make America Great Again” – implying America was not great when he was running. We were a country run by a secret Muslim ideologue who was intent on bankrupting the country and letting illegal immigrants and China steal your jobs…don’t you remember?

      1. No, Trump’s message was that we were a country run by people who didn’t put the interests of the voters above their ideologies. And he was right about that.

      2. By that standard, Obama’s message was also doom and gloom. As was Reagan’s.

        You act as if a candidate must say “Everything is currently awesome! But you should still replace the incumbent with me for some reason!”

      3. “”His motto was literally “Make America Great Again” – implying America was not great when he was running.””

        Do you think anything less that “great” equates to gloom and doom?

        All this bullshit is first world problems. We are all so privileged that we can make up problems to throw around.

        1. Lefties dont understand why America wants to be great and how their Lefty policies are less than great.

          Lefties cannot defeat Trump because they refuse to understand where he is coming from or where many Americans are coming from.

    2. No, no. The dems are right. Everything is so terrible and unfair. We should all be overwhelmed with guilt and grievance every day.


      1. It’s like in Kesey’s great liberatarian novel Sometimes A Great Notion the scene in the bar, during the Eisenhower administration yet, when all the patrons are arguing about why the country and the economy are in such dire straights.

        And the old wino at the end of the bar, after listening to the whole long argument snorts and says ‘Cant you see what the problem is?’, everyone looks at him patronizingly and he says ‘can’t you see it’s the same old shit as always?’

  5. “even against someone as dark and divisive as Donald Trump.”

    Ok, I guess you can pretend he’s a cause, rather than a reaction, if you squint hard enough and ignore everything everyone else has said for the last decade.
    Now that’s just sad, and reeks of projection. Trump is the funniest president we’ve had in my lifetime, and seems to genuinely enjoy himself.

    Get help, Gillespie

    1. Glad I’m not the only one who noticed how out of place that was.

      Reason can write an anti-Trump article with no mention of how the Democrats are worse, but they can’t write a criticism of Democrats without throwing in a “Trump is awful” disclaimer.

      It is truly incredible that, in an era where one party has become so plainly further from libertarianism than the other, that Reason actually prefers that party.

      1. +100

    2. Get help yourself. How can you say he’s not when his campaign slogan from the gitgo was “Make America Great Again”, which of course is designed to fracture America into three main factions 1) the America was never great faction, 2) the America never stopped being Great, and 3) Hell yeah, why not be great again.

      Faction 1 of course being the Establishment, Media, Universities and Leftists, and also evidently Liberatarians.

      1. Hope and Change was certainly nothing of the sort.

  6. So, the Democrats being ineffective is “bad for all of us” because it makes them less likely to defeat Trump. Okay.

    For years I have been told that Reason is nonpartisan. That it is all about libertarian principles and a pox on both houses, that reason sees both parties as equally bad.

    It is nice of Nick to finally drop the mask and just admit all of that is a lie. If Nick were an independent, he wouldn’t care who won the election and certainly not think one side being ineffective mattered much less was “bad for everyone”. He only thinks the Democrats being ineffective is “bad for everyone” because he wants them to win. Nick outs himself as a Democrat who likes pot and abortion here.

    1. Being open to supporting Democratic candidates and considering they might be more libertarian than Trump (who openly pines for dictatorial abilities and envies fascist drug warrior fuckwads like Duterte) is not even a stretch. Trump literally has said the Constitution gives him the power to do whatever he wants.

      The only good thing about Trump is that he reminds the public that politicians fucking suck and he doesn’t even try to hide his corruption and willful disregard for the Constitution. Anyone claiming he’s remotely libertarian has to be fucking trolling.

      1. Trump is the first American President to actually scale back the drug war and let significant numbers of people being held in federal prison for drug offenses out. So your comment reveals you to be a complete fucking moron with no understanding of reality or too dishonest to admit it if you do.

        So I don’t know how much glue you sniffed as a child, but it was apparently too much.

      2. “…Trump (who openly pines for dictatorial abilities and envies fascist drug warrior fuckwads like Duterte) is not even a stretch. Trump literally has said the Constitution gives him the power to do whatever he wants.”


        1. “I have an Article 2, where I have the right to do whatever I want as president.”
          – President Trump

          1. Your citation fell off.

          2. “Look, Article II, I would be allowed to fire Robert Mueller. Assuming I did all of the things, I said I want to fire him. Number one, I didn’t. He wasn’t fired. Number one, very importantly, but more importantly, Article II allows me to do whatever I want. Article II would allow me to fire him.”

            I can’t find anything to argue about there, Tenure in Office Act notwithstanding.

            1. Indeed context matters. Now explain how, in the context of dismissing an SES subordinate, your initial quote is not correct?

            2. You’re not even ashamed you pulled something completely out of a very specific context and applied it as a general principle. Now for your next trick, find a Trump speech where you take every 4th word, arrange them in any order, toss whatever doesn’t fit, and rearrange the words in any order that feels good.

              BTW, the Tenure in Office Act was enacted in 1867 and repealed in 1887, so like 130+ years ago. A similar law was passed later and ruled unconstitutional, and SCOTUS then also said then that the prior law, Tenure in Office Act, was also unconstitutional. You just proved yourself an idiot or completely dishonest.

      3. I got a kick out of “my vote is still up for grabs”. Erm, no! The only time you hear this nonsense or similar terms is out of those on the left, as they are trying to sound impartial. I’ve heard this crap since my first election in 1980. Just let them talk a bit more and it is virtually a guarantee that they will out themselves in the next two minutes.

