Super Bowl

Mike Bloomberg Just Lost My Vote With His Super Bowl Ad

The billionaire former three-term mayor of New York panders to Democratic loyalists rather than laying out a vision for a prosperous, tolerant America.

|

Many Americans will basically be meeting Mike Bloomberg for the first time today, when the billionaire former three-term mayor of New York City drops an ad costing a reported $11 million during the Super Bowl. Despite have served in office first as a Republican and then as an independent, Bloomberg is now running for the Democratic presidential nomination. He's not exactly unknown (he even once had a funny cameo on Curb Your Enthusiasm), but he's hardly as familiar to most voters as Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, or Donald Trump.

But based on his commercial, which is about gun violence in America, Bloomberg has already lost my potential vote. Let me explain.

As a small-l libertarian unaffiliated with any party, my vote is up for grabs in November even if I've gone Libertarian in almost every presidential race in which I've voted (the one exception came in 1984, when as a first-time voter, I cast a vote for Walter Mondale, whose self-deprecating "Norwegian charisma" and honest declaration that he would raise taxes to close the deficit spoke to me). Especially as I get older, I want to be able to vote for a candidate who might actually win and I understand that presidential politics will never cough up someone with whom I completely agree. Indeed, I even parted company with former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson on various things despite enthusiastically voting for him in 2012 and 2016.

Rare among libertarians, who tend to dismiss Bloomberg as a petty tyrant for many plausible reasons, I was excited when he jumped into the Democratic race. Sure, he was a nanny stater on steroids when he ran the Big Apple, famous for his what-the-fuck efforts to ban Big Gulp sodas and salt and he was an unapologetic champion of the repressive police tactic known as "stop and frisk" (he's unconvincingly repented now that he's running for president). He remains an idiot and a hypocrite on pot legalization, among other things. It's at least a little disturbing that he's risen as high as fourth in some polls based solely on spending $250 million on ads. His just-announced $5 trillion tax plan is a groaner as well, especially since he doesn't seem interested in cutting spending.

But he's running for president of the United States, so the soft bigotry of low expectations works in his favor. In a Democratic field filled with ultra-lefties such as Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, both of whom want to regulate the hell out of the economy, Bloomberg is a dyed-in-the-wool, unapologetic capitalist who earned his $54 billion net worth the old-fashioned way: by providing an excellent service at a price that customers were willing to pay.

He is thus nothing less than a walking, talking refutation of the "destroy all billionaires" mindset of Democrats such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ("No one ever makes a billion dollars. You take a billion dollars") and former Clinton administration Labor Secretary Robert Reich (who says billionaires' fortunes have nothing to do "with being successful in the supposed free market").

Like the widely disliked and now-forgotten Howard Schultz, the former Starbucks CEO who flirted with an independent run last year and openly defended free enterprise, Bloomberg has succeeded incredibly in the private sector and unlike his fellow billionaire Donald Trump, his wealth isn't based on working political connections, getting tax breaks, and pursuing eminent domain grifts.

As important, Bloomberg has a real political record to run on. Talk to just about anybody with a five-digit income in New York and they'll tell you that Bloomberg was a good mayor despite the Nurse Ratched flourishes. Unlike the current occupant of Gracie Mansion, the failed presidential contender and groundhog killer Bill De Blasio, Bloomberg made the city safe for commerce, improved the provision of basic services, and forced positive changes in the public school system. He was nobody's idea of a libertarian, but he also oversaw an absolutely booming city.

So I looked forward to seeing him spar with Warren and Sanders on economic issues, mock Joe Biden for never having worked in the private sector, and dismiss Mayor Pete for his unaccomplished tenure in a city whose population is less than New York's was in 1810. As befits somebody who made his mint in New York, Bloomberg is blunt, mean, and nasty and I caught myself daydreaming about the debates he might have with Donald Trump, whom he calls "a failed businessman whose companies went bankrupt multiple times."

But that Super Bowl ad kills whatever minor buzz he gave me. This is how he chooses to intro himself to the voting public? The ad recounts the tragic, senseless shooting death of a young black man, a powerful vignette that Bloomberg's campaign insists will "stop people in their tracks." As mayor and afterwards, gun control was a central concern to Bloomberg, who helped bankroll 2018 candidates who wanted to restrict gun rights and whose website touts his plans to create "more effective background checks," "keep guns out of the wrong hands," "tackle daily gun violence in the hardest-hit communities," "ban assault weapons and protect schools," and "confront the gun lobby head-on."

I believe in Second Amendment rights but I don't have particularly strong feelings on the matter, especially compared to most libertarians. All of the things that Bloomberg suggests are either already basically the law or won't have the effects supporters claim. As my Reason colleague Jacob Sullum has written, background checks will do nothing to stop mass shootings because "perpetrators of these attacks typically do not have disqualifying criminal or psychiatric records." Beyond that, passing more and stricter laws generally don't stop criminals, who don't follow laws, from getting guns. Researchers funded by the federal government concluded that the assault weapons ban that was in effect from 1994 to 2004 had essentially no impact on gun violence and crime. Most important, Bloomberg simply ignores the massive declines in gun-related crimes and violence over the past 25 years. "There were 4.6 gun murders per 100,000 people in 2017, far below the 7.2 per 100,000 people recorded in 1974," reports Pew. Between 1993 and 2015, "rates for crimes using guns dropped from 7.3 per 1,000 people to 1.1 per 1,000 people." The central fact in Bloomberg's ad—"2,900 children die from gun violence every year—is off by 73 percent.

The story told in Bloomberg's Super Bowl ad is moving and sad, but I simply don't understand why the billionaire would focus on the issue of gun violence in such a high-profile setting. In its way, it's as off-kilter as Donald Trump's insistence during the 2016 campaign that violent crime was somehow out of control. Perhaps Bloomberg is trying to signal loud and clear to Democratic primary voters that despite his past affiliations as a Republican and an independent, he is in synch with Democratic fixations and policy priorities.

Maybe the "George" ad will in fact help seal the deal with Democrats, but it leaves me and, I suspect, other independent voters wondering just how different he is from other candidates who are already in the race. I would have much rather seen a commercial that explained how Bloomberg would draw on his business experience and success as mayor of the largest city in the country to grow the economy, tackle looming entitlement cataclysms, and reduce culture-war battles.

The 2020 race doesn't yet have a major-party candidate who offers a compelling, optimistic, and realistic vision of an economically vibrant and socially tolerant nation. Instead we have, on the one hand, an incumbent president who can barely go a few hours without picking fights and signing off on massive spending increases, trade barriers, and immigration restrictions. On the other hand, we have a bunch of Democrats who talk about massively expanding the size, scope, and spending of government while dreaming of new taxes and regulations on virtually every aspect of our lives.

Mike Bloomberg might have offered an alternative to these two exhausting and generally miserable options. Instead, he is dropping millions of dollars on a high-profile commercial that will win him no new followers nor distinguish him from his rivals. Given his billions, Bloomberg can afford to follow his bliss when it comes to campaigning, but I know I'll be looking elsewhere for a candidate to support.

Advertisement

NEXT: Today in Supreme Court History: February 2, 1790

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. “I believe in Second Amendment rights but I don’t have particularly strong feelings on the matter, especially compared to most libertarians.”

    The one right necessary to backstop all of the other rights against the state and you’re lukewarm towards it?

    Moreover, this ad was the straw that broke the camel’s back, not his puppet master role in propping up nearly all of the gun control efforts/organizations in this country? The grassroots support for gun control begins and ends with his money. There is no mass movement for gun control.

    1. “The grassroots support for gun control begins and ends with his money. There is no mass movement for gun control.”

      LOL

      You need to get out of your bubble. Literally all my progressive friends want to ban deadly military-style assault weapons.

      #LibertariansForGunSense

      1. Yet none of them fork over any cash or time for said cause.

      2. I was thinking that i’d Just vote for Trump like you. I mean you can basically tell he’s lying (or suffering fromAlzheimer’s) every time he opens his mouth, but he’s the one that is going to lower taxes on people like me — that is, rich elitist snobs from California— so why should I worry about the Poors who are going to get fucked in the arse by his policies. I’ve already bought my vacation package to Argentina, bag holder. You?

        1. but he’s the one that is going to lower taxes on people like me — that is, rich elitist snobs from California

          Every tax bracket had their income tax rates lowered, you dumbass.

          You probably would have had to worry about not writing off your mortgage interest, but since you don’t pay that anyway, you really have nothing to worry about.

          1. Actually, that’s what makes his remark doubly ironic: The wealthy from California are actually crying a river of tears, due to the limit on mortgage interest and property tax deductablity.

        2. “…I mean you can basically tell he’s lying (or suffering fromAlzheimer’s) every time he opens his mouth,..”

          As if some scumbag adolescent is even capable of recognizing issues in any one else.
          Fuck off and die, scumbag.

          1. I don’t see Trump “lying (or suffering from Alzheimer’s [sic]) every time he opens his mouth”. Certainly he boasts like a salesman and his estimate of his inaugural crowd size was way off, but that matters not. I’ve not seen any lies like “You can keep your plan” that are promises that affect me directly. The people I see lying are the Democrats who told us for 3 years Trump was a Russian asset or conspirator, and now told us more tall tales about his call with the Ukrianian president. Schiff brought up the Russians too many times to count in the impeachment trial, after Trump was cleared by Mueller. Yet the trial was about a call with the Ukrainian president asking for cooperation in investigating what happened in the 2016 elections (Democrats used to be all for investigating election interference, but now say it’s illegal for Trump to investigate that in Ukraine) and if Biden was illegally using US money to enrich his son, as he should be (seems they forget Obama investigated Trump, but also illegally leaked the existence of that investigation during an election).

            1. I don’t recognize your handle, but agree with your comments.
              FWI, “LeaveTrumpAloneLibertarian” is the newest incarnation of a commenter once honest enough to use the handle “American Socialist”, and stupid enough to support Stalin. Seriously.
              From the language and other tells, my guess is he was 35-going-on-14, still fantasizing that the wealthy swam in pools of goind coins; he bragged about bailing on his mortgage and ‘sticking it to the banksters!’, like every other commie, leaving it to honest people to clean up his mess.

      3. 3 people isn’t a mass.

      4. What feature or capability constitutes “military style assault weapons”?

        1. Feature 1: they’re black
          Feature 2: they scare the white Democrats

          But guns aren’t the only things with those features that Democrats want to control…

          1. Indeed.

        2. It shoots bullets.

      5. Mind if we be fair to your progressive friends for a moment? They clearly don’t want to ban “deadly, military-style assault” weapons; they just want to ban the individual from accessing them and still keep such weaponry to murder… er., to protect themselves.

        Yes, this is an important distinction. See, if your progressive friends really wanted to just ban the “deadly, military-style” weapon you talk about, they’d actually start by signing bills to stop funding the military-industrial complex instead. Oops.

      6. Then you make the same mistake Gillespie did in his editorial: actual assault rifles have been banned for private purchase since 1986.

        Gillespie referred to the 1994 ban, but that law did not touch actual assault rifles. The statue touched on cosmetic issues such as pistol grips & barrel shrouds, but didn’t mention automatic weapons at all. Hence it should be no surprise that the ban didn’t affect the crime rate.

        By the way, there is no such thing as an “assault weapon.” That is a chimera invented by the gun grabbers* lobby to confuse the issue. An assault rifle is one capable of automatic fire. An assault weapon does not exist. AR-15 architecture rifles are by definition not assault rifles because they are only capable of semi-automatic fire.

        *I used to be diplomatic and call the grabbers “gun control proponents,” but in 2019 they revealed their goals for all the world to see, from most of the Democratic Party candidates to the state of Virginia, their goal is to confiscate legal guns from law abiding citizens.

        1. “actual assault rifles have been banned for private purchase since 1986. ”

          Incorrect. If you have the money (thousands), can pass a enhanced BG check and pay for the $200 tax stamp, you too can own a full-auto firearm, a sawed off shotgun or a tank.

      7. “You need to get out of your bubble. Literally all my progressive friends…”

        Ayup. You might want to avoid swinging any pointed objects around, yourself.

      8. All your progressive friends? That is the bubble in which you live. You sunk your own point admitting it.

      9. Literally all my progressive friends

        Awwwwww….you still think that Facebook “friends” thing is real.

    2. Yeah, Reason falls strictly on the left-libertarian side of the spectrum. With the exception of maybe Tuccille, they lack a single voice that is consistently center- or right- libertarian.

      You’d think that gun rights would still be important to left-libertarians, particularly given the history of 19th and early 20th Century gun control. But most of the writers here are firmly in today’s cultural left, and gun control (along with abortion) has become one of the primary acid tests for bog-standard left-wingers. Gillespie, KMW, and others, in particular Welch, lack the insight or intellectual consistency to overcome their cultural biases, and so continue to oppose strong gun rights, as the lack of prior coverage of the Virginia protests shows.

      1. Don’t forget Stossel! But other than him… All true. And really annoying.

        IMO 70-80% of the libertarians I have met IRL are right libertarians… How the mush brained left libertarians managed to take over and destroy the premiere libertarian magazine is beyond me.

        HEY NICK, YOU SILLY WOP, HIRE SOME SANE RIGHT LIBERTARIANS!

        1. I don’t understand that disconnect. Most liberty oriented people come from the right. This place seems to cater almost exclusively to the left. To be fair, there have been a few articles in the past week by writers I’m unfamiliar with that at least come across as centrist.

          That said, Bloomberg is pure authoritarian. He might not be socialist, but his proposals all seem to fall along “do as I say or else.” I mean, Gillespie goes through item after item where the man is detestable for libertarians yet still expresses that he was willing to vote for him. This is contrary to how Trump has actually governed in a way that supports many libertarian priorities and yet Gillespie would never consider supporting or voting for him. If he could just admit that left wing culture and politics are more important than libertarian outcomes then I’d respect his position more

          1. “…That said, Bloomberg is pure authoritarian…”

            Yeah, and Gillespie arm-waved that right out the window. Who cares if the guy wants to tell you what to eat and drink and what you can use to do so?
            Nick, you didn’t have my vote to begin with and this just confirms my choice.

            1. You are aware Gillespie isn’t running for anything?

              1. Nooo….
                Really? My goodness!

              2. aren’t you supposed to be dead?

          2. I don’t know if Bloomberg would even let you touch him.

            1. Wrong post in the wrong place. The thing about libertarians is that we really just believe in maximum freedom of the individual. Making a right/left argument is a poor idea because depending on the era the policies if that party may be different from the ones you see as positive. Though I will concede the current republican party is not the pussified p.c. banners that the Democratic party is.

              1. In the American context, the right has pretty much always been the side that has supported more libertarian ideas. In some other countries where “right” means monarchists/dictators etc in their thinking that might not be the case… But I’d still take a Franco or Pinochet over Stalin or Mao… So I just don’t see any situation where the left wing is preferable to the right wing, even if one is comparing dictators.

          3. “Most liberty oriented people come from the right.” — A fact pulled straight out of your as — err, belly button.

            1. “A fact pulled straight out of your as — err, belly button.”

              Bullshit pulled out of your ass.

            2. In my life, I have met next to zero leftists who give 2 shits about libertarian principles, or freedom as a general principle. I have met TONS of right wingers. I can’t imagine anybody has had the opposite occur.

              1. In my experience I’ve seen plenty of conservatives and politicians move towards libertarian principles, and adopt marijuana freedom, if not other drugs, gay rights, etc.

                This seems much easier to do psychologically than for a leftie, who already believes most of that, to give up on massive detailed control of business and the economy.

                The best you can hope for from the Democrats are a number who recognize the unparalleled power of free capitalism to generate the monstrous tax base needed to pay to ameliorate its rough edges, i.e. the safety net.

                The younger gen just claims full bore evil of capitalism (as they are happy to tell us when sending iPhone messages between choosing from 350,000 games.)

                1. I can’t say I disagree with any of that. I too have converted many conservative friends on issues like drug laws… But rarely get any left leaning folks to give up on their bad ideas. IMO it’s the type of brain wiring that draws different people to different sides. Conservatives are more logical thinkers, and people that think logically can be convinced of things if you have facts on your side. Emotional leftist thinkers… Not so much.

        2. The Spectrum for politics is not very wide.

          While Libertarians do have some range in politics at the Center of that Political Spectrum, people like Gillespie are Left of the Centrist Libertarian range.

          I would assume “Righty Libertarians” would be more Socially Conservative and even more tight with tiny and limited government money.

          1. “people like Gillespie are Left of the Libertarian range”

            Fixed that for you.

