Justin Amash

Justin Amash Becomes the First Libertarian Member of Congress

In an interview, the freshly-minted presidential candidate talks abortion, the "spoiler" charge, and Joe Biden's flip-flopping, while insisting that 2020 is a "winnable race."


After a half-century of existence, the Libertarian Party (L.P.) this morning wakes up to a situation it has never before experienced—with a sitting member of Congress proudly waving the Libertarian flag.

"I will be the first," Rep. Justin Amash (L–Mich.) told me late Tuesday* night, just after announcing his candidacy for the Libertarian presidential nomination. "And I'm happy to do that."

Amash is not the only person smiling. In an email, Libertarian Party Chair Nicholas Sarwark said, "I'm happy to see that Representative Amash has come home to the political party most closely aligned with his views," adding: "If more members of the House who are tired of being marginalized by the GOP and Democratic leadership joined him, we could see a caucus of legislators who are able to work for the American people instead of conflicting teams of special interests. My DMs are open."

Amash, a persistent critic of President Donald Trump who left the Republican Party to become an independent last July 4, was facing a competitive reelection campaign in his 3rd District of Michigan, a state whose straight-ticket ballot option disfavors candidates outside the two major parties. Yet he says his seat could have been defended.

"That was one of the hardest parts of this decision," he said. "When I'm looking at my polling, and fundraising, and other aspects with respect to the congressional campaign, I felt I was in the driver's seat. I felt that I was in a very strong position to win it….But I just think this is too important."

Amash, who is six-for-six in general elections (five in Congress, one in the Michigan House of Representatives), claims that the 2020 presidential contest is a "winnable race" for a Libertarian Party whose previous high-water mark, in 2016, was 3.3 percent of the vote.

"When I look at these candidates, I think most Americans see the same thing I'm seeing, which is these two candidates aren't up to being president of the United States, and we need an alternative," he said. The botched and expensive federal response to the COVID-19 outbreak only makes that clearer, he said. "Millions of Americans are seeing that the government spent trillions of dollars and still didn't get it right. They didn't get help to the people who need it most. Instead, most of the assistance went to people who have great connections, who run big corporations."

I talked to Amash about his late entry into the Libertarian race, his policy objections to Joe Biden, his position on abortion, charges that he would "spoil" the effort to dethrone President Donald Trump, and more. The following is an edited transcript of our conversation.


Reason: What took you so long?

Amash: Well, I've been spending time with my family, with friends; I wanted to spend substantial time thinking about it carefully. And up until the past month or so, let's say, I couldn't really think about it that carefully. There were a lot of things going on in Congress, there were a lot of things going on in life.

Around February I decided I would pause my congressional campaign and really focus on the presidential race. And that meant at the time just researching things, seeing if it was a situation where I could come in as a candidate and win the race. And then over the past few weeks, I really sat down to dig into it and got to the point where I was confident that this was a winnable race. Because I don't believe you should just run for fun or for messaging. I believe you should run to win, and to make an impact at the ballot box.

So I'm at that place, and I'm in.

Reason: So you start in mid-February—that's not coronavirus o'clock, but the coronavirus came up by the beginning of March. So explain a little bit how that affected your deliberations, if at all.

Amash: Well, it certainly extended the deliberations. So if not for the COVID-19 situation, I would have been able to focus on it more carefully earlier. In other words, the really aggressive focus on the campaign—where I could think "Is it time to get in or not?"—had to be put on hold a little bit. I was already in the process of researching things, talking to people, talking to family and friends. But when the coronavirus came up, I had to slow that down, because that obviously affects the entire race, and obviously it affects my job, too. I'm in Congress trying to help constituents, making sure that they are getting the resources they need, and so it affected my ability to move forward quickly.

Reason: I look at the coronavirus thing in particular, and you see a lot of 388-5 votes in the House about various phases of this happening. Do you look at a situation in which $3 trillion has walked out of Congress in the last, I don't know, six weeks—and basically overwhelmingly, near-unanimously, despite Thomas Massie's best efforts. Is that a fruitful backdrop from which to run a limited-government campaign?

Amash: I think so. I mean, millions of Americans are seeing that the government spent trillions of dollars and still didn't get it right. They didn't get help to the people who need it most. Instead, most of the assistance went to people who have great connections, who run big corporations. Those people, they got it really fast; [Treasury Secretary Steven] Mnuchin couldn't act fast enough to help those people.

But for millions of Americans who are unemployed or struggling right now, they couldn't get relief to those people, because they have a massive convoluted system, and they doubled and tripled down on it. They said, "Hey, how can we take our bad system and make it worse? Let's add a whole bunch of restrictions; let's add a whole bunch of qualifications; let's try to get money to small businesses but then make it so that the money is not all that useful to them. Let's put banks in the middle of it to slow down the process."

And the banks are trying; they're trying. I'm not blaming the banks. I blame Congress and the administration for creating such a system….The Los Angeles Lakers applied for relief as a small business, and you know, under the terms of the deal that Congress put together with the White House, that's actually allowed. But they never thought through this thing, really.

Reason: So you said that you had to think about this in terms of "Can I win? Can I compete meaningfully?" (But you said "win.") Explain how that calculation works; explain the path. Because I look at the same thing, and in times of high polarization and high partisan interest, you oftentimes see a kind of Death Valley for third parties and independents trying to run for everything. So how do you look at this thing and see a win?

Amash: I look at the candidates running and I see two candidates that are not qualified for the office. Yeah, they have long résumés, different résumés. The president as a reality [TV] star, and as a sometimes successful, sometimes failed businessman; and Joe Biden as a longtime member of Congress who's on his third run for president and frankly doesn't seem to be up to it.

So when I look at these candidates, I think most Americans see the same thing I'm seeing, which is: These two candidates aren't up to being president of the United States, and we need an alternative. And I'm confident that I can be that alternative.

What people are really looking for is practicality. They see these two sides in Washington, Red and Blue, fighting with each other every day. When it comes to most pieces of legislation, they're highly polarized. And then when it comes to the really bad stuff that gets passed, all of a sudden they become best friends. So they're fighting each other day and night on stuff that often doesn't impact people directly, and then when you get something that really hurts the American people, they get unified all of a sudden.

This is not the system the American people want. It's not the system the Framers designed. And we need to trust the people. We need to have humility regarding the process of government. And that means allowing legislators to legislate, and keeping the executive branch in check, and having a court that does its job interpreting and deciding cases. We can't have this system where these two parties just run amok and hurt Americans every day.