        Starting with the headline “a problem for all of us”. Who is this “us” here? Practically, this is only a problem if you’re looking for someone… anyone… any candidate to beat Trump. Second, tossing in dark and divisive seals the deal. Of course Trump has moments, just as any president has when he’s been under political attack. But perhaps Nick should listen in on a Trump rally… if he can tear himself away from debating the Dem debates long enough. Overall they tend to be pretty positive.

        Ironically, no divisive talk here about the entire tenor of the Democratic Party, which feeds entirely off identity politics, where the full and only intent is to divide.

    2. Politicians being “ineffective” is the end goal of libertarianism. He should be thrilled that the statists can’t actually get anything done, it’s a good thing.

      1. Anarchists want government to be ineffective because they dont want our type of Constitutional government. Those people are not Libertarians.

        Libertarians are aware of the necessary evil of tiny and limited government but dont want that limited government to be so ineffective that things like Common Defense are worthless. Otherwise, why bother?

        If government workers are not following the Constitution and completely wasting taxpayer money, then get rid of them. its like bad laws on the books- get rid of them via repeal. Don’t just act like they dont exist. That is Anarchists and Lefty fantasy delusion right there.

  7. …I pay attention to these sorts of events out of more than just a sense of professional responsibility.

    Love what you do and you won’t work a day in your life.

  8. I mean Donald Trump for all his maladies, does imply America is doing great right now and his slogan is Keep America Great Again. So maybe he’s the candidate for you Nick.

    1. “We are going to win so much you get tired of winning”

      Sounds pretty positive to me. Indeed, the entire Democratic Party platform seems built around the assumption that people need to be convinced that it is necessary to accept poverty and hardship for some greater good.

      1. Earlier today someone referenced “Darkness at Noon.” Sounds about right.

  9. >>>yet I struggle to explain why exactly

    you root for the Blackhats. bound to be depressing.

  10. “They live in a world where dark, shadowy forces—billionaires, corporations, Russian operatives especially—conspire with near-perfect success to make us all poorer and sadder, dumber and sicker, more alienated and hopeless. According to the candidates, nobody can afford the doctor, college, or child care. The whole planet may be baked in a decade because of fossil fuels, but we shouldn’t really talk about expanding nuclear power or even using natural gas and fracking as a bridge fuel. Sexism, racism, homophobia, Islamophobia, police violence, and more are worse than ever.”

    Well that IS the Democratic Party platform. “If you don’t vote for us it will be the end of civilization.” How many times has Pelosi actually said those exact words?

    In 2008 I thought we’d reached a historical milestone, when an African American became POTUS; hardly a day had passed when the chatter about living in a “post racial society” was handily replaced with “intersectionality” and “white privilege.” Things can NEVER be good, or they will have nothing to run on.

    1. Trump “lives in a world where dark, shadowy forces—Democrats, globalists, illegal immigrant rapists and drug dealers, China — conspire with near-perfect success to make us all poorer and sadder, dumber and sicker, more alienated and hopeless.”

      Populism, meet populism. The politics of resentment cuts every which way.

      1. You need a therapist

      2. Democrats do conspire to make all of us (at least those of us who are producers) poorer and sadder. Public education? Makes us dumber. Single payer health care? Sicker.
        Globalists? If one means those who are for free trade across the world, you might have a point. But, very often it is the crony capitalists that freely obey the dictates of China and other autocratic regimes to get a piece of the government controlled economic pie.
        Illegal immigrants? You can agree or disagree on immigration.
        Drug dealers? I am all for ending the drug war. But it is also fair to say that the high level drug dealers like the Mexican cartels are evil to the core. (not necessarily because they sell drugs. But because what they are willing to do to keep making money).
        China? He has never advocated going to war against China. He did institute tariffs, which admittedly are not libertarian. However, it does appear that they gave incentive to the Chinese government to open their markets more to America and as such, Trump has signaled a willingness to get rid of the tariffs. Hardly the stuff of WWIII.

        1. Tarriffs are no more or less libertarian than any OTHER form of taxation.

  11. Well, I’m reading a dark and divisive blog called “Reason”, so I’m used to it.

  12. Poor guy. He’s gotta vote for one of these assholes and he’s depressed. Maybe he’ll get the one that signs an animal rights EO and confiscates his jacket.

    1. Jacket is made from pleather, so no worries.

  13. Pretty good nailing. The Dems all come across as miserable and angry and nobody you’d want to know, work for, or live near. Trump comes across as a an annoying jerk, but you always have the feeling that he at least isn’t miserable and doesn’t hate everybody and everything.

    For pete’s sake — the world IS better than ever, and even if you’re some kind of pessimist who thinks kids are worse than ever, or income has stagnated, or the world’s on the brink of WW III, it’s nowhere near as bad as those miserable clowns make it out to be.

    I bet if someone had the billions it would take for several independent campaigns, was willing to run independently for President several times, and had the message that things are going pretty damned well, and that his entire policy would be to reduce government interference as much as possible in whatever ways were possible, and promised to veto every bill possible that didn’t reduce spending and interference while still working with Congress to pass new legislation revoking older legislation … I bet such a candidate would eventually either win or force the mainstream Dems and GOPpers to lighten up their messages.