            1. As in outside of the Libertarian Spectrum range, then I agree.

          2. Unless it is a matter of legislating morality, then intrusive government is in order.

            1. Commie kid? Hihn? Turd? Which mental midget just showed up?

            2. Except the left wants to legislate morality 1,000 times harder… So the right is flawed in a few cases, and the left in a ton of cases. Not quite equivalency there IMO…

        3. “How the mush brained left libertarians managed to take over and destroy the premiere libertarian magazine is beyond me.”

          Because many (most?) right libertarians aren’t for open borders, and open borders is one of the two major themes that their major patron wants—zero import tariffs or export restrictions being the other–and that therefore this writing staff wants too. All other planks of the Libertarian movement are somewhat negotiable.

          At least Nick didn’t say he was still going to vote for Bloomberg after the ad.

          1. Yeah, I imagine that’s a big part of it. In truth I think left/right libertarians are defined in the same way as other left/right people are… Based on whether they are logical thinkers or emotional thinkers. Left libertarians get caught up in the feelz just like normal idiots Democrats. Problem is when you put feelz before thinkz you often have VERY bad real world outcomes… Because reality doesn’t care about being fair, or what anybodies feelings are. It’s cold and harsh, which is why cold and harsh logic must be applied to decision making.

        4. Right libertarians? Oohhh, you mean Trumpian dicksuckers. That’s pretty much what right libertarians are nowadays.

          1. “…Oohhh, you mean Trumpian dicksuckers…”

            Thanks, hag ass-sucker.
            You and she lost, loser.

            1. The insults are becoming much more efficient in their information density, cutting out wasteful extraneous words.

          2. I was thinking more Ron Paul, John Stossel, or most of the great libertarian thinkers of the past, who would likely think the current Reason staff is just as mush brained as I do.

        5. Vet, I don’t think the Koch would like that. It wouldn’t bring more open borders mania, or TDS.

          1. I’m sure the funding has been a big part of the shift over time… But even still, the Koch brothers support people with a lot harder right positions on a lot of issues than Reason as well. Maybe they would make open borders being bad a no go, but they could certainly hire people that were more radically pro other things right libertarians care about.

        6. “How the mush brained left libertarians managed to take over and destroy the premiere libertarian magazine is beyond me.”

          Their offices are in Los Angeles. What more do you need to know? When you live with pigs, you start to smell like sheet.

      2. I can only assume that what you mean by “left-libertarian” and “right-libertarian” are moderate libertarians with additional views that can be considered “left” or “right” respectively.

        I mean, there are and long have been left libertarians of radical kinds, i.e. non-propertarian (or various other kinds of) anarchists, but I sense those are not who you mean.

        Then the ones you’re calling “center-libertarian” must be either moderate libertarians whose remaining opinions aren’t identifiably “left” or “right”, or radical libertarians of the propertarian type.

        Either that, or you’re splitting things very finely (as some observers have done since forever) to characterize radical libertarians as “left” or “right” based on their opinions on issues that tend to cut across libertarianism, as either orthogonal to it or arguable as to which side better represents individual liberty.

        Or maybe it’s something else, like style (including lifestyle) or strategic prioritizing of issues. Like maybe if we think that in a given time or place, certain advances are more achievable if we ally with a “left” or “right” cause or those promoting it.

        1. It is really a lot more straightforward than that.

          Right libertarians are people who are so conservative that they are libertarians. Most of them were at least “leans Republican” before they discovered the libertarian label.

          Left libertarians are people who used to find their home in the Democrat tent, before they discovered the libertarian label.

          Since their roots lie in “team” based politics, when “team” is on the line, their instinctual motivated reasoning pulls them toward the position of their original team, even if they have moved to a position of being a staunch libertarian.

          Ideological libertarians tend to be more conservative than conservative republicans and more liberal than liberal Democrats.

        2. I mean, I think all of those are reasonable ways to slice and dice things in some contexts…

          Usually the way the split works in my head is:

          1. On the issues where libertarians split, even when attempting to be purist. Open borders with a welfare state? Other open borders related arguments? Some of the gay/trans stuff, other social issues. Etc.

          2. Even 2 theoretically ideologically perfect people can come at it from different angles… IMO people who care most about silly SJW/bleeding heart social issues tend to be left libertarians, whereas those concerned more about gun rights, absolutist free speech, absolutist freedom of association, size of government, etc. Even if both people theoretically believe in the exact same things, a left libertarian will tend to be more willing to squish on freedom of association or gun rights, whereas the right libertarian might be more willing to squish on open borders, other whiny liberal hobby horses, etc.

          Those are the ways I split it up most of the time. Fundamentally I think it is the same difference as between the normal left and right: People driven by logical thought, and emotional thinkers. Leftists get caught up in tear jerking issues, even though most of the time they’re basically irrelevant side shows to real important stuff. Logical thinkers tend to not care much about that kind of crap and want to focus on more concrete stuff that seems to be of direct and real importance to almost all people, instead of some “oppressed” sub set of people.

          But yeah, both sides TEND to come down towards being more understanding of either mainstream leftists or rightists too. It’s because it’s a difference in brain wiring. Logical vs emotionally driven people.

          Also, I am NOT a purist libertarian… Because if you follow some trains of thought to their correct conclusion under libertarian principles, they simply don’t work in the real world. Why? Because the premises that many arguments are based on are incorrect, therefore one comes to incorrect conclusions.

          All people ARE NOT equal, therefore any train of logic that assumes they are will come to wrong conclusions. Left libertarians tend to be especially guilty of making this assumption, as are regular leftists.

          Libertarianism also ignores human nature that is biologically programmed into us in many ways, just as purist communist thinking does. The result in both cases leads to disaster.

          So I’m a 98% libertarian, with a few carve outs for when libertarian thinking utterly fails to work in the real world. I don’t believe in universal suffrage. Neither did the founders… Many people are too dumb to be trusted to vote, SOME sort of bar needs to be set. I don’t believe in open borders because human nature and all of human history shows all it will result in is massive conflict. Also it would clearly destroy any 1st world nation that TRULY accepted unlimited unskilled immigration from the rest of the world, as there are too many poor and unskilled people for the 1st world to absorb… And they all vote for big government.

          Those are the types of things I make exceptions for. I have logical and practical reasons that I put ABOVE purity in the ideological sense.

    3. The 2nd is what protects all the others. They debated about making it the 1st amendment… I wish they had. Being number 2 is awesome and all, but the symbolism of it being the 1st would have been better.

      1. Nothing is as dishonest and scummy as a right-winger who purports to worship/understand history and who instead makes it up in order to pursue a modern agenda. At least Marxists are honest about doing that.

        No the 2nd was never the 1st and there was never a fucking debate about that at all. The 1st is not the actual 1st. The ACTUAL first amendment was about increasing the size of the House once it hit 200 members so that districts would be 50,000 people from then on. That amendment failed cuz of poor grammatical construction (which is why we don’t even question why the House is frozen at 435 members rather than 6,000-7,500 members) but it is also the ONLY amendment that would have affected citizens of the different states then which is why it was first.

        The ‘individual rights’ stuff only affected residents of federal territories. Everything west of Appalachians and east of Mississippi River. Which were put in as amendments in order to restrict Congress from what otherwise were wide-ranging powers to legislate over those territories. Those restrictions would, it was thought, prevent those territories and the subsequent states created from them from becoming a ‘camel’s nose’ to restrict the existing 13. And in so doing also cleared up the ton of bogus land claims/conflicts that those 13 had over their borders so those territories could become settled rather than just squatted.

        Those were not even imagined as federal protection of individual citizen rights until the 14th Amendment came along and created ‘American citizenship’. Fail to understand what is actually happening here – and you pretty much get American history wrong from the founding right up to the Civil War. Which is not a surprise at all.

        1. That amendment failed cuz of poor grammatical construction (which is why we don’t even question why the House is frozen at 435 members rather than 6,000-7,500 members)

          The House is “frozen” at 435 members because Congress passed a law in 1929 that set it there, you dumbass.

          I realize you have a hard-on to redo the Constitution, but you’re just going to have to live with what we have, to your eternal regret.

          1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Apportionment_Amendment

            That amendment has been pending since Sept 25, 1789. And yes the whole fucking point of that amendment (both the Senate and House versions – which got grammatically mangled into a meaningless amendment that looks like a ‘compromise’ but actually undermines both versions) was to take that decision out of the hands of Congress

            1. which got grammatically mangled

              The brightest legal and intellectual minds of their time “grammatically mangled” an amendment that’s supposedly been in limbo for 230 years, just waiting for more enlightened minds to pass it.

              Tell me another one.

              1. Yes that is exactly what happened. And no there is no ‘limbo’ that if that amendment were to pass, that it would result in anything but confusion because THE GRAMMAR OF THE AMENDMENT IS FUCKED UP. However it would certainly undermine existing Congressional authority to unilaterally decide that stuff without question and would compel some discussion about how to fix the grammar (literally a one word change – from ‘more’ to ‘less’).

                Of course I’m sure whatever BS history source you use is far more informed than the National Archives. You will note that the ‘First Amendment’ is not even the second one as presented to the states for ratification. It was the third of the original 12. The first has never been ratified. The second (related to pay of Congress) was ultimately ratified in the 1990’s as the 27th Amendment.

                1. And no there is no ‘limbo’ that if that amendment were to pass, that it would result in anything but confusion because THE GRAMMAR OF THE AMENDMENT IS FUCKED UP.

                  IOW, it was merely a concept that they discussed, and eventually discarded. Which hardly supports your implication that they envisioned a Congress of 7,000 members.

                  You will note that the ‘First Amendment’ is not even the second one as presented to the states for ratification.

                  I never claimed it was, you dumbfuck. That was the OP. Try to figure out who you’re arguing with before sperging out like a twat.

                  1. It was ratified by Congress and sent to the states and enough states ratified it to be one state short – and then the new states didn’t vote on it. Can you even read? This was not some idle ‘concept’.

                    They certainly did not imagine a country of 300 million+ people. Had they imagined that they would have been appalled at the idea that a House of 200 (which they clearly imagined) would represent the first 8 million peeps and then 235 more would represent the remaining 300+ million).

                    1. It was ratified by Congress and sent to the states and enough states ratified it to be one state short – and then the new states didn’t vote on it.

                      Which means it wasn’t actually ratified and has been a dead issue ever since.

                      They certainly did not imagine a country of 300 million+ people. Had they imagined that they would have been appalled at the idea that a House of 200 (which they clearly imagined) would represent the first 8 million peeps and then 235 more would represent the remaining 300+ million).

                      If you’re going to make an argument, at least try and stay away from the question-begging.

                      If you’re that assmad about it, write your Congressman and tell him there needs to be a vote to repeal the Apportionment Act. Until that happens, you’re just screaming into the void.

              2. Oh and BTW – one of the better ways to understand the founders as actual people rather than saints is to go through the early creation of land companies and Congressional grants to those companies. ‘Conflict of interest’ and bribery and self-dealing – as we understand it now – didn’t exist then. They spent a ton of their time and attention wrangling hundreds of thousands of acres of land grants for themselves personally in the new frontier areas. It’s like they viewed the country as their own personal get-rich-quick speculation scheme.

                Course that stuff is completely overlooked in the sort of hagiographic founding mythologies that we prefer history to be.

                1. one of the better ways to understand the founders as actual people rather than saints

                  No one here is claiming they were, but I guess realizing that would get in the way of your non-sequiter about land grants.

                2. Duh, they had actual slaves as well as indentured servants! The chicanery involved in the settling of Kentucky is a minor scandal in comparison. Various stories about how people were induced to cross the Atlantic or accompany soldiers and others inland on false pretenses. Even the Morris Canal was built on fraud.

                  1. And the Indians were crooks too!

                3. “…‘Conflict of interest’ and bribery and self-dealing – as we understand it now – didn’t exist then…”

                  You should try (if you can) reading something other than Zinn.
                  You.
                  Are.
                  Full.
                  Of.Shit.

                4. Who said they were saints?

                  Nobody is perfect… But I have yet to EVER come across a historical figure that I think was smarter, or held better political opinions than Thomas Jefferson.

                  Many of the founders were meh at best, some outright horrible. But others were pretty damn awesome. In any event the major “works” that those flawed humans got done created the freest and most prosperous nation in the history of mankind.

                  If you’re such a fucking retarded twat that you’re literally holding out for THE PERFECT person to come along and make ZERO mistakes in their entire life to establish LITERAL UTOPIA… Well you’re fucking dumb. It’ll never happen. You better just become religious, because that shit will never happen in the real universe run by human beings. We just have to accept “good enough” or “as good as it gets” and not expect perfection.

                  Stupid fuck.

                  1. Bullshit. You do not have the slightest respect for anything Jefferson actually wrote. You just want to put something on a pedestal and mythologize it. In order to beat up someone you perceive as an opponent now. And the reason you and your ilk choose dead people for that purpose is because they have an existing reputation. They don’t have the annoying tendency to tell you to fight your own fucking battles and just let them rest in peace already.

                    Regardless of how you claim to worship him, he would not be flattered by your kowtowing. He’d most likely think you are dumber than toe fungus.

                    On similar ground it may be proved that no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation. They may manage it then, & what proceeds from it, as they please, during their usufruct. They are masters too of their own persons, & consequently may govern them as they please. But persons & property make the sum of the objects of government. The constitution and the laws of their predecessors extinguished then in their natural course, with those who gave them being. This could preserve that being till it ceased to be itself, & no longer. Every constitution then, & every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. – Thomas Jefferson

                    1. You’re tilting at windmills dildo.

                      Have I ever said we should never change a law ever again? No. BUT there are some things that need to be tweaked, and SOME things that are eternally great ideas… Including if most of a new generation are too stupid to appreciate them. Things like free speech, the right to self defense, right to privacy etc NEVER go out of style.

                      I’d be all for amending the constitution to provide STRONGER protections for those rights. They’re all being shit on, but especially the right to privacy could be adapted to be more explicit for the modern era.

                      TJ was human, like anybody else, but he was a great human. He was a political radical who believed in the right of the individual to make their own decisions, for better or ill. He was against slavery… But also against the horrible concept of universal suffrage, because some idiots don’t deserve to vote. He was practical enough (unlike dogmatic libertarians today!) to know that breaking his own principles to make the Louisiana purchase was a good call.

                      Other than Ron Paul, there’s really nobody close that’s been in actual political office that I like better… The funny thing is RP would have just been a run of the mill American 100, 150, 200 years ago. He only seems so impressive because things have degenerated so badly.

                  2. As an aside, I was a huge fan of Jefferson, until I started reading about John Adams. Less involved in mudwracking and pretty selfless in public service. Worth more investigation.

                    1. Adams as a person was alright, but he supported some bad policies on many occasions. Good ones sometimes, but awful ones other times. I really can’t think of basically anything TJ ever supported that didn’t make sense in context for the time period.

              3. They were politicians like any other, and if they could leave the 2nd amendment in such a condition as to confuse legal scholars forever after, why would they not have fucked this up?

            2. Oh, and look up the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929 while you’re at it.

        2. You’re very stupid in a way that’s easy to mock.

        3. All I know is I’ve heard somewhat intelligent people discuss how they were going to order some of the stuff in the bill of rights, and some people supposedly suggested that the right to bear arms be #1. I’ve never looked into it, and don’t have the time to do so now as it is an irrelevant side point… But to say that the 1st isn’t the 1st is stupid. They kicked stuff out the way they kicked it out. That they passed other shit, and talked about other shit doesn’t matter. The final form they passed is like it is.

      2. Actually, the Second Amendment was originally the FOURTH.

        The original Second hung fire for over 200 years(!) until it was finally ratified as the 27th. The original first was never ratified, though it technically could still be. (Subsequently, a “timeout” was added to ratification that keeps that from being a possibility for other unratified amendments.)

        http://www.loc.gov/rr//program/bib/ourdocs/billofrights.html

    4. I believe in Second Amendment rights but I don’t have particularly strong feelings on the matter…

      Spoken like a Mondale man.

      1. Bloomberg is a power-hungry nanny-state douchebag, but does he have what it takes to be the next Fritz Mondale? Could he actually top Mondale’s epic loss and not even carry DC?

        -jcr

        1. He’s not looking to carry anything.
          His phony status as a “candidate” allows him to pour personal money into Democratic races and the DNC without being subject to spending limitations.
          And that’s all it’s about. For him, buying a Super Bowl ad is like you or me buying a classified to sell a sofa.

    5. Yes, we get it. You do really care about guns, so Gillespie’s is a bad guy because he doesn’t think like you.

      I’m not as fond as guns as I used to be, after the assassination thing.

      1. If you don’t much care about a right being violated because you personally don’t value exercising it, you might or might not be a bad “guy”, but you’re absolutely a bad “libertarian”.