Reason: Are you getting out of the race for reelection in Congress, or are you waiting to see what happens at the Libertarian National Convention?

Amash: My campaign is paused, but frankly, I'm running this campaign for president, and I don't intend to return to my congressional campaign.

It's been an honor to represent the 3rd District, and that was one of the hardest parts of this decision. When I'm looking at my polling, and fundraising, and other aspects with respect to the congressional campaign, I felt I was in the driver's seat. I felt that I was in a very strong position to win it. And as I've gone around the district, I've had tremendous support from constituents everywhere I go, and from all across the political spectrum. So that was a very tough decision to say that I'm going to run for another office. But I just think this is too important.

And I do think we need someone who's going to govern with some humility, and I don't just mean personal humility. I think when people hear the word humility, they think of a person who is kind, or gracious, or whatever. That's not the kind of humility I'm talking about. I'm talking about humility with respect to the process. Humility with respect to how much one individual knows about things.

What you really have right now are two presidential candidates who think they know everything and want to run everything. And you see the mess that's happening right now just with the coronavirus relief, where you get this one person thinking they know everything, instead of using the type of knowledge that exists out among the public, which is the knowledge of time and circumstances, things that only people on the ground know, that no one in Washington can know, or no one in the state Capitol can know.

Reason: Members of the Libertarian Party who like you, and have preferred you, and in fact have wanted you to run for a long time, have expressed some irritation of, "Jesus, Hamlet, get off the fence! We've been out here trying to build a party, and go to state conventions, and engage in debates, and this is a little bit late in the game." What do you say to those people as you try to win a majority of a thousand delegates?

Amash: Well, I want to earn their support. I respect the process. I respect the delegates. If it were up to me, and everything had run smoothly, I would have made a decision earlier. But life comes up, things come up. The COVID-19 situation came up, for example, and there are other things that have come up over the past year. And I don't control all those things.

But I took the time I needed to make a decision. I feel confident about the decision, and I want to go and earn the support of the Libertarian Party. And I don't think that any person running simply deserves the support. I think they have to go earn it. And I'll spend a lot of time over the next several weeks speaking to Libertarians, speaking to delegates, and trying to win their support.

Reason: Do you plan on, or have you thought about seeking, a vice-presidential copacetic kind of nominee? As you well know, the nominating process is kind of peculiar to the Libertarian Party in this sense. But other candidates such as Jim Gray have reached out to Larry Sharpe, for example. Do you have an approach like that?

Amash: I haven't reached out to any V.P. candidates or potential candidates to ask them to come on as part of any ticket or anything like that. I want to take the time to talk to people, and I want to be respectful of the process; I want to be respectful of the delegates. I believe that the delegates should have a real say in who the V.P. is on the ticket.

The only thing I ask is if I'm the nominee, I think it's important that the V.P. be someone who shares a lot of my philosophy, understands the messaging, and can go out there and earn the respect of the entire public. Because running a race for president is not just about one party or one ideology. We have to win lots of people. And we can stay true to our principles while doing that, but it's important that we expand our reach, and so I think it's important to have a vice president who understands that.

Reason: Your positions, as I know them, and the Libertarian Party's platform, as I know it, have a lot of overlap; they're pretty congruent in many ways. A strong exception to that would be abortion. Can you explain your position on that, as it intersects with federal government policy? What are your preferences on what the federal government should do, or what a Supreme Court should do, having to do with abortion?

Amash: Well, I'm pro-life, and I believe the 14th Amendment provides a strong federal basis for protecting life. But I think the most important thing the federal government can do is not fund abortion. And I think that there is probably broad support for that in the Libertarian Party, to ensure that the federal government is not funding abortions, because the federal government shouldn't be funding something that is that controversial to millions of Americans.

Reason: You had, on either Twitter or on your Amash for America rollout, an emphasis on seeking to represent all Americans. It almost felt italicized in that sense—all Americans. Why that particular emphasis? What does that mean to you?

Amash: It means that there are a lot of people right now who don't feel represented. When you go around just to my district, for example, and talk to people, they don't feel that the Republican Party or the Democratic Party really cares about them. And it's not surprising why they feel that way.

When you look at what the two parties talk about in Washington, they're hyper-focused on relatively small constituencies, but the ones who are politically active, and get them to win at the ballot box. There's a large group of Americans that have been forgotten, and we need to reach out to those people, and we need to be the party that represents people from all backgrounds, that brings people together.

And there's a strong message for bringing people together, which is that the purpose of government is to secure our rights. It shouldn't matter what your background is; you want your rights secured. Many people right now feel that the government has forgotten them, and doesn't care about its purpose, and is focused on minutiae, or the politics of the moment, and has forgotten totally about the essential purpose of government, which is to secure the rights of the people.

Reason: Take a swing at Joe Biden in terms of policy. You've talked previously that he doesn't seem like he's got it all there, which I think we can observe. What's wrong with him as someone who executes policy, who's been in public life for a half-century?

Amash: Well, first, he's held just about every position, which is something that Trump does week to week, but Joe Biden has also held multiple positions over his lifetime. It's OK to change your mind about things—I've changed my mind on things, everyone has changed their mind on things. But when you do it over and over again about multiple big issues, you start to question whether the person's changing their mind or whether they're just doing it for political expediency.

A few examples might [include] the Iraq War. He's got some wild explanation for why he voted for the authorization but didn't really support the war. He was one of the architects of a lot of the surveillance that we have today. Back in the day, he was heavily pushing programs that evolved into things like the PATRIOT Act and FISA [the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act], and he's been wrong on criminal justice reform time and again. So it's nice to see that he's changed his mind on some of these things, or says he's changed his mind. But at this point, it's time to pass the baton to a new generation and have other people taking the lead on these issues.

And there are other issues where I don't think he's changed his mind. Look at this coronavirus relief [approach]. You hear about him saying, "Oh, well maybe this isn't how I would have done it," but he's still applauding [House Speaker] Nancy Pelosi and [Senate Majority Leader] Mitch McConnell and President Trump, essentially, as they passed this kind of thing that doesn't directly help the people; it's another corporate welfare scheme in many respects.

So he hasn't been good on those issues, and I don't think he'll be good on those issues going forward. When you look at some of the potential V.P. candidates he's thinking about, you'll probably get the same kind of thing—someone who isn't very good on civil liberties issues, and hasn't been good on other issues that progressives and many libertarians and many moderates across the political spectrum care about.

Reason: I don't know why you gotta be so mean to Kamala Harris there.

Amash: I think you know who I was talking about.