    1. The other thing is that Trump is an enormous asshole but he is as far as I have ever seen an asshole to celebrities, politicians and other people who have a platform to defend themselves. Listen to what he says. He goes after Democratic politicians personally. But he never goes after Democratic voters or the general public. That is an important distinction. He calls Pelosi a crook and a drunk and God knows what else. But he doesn’t insult Democratic voters, just the politicians they elect.

      The Democrats in contrast go after average people. They go after people like the Sandeman kid or Joe the Plumber. And they don’t just insult Trump, they insult the people who support him in ways every bit or more insulting and outrageous than the ways Trump goes after politicians.

      To me that is much worse than the what Trump does to politicians and the media. If you are on the public stage, you have a way to fight back and being attacked comes with the territory. You can’t say the same about average people. Not only is it worse, it is ineffective. If the Democrats want to beat Trump, they are going to have to convince people who voted for him not to do so again. Insulting the people whose support you need is pretty self defeating to say the least.

      1. This is a questions I have often posed to Trump haters, who has he actually insulted other than celebs and dems? I never get a real response, simply “he shouldn’t be doing/saying that”, but when you bring up Sandman or “Deplorables” or “Clingers” they blow it off and say “Trump is soooo much worse”.

      2. That is a very good point. Never thought of it that way.

      3. John, Lefties do in fact go after Trump as well as average Americans.

        Lefties hate anyone who stops them from assuming power over others.

        Trump just points out how specifically Democrat leadership is corrupt or otherwise undesirable. Then he lets the voters decide. Its a winning strategy.

        Plus, Trump and his interns Tweeting causes Lefties to come out of the closet about their true thoughts and desires. “n”th D Chess.

      4. Seriously great point. I’ve never thought about this before, but you are right. Through all the bombast and bloviating, he never targets the general Democrat voter.

        1. Trump is also, largely but not exclusively, a counter puncher. The vast majority of those who draw his fire have earned it.

      5. As I mentioned on another site today, Trump is a jerk; I wish her were a statesman, but he’s a jerk, and a narcissist, and an egomaniac…as Bror Blixen told Karen in Out of Africa when she filed for divorce, “fire away; whatever you accuse me of, surely I have done it.”

        But from my perspective we’ve had some 200 [mostly] FEDSOC acceptable judges appointed to the federal bench; we have less and not more regulation. We have a mostly free market along with choices.
        Maybe [whether Trump knows it or not] we will have a government that actually behaves like a constitutional republic [with branches of government functioning as though there is a separation of powers]; given that, I’ll take THAT jerk.

        1. Exactly. I don’t care if a politician is a jerk. I do care if they are crooked (looking at you Bill and Hilary). But, we aren’t electing our friend-in-chief.
          OTOH, I do tend to agree with what John (and others) said about Trump insulting celebrities and other pols, but not so much ordinary people. So really, I honestly have no idea what he is REALLY like in person.

          1. There are all sorts of people that describe him that know him.

            The fact that people who really know him dont have bad things to say about him is pretty telling.

            As I think you are, I am more interested in what Trump is doing for America and he is doing great. I appreciate the sacrifice that eh and his family are enduring from the Lefty nutjobs. Trump is a Patriot that brought us back from the edge just a bit.

            1. From what I’ve heard, he’s a showman. He puts on a mask and plays the role that people want to see. At the end of the day, he’s allegedly little like that blowhard he plays.

              He may not have Einstein’s IQ, but damned if he doesn’t have an EQ that’s off the charts. I think he’s gonna make people forget Reagan ever existed. The dudes a legend.

    2. So you pine for Ross Perot!!

      1. >>pine for Ross Perot

        insert coffin joke.

        1. Haha…well played. 🙂

      2. Perhaps he wants the problem solved.

        Problem solved.

    3. “Promised to veto every bill possible that didn’t reduce spending……”

      So you’re the guy that wants to kill grandma and children! Scoundrel!


    4. Where is Ross Perot, now that we need him?

  14. di·vi·sive
    Learn to pronounce
    tending to cause disagreement or hostility between people.

    Yeah, I think that’s a good adjective to describe Trump. I mean, just look how hostile his supporters are against anyone who dares to criticize him with words like “divisive.”

    1. By your rationale, Jews who resisted the Holocaust were “divisive”.

      1. Yeah. Resisting hostility equals causing hostility. You got me. Criticizing Trump equals supporting the extermination of millions of people. Guilty as charged. Derp!

        1. Analogies clarify points by demonstrating the use of the same logic in more extreme circumstances.

          Idiots deflect from the points made using analogies by citing meaningless differences between the analogy and the real scenario.

          1. So you’re implying that I’m an idiot because I agree with Nick that Trump is divisive? Dude…

          2. I believe what you’re reaching for is reductio ad absurdum.

            And no, you didn’t succeed. I did.

            Conversations about Trump tend to lead to disagreement and hostility. That’s a fact. That means that Trump is a divisive figure. Jeez. What is TDS other than divisiveness? You guys would freak out if I said something about his comb-over. “You bad mouthed his do! You’ve got TDS! You voted for Hillary! Aaauughh!” Fucking nuts.

          3. sarcasmic is not good at much. He is good at drinking and getting his kids taken away.

            Analogies..not so much.

            1. Oh look. My greatest fan has arrived. Please, drop a turd onto every comment of mine. Like a child who craves attention from jerkoff parents. Please, regale us all with whatever tidbits of my personal life you have been recording so you can use them as an argument against me instead of what I say. Please, show the world what kind of loser you are that you must catalog personal info on people to be used when you can’t win the argument. C’mon loser.