        1. Abraham Lincoln was indeed a bad libertarian.

      2. Abraham Lincoln
        February.2.2020 at 4:15 pm
        “Yes, we get it…”

        Is that a turd in your pocket? Or are you just abysmally stoooooopid?

    6. I guess Nick doesn’t have strong feeling about soda bans either.

      Nor the idea that government knows best and sometimes it must trample your rights for the better good.

      No libertarian that knows anything about Bloomberg would vote for him.

      1. In his defense… Is there a politician out there that any libertarian would vote for?
        We are in the world of choosing between shit sandwiches and turd tacos.

        1. Does trying to guess which will be the least damaging to freedom count as enthusiasm?

    7. I wish you fell the Samy way about the other admemments. Freedom of speach and seperatrion of church and state.

      1. Spelling is your friend. You comment is rendered almost incomprehensible because of the spelling errors.

  2. Although Bloomberg isn’t my first choice, he’d be better than any Republican on the two most important issues for Koch / Reason libertarians — unlimited immigration into the US, and unrestricted abortion during all 3 trimesters.

    #ImmigrationAboveAll
    #(WithAbortionACloseSecond)

    1. And unrestricted abortion during for 340 postpartum trimesters. After that mandatory euthanasia kicks in, because compassion.

    2. unlimited immigration into the US, and unrestricted abortion during all 3 trimesters.

      Nononono, Trumpian, the key litmus test for libertarians is the right to amass a large collection of assault weapons for the coming battle with the federal government. Chaining any women who wants an abortion to the local bishop is secondary. Same with huge federal boondoggles on the Mexican border. Geesch.

      #MyPileIsBiggerThanYours

      1. And here’s where Tony comes out as anti-gun.

        1. That’s not Tony; it’s the scumbag who can’t pay his mortgage. Used to post here as American Socialist.

          1. Yes, he does sound like AmSoc. Who is a total loser shitweasel. He should commit suicide. Hopefully he is past the suicide exclusion period I’m any life insurance he might have and the proceeds will be used to pay off the mortgage on which he defaulted.

            Which would be a win-win for everyone.

    3. Seems you enjoy stirring the pot OpenBordersLiberal-tarin. Most libertarians know that abortion is an area where the rights of the fetus (person?) and the mother are in conflict, and libertarians are on both sides of the issue (Ron and Rand Paul being two libertarians opposed to abortions).

      As for unrestricted immigration, I like many other libertarians, don’t support that either until we get rid of the welfare state that attracts a lot of undesirable foreigners. Even then, I don’t want people with criminal records, no means of support, an inability to communicate in English, carrying contagious diseases, or don’t respect the Constitution immigrating either. Otherwise, I’m open to significantly increasing legal immigration.

      1. Abortions were legal from whne the country was established until after slavery ended. It only became an issue when womwn (midwifes) started don’t it.

  3. “Bloomberg has already lost my potential vote. Let me explain.”

    I’m sorry, I do not even see how small-L libertarians could have contemplated voting for Bloomberg
    It must be a very very small L

    1. He is not small l, hes just centrist democrat. He voted for mondale… it is the culture he lives in.

      1. There is no such thing as a centrist democrat. Their idea of the center is Pol Pot.

        1. The DNC Overton Window is now slightly north of Robespierre, John Wayne Gacy, the Red Brigades and Mengele.

        1. You sunk my battleship!

    2. Seriously. I could almost see how somebody looking at Bush Sr. Vs Clinton or something could think they’re comparably bad/good or whatever for freedom, based on pros and cons from each…

      But anybody who considers themselves libertarian nowadays has to accept the reality that the Rs are simply vastly better overall for freedom. We’re not dealing with moderate Dems from the 70s or 90s or whatever, they’ve become radial left wing nut jobs.

      Rs still suck… But on a scale of 1-100, they have at least 50 points on the Dems of today.

      1. +1000

        One winning strategy that seems to be working with Trump as President, is support Republicans as much as needed to destroy the Democrat Party. Then challenge the GOP nationally as Libertarians.

        1. Personally I’ve always believed taking over the GOP from within was the only way libertarian thinking would become more prevalent and have any hope of getting passed into law. I thought that was beginning to happen with Ron Paul in 2008, but didn’t quite work out…

          Personally I believe the acceptable range for political discourse lies between purist libertarian thinking and what one might call hardcore conservatism. Left wing shit shouldn’t exist, because it’s a fail all up and down the line. IMO a 98% libertarian society with a few carve outs taking into account human nature and how the real world works, and applying the conservative solution, is the way to go.

          Problem is left wing thinking will always exist because of misfit dysfunctional losers who want to steal from people who work harder than them, and the bleeding heart morons who agree with them because of a guilt complex.

          1. Agree. I came here from conservatism. There isn’t nearly so much support for anti-freedom policies there as the media would have you believe. Conservatives have a much better concept of how the world works than leftists and many libertarians. The only downside is that sometimes they are too wary and skeptical of allowing things that might not have net negative effects

            1. Well, and that’s the issue. On areas where theory/principle/dogma doesn’t jive with real world outcomes… What does one do?

              Personally in my mind it’s all calculus. If you gain a lot of freedom, and the net negative is small, then it should surely be done. If you gain a very small amount of freedom, and the net negative is MASSIVE, maybe it’s okay to make an exception for this thing.

              But it’s all a bit touch and go. One just needs to have some common sense about it. How did weed end up illegal for 100 years??? It was clearly not that bad, if at all, and caused TONS of problems by being illegal. Obviously a bad case of overstepping bounds by government. But for something like having an immigration policy, I think it’s a pretty small violation of theoretical rights to apply standards to foreigners moving here, but has the potential with the right set of policies to make a HUGE difference in outcomes.

              It all gets messy IRL though.

          2. This overlooks the fact that the LP was founded because this precise mechanism (taking over from within) showed itself to be unworkable. A rigged game doesn’t grow less rigged over time.

            1. Is it though? The GOP is far more libertarian on many issues now than in the 70s, 80s, 90s. Also, the alternate plan of starting a 3rd party has been even less effective!

              I’d be all for a total tweaking of our election system to ensure 3rd parties could get some sort of proportional number of people into legislatures… But until that happens, I think trying to influence from within is as good as it gets. One must be realistic too… 50% of the country just IS NOT hardcore libertarian, and never will be. We’re a minority of politics/philosophy junkies that could have an outsized influence though if we play our cards right.

      2. And it’s been true for a long time, as Don Ernsberger showed in the mid-1990s. You can’t say Don’s some Republican operative posing as libertarian, he fucking co-founded the Society for Individual Liberty, for crying out loud. He did a study in which he expected to find Democrats and Republicans about equally good-bad for individual liberrty, as had seemed to be the case circa 1970 at the time of SIL’s founding, and was surprised to find out that about a quarter century later, the GOP was far and away better for individual liberty than the Democrats were. They were approximately equal on “personal” liberty, but the Republicans were vastly superior on “economic” freedom.

        I’m afraid that over the quarter century following that, Democrats have gotten worse on “personal” liberty. Only thing is, they did lead the marijuana reforms, if you can believe the polls. So out of sex, drugs, and rock-and-roll, they’re better now on drugs, but not sex or rock-and-roll (or guns or speech or whatever).

        1. Unless it has to do with the area around the crotch, Democrats are absolute shit on personal liberty.

        2. I agree with all of that. I think it’s pretty obviously true just from looking at their positions, talking points, etc. The Dems used to have REAL ideological liberals strewn about the party… They’re pretty much either gone or completely ignored.

      3. The democrats are communists. The major difference appears to be how quickly they want to turn the country into some, combination of Maoist China and Soviet Russia.

      4. That is pretty much my observation too. Rs and Ls have some things in common and some differences. Ls and the modern Democratic party are almost diametrically opposed. There used to be much more overlap, but the Ds have skewed away from freedom dramatically in the last 15-20 years. It’s barely the same party it was in the 90s.

      5. I broke 30 years tradition voting for libertarians to cast an anti-hillary vote for Trump. I didn’t want to vote for Trump, but a protest vote for a horrible Libertarian ticket (Gary “I agree with 73 percent of what Sanders says” Johnson and Bill “Pretend my gun-grabbing history doesn’t exist and won’t come out again int future” Weld) seemed ill-advised in a state that, while not quite a swing-state, was closer to being in-play than was comfortable.

        My #1 criteria was who would be appointing SCOTUS justices, and Trumps list seemed pretty solid compared to Clinton’s vow to pack SCOTUS in light of “the Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment” vis-a-vis Heller.

        I knew Trump was a risky proposition overall, but felt deep down that Hillary would be so, so, so much worse.

    3. the L he says

    4. The print edition of Reason has truly gone out of focus over the past four years or so, due to “contributions” from communitarians, anarcho-socialists, and having squishes like this on staff. After having subscribed for 25 years or so, I’m thinking of just letting it run out.

  4. So, according to this ad, a gun just sat up and shot George. There was apparently no human involved. Same as all the other gun control arguments.

    1. I want a gun that could do that! It sounds sweet!

      1. Stop opposing smart guns.

        1. No such thing even close right now.

          When you need a gun right now, you cannot risk the chance that the ”safety” mechanism might break, be hacked, or simply not work.

          1. When cops start using them—instead of exempting themselves from being required to carry them—I’ll consider using one.

            They need one more than the hoi polloi do. I don’t ever see myself wrestling with a bad guy, or ever getting my weapon taken from me. They should.

          2. I would not mind seeing cops carrying weapons which are locked or otherwise limited in their use until explicit authority is provided for lethal functionality. Anything that slows down a cop trying to murder someone or someone’s dog is a plus.

            No one except nerds would actually WANT a gun that requires a password to fire, but forcing cops to use sub-standard weapons might reduce the amount of lives altered or terminated by cops with itchy trigger fingers.

            1. “but forcing cops to use sub-standard weapons might reduce the amount of lives altered or terminated by cops with itchy trigger fingers.”

              The NYPD experience points to a resounding not really.

            2. It’s fucked every time when that kind of thing happens… But in growing out of my teenage years and 20s, and reading a lot more on the subject, the truth is most police uses of force are pretty damn justified. Almost every single case of “an innocent black guy murdered for no reason” turns out to have had a lot of reasons. A lot of the anti cop animus is based on left wing anti police propaganda and misreporting of facts.

              I believe cops that genuinely act bad should be crucified, but I think the number of people getting the Jesus treatment when deserved would be a lot less than many people think.

          3. Someday vek will be able to but a smart gun that will acquire a target and fire without human intervention.

            1. We can only hope! A buddy was telling me about some guys who rigged up a drone with a sweet airsoft gun… I imagine just one or two more tweaks and you could be there!

            2. Will it be programed to say “I’ll be back.”

            3. Plot of Winter Soldier.

    2. And George was a saintly kid who never did a bad thing, and certainly was not part of a gang fight.

  5. $250 million, not billion.

    I too fail to see how any libertarian, big or little L, could consider any Democrat or Republican a possible choice. If you’re in a swing state, maybe you consider voting strategically, but even that is a long shot. If you’re going to waste time voting, always vote for the Libertarian candidate, even if it is Gary “bake that cake” Johnson.

    1. Or Justin “support the IC surveillance” Amash in your case.

    2. Thanks for noting the mistake re: billions vs. millions.

      1. A mistake.
        Not the

        1. No, the is correct in the context of re: billions vs. million. You like to misquote things, don’t you?

          1. Lol.
            You missed the point.
            The article is about THIS being the moment Gillespie, supposed libertarian, decided not to vote for Bloomberg.
            The millions vs billions mix up is a minor mistake.
            The major mistake is the entire fucking article and political philosophy of the charlatans at Reason.
            In the fast lane towards becoming CNN (only poorer)

    3. I’ve never voted for an R or D for president, but as I said above there’s simply no contest between them anymore.

      The Rs are shit on plenty of things, especially if you’re a daft mush brained, bleeding heart, left libertarian who believes in unworkable utopian bullshit like true open borders… But the Rs aren’t an existential threat to everything good in this country and the world. The Democrats are. They are against LITERALLY every single ideal this country was founded on at this point. They don’t even support free speech anymore.

      The few things certain types of libertarians align with them on are NOT principles based for them… They’re tactics that they believe will gain them more power, like importing more left wing voters. They don’t believe in principles of open borders, they just know foreigners are all to the left of native born Americans. If the rest of the world became more conservative/libertarian they’d close the borders down STAT!

      So don’t pretend they’re equivalent. Maybe a few decades ago they were equally bad, but not anymore.

      1. Well, we’ve had almost 4 years of Republicans and we have record amounts of debt and deficit spending, a failed and pointless, anti-capitalist trade war, broken promises from the Republican president, and the general mood of the nation and spirit of camaraderie is low.

        Democrats could be worse, but it’s not the apocalypse outside my window, and the Obama years were just as sunny, with many of the same authoritarian problems.

        1. Mood of the nation? Trump had a rally in NEW JERSEY and 100,000 people showed up.

        2. “…the general mood of the nation and spirit of camaraderie is low…”

          Yes, comrade. Tell us of your investments. The number of people you know who are unemployed. How your neighbor with a puddle can still use his yard. And that nice tax cut you got?
          Yeah, comrade, the populace is up in arms all right. Is it the tipping point?
          Stuff it up your butt so your head has some company.

          1. He means “the MSM incessantly reports that the general mood of the nation and spirit of camaraderie is low.” You know, same way they incessantly reported that Cankles was a shoo-in for president.

        3. and the general mood of the nation and spirit of camaraderie is low

          I offer to improve your reading diversity.

          Americans’ Take on the U.S. Is Improved, but Still Mixed

          https://news.gallup.com/poll/284033/americans-improved-mixed.aspx

          Quote:
          WASHINGTON, D.C. — President Donald Trump’s upbeat view of the nation’s economy, military strength, economic opportunity and overall quality of life will likely resonate with Americans when he delivers his State of the Union address to Congress next week. Most Americans say they are satisfied with each of these aspects of the country as 2020 begins.

        4. Bear in mind I said LESS BAD, not perfect.

          The entire Republican party isn’t full of Ron Pauls after all. Can you imagine the world of shit we’d be in with Hillary in charge? We’d have probably started a couple new wars, spent EVEN MORE, the economy would surely be worse, etc etc etc.

          And the mood of the nation is only so bad because 90% of the media is spewing lies that DT is LITERALLY HITLER, and a lot of people are dumb enough to believe them. DT is a 90s style moderate Democrat… The sad thing is in 2020, that’s about as good as it gets.

      2. And the hell of it is that it can’t be blamed solely on the Democrats’ leadership, it’s thru down thru the grass roots. What happened? How did millions of Americans veer so far into authoritarianism?

        The Iron Curtain fell, and it looked like smooth sailing toward a worldwide increase in freedom. With the fall of that curtain, people were able to see what awful results collectivism and authoritarianism had. In addition to all the faults that everyone conceded, they weren’t even efficient.

        In the USA, free enterprise kept bringing us marvels, in general standard of living, and in electronics and medicine. The arts continued to flourish.

        What happened that turned so many into commu-nazis?

        1. The Iron Curtain fell, and it looked like smooth sailing toward a worldwide increase in freedom.

          What happened was that the globalists never lost their thirst for world government, and spent the next 30 years trying to impose it via American economic and military might, versus trying to do so via the empowerment of third world nations, a policy that began after Dag Hammerskold was named the head of the UN.

        2. It’s called propaganda my friend.

          School has been getting further and further left wing in what it teaches for decades. Most people are sheep. Once they get out of school the media and all of Hollywood bombards them with nothing but left wing propaganda, describing anything other than that as evil, stupid, or backwards thinking. Again, most people are sheep.

          The NPC meme is really true. Most people just go with whatever they’re told their entire life. When all you’re told is leftwing drivel, you tend to be left wing.

          The truth is that even conservatives and libertarians have bought into a lot of the lies that leftists have propagated.

          Men and women are equal and the same? Lots of Ls and Rs would agree! But it’s utter bullshit! Every scientific study ever conducted shows HUGE differences in every physical and mental trait between men and women. Sure, there is some overlap in the middle, but there are clear differences on almost everything. Men ALWAYS score better at math, EVERYWHERE in the entire world. Women ALWAYS score better with language skills, EVERYWHERE in the entire world. Do you REALLY think there is a global conspiracy to make women better writers than men, while simultaneously making men better at math, that spans everywhere from Communist China, to London, to small villages in Nigeria???

          No. It’s just that we’re NOT equal in all our skills. That is but one of the many lies even Ls and Rs have bought into.

        3. We left our children in the hands of the state school system, and then we were astonished that we had raised a generation of state worshippers.

    4. But Trump is draining the swamp, man!

    5. Because the Libertarian Party in the USA is bad for the libertarian movement, and should be discouraged as much as possible.