Reason: There are quite a few people who agree with you about Trump, or agree with your critiques of Trump over the past year, over the past three years, who are saying, "Jesus Christ, man, not now! Why would you do this? You are jeopardizing—there's been one poll in Michigan done with you in it and with you out of it, and you knock six points off Biden's lead—why would you get in the way of removing someone who is uniquely unfit for office?" How do you respond to those people?

Amash: Well, first I would say with respect to the polling, that a poll taken a year ago when you don't even have the Democratic deal decided, and where I still have very low name ID, doesn't really mean that much. So I wouldn't put too much stock into it. Especially when you're taking a poll around the time that impeachment and other things were going on, and maybe some people on the left thought I was going to be on their side on every issue under the sun because I was in favor of impeachment. And that's just not correct.

I think the greater likelihood is that I draw from a lot of dissatisfied Republicans, but even if you set aside the two parties, Republicans or Democrats, there are millions and millions of independent and libertarian-minded voters who either are forced to vote for one of these two if they don't have other choices on the ballot, or who aren't going to vote at all if they're required to choose between those two candidates.

And I believe there are enough votes out there to win this race. I wouldn't be running if there weren't enough votes to win this race. So people can talk about the "spoiler" thing—I think it's all academic; it's hard to say which pot of voters you pull from. But I don't think it matters that much; I don't think you'd ever figure it out. And in any case, there are millions of people who want an alternative, and that's important. We shouldn't deny them an alternative, deny them a chance to vote for someone who will be practical and have common sense. Why should we force them to vote for one of these other two candidates?

Reason: All right, final question. Are you going to be a Libertarian in Congress?

Amash: I am, yes.

Reason: You are. So you're going to be the first Libertarian member of Congress.

Amash: I expect so, yeah. I don't think there's been another Libertarian in Congress, so I will be the first, and I'm happy to do that.

I do think that the Libertarian Party is important. I spent the past almost year, not quite a year, as an independent…and I've learned a lot about the process, a lot about the system. I think most people agree that we'd like to get to a place in this country where political parties don't matter, but we're not there yet. That is more of a long-term project. I think we can get there. I don't think it's in the distant, distant future, but I think it is still in the distant future. So one distant, but not two distants, in distances.

But right now, these two parties need a strong competitor. And the Libertarian Party has that opportunity because there are so many Republicans who are disenchanted with what's going on with the Republican Party. There are so many Democrats who are disenchanted with what's going on with the Democratic Party. And then on top of that, there are millions of Americans who aren't closely affiliated to the parties, who want to have the opportunity to vote for an alternative. And over the last couple cycles, you've seen the Libertarian Party votes pick up, and I want to help it go further. I want to help the Libertarian Party win.

* CORRECTION: Originally said "Wednesday."

NEXT: The First Federal Female Inmate To Die of COVID-19

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. A libertarian that turned a blind eye to the machinations of the intelligence community over the past four years because he was in a personal tiff with the president?

    Very libertarian.

    1. I guess seeking to preserve the system of checks and balances that assures we never have a king for president is just a “personal tiff” in your book.
      I know, I know. He won’t hurt the right people, so you’ll never be on board with him.

      1. So, him hurting the “right” people gets you on board. Got it.

        1. You think Trump is “right” just because someone (Hillary? Biden? Bernie? AOC) is wrong?

          The miracle of Trump beating Hillary does not make him a saint.

          I have had some miserable stupid neighbors on my stretch of dirt road. I could easily rank them from worst to best. But none of them were good neighbors.

          1. Nobody said Trump is a saint. Not being a saint, however, doesn’t mean douchebags like Amash shouldn’t be called out on their shit for supporting a coup by the intelligence community. There’s nothing libertarian about that.

            1. Change Your Life Right Now! Work From Comfort Of Your Home And Receive Your First Paycheck Within A Week. No Experience Needed, No Boss Over Your Shoulder…sza. Say Goodbye To Your Old Job! Limited Number Of Spots Open…
              Find out how HERE……More here

            2. Trump broke the law. Get over it. The GOP should have removed Trump from office. Pence would have a 70% approval rating right now. Trump has a 45% approval during a pandemic. Lol. He’s toast.

              1. The Obama should have long been removed during his first term. So please, just stop with your bullshit.

                1. No, Obama did nothing on the same scale. Kindly fuck off with your “But Obama” horseshit, you retarded cunt. The Mueller Report also gave ten examples of obstruction.

                  1. Orchestrating a coup from the Oval Office isn’t on the same scale as what? Phony Russian collusion or getting to the bottom of Biden’s Ukraine corruption? We must use different scales.

          2. Lol at alphabet soup talking shit about his neighbors.
            We’ve seen the evidence, dude, and it indicates your assessment of just who was a “bad neighbor” is likely projection

          3. Oh look, alphabet soup is restating the question as a completely different question. The proggies here are all so mindbogglingly dishonest.

          4. Again, you, DOL, and others are defending IC abuse, warrant abuses, 4th amendment versus on the grounds that Trump isn’t a saint. Do you understand this is the argument you are making?

            Trump has already been held in check by the Judiciary and Congress without needing to violate his or Carter Page’s (and looking like Flynn’s) civil liberties. Why do you defend this crap?

            1. Because “Trump isn’t a saint” is the point that wins all arguments when the only thing you have left is deflection and whataboutisms.

              1. “whataboutisms”

                What about Hillary? What about the Derp State? Whataboutism wins hands down.

              2. YOU have no argument. YOU deflect, crying ‘whataboutism’ because you filthy prograde are the greatest villains of all. Democrats are all dirty treasonous criminals obsessed with the domination of mankind.

                You have no morality or integrity, ever. So you can have no moral high ground. Yet you are not capable of comprehending that.

                Donald Trump is far from perfect but he has respected the constitution a hell of a lot better than any democrat in the last half century.

                1. He’s never even read the Constitution, you moron.

          5. Trump Is neither right not particularly good, but Trump is preferable to the other choices we actually have., including Amash.

            1. Then you are obviously not a libertarian.

              1. You’re sure as hell not. You talking about libertarianism is like listening to a psychopath discuss empathy.

                1. Like Trump discussing empathy?

        2. And the best way to ensure we do not have a king running away with the soul of the republic …. is to tacitly support a coup by the government’s secret police force against a duly elected president.

          I bet that shit sounded real smart in your head, didn’t it, you fucking retard?

          1. Word.

            1. Weird or maybe wired?

          2. “Duly.” Lol. There was interference by Russia.