            2. Poor sarcasmic. I talk about him with others and he really needs to reply.

              Watch him follow me around all day.

              1. “Watch him follow me around all day.”

                Reminds me of an old joke about being a dick; here goes:

                He’s either pissed off, hard up, or in the hole.
                He is followed around by two nuts everywhere he goes.
                His closest neighbor is an asshole,
                and his best friend is a cunt.

                1. +100

        2. “Yeah. Resisting hostility equals causing hostility”

          Your sarcasm exactly refutes the post you just made

          1. Too much 3D chess for sarc.

    2. I mean, just look how hostile his supporters are against anyone who dares to criticize him with words like “divisive.”

      You’ve heard of a Colombian Necktie? I once heard what a couple of Trump supporters did to a guy in an alley once. It was gruesome. Too gruesome to describe. I’ve heard it referred to as ‘The Smollett Necktie’. Bottom line, you don’t want to find yourself in a dark alley with a Trump supporter questioning if Trump is a divisive figure or just a prominent figure in a polarized climate. You’ll be lucky to make it out with your subway sandwich.

      1. if Trump is a divisive figure or just a prominent figure in a polarized climate

        What’s the difference? Seriously. A prominent figure in a polarized climate is going to be divisive, by definition. That isn’t criticism of Trump. It’s just how it is.

        1. What’s the difference? Seriously.

          “Verbal introspection or active hostilities what’s the difference? Seriously.”

          “Actively fomenting a condition or passively existing in the presence of a condition what’s the difference? Seriously.”

          I’m not saying Trump is or isn’t one or the other, but the fact that you appear to have lost the ability to distinguish them in the abstract indicates that you’re beyond help.

          You’re foresaking libertarian sensibilities and fundamental reasoning in order to convey Trump and/or his supporters at hostile to anyone and everyone. It’s a pretty textbook case of TDS; a disease who’s hostile diagnosticians have, AFAIK, only prescribed ‘Let it run its course.’ and maybe ‘Milk them for their tears.’ as treatment.

          1. I’m trying to have a conversation in good faith and you’re making personal accusations. Try to respond again without being a dick and I’ll have a conversation with you. Otherwise fuck the fuck off.

            1. Lol
              Physician, heal thyself.
              This string of comments is hilarious

              1. I’m still waiting for you to argue a point instead of a person. You’re not a dummy, unlike lc and others. You apply it at being a dick, which kinda sucks, because I think you could provide insight if you weren’t so busy making personal attacks.

            2. I’m trying to have a conversation in good faith and you’re making personal accusations.

              Whether I accuse you of doing something intentionally or simply assert that you seem to be suffering from a disease, what’s the difference? Seriously.

              1. I’m trying to have a conversation about the word “divisive.”

                You just want to talk about me.

                1. Is Trump a divisive figure?
                  Is Trump divisive?
                  Did the era of divisiveness originate with Trump?

                  1. I can’t argue with that.

                  2. “just look how hostile his supporters are against anyone who dares to criticize him with words like “divisive.””

                    This is why the string is “about” you instead of the word “divisive” – you start off the “conversation” with a blanket insult of those who support him.
                    Your opening statement then isn’t about Trump or divisiveness, it’s about your characterization of others’ behavior.

                    1. But isn’t that what divisive means? Causing division? The mere subject is enough to cause disagreement and hostility?


                      Oh, shit! I’ve just invited disagreement from whatever someone thinks that I think!

                      This argument right here is divisive.

                      This is a stupid hill to die on.

                    2. Your opening statement then isn’t about Trump or divisiveness, it’s about your characterization of others’ behavior.

                      THAT’S WHAT DIVISIVE MEANS!!!!!

                    3. Then why lead off with your assessment of Trump’s supporters?
                      If you were trying to make a point about Trump or the nature of “divisiveness”, you missed the mark.
                      If you were trying to BE divisive yourself, mission accomplished.
                      But you shouldn’t be surprised that by making it about you and them, the subjects of Trump or divisiveness aren’t foremost

                    4. I was divisive when I supported the idea that Trump is divisive. That led to division, conflict and hostility, which is kinda what divisive means. Which means I’m divisive, not Trump. I can incite all this disagreement and hostility all by myself while Trump is a mere observer who inserts wisecracks now and again.

  15. Anyone else find it funny that Van “Whitelash” Jones is the guy delivering the message to other democrats about positivity? I guess leading the hysteria charge 4 years ago taught him a couple of lessons about remaining calm.

  16. And voters like me will still be searching for presidential candidates for whom we can vote.

    I can’t remember ever voting for someone, as opposed to voting against the greater evil. Shit, at this point I’m not even sure if I will vote. Turd Sandwich or Giant Douche? I guess I’ll choose not to decide.

    1. Just for the record; if you don’t vote, you cannot post here until you do vote.

      1. You wish.

      2. sarcasmic doesnt remember who he voted for.

        Drunk and all.

        1. sarcasmic: see dick joke a few posts above.

  17. Nick, what exactly is dark about Trump besides fighting the witch hunt impeachment, which anyone would do?

    Trump has lowered taxes, reduced regulations and has not escalated any foreign conflict, even taking into account last week’s events. We have sustained GDP growth, record stock market and record low unemployment. Mostly because Trump has removed barriers which is what actual libertarians are for. Politicians create nothing they just get in the way of creation.