  6. Newspaper works to undermine private funding for a school choice scholarship program because the program includes schools that go against LGBT dogma.

    1. “The banks ended their support for the poor minority children after a harassment campaign by the Orlando Sentinel. The newspaper went after Christian schools in articles accusing them of hating LGBT people due to religious teachings about sex that are shared by the majority of the world’s faithful, including Muslims and Jews. Then the newspaper contacted major donors to the scholarships, including Fifth Third and Wells Fargo, to pressure them into recanting. It worked.”

      1. I gather you are trying to work up outrage against politically correct discrimination against religious parents and schools. But that is the wrong outrage.

        The crime here is not banks doing what they want with their money, or newspapers campaigning for what they want.

        The crime is government having anything to do with running schools. Even if you accept that government must fund schools to make sure poor people get a good education, there is zero justification for governments controlling schools, especially their curriculum.

        1. Hes literally talking about banks pulling non government funded scholarship funds….

        2. The thing about banks is that it’s not their money, its their shareholders and clients.
          Management should not be making or cancelling loans based on their personal sociopolitical peccadilloes or a desire to virtue signal. They can use their own money for that.

          1. They can use their own money as long as they support the correct side.

  7. Nick, you’ve got a typo my man. It’s million, not billion.

  8. Bloomberg is an unabashed capitalist known for supporting laws to prevent consumers from making what he thinks are the wrong choices in the marketplace. This does not compute. I realize we are talking about a NYC politician and a Democrat, so relatively speaking Bloomberg is the nearest thing, but that is not “unabashed”.

    1. Well, what that means is he’s really a fascist. Which seems about right.

      1. I’d say authoritarian, but I could be persuaded that he’s fascist.

        1. Fascist is not well defined for today’s usage but Bloomberg is definitely an authoritarian.

          If we can all agree on a definition for “Fascist”, then that might apply to Bloomberg too.

          1. The fact that we have so many words to describe different kind of tyrants should scare the shit out of people.

            Socialist
            Nazi
            Communist
            Totalitarian
            Authoritarian
            Fascist
            Democrat
            Theocrat
            Monarch
            Dictator
            ….

            1. Control freak, God, Lord, Father, Law Enforcer….

              1. But enough about what your wife calls her boyfriend.

            2. No shit right?

              Authoritarianism is the historical norm though. I really do believe people need a bit of structure, which is why I’m not an anarchist. It’s about going as far towards anarchy as is functional in the real world. That’s the trick.

        2. Bloomberg is this reality’s version of Dr. Cocteau.

  9. How can it shock you that this is the direction he went? Banning guns is all there is to him. It’s his white whale. He didn’t spend his own money to dig people out of the snow before they died when he was mayor, but he has millions to buy the Virginia legislature on gun control. He doesn’t need anyone’s vote, he needs to retire.

    1. This almost seems like Gillespie is unaware of what causes Bloomberg has been supporting since he stopped being NYC mayor. and it jst does not track that he would be that uninformed.

  10. If Bloomberg ever had your vote to lose, you were never in any meaningful sense a “libertarian”. Even Sanders, an outright communist, isn’t as dictatorial in practice as Bloomberg has been.

    And in such petty ways as to demonstrate that he doesn’t merely chose to override individual rights on occasion, but really doesn’t even believe in them in the first place!

    1. As other Reason articles have even pointed out, he’s basically on the wrong side of everything every time. It all comes down to authoritarianism for him on everything. Stop and frisk, gun shit, believing in economic policies that tweak outcomes… It’s all control freak shit.

      About the best things I’ve ever heard about him what that he made some funny sexist comments back in the 90s! He of course apologized/denied they ever happened depending on the incident in question. LAME.

    2. +1000

  11. When you’re picking a candidate, you tend to focus on their positions on various issues and especially the issues that are important to you. But as much as candidates talk about where they stand on the issues and what they would do as President, they’re not running for Speaker of the House, they’re not the main driver of a legislative agenda, it’s not up to them to decide what the government’s going to do. The President is more reactive than proactive, you need to look at their over-arching political philosophy to try and guess what they would tend to do in the face of whatever crises pop up. And every damn one of them tends to answer the same way – more government. Well, Warren tends toward first forming a panel and developing a plan to deal with the problem, but the outcome is still going to be “more government”.

    Warren would be arguably as bad as Sanders, she’s always got to have a plan for everything, she’s a quarterback who can’t audible and that’s the last sort of person you’d trust to be in charge of calling the plays. Sanders reactions would always be the same, let’s eat the rich and steal all their money. Bloomberg isn’t just a nanny-stater, he believes he’s living a perfect life and everybody should be just like him and everything would be perfect, he’s a Bloomie-stater. Joe Biden is just insane, nobody knows what he would do in a crisis but it probably involves getting angrily in somebody’s face, a long rambling story about a giant potato he once saw when he was eight, a challenge to a push-up contest and a three-legged porcupine.

    All of them are just horribly nasty authoritarians who want to run your life and want you to pay for the privilege. They can all go straight to hell.

    1. All of them are just horribly nasty authoritarians who want to run your life and want you to pay for the privilege.

      This x 1000.

      You cannot seriously claim to be libertarian and then support a candidate whose entire reason for seeking office is to control the behavior of the citizenry.

      1. That Nick considered him even as a ‘small L’ is baffling.

        Do people actually think Bloomberg is going to adhere to his own ‘for your own good’ policies? He ain’t gonna stop flying around in a private jet and eating filet mignon I can guarantee you that.

        I’m almost certain he has the mindset of ‘let them eat brioche’ (I acknowledge Marie-Antoinette never said that. Just more revisionism and lies from the left as usual) and wouldn’t give a person the time of day. Just a hunch. Could be wrong.

        Classic ‘do as I say low person and not as I do because I need to do this for all of us’.

        I do think, all that being said, he would likely be ok financially from what I’ve read about NYC. But he’d have to really continue what Trump has done on the national stage.

        Would he do that?

        1. To play devil’s advocate for a moment:

          Nick is arguing, to some extent, that if you have to pick one from a bunch of seriously bad candidates, you want to see if there is any way to discriminate among the bad choices. Woodchippers: head first or feet first?

          In this case, all the top Dem candidates are bad, including Bloomberg, but he might be better than Bernie, Lizzie, Biden, Mayor Pete, and all the others, simply because he is the only one among them who actually believes in capitalism and the good of business.

          Nick isn’t dumb enough to believe his vote actually matters. This article is just pointing out one major difference in all the Dems. Heck, in a business / capitalist sense, you could argue Bloomberg is better than Trump simply because Bloomberg *probably* understands how stupid and counter-productive Trump’s trade war is.

          The mistake Nick makes is dismissing Trump out of hand. Trump has deregulated more than any other President since Carter. He has appointed more and better federal judges. Trump’s a lousy character and a lousy President, but even with all his faults, he’s better than any Democrat in sight, including Bloomberg.

          1. Yeah, that last bit.

            Anybody who values freedom or smaller government cannot possibly support anybody in the Democratic race right now over Trump. He has silly hair, and is a blowhard… But 98% of his policies have been pretty solid.

            Even the ones that bleeding heart pussy libertarians are against, like not letting in illiterate peasants from the 3rd world to mooch off our tax dollars, are in fact good practical decisions, even if you disagree with the morality of it in theory.

            There is not ONE single issue I can think of where ANY Democrat is better than Trump… And they’re waaaaaaaaaaaay worse on basically everything, maybe comparably bad on a couple things.

            1. Marijuana legalization? I don’t think the Democrats are any good on true drug legalization, but several have been more open on weed

              1. Not a single Democrat state has legalized weed. They deregulated weed. At the same time, almost every Democrat state increased regulation of cigarettes and vaping.

                No politician except for Libertarians are for absolute drug legalization.

                While deregulation might normally something to get us in the right direction, it allowed politicians off the hook. The People should have forced the repeal of unconstitutional drug laws like the Controlled Substances Act.

              2. Yeah, I guess. But Trump himself has said he’s basically fine with letting states do their thing. I bet he’d sign a SANE legalization bill too.

                Which is why the one the House passed was batshit crazy, with all kinds of unrelated nonsense thrown in to derail it. They wouldn’t want Trump being remember for ending the war on weed at the federal level.

          2. Sometimes I think the Reason staff are just trolling the commentariat. I think I feel you on Nick exploring why Bloomberg may have value in overall scheme of democratic contendeers. But Bloomberg is a hypocritical tyrant. He’ll ban your guns and soda all while being protected by men with guns.

            1. “Sometimes I think the Reason staff are just trolling the commentariat. ”

              Makes sense.
              They damn sure aren’t trying to advance or promote libertarianism

              1. A conservative in libertarian’s clothing would say that.

                1. “A conservative in libertarian’s clothing would say that.”

                  A brain-dead lefty would post that.

            2. unreason sets up the articles and the unreason sock trolls stir the commentariat to get web traffic numbers up.

              1. Yeah, not like you.

          3. Funny about the last bit. I was going to say something along those lines.

            There have been really good policies and Reason absolutely refuses to acknowledge them.

            Trump is better than Bloomberg. I doubt Bloomberg would touch the stuff Trump has.

            Trump has far more balls and I agree dismissing him outright is unfortunate.

          4. So you’re going to throw out all the deregulation, tax cuts, etc because of s trade war initiated solely due to the bad behavior of other countries? You’re going to double down on that?!? Talk about myopic. You have completely chosen to ignore reality merely so you can claim trump is bad. China was and is a bad actor. Their costs to our industries for theft was more than even the highest estimates in tariffs. Trump used the tariffs exactly as they are intended, to dissuade bad market manipulation from other actors. You really are blind economically. Even some of the leftist economists are finally noting that the retaliatory tariffs seem to be working at least in part.

            You are what TDS looks like.

            1. Everything looks like TDS when you’re in love with Trump.

              1. “Everything looks like TDS when you’re in love with Trump.”

                Everything looks horrible to TDS victims; seek help. You lost.

  12. on Saturday I got a gorgeous Ariel Atom after earning $6292 this – four weeks past, after lot of struggels Google, Yahoo, Facebook proffessionals have been revealed the way and cope with gape for increase home income in suffcient free time.You can make $9o an hour working from home easily……. VIST THIS SITE RIGHT HERE
    >>=====>>>> Detail of work

  13. He is thus nothing less than a walking, talking refutation of the “destroy all billionaires” mindset of Democrats such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

    He might be a refutation if he got nominated, and without groveling. But he is going to grovel, and he is going to lose big time.

    Of course, he’s also a nasty old man with the charisma of an old wet rag and serious hangups about his height.

  14. I’m Canadian and I’m not remotely surprised this is how Bloomberg would introduce himself. Not sure why Nick is.

    I think having some Nurse Ratchet in someone is enough for a reasonable person who believes in the sovereign individual to discount and disqualify such a person.

    Bloomberg swings from Republican mayor to Democratic candidate.

    He has no principles. He follows narratives.

    1. Right? Of all the political causes he has taken on over the years, his anti-gun stance is far and away the one he’s pushed the most. So this should be no surprise.

    2. Bloomberg was a ‘Republican’ mayor because he could not beat the black man, Carl McCall, in the democrat primary for mayor. Authoritarian Jews are not Republicans of any stripe.

      1. Absolutely. Before that race, he was a staunch Democrat.

  15. Articles like these remind all readers how much the east coast monoculture invades the writing at Reason. You can see them just begging for a chance to vote Democrat. Not caring about guns, ignoring authoritarian behavior with a hand waive. Reason needs to get their people the fuck out of d.c. and NYC.

    1. Not really… They just need to fire most of the staff and hire sane people. There are plenty of people who aren’t nuts in those cities.

      I live in a leftist hive mind city, and I’m not a retarded commie. If anything being surrounded by the enemy all day has made me realize just how futile it is trying to convince them of anything. I’m a firm believer that we need to split the country up peacefully or it will come to a civil war eventually.

      1. Lefties don’t want to split up amicably. Lefties need people unlike them to boss around. It will always be take take take with these kinds of people.

        Its Libertarians and Republicans who mostly just want to be left alone. Even Republicans though want government to control some social aspects of life.

        So, the only two real outcomes here are Civil War 2.0 and all Lefties end up dead or banished. OR Lefties are in a minority for national politics, they just accept it, and are fine with winning little city council seats and regional political seats.

        Lefties want to undermine the very fundamental existence of what makes America free and good to live here.

        1. Lefties don’t want to split up amicably. Lefties need people unlike them to boss around.

          Amen. It’s not enough that they have a choice to live their lives as they see fit, they have to have everybody else live the same life to validate the superiority of their choices.

          It’s like their pointing to Sweden as a better example of how we should be here in the US. If you like the Swedish model of the good life, why don’t you just move to Sweden? Wouldn’t that be a much easier way of getting a Swedish-style government and a Swedish-style society? Why would you work so damn hard to transform the US into Sweden when Sweden is already Sweden? Unless the point is you don’t just want Sweden for yourself but Sweden for everybody else as well, of course, and to hell with those of us who prefer America to Sweden, we’re going to get Sweden crammed down our throats whether we want it or not. Especially if not – they prefer it when the victim struggles.

          1. Yup. I frequently tell people that they should move to Canada or Sweden or wherever if they think it’s so much better. I then follow up by telling them that if there were a free country, like the USA used to be, then I would almost certainly move there instead of try to force my views on others here!

            I mean seriously… If you’re REALLY a socialist like that, why WOULDN’T you want to actually move to those places? It’s nuts. If a country like America in 1900 existed I’d book my plane tickets inside of 5 minutes.

            The truth is that parasites always need a host. And they get a kick out of forcing everybody to comply with their “superior” viewpoints.

            I do still hope we can peacefully split up. The truth that most don’t want to admit is that this country is demographically screwed. Nothing resembling the politics of America even a few decades ago will ever return unless we split up and a lot of self sorting between the 2 portions happens. That’s the sad reality. So if that doesn’t happen, then there will probably be a civil war, because I don’t see the sane Americans letting this country turn into a socialist pseudo dictatorship without a fight.

    2. And likewise rural and Southern libertarians might want to undergo some self examination about how much conservatism has leaked into their own views.

      1. As long as the progressivism is excised, it’s all good.

  16. It’s at least a little disturbing that he’s risen as high as fourth in some polls based solely on spending $250 billion on ads.

    Geez, when did Bloomberg blow past Bezos in terms of net worth? 🙂

    1. Those crazy SuperPACs…

  17. I don’t see how a Libertarian could even contemplate voting Democrat in a national election.

    1. In 1984, things were different, and Mondale was basically a protest vote. Reagan carried 49 of 50 states, including all the liberal strongholds. The only state he didn’t take was Mondale’s home state.

      In 2020, the Democrats are openly advocating socialism by name. People are voting for them based on the credibility of their authoritarian threats to implement the Green New Deal and Medicare for All over the objections of the American people and against their will.

      As Democrats become increasingly authoritarian and socialist, it is appropriate for libertarian capitalists to become increasingly Republican, and I too cannot see how a libertarian capitalist can vote for a Democrat in 2020. It isn’t just the candidate either. It’s the Democrats’ leadership in the House and Senate.

      Even IF IF IF Joe Biden is a relative moderate, his party isn’t, and why should we believe that Joe Biden will refuse to move forward with the Democrats’ authoritarian and socialist agenda if and when they take control of the House or senate?

      The answer, my friend, is blowin’ in the wind.
      The answer is blowin’ in the wind.

      1. Yup. I just say this on endless repeat when I’m talking to mostly left leaning idiots in my city. Basically none of these people are Clinton in the 90s or Carter in the 70s, they’re radical, and outright insane on a lot of issues.

        I couldn’t vote back in those times, but I can understand how somebody might have been able to weigh and measure voting for Clinton over Bush Sr or Dole… Obviously Perot was the best choice!

        But it’s just an indefensible position now. The Ds support NONE of the ideals the country was founded on, or any of the principles libertarians believe in. The Rs generally support MOST of the ideals America was founded on, and a lot of libertarian ideals. They’re not as extreme on said issues as most Ls would like… But that just means they need to be pushed to have a spine and vote for radial stuff.

        Taking over the R party is the only hope libertarian ideas ever have at making it into law IMO. Even if it’s just winning the argument on certain issues that would be something.

      2. AOC says the party is right of centre and her fans agree.

        1. AoC couldn’t win an uncontested election outside of her district, and I’m not sure she’ll keep her seat in New York City for long.

          Running on achievements like chasing high paying Amazon jobs away is not a winning strategy–I don’t care how far left the district.

          1. Economics is a HUGE political issue and AOC has not learned that.

            1. Even progressives who don’t understand economics should understand jobs.

              She chased high paying jobs out of a neighboring district, and she bragged about it.