            Impeachment for crimes is NOT a coup.

            1. Yes, interference by Russia. Worthy of 15 yards, the way I see it. Problem is: Did the interference hurt the offense or the defense? (No one has proof either way.)

              “Trump broke the law. Get over it.” I’m sure he did.

              The intelligence state also made some wonderful, criminal machinations that rose to levels that would make the chekists and Schutzstaffel proud, and Franz Kafka die a little more. “Get over it,” right.

              Must we have to hear continued whinging about Trump “not being above the law” from dishonest people who aren’t bothered by their own side’s abuses? Laws, apparently, are only for other people.

              But that’s what we become when we are dominated sadly by a long corrupt history of D’s and R’s who each represent only a minority of eligible US voters–a police state where application of the law derives only from power. Normal folks (i.e. those not rabidly partisan) fear such abuses far more than some spurious claims about one party gaining an advantage from ever-present Russian intervention.

      2. Didn’t we already decide we were on board with President Kings circa 1933?

        1. To be fair, I can’t really see Amash pulling the Ron Swanson “official permit” move while acting as President.

        2. Compared to an amorphous shadowy cabal of unprincipled lawyers and public servants, President Kings are easier to kill or otherwise rein in.

        3. Democrats clearly are: sane ideology as 1933, same desire for a leader, etc

      3. If you are calling the horrendously corrupt and sketchy investigation into Trump/Russia collusion “preserving proper checks and balances,” I don’t even know how to help you.

        1. +1,000,000!!! And do not forget the BS Impeachment over a phone call that not even close to improper & release of foreign aid that was not Unconstituional!

          1. Trumpkin.

            1. Factual. Prog trash like you hate facts and logic.

              1. Not a prog at all, butt plug. Everything he said was a lie.

      4. “seeking to preserve the system of checks and balances that assures we never have a king for president is just a “personal tiff” in your book”

        He did nothing of the sort. He was attention whoring, and he did that by bald-faced lying about the contents of the Mueller Report.

        I like Amash’s positions, particularly on abortion. However, if I were American I would never vote for him because of his opportunistic dishonesty about the Mueller Report. He’s calculating and untrustworthy.

        1. Which makes him different from the other candidates how?

          It’s that old I-won’t-vote-for-a-libertarian double standard. They can be just like everyone else but with libertarian values and won’t get your vote because they’re not perfect so you go ahead and vote for the (usually more) imperfect candidate who doesn’t hold any of your values. Sounds like a smart decision to me.

          1. ^ This.

          2. I don’t know. I think knowingly and willfully embracing and basically aiding an unelected deep state corrupt attempt to oust a properly elected official is pretty far from holding Libertarian values. Just saying.

          3. Not being perfect is signing an appropriations bill that passed 96-4. Yet the assholes here still say a certain president should have used a veto. It is being far from perfect to ignore civil rights abuses because someone was mean to you.

            1. I wish he wouldn’t have signed it, but his back was up against a wall. He could do so much more of congressional Republicans would nut up and fight back against that kind of shit.

              One man, even a president, can only do so much without help.

          4. It’s that old I-won’t-vote-for-a-libertarian double standard.

            I will ALWAYS vote for a libertarian. I have every single time I’ve gotten the chance.

            It’s just a sad reality that there are damned few in the actual Libertarian Party–and none that they ever allow near a ballot.

            Justin Amash will not be an exception to that sad reality.

            Amash’s machinations in support of statists will cost him his seat, and if he gets the LP nod, as is likely, will cost the LP ballot access as libertarians stay away from such a tainted candidate.

      5. When did he try to preserve any checks and balances? He waited to get rid of the president for perfectly legal exercises of executive authority.

      6. Oh, so it’s fine to violate the 4th amendment as long as it is done to attack someone you disagree with politically. Thanks DoL!

        1. Amash never said fourth amendment violations are okay. His point was that Trump was still.worthy of impeachment, which he in fact was.

    2. Looks like the next shortage is upon us. Geraje Guzba has been hoarding all the Preparation H for his massive butthurt.

      Oh, and here is Amash criticizing the intelligence community.

      I could post a bunch of other links, but we all know how the squirrels feel about that.

      1. And here’s Amash eating the corn out of Mueller’s asshole and asking for seconds.


        What’s your point?

        1. Ok fine then, vote for Trump, since you clearly think that most of his presidential actions are justified. Just don’t expect to be taken seriously as a libertarian.

          1. So you are fine with Amash’s abject bootlicking and tacit support of Mueller’s bullshit report, in addition to all of the confabulated “investigating” and constitutional violations that went into it?

            That Amash went all in, and then doubled down, demonstrates unequivocally that he does not actually give a shit about due process or the Constitution, or libertarian values … at least not when he has a political score to settle.

            1. Trump broke the law. Get over it. What did the Mueller Report state that was wrong?

          2. Fuck off Jeff, and you’re not fooling anyone.

            1. Shut the fuck up, Tulpa.

              1. Oh wow. You’re not paying attention. I was Fancylad you stupid fuck.

                1. Not better.

                  1. I’ll take that as high praise coming from a from a goosestepping authoritarian like you.

                    1. We turning word meanings upside down now, are we?

                2. Nobody cares who you are.

          3. “actions ”

            Why did you use the word Action in regards to Trump vs Amash. Amash accomplished nothing that increased anybody’s freedoms. Trump actually has reduced the regulatory state and appointed fairly good judges.

            Amash has named 2 post offices and then made vocal votes while tacitly supporting the IC’s attack against the presidency. He also has helped China continue to violate free trade agreements by turning a blind eye while yelling “Free Trade!!!”.

            Sorry you fall for the simple version of idealistic libertarianism.

            1. It’s the desperate version, not the simple version. Anyone willing to claim the LP as a presidential candidate is viewed as manna from heaven, the coming messiah that will deliver the party, and a guaranteed win that warrants reserving the local park shelter for the inevitable inaugural rave. And this is just one of the reasons why thoughtful and serious libertarians will never be able to have nice things.

              1. Thoughtful and serious libertarians become Republicans because they realize the LP is a pathetic shitshow run by children and malcontents who wouldn’t have a clue how to accomplish anything they whine about if they ever got power.

                1. And so Amash is right at home. He’s a pathetic shitshow too…who accomplished nothing as a legislator.

                  1. Trump is a shitshow who can’t even break 50% approval in a national crisis. Lol. He told people to inject bleach. Lmao.

                    1. Really? Repost the transcript here. Or at least the part where he says that.

                      If you can’t, then STFU.