    He has constantly fought of all of the names he called, e.g. racist, by showing how he has lifted all boars by instituting color bind, gender blind, sexual orientation blind policies that help everyone. And everyone has been helped based on the economic statistics and record unemployment for all groups.

    The Democrats offer government control of health care, education and much of our economy with their New Green Deal insanity. They raise taxes and that which is not taxed they wish to add taxes. They are anti first and second amendment.

    OK you want open borders, Trump is for immigration reform but until that happens he just wants to enforce our existing laws. Last time I checked that is what he is supposed to do.

    Spending continues to increase but he is definitely least bad compared to any Democrat.

    I’m just amazed at Reason’s lack of Reason. There is NEVER a candidate you agree on anything with.

    Besides open borders by ignoring immigration law what exactly do you align with the Dems on?

    Is the mean tweet factor that important?

    1. Reason under KMW is all about the clicks. Hence the terribly misleading headlines. She has sold the soul of reason for 20 pieces of silver, as it were.

      1. Reason is funded by people who care about open borders and trade with China not much else. Trump could end the drug war and end every US intervention abroad and reason would suddenly decide those were bad things. It is not all about the clicks. It is all about the checks and shilling for trade and open borders.

        1. shilling for trade and open borders


          You mean a magazine that claims to be libertarian is shilling for libertarian principles?


          1. Just because you think trade and open borders are the only issues that matter doesn’t mean everyone does.

            Yes, sarcasmic, you agree with reason and only care about those two issues and are completely unbothered by reason’s willingness to sell out any other ideals in their pursuit. Good for you. Others disagree.

            1. Talk about strawmanning. Jeez. Let me know when you’re ready to have an actual conversation instead of putting words in my mouth.

            2. John, sarcasmic cannot help it. He’s carrying buckets and buckets of water for unreason. Why not defend them against valid criticism too?

          2. To be fair don’t forget about the sex workers and drug legalization.

            But higher taxes and taxing anything that moves, A-OK
            FISA abuses, what FISA abuses? A-Ok since they only abuse the right people
            1A and 2A rights? Only for the right people
            Government health care, education and power companies, A-OK

            1. Really? Show me some examples. Because the Reason articles I read support none of those things.

              1. You have Reason articles on these subjects? Show me examples

                I admit I have limited time to search but every day Reason leads off with a reliably Orange Man Bad article.

                1. I don’t need to. You’re the one making the assertion, thus the burden of proof is on you.

                  1. I’m making the assertion that Reason is not a champion of liberty as they so claim to be. A lack of reporting on these issues supports that conclusion.

                    1. A lack of evidence is evidence?

                    2. “I can’t find evidence that Reason agrees with me on certain issues, which means they disagree!”

                      Come on. You can do better than that.

                  2. You seriously are claiming that not reporting does not indicate priorities?

                    Please explain.

                    The latest twist in the great sex worker oppression story is more important than the assault on 1A and 2A rights?

                    1. Failure to report on what you think is important just means you have different priorities than the editor in charge.

                      Not sure what that third line means.

          3. Maybe “libertarians” need to rethink what open borders would mean. It ain’t 1885 with half a continent unsettled.

            Keep living in the past, prog.


            1. When did I say I agree with Reason on everything?

          4. Open borders are anti-libertarian because they impinge on property rights.

            Liberty – how does it work?

        2. Yeah, blaming KMW and ‘the clicks’ is living in the fantasy world where Facebook makes money hosting people’s personal sites, Google makes money helping people search the internet, and Amazon makes it’s money as an online retailer.

          1. I didn’t think of it that way. Hm.. That’s worth thinking about.

          2. Maybe you haven’t noticed the ads on the podcasts, and ever more intrusively on the site. KMW is indeed all about the clicks since that is a significant source of revenue through the ad prices.

            Internet – How does it work?

            1. There are multiple ways of generating outrage clicks, and positive Trump coverage should be just as productive as negative Trump coverage – more so if we’re to believe Trump is as anti-liberty as claimed/portrayed.
              But, like the FBI FISA “errors”, we only get “outrage generation” going in one direction.
              Clicks are part of Reason’s idiocy, but so is the Koch-Soros global cronyist philosophy funding this rag, and the partisan political leanings of Reason’s idiot writers.
              Reason magazine is propaganda carrying water for The Left, and has no other concerns or intents

  18. The sides aren’t always clear cut as they are today, but the libertarian “Rs and Ds are all the same” narrative that might have flied in 2000 doesn’t hold anymore. I disagree with a lot of their policy solutions, but the fundamental difference between Rs and Ds right now is truth. Rs are addressing reality. Sure, I don’t like how they aren’t addressing federal budgets and aren’t pushing hard enough for criminal justice reform, but at least they talk about the economy, some prison reform objectives, taxes, etc. I don’t know what the fuck Ds are talking about half the time. They invent oppression and injustice that simply doesn’t occur and, on the off chance it does, nowhere near the scale that warrants government action. Never mind that government action is generally inappropriate and ineffective.

    1. Yes I realize Reason and others like to make the “both sides” argument.

      It’s not both sides that want to take your liberty. It’s just one side.

      It’s like an intervention is needed

      1. One side pays lip service to personal liberty while being openly hostile to economic liberty.

        The other side pays lip service to economic liberty while being openly hostile to personal liberty.

        In practice both sides erode both personal and economic liberty.