        2. AOC says a lot of nutty things, and her fans disqualify themselves from reality simply by being her fans.

      3. I’m sorry, anyone who thought Mondale was for “less government” or “more responsible government” or whatever you are classifying this JUST BECAUSE HE WAS FOR HIGHER TAXES is a total retard.

    2. Or Republican? Or are those guys OK?

      1. Better than Democrats.

      2. I’m not saying I’ll vote Republican, but I’m sure as hell not voting Democrat. I’m not really into voting for someone I don’t like because he’s better than the other guy, but I will if it keeps a Commie out of office.

  18. “I simply don’t understand why the billionaire would focus on the issue of gun violence in such a high-profile setting.”

    As Donald Trump made plain in 2016, making the media and your fellow Americans talk about you is the way to get elected in the age of social media. On Monday, people will be talking about Superbowl ads that have nothing to do with politics. If he can latch onto some of that and get people to talk about his ad, that will be $11 million well spent. Donald Trump spent almost nothing in 2016 because the media wouldn’t shut up about everything he tweeted or said. Michael Bloomberg wants to be president–in no small part, I gather, because Donald Trump did it, and Bloomberg can’t stand the idea that his New York rival can be president but he can’t.

    So, yeah, he’s emulating Trump’s strategy. Bloomberg is trolling the media. Look at this post. He’s got you talking about him already.

    “I don’t care what you think unless it is about me”

    —-Kurt Cobain

    Bloomberg doesn’t care what you think about or what you talk about so long as it’s about him.

    If somebody in the office brings up Bloomberg’s ad on Monday morning at work, tell them what you think of people who pay attention to political advertising. If you bring it up yourself, you’re carrying water for Bloomberg–whether you realize it or not.

    Madonna wasn’t the first but maybe the most obvious to take Situationist type pranks and use them to further her music career in the mainstream. Here’s Madonna singing about abortion. There’s Madonna experiencing religious rapture at the martyrdom of a black man at the hands of racists . . .

    There’s Michael Bloomberg culture jamming the Superbowl.

    It’s all the same shit.

    One time I was driving down the freeway with the old folks in tow. There was a Godzilla reboot in theaters, and a giant office property had a 20 story plastic wrap on the front of it that made it look like Godzilla was crashing through the building. The old folks wanted to know what that was about. I refused to tell them. I told them that it was advertising intended to make people talk about what they were advertising as people were riding down the freeway, and since I wasn’t being paid by the advertiser, I refused to do their advertising for them–not for free. If they want to pay me to talk about them . . .

    If Michael Bloomberg wants to pay me to talk about his advertising at work on Monday morning, he needs to come up with a figure and call me. I’ll be happy to call him a shithead nanny-bot at work if he pays me. Otherwise, I’m not bringing it up, and if anybody brings it up to me, I’ll tell them that people who pay attention to political advertisements are stupid–without ever uttering his name.

    1. True, all too true. Bloomberg simply wants to be in control. He doesn’t give a rat shit about anything else. Liberty is the antithesis of control. Whether it’s freedom to walk unmolested by cops, to say / eat / drink / ingest what you want, or to protect yourself, your freedom prevents his control.

    2. The Achilles Heal of Lefties is ignoring them.

      As you say Ken ignoring Bloomberg and his gun grabbing message is something to avoid helping Lefties.

      1. My apologies, I accidentally flagged your comment for review.

        1. It happens. unreason’s new website setup is horrible.

  19. Mike Bloomberg never had my vote.

    Because he’s Mike Bloomberg.

    1. Doubt he had ever Gillespie’s, either.

  20. Nick… You’re entirely too predictable.

    Why don’t you just give up on calling yourself a libertarian man? You’re a moderate leftist. You only seem to care about libertarian positions when they line up with your left leaning social policies, but don’t give a shit when it lines up with things that are actually important like gun rights. You’re just a bleeding heart with a little bit more common sense than most of them.

    But pretending to be libertarian, and then being so tone deaf you write stories like this and don’t even realize how you will be lambasted… It’s just too sad to watch. Apply for a gig at The Atlantic or something.

    1. Yeh it was pretty clear during one of those Unplugged sessions with Russell and Dave Smith. Smith was taking more libertarian positions.

      It’s pretty crazy a guy like me who came in mildly purple (a mix of liberal and conservative) ended up being more libertarian over the years after discovering Reason.

      Weird how things shift.

      1. What’s crazy is how somebody like me who has what would have been considered “liberal” opinions on a lot of social issues not even 10 years ago, is now LITERALLY HITLER because I don’t support just how insanely far the left has gone on some of them.

        I was fine with gay marriage before almost any Dems would publicly admit it. Back then I favored calling them “civil unions” to please religious folks while still giving gays the legal rights they should have. But I personally didn’t care.

        But when you start demanding I believe in my heart of hearts than a person born a man is LITERALLY a woman… Because they say so… Sorry dude. Also, biological women deserve to be able to win sports trophies too, and with biological men competing in womens sports this will NEVER happen going forward.

        But totally sane, reasonable positions like those make me a horrible person now. It’s nuts how far the left has gone on some stuff.

        1. Amen. It’s to the point where I am just about ready to wear labels like “racist” and “fascist” with the same pride that I already wear “deplorable.”

          1. I really don’t care anymore.

            On a lot of issues if being able to read statistics, or accepting science for what it actually says, makes me a racist/misogynist/fascist/whatever, I just don’t give a shit.

            I will ALWAYS side with facts over feelz. Our entire world is upside down today mainly because we ignore the facts on a dozen or 2 major issues because they’re not “nice” facts to accept. And making the wrong decisions on those issues is literally destroying civilization. It’s crazy.

        2. hear! hear!

  21. In other news, Bloomberg may well be the least shitty of them all… I think he might at least be a competent authoritarian, which is more than I can say for the rest of them… But being anti gun as his “main” thing for many years, that just makes him a total no go. IIRC some of the others have been slightly less anti gun than him, so I hope they win. Taking the guns could kick off the boogaloo proper, so I don’t want to see that shit any time soon.

    1. I feel like I would rather a incompetent authoritarian than a competent one.

      1. It’s a fair point.

        In truth it all depends… If you think you might have somebody come and go, and eventually swing back to sanity, you want an incompetent one to not get anything done.

        However if you think you might be stuck with such crap for all eternity, it is better to have a competent guy in charge. Sweden, Germany, etc are BIG government countries with a lot of bureaucracy going on… BUT their government is actually fairly efficiently administrated because they’re badass Germans and Swedes and don’t fuck around! Compare that to Italy or Spain where they have comparable levels of government, but poorly implemented.

        If you’re stuck with that BS, you want it done efficiently. I’d of course prefer to never have it in the first place!

      2. I had that same thought 50 years ago. Then I lived through the Carter administration. Stagflation, gas lines, the origin of the modern “Muslim problem,” OPEC, 18% interest rates (super for us debt-free savers, but the entire economy was in the toilet). Now I’m convinced that there is no “better.”

  22. Nick forgets that power hungry Bloomberg forced a change in New York law which got rid of term limits so he can run again. Do not trust people like him who believes he knows what’s best for others.

    1. And then changed it back so that nobody else could do it later. Seriously, what an arrogant dickhead.

  23. I, for one, am happy to see this authoritarian piece of shit spend as much money as he can losing to whatever whacko the Ds try to float as a ‘reasonable’ candidate.
    Hey, Mike? Piss it ALL away, pal!

    1. Mike is the sort of guy who’d expect you to kiss his ring without him asking and be resentful of that citizens don’t respect their betters.

      1. So does he have an account here under the handle Rev somebody or other?

  24. Bloomberg made the city safe for commerce, improved the provision of basic services, and forced positive changes in the public school system. He was nobody’s idea of a libertarian, but he also oversaw an absolutely booming city.

    Give credit where it’s due ,Bloomberg continued Guiliani’s policies. Rudy was term limited, Bloomer bribed the city council to extend his terms. Rudy left you Bloomer, Bloomer left you far left DeBlasio.

    1. Sort of like going from Augustus to Caligula.

    2. I understand he also made the subways run on time.

  25. “keep guns out of the wrong hands”

    So what are the “right” hands, Mike? People who report to you and will shoot down anyone who pisses you off?

  26. On the other hand, as a candidate, he gets preferred advertising rates by law; tell me again how he isn’t just getting cheap lobbying time from debates (where he is supported by ONE, count them ONE donor) and political ads on a bunch of anti-freedom stances.

  27. In the old days mullionaires and bullionaires (Sandersspeak) tried to atone for their robber baron ways by endowing the public with great institutions, schools, libraries, parks, museums,etc*. These days they run for office and expect you to atone for their sins.

    * from wikiDonald Trump then offered mayor Ed Koch to rebuild Wollman Rink at his expense within six months, in return for the leases to operate the rink and an adjacent restaurant to recoup his costs. The final agreement was that the city would reimburse Trump for the costs up to the agreed limit and that he would donate the profits of rink and restaurant to charity and public works. Trump asked his contractors, among them HRH Construction, to also do the work without making a profit, promising them publicity but not mentioning their contributions to the press afterwards. The work was completed two months ahead of schedule and $750,000 under the estimated costs. As part of the agreement to keep operating Wollman Rink, Trump agreed to also take a concession for the Lasker Rink as well, and the Trump Organization won concessions for the rinks in 1987.

    1. +10000

    2. Literally Hitler.

  28. Lost your vote? How, in good conscience, did you ever consider him a viable option?

    1. Because he’s not a libertarian, just a Democrat who doesn’t like parking tickets.

  29. “No one has the right to take your hopes and dreams.”

    Apparently Bloomberg has not bothered to watch his own commercial.

  30. Today is Groundhog Day’s eve. I’m looking forward to the annual Groundhog drop in NYC Feast to follow.

  31. So, you would have voted for a big-government, nanny-state, open-border, tax and spend liberal?!
    Anyone that would even consider it has no business claiming to be even the least bit ‘libertarian’.

  32. I seem to recall his first ads offered nothing other than the claim he could ‘beat Trump’, as if that was all it took to be POTUS.
    Maybe his advisers told him that there were things to do *after* the election (if he won), and this is the least obnoxious program he could honestly claim as his.
    And it still seems that the SB is not the time or place to be pitching gun control.

  33. Remember when Bloomberg sent his taxpayer funded goon squad to harass a guy who dared to question why Bloomy’s can be protected but not average people.

    https://youtu.be/RCC-rEx81PE

    1. Yup. That sounds precisely like something Bloomberg would do.

      And Nick was considering voting for such a shithead?

      It’s like he doesn’t read his own magazine anymore.

  34. “ Especially as I get older, I want to be able to vote for a candidate who might actually win…”

    Why?

  35. Most of successful games running on PC . As you know most most good games are launch in 2020. But in this poin people cannot be decide which one is the best can download and play it.. Today I will talk about the best 5 games in the world in 2020.

    5 Best Action Games for Pc 2020

  36. Most of successful games running on PC . As you know most most good games are launch in 2020. But in this poin people cannot be decide which one is the best can download and play it.. Today I will talk about the best 5 games in the worldn 2020.

    5 Best Action Games for Pc 2020

  37. Even if Bloomberg was pro-gun, he would still be a statist. Earn my vote? Not a chance.

    1. No kidding. He’s the closest thing we’d have to an actual, no-kidding fascist running the country–not the false-duality kind of fascism, which is presented as the far-right opposite of far-left communism, or the “everything to the right of my beliefs is fascism” espoused by intellectually and emotionally stunted college students and the mass media complex. The kind that would centralize direct control of the most mundane aspects of life under the authority of the chief executive, and run roughshod over the other branches if they didn’t fall in line.

  38. I wonder if historians a century from now will peg 2020 as the year the billionaires bought an election. I know that I am somewhat troubled by the prospect of mega-billionaires coolly dumping 5B-6B into their own campaign to get the Oval Office.

    A billionaire won the 2016 election.
    A Trump v Bloomberg in 2020 ensures a billionaire winning
    What happens next in 2024….when the next billionaire steps forward?

    Not really sure if this is a good development or not, but I am wondering how it will affect the trajectory of our history going forward.

    1. On the other hand, the non-billionaire in the 2016 election actually outspent the winner by nearly 2-to-1, IIRC. I am not defending billionaires, but it seems likely that it will take a billion dollars to elect any president, whether the candidate is wealthy or a pauper. In the end, it probably doesn’t make much difference. No doubt there are billionaires who would make decent presidents, and also those who would suck.

    2. Which billionaires? Because you can make a decent argument that Saudi and other Gulf billionaires have been buying our elections for awhile now. I’d say since Bush the Greater, and definitely since the Lesser.

      1. No, I mean billionaires who actually run for POTUS. Not those buying Congress. It is an interesting question to consider. Will they act as ‘Philosopher-Kings’? How does our American Experiment change with that development?

    3. Trump spent half what Hillary Clinton spent, and she had the vast majority of corporate media as unofficial advocates

  39. why every body got so apoltetic.
    regarding gun control, we have it. its why you don’t have stash of hand grenades in your closet. so most gun control advocates want to do away with automatic weapons which can and has killed dozens in a instant.

    the 2nd amendment is ambiguous. we haven’t had militias in 200 years. and of course they were not fortune tellers and could not imagine the killing power of an AK nor it becoming #1 in sales of long rifle. they couldn’t even forsee the handgun.

    so Bloomberg and others want to return to the days of the semi-auto ban, which I will remind every one, the Republic did not fall.

    they only reason its even an issue, which may decide races,it because no one would do anything. So the people speak and they say in poll after poll they want gun control.

    I guess the question is whether libertarians think the opinions of the polity matter?

    Putin/Trump 2020!

    I think what Bloomberg thinks it there is vast number of women who support reasonable gun control measures. there are, they turned out in 2018.

    1. And our police forces today are armed with fully automatic (read real assault weapons)….

      Gun deaths are way down since 74, and when you take into account gun ownership per deaths by race….compared to other nations which allow ownership of guns (Canada, Norway, Switzerland), white deaths are comparable…black and central american ethnicity deaths are high but the factor driving that are drugs…end the war on drugs if you really want to reduce gun murders in the black community.

      I would remind you that there was no “semi automatic” ban..some types of modifications like a pistol grip were banned but semi automatic rifles have been around since 1900 and have never been banned…perhaps you should learn a little more about guns…go to the nearest conservation club and take a gun safety course..

      1. call it what you like , it worked : On Sept. 13, 1994, President Bill Clinton signed an assault weapons ban into law. It barred the manufacture and sale of new guns with military features and magazines holding more than 10 rounds

        studies show deaths per incident from mass shootings declined during 10 years of ban and increased to pre-ban levels after expiration of AWB.

        1. studies show deaths per incident from mass shootings declined during 10 years of ban and increased to pre-ban levels after expiration of AWB.

          Actually, studies showed the AWB had no impact at all on these things. In fact, firearm murders remain far lower than they were during their peak in the early 90s.

          1. clever dodge. we are talking about semi’s not all guns. the issue is control of rapid fire semis that kill in seconds.

            1. You don’t know what “semi” means, do you

            2. clever dodge. we are talking about semi’s not all guns. the issue is control of rapid fire semis that kill in seconds.

              Still applies.

        2. “…studies show deaths per incident from mass shootings declined during 10 years of ban and increased to pre-ban levels after expiration of AWB.”

          Your TDS ate your cites.

        3. No they didn’t. Are you just pulling stats out of your ass?

      2. That clown you’re replying to also believes that fraud/vote harvesting/etc equals anti-gun broads ‘turning out’ in 2018.

    2. ” …we haven’t had militias in 200 years.”

      The “militia,” as defined in the constitution, includes able-bodied men between the ages of eighteen and forty-five years. That is a sizable chunk of the people. The States, Congress, or the President can order those people to report for duty. The fact that most of the States have been negligent since forever in “regulating” the militia (which in this context means “training and equipping” ) is the reason the National Guard was formed. The NG is defined as the “organized” militia, vs the “unorganized militia,” which includes those folks mentioned earlier.

      1. kinda like Obamacare taxes being zeroed out. therefore according to a judge in Texas the whole law is unconstitutional.

        if states have zeroed out their militias it suggests there is no 2nd ammdement need to protect militias. and of course you left out the fact that states have national guards who must adhere to rules of engagement and are subject to codes of military conduct. the national guard is sufficient to the task of enforcing order and I nor most women (aka voters) need a bunch of guys with semi-auto doing anything. and since you object to me and my kind wanting to make sure lunatics can’t buy semi’s at gunshows or from friends, (or more likely cartel members), we will simply call for the banning of all semi’s.

        and no the founders didn’t envision the 6th shooter or glock. Now go out an try go buy a bazooka or grenade launcher. well it seems SCOTUS has agreed you can’t.