                  2. Trump has accomplished nothing as president.

            2. Trump’s approval is at 45 in a pandemic, and he is losing badly to Biden in the polls. Lol.

              If Amash was president, I guarantee he’d do more for liberty than Trump has.

              Trump broke the law and was rightfully impeached. The GOP would be in much better shape had they removed Trump from office.

              Unilateral free trade works. Protectionism does not and is not libertarian.

              1. Yeah, he was losing badly in the polls when he got elected too.

                1. Not really. He trailed Hillary by 2 in the RCP average on Election Day. He lost the pop vote by 2. The Comey letter was a major factor in making the polls closer.

    3. The same President who signed the FISA reauthorization, ensuring us that it’s ok because “This is NOT the same FISA law that was so wrongly abused during the election.” In other words, it’s ok, because it didn’t impact me.

      1. Leo, never bring facts to a tribal fight.

      2. Therefore, Amash supporting FISA abuse is okay, because Trump reauthorized FISA?

        Brilliant logic, Leo.

        1. That’s not my logic.
          Point #1: AFIAR, Amash voted against the FISA reauthorization. I’m too lazy to go look it up. Trump supported it, that I know.

          Point #2: Amash shouldn’t be disqualified for being the best libertarian choice for President over 1 single “non-libertarian” act. I was against impeachment at the time, and I’ve been pretty critical of Trump. I thought his handling of Ukraine was wrong, but not impeachable.

          But back to the point that if this is the only strike needed against voting for Amash (and it certainly seems to be a favorite among the Trump supporters in this thread), then shouldn’t Trump’s FISA reauthorization support be the only strike needed to not also support him?

          Amash is more libertarian than Trump or Biden on nearly every issue. I would support him for President if he were the nominee even though I disagree with him on a few issues like abortion, immigration, and impeachment.

          1. Amash also knew FISA reauthorization was passing by flying colors. He did nothing to convince others in Congress to vote against it. He performed a grandstanding maneuver in regards to it. He accomplished nothing actionable.

            I know words mean more than actions to most of you idealists… but stop giving credit for not actually accomplishing anything.

            1. So what about the action of actually signing the bill and reversing your early threat to veto it? What Trump did was worse than grandstanding.

              Amash has very little power as 1/435. Not sure what you wanted him to do, but his position on that particular bill was certainly preferable to that of Trump.

              Can you at least agree that faint opposition to is preferable to actual support for (signing) a bad bill?

              1. Can you at least agree that Amash’s “faint opposition,” otherwise known as empty posturing, is completely obviated by his tacit endorsement of the Mueller probe, and all the corrupt bullshit that brought it about?

                That is a huge fucking strike against Amash, and I really cannot see how anybody can let it go. You don’t need three strikes for shit like this.

                If a politician, any politician, supports the use of doctored evidence by unaccountable government agents and the intelligence community, working behind the scenes with absolutely no oversight in a rabidly partisan fashion, in order to bolster a confabulated investigation for the purpose of removing a duly elected president from office, with whom he disagrees on policy, that politicians is not a libertarian.

                Worse, that politician is a conniving authoritarian asshole that is not to be trusted. That’s a one strike deal.

                1. Even with IG Horowitz’s report in hand, the most critical thing Amash was able to say was:

                  “Eh, this is what happens … principles … bad law … both sides …. Trump should still be removed.”

                  He didn’t fucking care then, and he sure as shit doesn’t care now. People who genuinely care about government abuse and opposing the expansion of a draconian surveillance state don’t endorse things like the Mueller shit show.

                2. I’ve already said Amash was wrong on impeachment. I don’t know what more you want me to say.

                  Now you go… was Trump wrong to sign the FISA reauthorization? Do you think he cares about surveillance state when it’s not going after him personally? Because the evidence suggests he doesn’t as long as he’s in the clear.

                  1. I want you to explain why him being wrong on impeachment (that is, tacitly endorsing a coup by unaccountable intelligence agencies to remove a duly elected president) is something you can simply gloss over as no big deal.

                    I consider that disqualifying. I want you to explain why it is not.

                    I don’t care about Trump. We are discussing Amash.

                    1. You said the other day that you are going to vote for Trump, so it seems relevant to bring up Trump when the same person (you) is talking about reasons not to vote for Amash.

                    2. Do you also contend that you can’t have an opinion on Trump’s candidacy because you prefer a different candidate? Lazy thinkers and those who are incapable of defending something invariably try to disqualify the arguments of the opposition simply because they are the opposition rather than argue the merits of their own case.

                    3. Impeachment is not a coup. It’s a process that is described in the Constitution that you conservatives claim to love so much. There’s really not much guidance on what is and isn’t impeachable, and every expert on the subject describes it as a political process. Was it a coup when Republicans impeached Clinton over lies? At the end of the day neither impeachment mattered much. I’ll admit that Amash was wrong, in my opinion, but also that I can see the other side. The charges against Trump were pretty serious, and if you consider the House the grand jury in the trial, well, as the saying goes Trump was the ham sandwich. In the end, justice prevailed in the Senate.

                      If you’re going to hold Amash to some purity test, when 90% of his positions are consistent with expanding liberty, then you’re going to be disappointed by every candidate that comes along.

                      I supported Gary Johnson even though I disagreed strongly with his stance on the “bake the cake” issue. Gary Johnson would have been twice the President as Trump, and we likely wouldn’t be looking at a $3T deficit this year if he were elected. Amash is far and away the better candidate for liberty than Trump or Biden, despite him being wrong (and likely playing politics) on impeachment.

                    4. “Amash is far and away the better candidate for liberty than Trump or Biden, despite him being wrong (and likely playing politics) on impeachment”

                      The guy who’s never accomplished a single thing other than a taxpayer funded life for 10 years, who is disliked by just about everyone and can’t persuade people to his side, and who took up with the most corrupt facets of government because he could paint himself as “principled” (or because he was told to do it by his sponsors) is totes awesome for liberty.
                      Never change, leo – it requires way more depth than you’re capable of

                    5. @ Nardz

                      who is disliked by just about everyone and can’t persuade people to his side
                      It’s kind of funny. He’s liked by libertarians as far as I can tell. Maybe being able to persuade the statists in Washington to respect individualism is a taller order than you can imagine.

                      I’d prefer no action from actively reducing liberty. Amash talks a good game for the most part, which is more than we can say of almost any other politician that’s ran for President as a D or R in the last century.