        1. What “personal” liberty has Trump advocated revoking.

          Has he said you must bake the cake? Don’t recall that.

          Is lower taxes economic liberty, yes?

          1. I thought you were talking about political parties when you said “sides.”

          2. As far as economic liberty goes, Trump’s trade war isn’t exactly conducive to free trade.

            1. I’ll raise you lower taxes, less regulation, market driven health care

              3 out of 4 ain’t bad

              1. I give credit where credit is due, and on those things I totally agree with you.

                1. If you’re looking for someone who’ll give you 4 out of 4, you won’t find it. The politicians who promise it to you are almost always lying and usually don’t have a hope in hell of delivering on even one of those things. Maybe two if they’re exceptional leaders.

                  Trump’s very much a political unicorn…he had at least six major issues (deregulation, trade, foreign policy, fixing the military, originalist judges, tax reform) where I agreed with him. I never got that kind of agreement with other political candidates, regardless of party. At most I’d get maybe three or four, and if I was lucky they wouldn’t abandon those positions shortly after taking office (e.g. Bush 2000).

                  Trump’s delivered or made good faith efforts to deliver on all of them. You get that kind of leader, you give him your absolute support unless he gives you an overwhelmingly compelling reason not to. Killing a terrorist who killed hundreds of American servicemen isn’t that reason for me…nor is saying mean things to shitty people on Twitter.

                    1. We do need to watch ourselves for the nationalism predisposition trump makes us gravitate to. He’s so goo it’s hard not to get excited about your country again. But, now I know how hitler won over the country and got them to do whatever he wanted: he gave them hope and fucking followed through. People will give their lives for that. Just saying…

                    2. Hitler didn’t ascend to power by popular vote. He got there through backroom negotiations with the military and politicians. He also murdered most of his political opponents.

                      When we see President Trump engaging in political violence against his opponents, I’ll say your comparison has a point. But so far the only people we see engaging in and encouraging political violence against opponents on a wide scale are the people who hate Trump.

                    3. Also, nationalism is not the same thing as National Socialism. Nationalism just means putting your nation-state and its interests ahead of everyone else’s nation-states. I’m for that with America, because having spent large chunks of my life traveling around the world seeing how other countries run their affairs, I realize that most of the rest of the world is a complete horror show and I’m not interested in importing their way of doing things here.

                      And I don’t fault other countries for wanting their interests put first and electing/appointing/submitting to leaders who look out for those interests their people find most important. That’s how nation-states are supposed to work. Pretending that humans are some amorphous, homogenous kumbaya gathering that would share and practice identical values if only governments and politicians weren’t in the way is just culturally and historically ignorant and completely naïve. So I’m opposed to electing politicians who indulge that children’s fantasy.

                    4. Well, when 47th POTUS Eric Trump takes the reigns from the 46th POTUS, Ivanka Kushner, in 2032, I’ll start worrying if he begins talking about the Jewish problem

                  1. Thank you for this series of posts, UCrawford. They explain a lot of why I support Trump, even as I cringe at some of the crap he does and says.

                    Who else should get my vote, if not him? Chaffee? One of the Dems?

                    1. Funny thing, I utterly despised Trump prior to him getting the nomination. I basically found him obnoxious and ignored him, and only started paying attention to his issues as a “not Hillary” candidate. Nobody was more surprised than me that he became the best vote I’ve ever cast.

                      I understand why a lot of people don’t like him and despise his personality. But he definitely earned my respect with his platform and kept it with what he’s done in office (which is very difficult, because I turn on most politicians when they fall short). I’m willing to overlook his personal baggage because the fact is that he’s done what he promised and I agree with his platform. To me, that’s all that matters with politicians.

                  2. Bravo UCrawford.

            2. Like everything else on the lefty “EVERYTHING IS SO TERRIBLE AND UNFAIR!!!!!!!” list, the trade war has been overblown. I doubt that most people have even noticed. And it will end eventually.

              1. Ever heard the expression “Being nickled and dimed to death?”

                1. Ever heard the expression “Selling you the rope to hang yourself”? That’s what China was attempting to do to us with subsidizing strategic industries (especially steel) at below-production cost prices while pirating our technology and refusing to honor IP protections.

                  It wasn’t just a U.S. vs. China issue, every other industrialized nation had the same issue with China and it was a problem that needed to be addressed, because China’s end goal wasn’t an optimal trade deal that gave them the best return…it was hollowing out other nation’s economies and ability to fight back against them when China’s expansion eventually became military-focused.

                  Problem is that we had a lot of very powerful people making a lot of money off of China who didn’t want that to change (up to and including the bribery of some very influential politicians) and a lot of leaders who were either part of that group or who simply lacked the spine to do anything about it. And since we’re the strongest consumer economy in the world, we were pretty much the only ones who could do anything about it…so Trump took the hit to fight a battle that needed to be fought a long time ago.

                  1. “…when China’s expansion eventually became military-focused.”

                    It already is. The Pentagon’s Turn to The Pacific is not by accident.

                    I hope the trade treaty puts off for a few years, what I see as an inevitable clash between China and the US.

                    1. Sorry, I should be more specific. I mean when they actually just start invading places (e.g. Taiwan) and overthrowing governments using military force rather than pressuring them to concede via economics and threats.

                      Steel is utilized in every major defense component we have. They’ve successfully gutted our domestic steel industry and were pushing it towards extinction before Trump cracked down on their predatory practices. They weren’t planning to keep selling us steel after the cold war turned hot…and that would have been crippling for us. And they were doing the same to Europe, so it’s not like we had lots of alternatives to turn to.