        1. the national guard is sufficient to the task of enforcing order

          Begging the question.

          and I nor most women (aka voters) need a bunch of guys with semi-auto doing anything.

          I don’t give two shits about what you and your friends “need”–my rights trump your needs, whore.

          since you object to me and my kind wanting to make sure lunatics can’t buy semi’s at gunshows or from friends, (or more likely cartel members)

          I object to your authoritarian demand to take away my ability to defend myself and my family.

          and no the founders didn’t envision the 6th shooter or glock.

          They didn’t envision the internet, either, and since your side is now claiming that words are violence, I can see why you’re trying to destroy the first amendment as well.

        2. SCOTUS determined in Heller, in agreement with Miller, etc, that those firearms “in common use” are protected. This includes, as specifically stated in Heller, semi-automatic pistols, available and popular since 1911, and probably, semi-automatic rifles (available in the commercial market since 1906) and of which there are probably fifty million in use.

          Fully-automatic firearms, even when easily available, were never in “common use.” This also applies to hand grenades, 105mm howitzers, etc.

          1. I haven’t read Heller so I will trust you about what its says explicitly. I won’t belabor the issue but you did say ‘probabilty’ in relation to autos.

            Sinc we see that SCOTUS is likely to overturn or modify Roe and the ACA has already been ruled unconstitutional by O’Connor in Texas, we can conclude that ‘stare decisis’ is in the eye of the beholder.

            so likely one day a liberal court will come along and reinterpret Heller. will you be as amenable to SCOTUS then?

            R&C’s have been so reactionary on the issue of any kind of gun control that the likely response will be something more draconian than you wish.

            and the R&C or maybe better said the NRA, or maybe better said by bill maher, the 2 lobbyists that represent the NTA, won’t move on anything even in the facet of public opinion. It has been my experience that public opinion usually wins out. Think of it if you will. The issue has advanced so far that a candidate for the D nomination ran a Super Bowl add.

            1. I hope some bashes your head in with a rock

            2. My fault: SCOTUS did not mention rifles of any kind: it was my intention to point out that “in common use” PROBABLY would apply to semi-automatic weapons.

              As far as the ACA being ruled “unconstitutional” in TX: that is neither here nor there, and a single decision by a circuit does not necessarily grant a rehearing by SCOTUS, and certainly not a victory.

              “Amenable” to SCOTUS? SCOTUS clarifies the legality of the law. That is how it works. As of now, forty States have the RKBA as part of their constitutions. That is also the law.

              And, just to clarify, the RKBA which Heller confirmed, was not, in actuality, a 5/4 vote. If one cares to read the dissents, that was the vote against the DC law. Had the question before the judges been ONLY about the RKBA, then the vote would have been, based on the written opinions of the judges, 6/3. That is a serious majority.

              Roe v. Wade is not in any jeopardy of being overturned. IMO. the basis of Roe v Wade is the right to privacy, particularly concerning personal choices about one’s body. And, if “public opinion” has much to say, Roe v Wade is pretty untouchable.

              Supreme’s have backed Roe v Wade with nearly 100% consistency since the ruling on it.

        3. “…kinda like Obamacare taxes being zeroed out. therefore according to a judge in Texas the whole law is unconstitutional…”

          Yes, laws, by law, are unseverable.
          You’re not real bright, are you?

        4. Did you know that the founders allowed private citizens to own FULL SIZED, MILITARY GRADE CANNONS??? Of course you didn’t.

          You know why? Because they thought the citizens should be as well armed as the government. That’s why. And they should. Because one tyrant taking over could kill more people than every murder spree in the history of the country times 1,000.

          So fuck right off.

        5. Buy your own damn bazooka, you farking idiot.

          $999.

          https://www.gunsamerica.com/925099523/M20-BAZOOKA–999-00.htm

          Anybody hear SCOTUS shrieking? I hear crickets.

        6. The National Guard is specifically NOT the militia.

          10 U.S. Code § 246. Militia: composition and classes

          (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

          (b) The classes of the militia are—
          (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
          (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

    3. most gun control advocates want to do away with automatic weapons

      This is true, and I think we could make a good compromise by first agreeing to ban the high-capacity automatics that can be fitted with the magazines that carry 30-round clips in the chamber. Nobody needs that many shells to kill a deer.

      But, then again, there are some gun control advocates that don’t actually know what the hell they’re talking about.

      1. jerry , you giveth and you taketh away. ‘some gun control advocates’ simply want a lot of gun control , just like some on the Right want no controls. the difference I would guess, from my personal experience of knowing people. is that the folks who want controls have experienced gun violence. and the one that have not experienced gun violence see it a lot more abstractly.

        I know 6 people killed by legal handguns. one at the hand of her husband. in fact all were domestics in one form or fashion and all would love to have their lives back.

        1. I know 6 people killed by legal handguns. one at the hand of her husband. in fact all were domestics in one form or fashion and all would love to have their lives back.

          So you live in a ghetto? Because if you’re around that much violence, considering the actual odds of someone killing you with any kind of firearm, perhaps the problem isn’t the availability of guns but the people who are getting them.

          1. Maybe they’re an ER nurse at that one hospital where all the GSWs go to? Otherwise? Yeah, you need to move.

            Assuming the poster wasn’t just completely making it up.

            1. Seems he has all sorts of ‘evidence’ and not a bit of evidence.

          2. not that you deserve an answer, but no, most on the list were middle to upper middle class. the women killed by her husband was a lawyer. he got drunk and mad and pulled a pistol out of the dresser drawer. they were fighitn over shit. he simply got too drunk and got angry over nothing. He regrets it, or at least his life sentence. So he says. She is silent on her death. Her family was devasted. Still are.

            another guy was the father in law who was killed by the son in law because of child custody issues. he regretted it every day. he did 10 years. that was in the days when sentences weren’t so draconian and he was middle class and white. so he did good in prison , got out , made a good life. but for the gun he had easy access too his father in law would still be alive. and according to the daughter/wife he very much liked his life.

            should I go on, or do you get the idea?

            1. wait I got one more: one of the killers I knew , pretty dam well, was the son of District Court Judge. Now he was a psychopath and couldn’t pass any red flag test . It was so bad that the son of a district court judge was convicted and sentenced to death. That takes some maliciousness. He got out on a technicality. Given his psycopahty I doubt he muched cared about the victim. But I can assure his girlfriend’s family , the girl he killed with a handgun, took it pretty hard.

              I will keep at it to see if any of the 6 were from the lower classes or maybe even black. off the top of my head I would say no.

              1. You’re a lying liar who lies, and can’t even keep the gender straight on their sockpost handle. I don’t believe you even have six friends, much less know six people who died because of legally owned handguns.

                Even if you did, your great misfortune does not matter when you want to take my rights away. My firearms haven’t killed anyone. Nor will they.

                If you’re willing to learn facts about firearms, the laws that regulate their ownership and use, there are plenty of people here who can help. Hell, it’s impossible to get a gun nut to shut up once they start going on about their hobby.

                But you’re simply a bad troll, willfully ignorant, with the poor English that’s typical of a troll, and it’s been a waste of my time to engage even this much with you.

              2. I will keep at it to see if any of the 6 were from the lower classes or maybe even black

                I know 6 people killed by legal handguns.

                Wait, you “know” these people but you’re not sure of their background or even their race? Now we know you’re lying.

              3. You know how drunk idiots kill their wives in the UK? They beat them to death. Stab them. Hit them with a hammer. And so on.

                If you adjust out for minority gang murders in the USA (which are well over half) we have a comparable murder rate to anywhere in Europe or Asia. So fuck off.

            2. I get the idea that you’re defined by the company you keep

            3. This all reeks of shitthatdidnthappen.

            4. So if he’d just caved in her skull with a lamp and she died, would you be here calling for lamp controls?

        2. I’ve actually known a couple people who were murdered. Both were pretty decent people. But I don’t want to ban guns.

          I’ve known a lot more people who died from car accidents, and I don’t want to bad cars either.

          London has a higher murder rate than NYC as of the last few years… Few guns are used there. People who want to kill will find a way.

          1. they actual progressive position is 100% gun sale registration and ban of semi’s and auto’s

            there is currently an 80% registration. seems 80% of all gun buyers are happy to be vetted. what does that say about the other 20%.

            1. “”there is currently an 80% registration.””

              Registration of what?

              NYS now requires owners of AR-15s to register them with the state. They have less than a 5% compliance rate.

            2. You’re wrong… There is basically zero % “registration” in the USA. Maybe you mean the % that goes through background checks? Any which way, letting the government have a list of everybody with a gun is a bad idea. If a tyrant ever comes to power you want people to have those guns off the books.

              I don’t think universal background checks work… But as long as records are destroyed afterwards, they’re not the worst thing in the world.

              Banning semi autos is COMPLETELY unacceptable. They’re the best guns for self defense, used in the fewest crimes (if one means semi auto rifles), and might be needed to overthrow a tyrannical government or dissuade a foreign invasion someday. So NO, I will be keeping my AR thank you.

      2. “”most gun control advocates want to do away with automatic weapons””

        Most gun control advocates don’t know the difference between a semi-auto and a full auto.

        1. I would love to buy a full auto someday… But they’re so hard to come by and expensive. And the paperwork and whatnot is a nightmare.

          We should repeal that shit law Reagan passed and make full autos legal again!

    4. they couldn’t even forsee the handgun.

      Hahaha, what the fuck is this happy horseshit. You really think there weren’t handguns during the late 1700s? Jesus Christ, they were an integral part of cavalry attacks going back to the use of wheellock pistols in the caracole.

      A wheellock pistol is a handgun, you stupid pustule.

      Since you can’t even get this basic shit right, there’s no need to take the rest of your limpout at face value.

      1. Don’t tell him they made pocket pistols back then. He would probably shit his pants knowing concealable firearms existed 200 years ago.

        1. It’s clearly a woman socking as a guy–this was the tell:

          and I nor most women (aka voters) need a bunch of guys with semi-auto doing anything.

          Just another terrified liberal bobblehead using her fear to justify further government authoritarianism.

          1. Meh, dudes think they can be chicks and vice versa nowadays. Maybe Ze identifies as trans.

            1. There is no gender among progressives
              They’re all bitches

    5. “”the 2nd amendment is ambiguous.””

      “”the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.””

      Nothing ambiguous about that. Unless you can’t define infringed.

      1. heh check this out: I took 2nd amendement out of context and so came up with this interpretation

        “the people shall not bear(or bare) * right ”
        meaning the people should not lean right politically? or steer to the right?
        hell even the word ‘bare’ is subject to intereptaion.

        of you can do as most scholars do and read the 2nd amendment in the context of the times, you know, muskets and single shot cannons . He’ll they hadn’t even invented the Bowie knife yet or they might have made mention of that.

        1. A job being necessary to a prosperity of a free state, the right of the people to own a car shall not be infringed.

          Do you think that means only people with a job have a right to own a car?

        2. “”of you can do as most scholars do and read the 2nd amendment in the context of the times, you know, muskets and single shot cannons “”

          Why would we read it in that context when other amendments are not confined to it? Do scholars claim TV, radio, internet, ect are not covered by the 1st?

          1. if you don’t want to constrain yourself to the originalist reading, that is militas in colonial America who by an large owned no guns, then you make a strong argument that the 2nd Amendment can be interpreted really any way you like. I argue that it can and will be re-interepted in the context of rapid fire semi and auto guns that kill lots of people in a hurry and will be banned or severely controlled.

            like I said the extremist position will lead to regulation you really can’t stand.

            1. militas in colonial America who by an large owned no guns

              This myth from “Arming America” was found to be unfactual way back in 2002. Try to keep up.

            2. The people’s right to bear arms shall not be infringed is not extremist.

              The idea that a right can be relegated to cover only what it did in 1792 is a stupid argument that pays zero attention to the concept of freedoms in the long term.

            3. And everyone has the freedom to use a broadsheet moveable-type printing press to disseminate their views, just like the Founders intended when they wrote our Bill of Rights. The 1st Amendment clearly doesn’t apply to TV, movies, the Internet, telephones…

              Makes the same amount of sense, doesn’t it?

              The Founders, having just completed the War for Independence (read the Declaration of Independence), recognized that the new government they were creating could sooner or later become despotic like ol’ George III and need to be overthrown. They enshrined the 2nd Amendment specifically to provide the people the ability to counter-balance the government’s ability to raise an army that might be used to oppress the people.

              A “free state” is protected from despotic federal government through the presence of a well-trained (regulated) armed citizenry, with understanding that well-armed irregulars can defeat an army (American Revolution as an existence proof).

            4. Any which way you want to slice it, I AM a member of the militia legally in the USA. So I’m good to go. I guess chicks and old dudes might not qualify, but I’m still a militia aged male, so I get to keep my shit!

              Although obviously that interpretation is BS, even under that most gun owners are in the clear.

  40. I think Nick and Matt to some extent are not really libertarians but like to play the “libertarian” for the cosmo elites/media. You get invited to the best parties of liberals, get on CSPAN and make a living when the mainstream media needs an “alternative” but very safe view. I recall seeing Nick on I think CSPAN in a black leather coat and offering a different view on current political events (this was the late 80’s). The greatest growth of libertarian movement was with Ron Paul..who is obviously considered too “low class” for Reason. Federal Reserve and Monetary Policy…nope can’t discuss that…deficits..only if Reason can blast the GOP. A foreign policy of nonintervention from Reason..well maybe..it’s conditional on globalist needs. Undoing the worst entitlement programs and 60’s legislation? Nope not gonna touch that.

    But you get go to the best parties in DC

  41. Gillespie discredits himself with the suggestion that Bloomberg ever had his vote to lose.

    1. Hey Nick,

      I’m wondering if there are going to be any gushing hagiographies about Rand Paul in the next Reason magazine.


      Senator Rand Paul
      @RandPaul
      ·
      Jan 30
      My question is not about a “whistleblower” as I have no independent information on his identity. My question is about the actions of known Obama partisans within the NSC and House staff and how they are reported to have conspired before impeachment proceedings had even begun.
      7K
      21K
      51.4K
      Show this thread

      Senator Rand Paul
      @RandPaul
      ·
      Jan 30
      and are you aware and how do you respond to reports that [redacted] and Misko may have worked together to plot impeaching the President before there were formal house impeachment proceedings. 2/2

      Redactions mine.

      I wonder how you guys feel about a Senator naming a public official for political purposes. There’s a funny thing I’ve observed with people who claim to be libertarians. Once they get power they pretty much act as the biggest authoritarians for an undemocratic government. Funny that.

      1. Rand Paul only gets coverage here when he does something right or gets punched.

      2. It’s Eric Ciaramella–you know, the same guy that Schiff published in one of the inquiry-related document leaks he sent out.

      3. “I wonder how you guys feel about a Senator naming a public official for political purposes.”

        How do you feel about an official making anonymous accusations for political purposes?

        1. P.S. Why is this guy always telling us about his feelings?

  42. BLOOMBERG IS GOING TO TAKE AWAY OUR GUNS— JUST LIKE OBAMA!!! AAARRGGGHHH!!

    1. The idea that we shouldn’t worry about President Bloomberg taking away our guns because Barack Obama didn’t take away our guns has some serious logical issues.

      One of them is that the Republicans controlled one of the two chambers of Congress for six of Obama’s eight years in office, and two first years when that wasn’t true, Obama spent all of his political capital pushing through Wall Street reform and ObamaCare.

      Another one is that, as the Heller decision demonstrates, is that the biggest threat to our Second Amendment rights, aside from public opinion turning against them, is that the president will use his power to appoint Supreme Court justices that will interpret the Second Amendment to mean whatever the hell they want it to mean. Trump’s appointments of Gorsuch and Kavanaugh probably offset Obama’s appointments of Sotomayor and Kagan, but the next president will presumably be able to make at least one appointment when RBG finally kicks the bucket–and if a libertarian is concerned about his gun rights depending on who is sitting in the Supreme Court after the next mass shooting, he might rationally decide to vote against someone like Bloomberg, who is likely to cite the appointment of an anti-gun zealot as a promise kept on gun control.

      There are other problems with your logic, too. If Barack Obama didn’t keep his promise to violate our Second Amendment rights, that’s no reason to assume that Bloomberg is lying about what he intends to do. It just doesn’t make any sense.

      I suspect maybe you were just emoting, here, telling us how you feel, like a woman coming home from work and telling you about her day. You should know that the rest of us aren’t necessarily all about emoting around here. There are these things called “facts” and “logic”, and if you never get your head around why they’re important, don’t be surprised if you keep getting a place set for you at the kid’s table.

    2. You think Obama didn’t WANT to do just that?

      And that Bloomberg WOULDN’T tryto do so, given at least a 1-in-4 chance of getting it pushed through?