                      Keep propping up Trump though. After vapes, bump stocks, tariffs, freedom of association, and the COVID-19 situation I’m sure there are plenty of other liberties that he can trample on in his 2nd term.

                      If his stance on impeachment is the only issue that you can find to take offense with Amash about, then maybe you should reevaluate your lack of support for him. That seems pretty narrow-minded to me.

    4. This guy did a debatably non-libertarian thing once, so I’ll have to pass and vote for Donald Trump, the most libertarian president ever.

      1. Now you get it!

      2. “Oh, he’s a libertarian, he just happens to support lawlessness and the exercise of arbitrary police powers by unaccountable government bureaucrats, sometimes, not often, and only to get the people he doesn’t like”

        Are you out of your mind? How is that not completely disqualifying?

        1. It is.

          “Reason” slobbers all over him anyways because he voted against border wall funding.

          1. And of course, he gets extra “Reason” tongue baths because he’s all “Orange Man Bad”.

        2. Trump broke the law, moron.

          1. Which one?

            1. Several, including ten counts of obstruction described in the Mueller Report, as well as campaign finance laws and the appropriations clause with Ukraine. The hold on aid to Ukraine was declared illegal by at least one government accounting agency. You can probably throw in the Emoluments Clause as well. Not cooperating with Congressional investigation (obstruction).

        3. Trump broke the law. That’s why Amash supported impeachment. That does not mean Amash supports violations of rights. Lol.

          1. You’re just sad at this point.
            Very low energy

            1. You’re just sad at this point.
              Very low energy.

              1. Nardz is one of those anti-free trade “libertarians,” kind of like “Jews for Hitler.”

    5. He’s more of a reason-based libertarian, not the wide-eyed conspiratorial type of libertarian.

        1. He means you.

    6. #LibertarianGlobalistsForTheDeepStateCoup

      Bill Kristol with a doobie.

      1. Trump was rightfully impeached. Impeachment is not a coup. The GOP’s electoral chances would be much better now had Trp been removed. MORON.

      2. Kristol is AGAINST Amash running for prez, moron. Try to keep up.

  2. Delusional if he really does think he has a chance of winning. I wonder what’s really going on — what’s his backup plan after election day? Still needs a day job.

    1. His backup plan is a gig on MSNBC as their “go-to libertarian” during the course of which his “libertarian” views will slowly, but surely, align with that of the political left. He is going to be the libertarian version of “Republican” Jennifer Rubin.

      1. I assumed something like this was in the works and LP Presidential Nominee will just bolster his credentials.

        Not as slimy as Bill Weld, but not as ‘clean’ a libertarian as Gary Johnson.

        1. What’s Weld doing? Back to the law practice? Or still entering Leslie Nielsen look-alike contests?

          1. He’s running for President as a Republican, but nobody gave a shit so everyone forgot about his campaign and he probably crawled into the bottom of a bottle somewhere.

      2. This. He’s burned bridges and see’s the loss coming, run for the money.

      3. Most accurate prediction here.

        1. Says the protectionist pro-tax “libertarian.”

          1. Did you have an actual point?

            1. Yes. People claiming to be libertarians shouldn’t side with Trump over an actual libertarian like Amash. Maybe Trump should drop out and let Amash go up against Biden. Lol.

      4. Amash, unlike Trump, has been consistent in his views.

    2. If he can get on the debate stage that will be a plus for the LP. Don’t get me wrong, he won’t win. It will be enough just to have a libertarian voice in the debate.

      I still think he would be better off carrying on in Congress and also becoming the first elected LP Congressman which is really a much more important milestone.

      1. That would be far preferable. Thus I guess he either doesn’t think he could win as a Libertarian (my guess too, what with rigged candidate criteria) or is tired of butting his head against that particular wall.

        1. And this is where the stupid hits the road. If I choose to not debate you or simply deem you inconsequential, I’m rigging the election? By the same logic, all 1700 who paid the fee in 2016 should have been given a chance to debate.

          And if you get a chance to interview for your dream job and don’t invite the unemployed loser down the street to interview and compete with you, it’s just because you too are rigging the outcome.

          1. But the threshold is completely arbitrary and made up by the two parties to support the two parties. Gary Johnson got the votes of 4.4 million people in 2016, which is a pretty good portion of the electorate, without being given much of a chance to be heard.

            Explain how someone that got 4.4 million votes doesn’t deserve to be on stage. What is the magic threshold that qualifies someone in your mind?

            1. Let’s hold debates after the election – brilliant!

      2. It will be enough just to have a libertarian voice in the debate.

        And he’s got more recognition and broader appeal than Hornberger.

    3. Well, you’ve got to say “I can totally win this thing” if you’re going to run. If you say otherwise, you’re just giving everyone – press, potential voters – a great reason to ignore you.

      1. That’s one thing I really like about Jorgenson as a candidate. She makes no bones about saying the L.P. nominee won’t win. She sets a realistic goal of increasing party membership* and communicating libertarian principles via a presidential run.

        *I’m not a party member, and I don’t ever plan to be (any party), but I still commend her for setting achievable, measurable goals.

        1. Yeah – she had my vote.

      2. Gillibrand said she could totally win it too. Right up through selling her $20 campaign tees for $3 just to hit the number of supporters needed to qualify for debates. But she could still totally win it, even yet because her candidacy is only “suspended”.

    4. Still needs a day job.

      I don’t believe he does, actually.

    5. Better to lose a run for President than lose in a re-election campaign for his district.

      I wonder if he’s damaged his #FauxRight talking head gig for the #EnemyOfThePeople, now that he’s a “Libertarian” instead of a Republican.

      Will Libertarians never tire of nominating Republican carpet baggers?

      1. Amash is an actual libertarian, though, unlike Weld and Johnson.

        1. No he isn’t.

          1. He is. Trump isn’t.

            1. Trump never ran as a libertarian. He isn’t actually a political ideologue of any kind. He’s a pragmatist.

              1. No. He’s an idiot. Pragmatists are for real solutions that work, not trade wars and building walls people can easily go through.

  3. The real test is if Amash actually gets elected while waving the Libertarian flag, one might think.

    I guess beggar parties can’t be choosy parties, though.

    1. You know what the irony is? Amash might have actually had a pretty damn good shot at running for President, even as early as this year, if the GOP establishment hadn’t pissed off the rank and file by pushing milquetoasts like Romney and Jeb the last two cycles. He’s never really been someone that fit in very well with that side of the party to begin with, and for the most part he’s been very transparent about explaining his votes even when he knew he was going to get slammed for it.