                      Their protectionism wasn’t just about protecting domestic Chinese industries…it was about destroying key sectors of our economy over the long-term.

            3. The trade war peace treaty got signed today, I guess you hadn’t heard.

              1. We’ll see over time how much the Chinese government plans to honor it. That’s the problem with any agreement with China…they don’t consider themselves obligated to honor contracts with the non-Chinese barbarians when they find it inconvenient to their plans to do so.

                1. Agree….the proof will be in China’s actions over the next two years. I personally think they’ll try to weasel out. Just watch.

                  Then, the hammer will come down. Only the next time it will be significantly worse for China.

                  1. They’re just hoping that Trump is gone so they can cow his successor when they violate the agreement. It’s a stall for them. It’s always a stall.

                    And ask Hong Kong how much a signed agreement with the Chinese government is worth.

  19. The subtitle states that Donald Trump is divisive.

    Donald Trump is not divisive. Democrats are divisive, and Trump is the current target of their divisiveness.

    It is hardly libertarian to swallow, hook-line-and-sinker, the Democrats’ line about everything in America being hunky-dory until Trump came along and opened up “divisiveness”.

    1. #notmypresident

      No, none of these are divisive.

  20. You can’t really blame Warren for being so down on the country after what the buffalo soldiers did to her village.

    1. Just think, if she gets elected, Warren will be the first woman of color to be president. The color in question is flat ceiling white, but at least it’s a color.

      1. It’s called Navajo white…

        1. Navajo White…

          Didn’t they open for the Slants last tour?

          1. Good one

  21. even against someone as dark and divisive as Donald Trump.

    Well, my 401k is a lot LESS dark since he took office.

    1. It should be MORE dark, since your 401K is in the black.

      1. “I’m RICH Bitch”. *honk honk*

        1. Exactly. Which is why I think the Democrats message IS resonating with voters.

          You have more than your share and I want it all for myself to make it fairer.

      2. That sounds racist! (sarcasm)
        Parenthetical explanations is brought to you by Reason ( The magazine, not the noun…)

  22. I lean democratic and the debates annoy. Primarily because you can’t really have a debate with more than 4 people. Also, if they are part of the same party chances are their differences are going to be on the edges.

    On the one hand, my life isn’t bad. I have a decent apartment. I have friends. I am safe and I have enough to eat. However, I have students loans so large that I will die before I pay them off because of the interest rate and financial mistakes of my ex-husband. I had no children because I could not afford them and right now my retirement plan is to get a bicycle and a hut in Thailand and just wander off into the ocean when I run out of money.

    So living in the US is much better than living in many parts of the world, but we do have the resources to make it better for people. Considering the wealth of the country we should not have half a million homeless in the US. If you are a child, the zip-code you were born in should not be your destiny.

    1. You think homelessness is caused by poverty? Wow.

      1. Being homeless can be caused by poverty. But that’s also a short-term condition that can usually be addressed by finding a new job or smarter financial decisions.

        Being a transient, on the other hand, is usually caused by alcohol abuse, drug abuse, or mental illness (or a combination of some or all of those) and that’s an issue that won’t be fixed by randomly throwing money at the problem.

    2. Your husband isn’t responsible for your student loan issues, and you knew the interest rates before you took them.

      Your zip code is not your destiny. Most people who start in the bottom 20% end up in the middle class.

      Get up off of your knees.

      1. Interest rates on student loans are cheap.

    3. When I used to watch Deadliest Catch, Captain Phil said “You can wait for things to happen or you can make things happen.”

      Stop waiting. Start making.

      1. I watch Whale Wars, but I root for the Japanese.

        1. They are conducting scientific research.

          1. And pissing off sanctimonious environmentalists.

        2. Amen brother.

    4. “Considering the wealth of the country…..” sigh.

      That’s not a consideration. Nor should it be.

      1. There is no wealth of the country. The country is 22 Trillion in debt.

        She refers to the wealth of citizens as if that belongs to the country.
        Collectivism at it’s best. Nothing belongs to you. It all belongs to mother government.

        1. The debt is a major concern, especially for fans of expanding government.

          I’m less concerned.

    5. Wow, that post could have been lifted straight from a dem campaign speech! Minus the “I guess not everything totally sucks” parts.

    6. “…Considering the wealth of the country we should not have half a million homeless in the US. If you are a child, the zip-code you were born in should not be your destiny.”

      Bullshit and bullshit .

  23. “The Democratic Debates Are Downers.”

    Yes they are. And not some mild benzodiazapenes. It’s like a fist full of sodium secanol.

    1. I *love* them! Watching the ruling degenerates swirl the drain is a great joy to patriotic Americans.


      1. I enjoyed the highlights, particularly when Fauxcahontes said she was the only one who’d beaten a Republican in 30 years, and Bernie interrupted to point out that he’d defeated a Republican too in 1990.
        Not a good moment for Bernie.

        But that was eclipsed today by the released audio of Fauxcahontes confronting Bernie for “calling her a liar on national tv” and Bernie going with the “let’s not do this right now” line, as Tom Steyer awkwardly interrupts because he “just wanted to say hi”
        Fn gold!

        1. Nothing will please me more than seeing America’s Mother-In-Law and The Bern tearing the shit out of each other for months.

          Too bad Tulsi and Yang were not on the stage.