    3. You’re an idiot. If they could, they would. But first you have to weaken the 2A. What do you think these pieces of shits are doing?

      You think Beto didn’t express what every left-wing Democrat thinks inside but won’t say out loud because they’re cowards?

      OF COURSE they want the guns.

      The old adage the government shouldn’t know where the guns are has to be dismantled.

      Get a clue about human nature and history already.

    4. EVEN WORSE HE’S TAKING AWAY YOUR RED STAPLER!

      (snort) (sneer) (SNIVEL) (shart)

  43. In a Democratic field filled with ultra-lefties such as Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, both of whom want to regulate the hell out of the economy,

    Yeah, except for abortion rights, gay marriage, drugs, the right to die, prostitution and the fact that they don’t want to subsidize oil companies by rushing the fucking army into any place that decides to nationalize an oil well Bernie and Warren are terrible!

    1. “They don’t want to subsidize oil companies by rushing the fucking army into any place that decides to nationalize an oil well Bernie and Warren are terrible!”

      Where did they stand on President Trump withdrawing our troops out of harm’s way in Syria?

      Where did they stand on Trump’s coordination of anti-Assad rebels with Putin’s pro-Assad rebels to defeat ISIS in Syria–without U.S. intervention?

      Last week, pro-Iranian Houthi rebels in Yemen launched a series of missile attacks on Saudi oil production facilities, but all the missiles were shot down using military hardware President Trump approved for sale to the Saudis–over the emotional objections of the left in the aftermath of the Khashoggi killing.

      Where did they stand on approving the sale of military hardware to Saudi Arabia?

      Or were you just telling us about your feelings again?

      1. Last week, pro-Iranian Houthi rebels in Yemen launched a series of missile attacks on Saudi oil production facilities, but all the missiles were shot down using military hardware President Trump approved for sale to the Saudis–over the emotional objections of the left in the aftermath of the Khashoggi killing.

        Yeah well that same military aid to Saudi Arabia also led to this:

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabian-led_intervention_in_Yemen#Reports_of_war_crimes

        Millions of dead Yemenis probably would have supported the idea of the US not selling weapons to the Saudis, regardless of the motivation.

        1. First, it takes a real low-watt bulb to cite Wiki, but then you certainly qualify for that; I’m guessing 15 watts or less.
          And then the cite spend most of the copy on 2015. You know, a ayear before Trump was elected.
          Maybe 5 watts is closer…

          1. How dare I point out something questionable that Trump did.

            You’re totally right, all those Saudi bullets suddenly became non-lethal on November 8, 2016. It’s all Obama’s fault. Every single bullet.

            1. You know what’s questionable?

              Expecting the United States not to do what’s in the best interests because the Saudis aren’t acting in the best interests of third parties.

              By that logic, the Nazis might have completed the holocaust in Central and eastern Europe and Imperial Japan might have ethnically cleansed Manchukuo–all because you wouldn’t work with Stalin because he perpetrated war crimes against civilians.

              1. You know what’s really questionable?

                Compromising one’s anti-war anti-interventionist principles for the sake of an orange-haired baboon.

                1. “You know what’s really questionable?
                  Compromising one’s anti-war anti-interventionist principles for the sake of an orange-haired baboon.”

                  What’s pathetic is watching some lefty ignoramus shove goal posts all over and suggest others made claims they never did, lefty ignoramus.

                2. Yeah, real principle is crying about a college getting cornholed for trying to cancel a local business.

                3. “Compromising one’s anti-war anti-interventionist principles for the sake of an orange-haired baboon.”

                  One of the problems with this statement is that President Trump is the one leading the anti-war, anti-interventionist cause, and his Democrat opponents keep criticizing him because of it.

            2. “How dare I point out something questionable that Trump did.
              You’re totally right, all those Saudi bullets suddenly became non-lethal on November 8, 2016. It’s all Obama’s fault. Every single bullet.”

              Did you expect him to magically make the bullets sent by Obama to become non-lethal?
              Seek help; you badly need it.

        2. The war crimes you’re citing were perpetrated in 2015. Donald Trump didn’t take office until 2017.

          “On May 20, 2017, U.S. President Trump and Saudi Arabia’s Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud signed a series of letters of intent for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to purchase arms from the United States totaling US$110 billion immediately,[1][2] and $350 billion over 10 years.[3][4] The intended purchases include tanks, combat ships, missile defense systems, as well as radar, communications and cybersecurity technology.”

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_United_States%E2%80%93Saudi_Arabia_arms_deal

          The missiles that were fired at Saudi oil production facilities by Houthi rebels last week were shot down by the missile defense systems we sold them. Those missile defense systems were not utilized to perpetrate war crimes against Yemeni civilians.

          Meanwhile, the point still stands: criticizing President Trump for using the U.S. military to defend Middle Eastern oil is absurd, when he’s armed the Saudis to defend their own oil production facilities–specifically so we won’t have to do so.

          Were you trying to suggest that the United States should invade Yemen or defend Saudi oil fields ourselves–to make sure there aren’t any war crimes? In addition to being absurd, that argument is also stupid. If it’s in the best interests of the United States to arm the Saudis so we don’t need to defend the world’s oil supply–regardless of whether the Saudis perpetrate war crimes and don’t honor gay marriage, then that’s what’s in the best interests of the United States to do.

          Regardless, the criticism of President Trump’s policy of using the U.S. military to safeguard the Middle East’s oil supply is stupid because President Trump has done everything he can to get us out of that job in the Middle East, and that’s why the neocons in both the Democratic Party and the Republican party hate him. The only reason anyone would criticize Trump for a policy of using the U.S. military to defend the Middle East’s oil supply is because they’re ignorant of the facts.

          1. Maybe, the US shouldn’t be selling weapons to the Saudis at all. Maybe the US shouldn’t be getting entangled in what the Saudis do or don’t do. I thought this was the libertarian ideal, right Ken? Why should I compromise on this ideal for the sake of Trump?

            Regardless, the criticism of President Trump’s policy of using the U.S. military to safeguard the Middle East’s oil supply is stupid because President Trump has done everything he can to get us out of that job in the Middle East

            By selling more weapons to the Saudis. Right.

            Pull your head out of your ass, Ken. Trump is no better than Obama when it comes to the Saudis.

            1. “I thought this was the libertarian ideal, right Ken? Why should I compromise on this ideal for the sake of Trump?”

              There was an assertion made that Trump’s is about using the U.S. military to protect the world’s oil supply, and if you’re the kind of person who defends false narratives and lies because of some greater good, then maybe you should try to figure out why. The chances of me knowingly using lies for some greater good is pretty much zero.

              1. Trump is selling the Saudis all sorts of military equipment, some of which is used to shoot down missiles, but some of which is also used to murder and starve Yemenis. It’s a package deal, Ken. I’m not in favor of the US being complicit in starving an entire nation no matter how many missiles the Saudis shoot down. You either want the US to stop being the world’s arms salesman or you don’t.

                1. So you have to response to Ken’s points? Instead, you try to cover your idiocy with the gown of pacifism?
                  Fuck off, you pathetic piece of shit.

                2. You haven’t shown that any of it was used to murder or starve Yemenis; however, if it were in the best interests of the United States to sell military hardware to the Saudis–despite how they used that hardware against Yemeni civilians–then that would still be the best interests of the U.S. anyway.

                  It was in the best interests of the U.S. to make a military alliance with Joseph Stalin–to defeat the Nazis and chase the Japanese out of Manchuria–regardless of how the Soviets treated civilians while they were doing so. It not only helped defeat the Nazis and the Imperial Japanese, it also saved the lives and taxes of millions of American citizens. If you’re oppose to alliances or policies that are in the best interests of the United States–because of the way they impact third parties–then you should own that. If you would rather see the U.S. suffering hundreds of thousands more casualties than make an alliance with Stalin, you should be proud of that fact.

                  Meanwhile, neither of the Democrat candidates for president nor the Republican are arguing that we should leave the world’s oil production facilities open to attack from Iran and their proxies without any defense. None of them are arguing that the Saudis shouldn’t be allowed to retaliate against Iran and their proxies for attacking Saudi oil facilities because civilians might be hurt. That’s just something you made up. The alternative to Trump selling hardware to the Saudis isn’t the Democrats withdrawing from the Middle East completely. The alternative to President Trump’s pragmatism is neonservatism, which is why they criticized him for withdrawing our troops from harm’s way in Syria.

                  Now you’re defending the lie that President Trump is using the U.S. military to defend Saudi’ oil fields, when he’s actually working harder than any president since 9/11 to avoid such commitments. Because reality has a libertarian bias, libertarians don’t need to lie about anything. If you’d only wanted us to believe that President Trump is a neocon warmonger because you’re ignorant of the facts, that would be better. Openly advocating lies because of the effect you want them to have is far worse. It exposes you.

                  The reason you feel compelled to lie is because your ideas are untenable without them.

            2. “Maybe, the US shouldn’t be selling weapons to the Saudis at all.”

              Maybe you should not lie as constantly as you do so you don’t have to change the subject when you’re called on it.

        3. “Yeah well that same military aid to Saudi Arabia also led to this”

          Time Lord.

          President Trump must be a Time Lord.

  44. Gun control is the ‘go to’ issue for Democrats and that’s why Bloomberg chose this particular commercial. It requires no thinking- who could be against Sensible Gun Laws™?

    1. I know you’re being sarcastic, but the answer is: any person who likes the Constitution the way it is. The entire point of the second amendment is that the federal government does not have the authority to legislate about arms. Period.

  45. Used an M1 Carbine to put many holes in innocent pieces of paper yesterday afternoon.

    Fuck you Bloomberg!

    1. They are nice. One of the easiest guns ever to shoot, and shoot reasonably accurately and quickly.

      Readily available by the barrel full after WW2, essentially the same as an AR from a portable firepower perspective, available for purchase in any sporting goods store without background check, age check, or criminal history check. (Yeah, the 5.56, 30 rd AR is better, but it’s not THAT much better.)

      And yet no school shootings, and very few mass shootings in that pre-1970 era. Huh, weird.

      1. The M1 Carbine is MORE deadly than an AR on a per round basis. I’ve had idiots who know nothing about guns tell me that I’m wrong that your typical deer hunting gun is more deadly than an AR… When I explain that the military chose a smaller, weaker round because guys could carry more ammo on longer patrols, and that it’s arguably better to wound than kill in a war, they just refuse to accept reality.

        There are various .30 cal guns that take mags, and they’re all more deadly than an AR in most situations… But stupid people gonna be stupid.

        1. .30 Carbine cartridge, fired out of a carbine, is a 110 grain bullet moving around 2,000 fps at the muzzle, when fired out of the M1 Carbine’s 18 inch barrel. KE is not quite a 1,000 foot-pounds.

          M855, or use M193, it’s not going to matter for this purpose, uses a 62 grain bullet, moving around 3150 fps at the muzzle—and this varies a lot on the barrel length. KE is about 1250 foot-pounds.

          So even on a KE basis, the 5.56 is nastier. But due to the fact that .30 Carbine won’t usually frag, but that the 5.56 will ‘often’ frag, and change that to ‘nearly always’, depending on the load and impact velocity, the permanent wound cavity for 5.56 is a lot bigger than the one for .30 Carbine.

          5.56 makes bigger holes than the .30 Carbine bullet, despite the smaller diameter. Large deer hunting cartridges like the .270, and 30-’06, that have bigger expanding bullets than 5.56, and often are near 5.56’s MV, make even bigger holes.

          Change the .30 Carbine from GI ball to a round nose bullet that will expand, and things get sportier.

          1. Yeah, well the carbine was of course a weaker round than “full sized” .30 cal. I actually always thought the M1 Carbine used a normal .30-06 like the M1 Garand, but discovered it was a shorter round when reading stuff online awhile back.

            So while the M1 Carbine is close to possibly less powerful, just about any other .30 caliber weapon will leave 5.56 in the dust. Hence most deer hunting rifles are more deadly.

  46. If all his prior Fascist Authoritarianism hadn’t turned you off, you’re a garbage human P.O.S.

    1. But… he did it for only a dollar! That’s one hell of a deal today.

      1. I’m so excited at the prospect of more central fascism, brought to us ad-free by Bloomberg.

  47. I find it alarming that you would potentially vote for Bloomberg.

  48. “Bloomberg has succeeded incredibly in the private sector and unlike his fellow billionaire Donald Trump, his wealth isn’t based on working political connections, getting tax breaks, and pursuing eminent domain grifts.”

    Dear Author,
    You are clearly ignorant, clueless and deranged. Please don’t vote. You’re too stupid to do so responsibly.

    Sincerely, Two-Brain-Cells-In-Need-of-a-Home

  49. Bet that drug warriors age 15 to 19 are included in “children” number?

  50. Trump is the most effectively libertarian president since the 1980s. Maybe even the 1920s.

    Also the least warlike President.

    Gillespie discounts it all (or at least most of it) for the sake of people who want to sneak across the border. And because bad feels.

    1. Trump lacks a spine. His initial dovish nature was probably because he had qualms about ordering the deaths of people. He’s a pussy grabber; not the kind of sociopath that typically pursues the presidency. That has apparently become less of a factor, or he’s allowing others in his admin to set foreign policy.

      Trump could claim an economic victory with his tax cuts and deregs, but the Trade War spoils that. He is effectively anti-liberty and not remotely libertarian.

      1. Facts disagree with you. His governance has been more libertarian than other Presidents, even counting the trade war as a negative.

        1. His governance has been more libertarian than other Presidents

          You mean, maintaining the welfare state status quo? That counts as “libertarian” now?

          1. Versus other presidents? Which President ended the welfare state? None.

            1. You know, I disagreed a lot with W., but at least he made an attempt to reform the entitlement state. What did Trump do? Not only did he not make an attempt, but he has zero interest in reforming it or changing it at all.

              When it comes to entitlements, George W. Fkn Bush is more of a libertarian than Trump is.

              1. “When it comes to entitlements, George W. Fkn Bush is more of a libertarian than Trump is.”

                Pick them cherries, you pathetic piece of shit.

                1. How dare I point out that Trump isn’t the Libertarian Jesus that some here hilariously claim that he is.

                  1. “How dare I point out that Trump isn’t the Libertarian Jesus that some here hilariously claim that he is.”

                    Picking cherries and then using them to ‘prove’ a claim is pointing out that you are full of shit, ‘tard.
                    And then dragging in a strawman just compounds the stupidity.
                    Did you think I wouldn’t check to see what a fucking ignoramus you prove yourself?

              2. Not that anything will probably come of it, but Trump HAS talked about reforming some of the big programs… And he has made a number of modest tweaks to different welfare programs.

                So there ya go retard.

                Not that Trump is a libertarian, but I think if he had a magic wand he would massively alter/abolish a lot of welfare programs. He’s being sued at every step even for the minor stuff though, so whatever he manages to get through will be an improvement over now.

              3. Trump has tried a number of welfare reforms, most recently SNAP changes and the SCOTUS decision to allow expanding the “public charge” limitation on immigrants’ eligibility. Pretty much every single time he makes a proposal he gets dragged into court or opposed by Congress. But it’s not entirely for a lack of trying, even it’s not a primary effort for him.

        2. His governance has been more libertarian than other Presidents

          Trump is closer to a libertarian than other presidents the same way I am closer to the moon when I stand on my rooftop.

          1. Yes, it is only factually true.

      2. StackOfCoins
        February.2.2020 at 6:59 pm
        “Trump lacks a spine…”

        You lack a brain; take your TDS and fuck off.

        1. This TDS runs both ways. It’s okay to approve of some of Trumps actions and still recognize the man for the fool he is.

          1. StackOfCoins
            February.2.2020 at 7:32 pm
            “This TDS runs both ways.”

            TDS victims continue to make that claim absent any evidence.

  51. “Now we’ve got a dog in the fight!”

    *Michael Vick stops his walk to the bathroom and looks back at the tv*

  52. The 2020 race doesn’t yet have a major-party candidate who offers a compelling, optimistic, and realistic vision of an economically vibrant and socially tolerant nation. Instead we have, on the one hand, an incumbent president who can barely go a few hours without picking fights and signing off on massive spending increases, trade barriers, and immigration restrictions.

    Really?

    So you’ve missed the fact that Trump’s “trade barriers, and immigration restrictions” have lead to a vibrantly growing economy, one where the lower end of the economic spectrum finally gets to take part?

    And you’ve missed the fact that Trump is “picking fights” with the socially intolerant, cancel culture pushing, racist “identity politics” pushing Left?

    It’s amazing what you can miss, when your’e willfully blind

    1. Trump’s “trade barriers, and immigration restrictions” have lead to a vibrantly growing economy

      Hmm. Not sure if the cause and effect is clear cut in this case.