      The party leaders just didn’t want to accept during that period that the rank and file wanted someone who had a spine and could actively engage the other side. Trump came in with his shit-talking and ended up appropriating the party right out from under their nose because of that obstinancy.

      Just imagine Queen Hillary running roughshod over Americans for 4-8 years–you can’t tell me someone like Amash wouldn’t have appeal to the party base in an atmosphere like that, because he’d be on her ass constantly about her power abuses.

      1. Too young, too white, not enough experience at doing anything other than shilling. So no, probably not a great chance at ever being President no matter what party he can convince to support him.

        ‘Former Corporate Lawyer’ doesn’t scream Presidential material. Even Trump had more of a resume. Hell, even Gary Johnson had more of a resume.

        1. Amash is “brown.” Had he been Muslim, he would have had an ideal ethnic profile to be a real good progressive.

          1. ^ This.

            I really hope he plays up the fact that as a Palestinian he’s the only “non-white” person in the race.

            1. Not true. There’s an orange person in the debate.

              1. Orange is the new white.

            2. It boils down to ‘guy looks white, therefore they are white’. It’s the beauty of having at least a dozen ethnicities boiled down into one word, I suppose.

              No one gives a shit if you’re Irish-American, for example. You’re just white.

              1. Yeah – I have little doubt that if he tried to leverage his Palestinian identity Palestinians would either stop being ‘brown people,’ or he would be called out as a ‘fake’ because he’s Christian (or at least as technically white because Christian, like the Lebanese). And accused of pandering, of course.

                But I also think a lot of people are tiring of identity politics, and considering the Dems’ colossal fail on that front by nominating old-white-guy-probable-rapist Biden it would be a hilarious angle for Amash to stand on a platform of “I’m a freaking Palestinian, for Chrissakes, so according to these own people’s logic they should vote for me over Biden or Trump in a heartbeat. But they’re not, are they?”

                1. I was tired of it in the 90’s, and I’m tired of it now.

                  It’s only redeeming feature? Being an endless well of perverse humor.

      2. Marginal Globalist Republicans are toast through much of America. Amash was going to lose his seat anyway, so why not carpet bag on over to the Libertarian Party?

        Globalists to the Left.
        Nationalists to the Right.

        It should be especially brutal this year, with the fruits of Globalism killing tens of thousands of Americans.

        Everyone thank the Globalists for flooding America with #coronavirus through Chinese work and student visas, gutting American medical manufacturing, and making us dependent on the #CCP for our very lives.

        1. Americans blame Trump’s response, not “globalism,” you twat. Nice try.

          Dems are in a good position to retain the House and take the Senate and White House. Try to keep up with the polls.

  4. “told me late Wednesday night”

    Does Matt have a DMC 12 in his garage?

    1. Different time zone?

  5. So Welch is from NY, he can vote for the LP. Sullum is from Texas, he can vote LP. Shikha is from MI, she votes Biden. Nick is from Ohio he votes…?

    1. I believe Nick is from NYC, just lived in Oxford OH for a while.

    2. Nick votes Globalist. The party doesn’t matter.

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

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


  6. It isn’t right that it feels unusual to encounter a Presidential candidate who can string words together into coherent sentences.

    1. I miss the elevation of style over substance. I don’t care what is being said, as long as it sounds nice.

      1. Watching alienated clingers mutter bitterly and rant inconsequentially is becoming more and more enjoyable as the culture war proceeds.

        1. Just remember, if you die while masturbating with a rope around your neck, it technically counts as a suicide and the children you had with your sister will be deemed ineligible to inherit. So, all I am saying is you should exercise some restraint. Just because it feels good, does not necessarily mean it is good for you, or your retarded kids.

          1. You can’t even get your sister pregnant where Kirkland likes to stick it.

          2. Putting a wig and a dress on a pig does not make it his ‘sister’.

          3. don’t talk him out of it! If nothing else, think of the poor goats who you’ll save from trauma

        2. Haha. Yeah, Bernie and Lizzie are a hoot these days. Good point, rev!

        3. “Watching alienated clingers mutter bitterly and rant inconsequentially is becoming more and more enjoyable as the culture war proceeds.”

          A perfect self-portrait of a Leftist clinging to his delusions of winning the war for hearts and minds.


      2. I miss coherence

      3. Trump has no style, substance, or brain.

    2. 1. He’s still a potential nominee at this point.
      2. “What is an Aleppo?” was pretty coherent.

    3. His hat isn’t obnoxious enough.

  7. Yeah. And Bernie is an Independent.

  8. Amash. Big L Libertarian. Ron Paul. Little l libertarian. I’ll take the latter, please.

    1. So you’ll take Dr. No over Dr. Maybe If It Polls Well? Honestly, I would too.

      1. If you want a politician who makes libertarian leaning political compromises, Amash is the wrong person to go to.

      2. I’d rather take the person who accomplishes that small step towards liberty as compared to the one who yells loudly as he continues being pulled the other way.

        1. Trump has accomplished nothing.

    2. Ron Paul and Amash are essentially the same, and Paul ran as a big “L” for president.

  9. This year’s election will be a referendum on President Trump, same as any election when the President is an incumbent. If people were looking for new idea then Warren or Sanders would be the Democratic nominee. Amash is wasting his time, which is of course his to waste. I would suggest the LP not waste a lot of time on the Presidency and instead focus on a few House seats. A few members of the House could do more to present LP ideas than a Presidential run that will be ignored by most people.

    1. What good would come from sitting out the presidential election for the LP?

      1. Focus on elections where grassroots support and local organization can matter

        Not on elections where 30 second ads drive turnout.

        the LP doesn’t currently have any of those in place. But at least the former is the sort of stuff that can be built on and can be defined as a success even if you don’t win. LP doesn’t have the latter, never will, and even if it did it wouldn’t lead anywhere the day after an election.

        Hell, LP Prez candidates don’t even have a bench of people they can call on to find out what a leppo is if that knowledge matters to a Prez.

        1. Not on elections where 30 second ads drive turnout.

          I don’t disagree with you in principle but the omnipresence of straight ticket voting in America makes focusing on down ballot races a joke. What’s the point of trying to win over 1% of the people when the other 99% are just pulling the lever for Team Red or Team Blue without any consideration beyond possibly (ever so possibly) the two top candidates. Either party could run Adolf Hitler for congress in a presidential election year and win or lose the seat based purely on what people think of the presidential candidate.

          1. the omnipresence of straight ticket voting in America makes focusing on down ballot races a joke.