  24. the University of Vermont announced the creation of what they’re calling “xenobots,”

    Oh boy. Here we go. Well, it was nice while it lasted. Good knowing you all…

  25. Naaah, it’s only a problem for you liberal democrats.

    We all know perfectly well the real reason why y’all are so downbeat and depressed: your candidates all absolutely fucking suck and none of them are going to beat Trump. And there is no messianic, lightbringing godhead like Block Yomomma sufficient for you to worship coming to bail you out either.

    In your heart, you know I’m right.

    1. They do its why every article at unreason comes with a free Lefty tear imbedded in the code.

      unreason stepping up Propaganda
      Antifa riots

      ….are all examples of Lefty desperation because Trump is winning for America and Americans.

      1. #CryMore

    2. “”We all know perfectly well the real reason why y’all are so downbeat and depressed: “”

      Being gaslighted by their own.

  26. Being relentlessly negative is no way to win votes, even against someone as dark and divisive as Donald Trump.

    Maybe nobody has explained this to you, Nick, but we don’t want the fucking communists to win. And communism is a far darker and more divisive philosophy than anything Trump has done.

    1. BEST POST
      Thank you.

    2. But not to Nick. His overriding value is Invasion USA, and he’ll cozy up to #NeoClowns and socialists to keep the invasion coming.

      In the 21st century, libertarians are going to have make common cause with the globalists of all parties, with the people whose core value is the right of individuals to move freely around the planet.

      Watching The Brink made me think that for all the other differences Reason has with the socialist magazine Jacobin, it may matter far more that we share a belief in open borders.

        Nick: I was on @LionsofLiberty podcast w @MarcDClair, talking about why libertarians should embrace postmodernism, my early days as a cub reporter, and more. Take a listen.

      2. Anyone miss when Nick went full “No True Communist”?
        “Totalitarians professing communism killed millions of people, but this analogy is flawed. Hitler was the leader of Nazism, Stalin the leader of…Stalinism, not communism.”

        1. Totes liberty minded

        2. He was around politics so long that it rotted his brain. Can’t say I’m shocked…his writing has reflected this for awhile. Looks like the cosmotarian label was accurate.

  27. What are you so optimistic about?

    Everything about Bladerunner turned out to be true, except the flying cars.

    1. And the bad haircuts.

      Thank the Lord for small miracles.

  28. Their party isn’t in power; it’s hardly a surprise that they’re acting like doom-and-gloomers. The whole point of their sales pitch is “Things are bad because we aren’t in power! Give us power and we’ll fix things!”

    1. A return to normalcy was already taken and also polls like a dumpster on fire.

  29. It’s not a problem for me. Republicrats and Demicans are all full of shit, and a plethora of them constituting elective threats to each other is not going to change any of that. Do what you’ve always done, get what you’ve always gotten. I’ve stopped pandering to them.

  30. “Democrats are painting contemporary America as a late-capitalist hellhole riven by growing racial, ethnic, and other tensions.”

    Oh, and the Earth will end in a little over a decade. Fortunately, this is nothing massive government intervention into every aspect of your life, along with skyrocketing taxes, can’t cure. All hail the bureaucratic state and its central planners.

  31. You can’t eradicate cannibalism by eating the cannibals; there is no better analog for what voting is.
    The voting booth should reconfigure the ballot lever to a dildo and require the Helots to use their mouths to make the selection of their next master, it also provides a keen preview of things to come for the voter.
    “A ballot is just a substitute for a bullet. If your vote isn’t backed by a bullet, it is meaningless. Without the bullet, people could ignore the election outcome. Voting would be pointless. Democracy has violence at its very core!” ~Muir Matteson, “The Nonviolent Zone”
    “An election is a moral horror, as bad as a battle except for blood; a mud bath for every soul concerned in it.” ~ George Bernard Shaw
    “Free election of masters does not abolish the masters or the slaves.” Herbert Marcuse
    “Working within the system means to become a part of the system. When you go into the voting booth, the only meaningful significance that your action will have is to show that one more person supports the state”. ~Mark Davis
    “Politics is the gentle art of getting votes from the poor and campaign funds from the rich, by promising to protect each from the other.” ~ Oscar Ameringer
    “If the right to vote were expanded to seven year olds … its policies would most definitely reflect the ‘legitimate concerns’ of children to have ‘adequate’ and ‘equal’ access to ‘free’ french fries, lemonade and videos.” ~ Hans-Hermann Hoppe

  32. The author wishes this could pass as journalism… It is not that Trump is divisive but rather that the main stream media is dishonest, much like the author of this piece…

  33. “The Democratic Debates Are Downers. That’s a Big Problem for All of Us Democrats”


  34. every single person on that stage would institute policies that would eviscerate our basic human rights and plunge the economy into an abyss and the problem is that they’re all Debbie Downers?
    WTF is going on at Reason? That should be something to celebrate.

  35. All I know is that we’re living in the best economy that most of us have ever experienced.

    If we fuck that up because Trump is “divisive” or “un-presidential” or any of the other bullshit criticisms of him, I don’t know what to say. More people have more if (almost) everything than at any point in our history. More stuff. More money. More opportunity.

    I don’t give a shit about Trumps’s demeanor. And though he’s certainly done things that are not at all libertarian, so has literally every other president, so it’s a wash. We can’t have libertarian. What we can have is more free with a booming economy. That’s good enough when there isn’t a better way.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.