    2. Trump is lucky to be President right now, when the economy is very steadily chugging along. Thinking about where we could be right now without Leviathan slowing everything down brings me close to tears.

      1. ‘Trump is lucky to be President right now, when the economy is very steadily chugging along.’

        TDS is widespread and causes mental issues as you see here.
        ————————————-
        “…Thinking about where we could be right now without Leviathan slowing everything down brings me close to tears.”

        Fortunately, Obo is gone and the hag (and you) lost, so we got someone who had managed to step back and let business proceed.
        And thne we have fucking idiots like you.

        1. How is Trump responsible for the modest economic growth we’re experiencing right now? How does the trade war benefit the economy? That Trump is less awful than the last clown does not make him a good administrator.

          1. The same people who give credit to Trump for the economy are of course the same ones who declared that the president isn’t responsible for the economy when Obama was in charge.

            1. “The same people who give credit to Trump for the economy are of course the same ones who declared that the president isn’t responsible for the economy when Obama was in charge.”

              Jeff, your constant bullshit makes you an oh, so easy target; you lie and don’t bother to make it subtle at all:
              “The Obama economy in 10 charts”
              […]
              “One of the biggest criticisms of Obama’s economy is that growth has been sluggish. Historically, the U.S. economy has expanded 3% or more a year, on average.
              The Great Recession was a meat-cleaver on the economy. Since then, the U.S. has struggled to grow at much more than 2% a year under President Obama.”
              https://money.cnn.com/gallery/news/economy/2017/01/06/obama-economy-10-charts-final/3.html
              (notice the source is that notorious center of Trump cheer-leading)

              1. Okay I take it all back.
                You’re an idiot who thinks that one man has so much power that he can control and direct a $20T national economy.

                1. This from the same guy who was crying upthread about him starting the Saudi-Yemeni war.

                  1. Before he was elected! What a GUY!

                  2. You are lying. I never said he started the Saudi-Yemeni war.

                    1. Oh, that’s right, you said he’s responsible for the Saudis committing war crimes (let’s not mention the Houthi war crimes, though that would be uncouth).

                2. “Okay I take it all back.”
                  You should, since you’ve done nothing other than sling bullshit.

                  “You’re an idiot who thinks that one man has so much power that he can control and direct a $20T national economy.”
                  Like this ^.
                  Wanna be taken seriously? Here’s what you’ll need to do:
                  Spend the next ten years learning how to think. And then another ten years reading enough to know what to think about.
                  Or longer; you’re starting from a BIG hole.

            2. It’s true that presidents don’t have much to do with the economy, but we had no issues with blaming Obama for the economy.

              Trump isn’t some sort of economic genius, but I think it’s safe to say he got in the way of recovery (which was inevitable regardless of who was in the WH) lesser than most president would have. Bits of deregulation and tax reform helped a bit.

              When Obama got into power in 2009, his signature economic policy was cash for clunkers, shovel ready jobs and Solyndra bailouts. And then came ACA. What more needs to be said? The bailed out companies promptly expanded overseas, the seeds of populism was born.

          2. “How is Trump responsible for the modest economic growth we’re experiencing right now?”

            “Economy Breaks Records on Trump’s Watch. He Wants All the Credit”
            […]
            “About to break records for the longest expansion, the U.S. economy sure looks like an asset for a president gearing up to seek re-election.
            “If voters went to the ballot box today, it would be the strongest economy in U.S. election history,” said Justin Waring, an investment strategist at UBS in New York.
            Unemployment is close to a half-century low and inflation is so subdued that some have pronounced it dead. The two gauges added together are known as the “misery index.” Waring, who has crunched those numbers, says they show Americans are less miserable than they’ve ever been.”
            https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2019-the-longest-expansion/

            That “modest” economic growth?
            No, he’s not *the* cause, but he could certainly have, as Obo did, hobble the growth. Instead, he’s cut regulations and made it clear he aims to cut more, and that tax cut didn’t hurt. Call it a ‘business -friendly’ administration.
            Your TDS needs treatment.

            1. No, he’s not *the* cause,

              Thank you for admitting this. Please tell the fellow MAGA-bots around here this as well.

              Instead, he’s cut regulations and made it clear he aims to cut more,

              But but but I thought the “deep state” was really in charge. You know the one that Trump is powerless against and so he has to send his personal attorney to traipse around Europe as some corruption-fighting secret agent because the actual government thwarts Trump’s will.

              How has Trump been so successful in cutting regulations against the entrenched deep state? Hmm?

              1. Why not try your strawman crap on someone who doesn’t yet know that you duck and weave every time you get called on your obvious bullshit?

            2. the economy hasn’t broken any records. GDP at 2.1% , Trump’s part in decline in unemployment from GOP crack up of economy stayed on obamas’s 8 year trajectory. the jobs themselves are not quality. lot of lower paying, no insurance, service sector jobs. Plenty of them but the aren’t quality.

              Wages haven’t keep pace with inflation. The market is booming because of the fed easy , nee free money.

              trade gap at all time hi.

              manufacturing in rescession.

              of course, and I don’t know how you all felt about it at the time, but the deficit, ya know? records high deficit year after year for the forseeable future.

              .

              1. Can you try being less of a wine mom and not drunk-post?

              2. “the economy hasn’t broken any records. GDP at 2.1% , Trump’s part in decline in unemployment from GOP crack up of economy stayed on obamas’s 8 year trajectory. the jobs themselves are not quality. lot of lower paying, no insurance, service sector jobs. Plenty of them but the aren’t quality.”
                Bullshit

                “Wages haven’t keep pace with inflation. The market is booming because of the fed easy , nee free money.”
                Bullshit

                “trade gap at all time hi.”
                There is no trade gap; no one gives us anything.

                “manufacturing in rescession.”
                So you cherry-pick one part of the economy? Are your stupid or being sarcastic

                “of course, and I don’t know how you all felt about it at the time, but the deficit, ya know? records high deficit year after year for the forseeable future.”
                I’d prefer it to be lower; cut spending.

              3. tim koss
                February.3.2020 at 10:17 am

                Put another way, your TDS ate your cites and
                You.
                Are.
                Full.
                Of.
                Shit.
                Fuck off, asshole.

  53. The last 3 years have been great. Trump is about 100 times better on libertarian issues than any of the D candidates who all want to nationalize our health care system, raise taxes, regulate the crap out of everything.

    No he’s not for open borders but neither is most of the country. And all he is doing is enforcing existing law.

  54. Say what you want about Bloomberg, but the fact is that defense win championships and San Fran should beat the shit out of KC – but they’ll make it close because we all know the NFL is rigged.

    1. SF +1.5 should be free money.

      That said, this is easily my worst year picking NFL games.

      1. See what I mean? What a terrible final drive by Garoppolo.

        1. Plus, Sherman is too old and slow to cover the KC receivers. Smart guy, good guy, too slow; move him to the coaching staff.
          Good game, best team won; Shanahan and Saleh have their work cut out for them.

  55. Yeah I don’t think Bloomberg ought to be on anyone’s short list of libertarian candidates.

    But, so many comments about what is a “true libertarian”. I suppose that is the official pastime around here.

    I do agree with Nick on this: being a libertarian is not about a specific set of policy positions, but is a pre-political ethos about simply leaving people alone to do their own things. And if you aren’t in favor of that, for reasons other than violations of the NAP, then the further you are away from libertarian thought.

    Bloomberg isn’t a libertarian, Trump isn’t a libertarian, nobody running right now is a libertarian as the term is used above.

    Furthermore, we shouldn’t give credit where credit isn’t due. If Bloomberg or anyone else happens to produce some result that libertarians might wind up liking, but for reasons that have nothing to do with wanting to leave people alone, then we shouldn’t be quick to adopt them into the libertarian club. After all, one thing that Bloomberg did do right as mayor was to promote the growth of charter schools. Totally libertarian, right? But this one item doesn’t overshadow the rest of his terrible record.

  56. LOL @ “will win him no followers.” Sorry Nick, he may have “lost” the vote you were already going to give to your favorite authoritarian, but independents favor more gun control and candidates who articulate why they support more gun control. Only in this tiny libertarian echo chamber does this delusional article even seem to make sense.

    1. “independents”

    2. Black voters won’t turn out for the “stop and frisk” guy.

      Maybe if Bloomberg becomes the nominee more Dems will notice that it’s black kids who have a dad in prison on a gun charge, not white kids. Versus Trump, who championed the First Step Act.

    3. “…but independents favor more gun control and candidates who articulate why they support more gun control…”

      Isn’t it wonderful how lefty ignoramuses make such claims and NEVER have any evidence?
      Why, it’s almost like they’re lying!

  57. That Bloomberg could ever have had his vote is all that need be said.

    Embarrassing.

  58. Nick is not the target demographic; I am, and the ad was effective. And it was authentic. This is not political calculus; this is who he is. And seriously he has wallpapered the nation with coming out ads, and that would not have been the way to go. This is a statement.

    1. Wanting to ban guns is like believing in Jesus. It’s a fantasy but as long as 2A is upheld it’s a harmless one in these Americas. If Bloomberg wanted to he could buy up all the guns and have them melted down (perhaps into a chair?).

      In a perfectly ideal world guns would not be required because all of humanity would be obliged to abide by the NAP. Unfortunately humanity is not libertarian.

      1. Germany is not a fantasy. Lots of countries have effective gun laws.

        1. In a lot of countries, you can get in serious trouble for saying certain words.
          We have a Constitution to protect the rest of us from thugs like you.

        2. In the USA white Americans have comparable murder rates to Germans… The ONLY reason the USA has higher murder rates than countries in Europe or Asia is because of the black and Hispanic gang problem in the USA.

          Ending the drug war would probably fix a lot of this. But even if some of it is beyond the effects of a highly profitable black market in drugs, which is probably the case, it’d still make a major dent.

          FINALLY, every person has a RIGHT to self defense. Anti gunners can fuck right off to Germany if they want to be disarmed slaves. I do not, because I am an American.

        3. “”Germany is not a fantasy. Lots of countries have effective gun laws.””

          Funny that you would use Germany as an example.

    2. “This is a statement.”
      Here’s another one, “Go fuck yourself”.

    3. The target demographic is control freaks? Makes sense.

  59. Has there been even one article covering Jacob Hornberger’s campaign yet?

    1. who the hell’s that? Yes, I’m being serious, I haven’t heard the name before.

  60. Are you for real?! No one is trying to take your guns away…only trying to keep the innocents safe for a change! Grow up!

    1. Folks. we have a real ignoramus or a flat-out liar in the room:

      “…No one is trying to take your guns away…only trying to keep the innocents safe for a change!..”

      Fuck off, slaver.

      1. “real ignoramus or a flat-out liar ”

        Why can’t it be both?

    2. Keeping innocents safe? Arm yourself.

      Evil exists. It doesn’t need a gun to reach you. Don’t assume that covering you eyes to evil means that it’s not looking straight at you.

      And get up off of your knees.

    3. When somebody can explain to me how many states with the highest number of guns have the lowest murder rates, then maybe I’ll believe that guns get up and shoot innocent people all on their own.

    4. The democrats literally said on stage, during a debate, that they would. We have the Governor of Virginia, backed by out of state money (re: Bloomberg) trying to make it a reality via the boiling a frog alive method. So fuck all the way off, jackass.

      1. The problem with the boil the frog method is that as soon as the water becomes hot enough to be uncomfortable, the frog jumps out.

        Sort of like NYS taxes and millionaires leaving the state.

        1. “The problem with the boil the frog method is that as soon as the water becomes hot enough to be uncomfortable, the frog jumps out.”

          Yep, ‘everybody knows’ the frog gets boiled; ‘everybody’ is often full of it.

    5. Stop lying.

  61. Well, the ad has aired. As has Trump’s ad.

    Trump chose his first nationwide ad of 2020 to be about criminal justice reform. It features a sea of black faces cheering for someone helped to restart their life by his criminal justice reform agenda. She loudly and personally thanks Donald John Trump for getting it done when nobody else could.

    We shall see where that lands… but it should have the democrat leadership truly worried. It looks like Trump is aiming straight for the heart of their coalition. And it was a pretty damned good ad, if you are in favor of criminal justice reform.

    1. And a quick google search confirms it….. the proggies are really, really worried. They are up in arms about the Trump ad. Proggie news outlets are pumping out articles explaining why that ad is terrible as fast as they can.

      1. interesting, I’ll have to check it out later. Didn’t know Trump released an ad, but it makes sense. Say what you want about the guy, but he ain’t stupid.

  62. I’ve taken all I can from this one. Time to find a new host.

    /The Jacket

  63. Feature 1: they’re black
    Feature 2: they scare the white Democrats

    But guns aren’t the only things with those features that Democrats want to control…

    cancel silversingles subscription

  64. Get best 380 ammo at affordable price. Browse Bulk Cheap Ammo, we offer you the top best quality ammo and top brands available.

    1. Uh oh, the bots are learning our language guys. Should we flag this one too or let it stay for now?

      1. Leave gun-bot alone. (Although I doubt many here need .38 ammo.)

        1. 380 ACP is alright for concealed carry pieces!

    2. Finally, a bot selling a useful service.

  65. Make $6,000-$8,000 A Month Online With No Prior Experience Or Skills Required. Be Your Own Boss And for more info visit any tab this site Thanks a lot…Start here> Read more

  66. I am making 8 to 10 dollar par hour at home on laptop ,, This is make happy But now i am Working 3 hour Dailly and make 40 dollar Easily .. This is enough for me to happy my family..how ?? i am making this so u can do it Easily….. Read more

  67. I had no idea Nick was such a fan of nanny state leaders.

  68. I’m sorry to say but Bloomberg is not as “anti-gun” as everyone wants to make him out to be. Like most progressives, he’s just against the individual having access to guns. He still wants to keep his bodyguards armed, the police armed, and the military armed. It’s disingenuous to believe otherwise, and a straw-man to boot. ‘sides, how else could he ever fulfill his dream of murdering average citizens like us?

    Moreover, also being a progressive he’s not anti-all business. He’s just anti-competition. As you say, he is a businessman and he did work for it. But now that he’s at the top – like several other wealthy Democrats – he knows that big businesses like his will be able to suffer a high-tax rate and prosper while eliminating any possible competition.

    1. “”I’m sorry to say but Bloomberg is not as “anti-gun” as everyone wants to make him out to be.”‘

      He spends millions a year in anti-gun ads, supporting anti-gun candidates, supports unreasonable gun laws such as not being able to take your legal gun from one NYC home to another.

  69. You’re really determined to completely alienate the readership, aren’t you, Nick?

  70. THIS was what made you decide he’d be a bad candidate? Not everything else he’s ever done? Quite frankly, your article says more about you as a person then Bloomberg, and none of it good.

    1. I guess the jacket hates the Big Gulp too.

  71. it’s a little bit cute you expected Mayor Nanny to lay “out a vision for a prosperous, tolerant America”

  72. you know how i know you aren’t a libertarian?

    it took a superbowl add for you to say you wouldn’t vote for bloomberg

    1. Bloomberg is the kind of guy that would remove lanes on a roadway, then suggest that you pay more money because of congestion.

    2. “…it took a superbowl add for you to say you wouldn’t vote for bloomberg”

      You know how to get a mule’s attention, right?

  73. Wait… Just reading the headline, are you saying you were previously on the fence about this authoritarian, dictator-in-waiting, no guns for proles fucktard?

    Christ, I’ve been off of here for a while, apparently.

  74. It literally makes more sense for a homeless libertarian to vote Trump than it does for a homeless libertarian to vote Bloomberg.

  75. Holy mother of god! Bloomburg is a fucking poster child for the nanny state – that anyone at Reason, or anyone claiming to be a libertarian, would even consider voting for him is ludicrous and shows how far “libertarianism” has strayed from its roots

  76. ★  I am making $98/hour telecommuting. I never imagined that it was honest to goodness yet my closest companion is acquiring $20 thousand a month by working on the web, that was truly shocking for me, she prescribed me to attempt it. simply give it a shot on the accompanying site.. go to home media tech tab for more detail reinforce your heart…… Read more

  77. Sure, he was a nanny stater on steroids when he ran the Big Apple

    And therefor the logical choice for the libertarian vote, right?

  78. El Clasico is the name given in football to any match between wild opponents FC Barcelona and Real Madrid. The upcoming El Clasico 2020 Live is scheduled on 1st March and it will be played on Real Madrid home ground.

  79. It didn’t take me long—a few minutes while waiting in a store checkout line—to learn the “victim,” George, had been the architect of his own destruction. 20 years old at the time of his death in 2013, the “child” had driven to a rival gangster’s house to start a fight. Two men are serving prison sentences for the killing, a third received a directed verdict of acquittal.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.