            Wasn’t very long ago that ‘ticket-splitting’ was common despite the ‘vote-the-party-line’ impediments that have been in place since, well, nearly forever. Even for races that aren’t very down ballot and different – eg Prez v House rep – where the duopoly almost always each fields a candidate, the decline is stark – from 190 split-ticket districts in 1984 to 25 districts in 2012.

            Go further down-ballot, and there are (or COULD BE) elections that hinge specifically on issues of electoral reform (SecyState or County clerk) or corruption (AttyGenl) or transparency/accountability or somesuch. IMO, one of the major reasons why ticket-splitting has declined is because the DeRp’s themselves no longer even contest those further down elections. The duopoly notion is very superficial. Scratch a teeny bit and what you realize is that our ‘duopoly’ system is in fact a monopoly system in most places. And that is exactly what makes our duopoly more a cartel sharing/alternating power than two separate competing entities.

            THAT is the real opportunity for third-parties. To CREATE elections in places and for contests that don’t currently have any competition at all. Problem is that that means those parties have to stop emphasizing all the ideological stuff that is completely blindingly irrelevant at those lower levels and that in fact sabotages selecting good candidates there. WTF does noninterventionism have to do with county clerk? Shouldn’t LP have a ‘platform’ that can find it possible to devote more than a single sentence (right at the very end – just before the ‘we believe in blowing it all up’ if necessary) to actual process/reform?

            Course there’s a large existing part of those third parties that is defending that irrelevancy for big-frog-in-small-pond reasons. So building from the bottom up probably requires something completely new. More like a Pirate Party or the ‘classical liberal’ parties in Europe – or frankly third parties everywhere else except here in the US.

        2. Focus on elections where grassroots support and local organization can matter

          It’s not an either-or. LP does both.

      2. It would save time and resources. There are 435 House seats. If you found a half dozen districts with good LP support, ran good candidates and won a couple you would have a foot hold. Imagine if those two Representatives objected to the unanimous consent votes. If they made Congress cast recorded votes on all bills. That would be more than a vanity run for President.

        1. More than just saving time and resources. It would create far more compelling reasons for the young to actually leave the DeRp fold. Even the House and Senate elections are merely very far in the future for anyone in HS or college who is taking a course in govt or political philosophy or economics or somesuch. Prohibited for under-25 – and de facto prohibitive well beyond that – only 5 of 435 critters are under-35 and only 3 of 100 senators are under-45).

          DeRps offer NOTHING to that generation except grunt work, debt, wait-your-turn, and a ton of bamboozle. It’s IMO a big reason why the second go-round for Paul/Sanders was so utterly pathetic. First time, they can make it a bit about their maverickness/honesty. Second-time, it’s about party BS and everyone who was around the first time knows it. And yet – third parties offer even less. That is exactly the age group that is the backbone of both grassroots grunt work and idealistic enough to want to change things early in their life and meaningfully as well. They are the pipeline for those lower-level elected positions.

          Doesn’t mean LP should ‘sit out’ the Prez election. But I does IMO mean they should nominate someone who is SOLELY focused on ‘process’. Someone who won’t blow smoke up anyone’s butt about ‘winning’ the election – but has the proven skills to build a party organization – based around cleaving off everyone under-40 from the DeRps – for the future. Someone like Jimmy Wales or Mary Matalin or Parick Byrne or someone who is organized from one of the thinktanks who wants to actually DO something instead of being some pied piper.

      3. The Libertarian Party puts a huge amount of time, money, and effort into the Presidential race every four years. And they are not by any means an organization with scads of boundless time, money, or volunteer time.

        1. It’s only huge relative to their own resources, not to the cost of running a mainstream candidate. The problem with running a presidential bid when you don’t have a presence in Congress [or anywhere] is that nobody takes it seriously. It’s like you’re unemployed and living in your mom’s basement and drive her Buick, but your goal is to get a date with Maria Sharapova. Just shoot the moon because… well she has to date someone!

    2. I actually agree with that. Well said.

    3. If people were looking for new idea then Warren or Sanders would be the Democratic nominee.

      What new ideas have Warren or Sanders brought to the table?

    4. I suggest the LP have a little dignity and not nominate as their leader a former Republican former Independent carpet bagger who joined the party less than a month before the party convention.

  10. Wasn’t thrilled with his support for impeachment either, but happy to see him run. He’ll be the best on the field, he’ll have my vote.
    In the important battleground state of California.

    1. Does Cali even allow parties other than Democrat on the ballot any more?

      1. I sometimes have a choice of Green or Peace & Freedom.

        1. As the alternative to the Democrat, that is – not between them.

      2. They are allowed, but Californians were sold on an “open primary” system that effectively instated single party rule.

        1. ah, so the Chinese system then. “You can have whoever you want as long as we approve it”

          1. ah, so the Chinese system then. “You can have whoever you want as long as we approve it”

            Sort of – it’s first-two-past-the-post-in-the-primary are the only two on the ballot for the real election, no write-ins allowed.

            When it was first designed, it was more in service of the duopoly – the idea being that those two candidates were pretty likely to be a Democrat and a Republican, with the Greens, Libertarians, Peace & Freedom and other parties left out completely.

            In a lot of California, though, what it now means is that you have two Democrats or you have a Democrat and a Green or a Democrat and a Peace and Freedom (this is how it is in my corner of the Bay Area, anyway). There’re probably some districts in the Valley or the mountains where you wind up with two Republicans, but those parts of the state are dominated pretty absolutely by the more densely populated areas.

            1. Good summary. I’m no longer a Californian.

      3. What about all the diehard Red states, do they allow anyone but Republicans on the ballot anymore?

        1. Every year. They just don’t win unless the buffoon is charged with sexual misconduct after the primary, only to have it go away the day after election.

  11. Didn’t countless people work to build the LP to the point where it was attractive to voters who supported the other parties? Why do so if the LP wants to reject those who haven’t been hard core libertarian for 40, 30, 20, or even 10 years? One wonders how many “purists” sprang up 100% in their agreement with the Platform as soon as they learned about the LP? I’ll take Amash over Trump, Biden or the boot wearer any election.

    1. I won’t. Despite paying lip service to selected libertarian ideas, in reality, Amash is a tool of the state and authoritarians.

      1. Have you closely reviewed his voting record in congress? He is by far the most libertarian during his tenure. No one is perfect but he’s the closest you’ll ever get to a real libertarian, even in the LP! Remember Gary Johnson…

        1. Voting according to selected libertarian talking points doesn’t make one an effective libertarian politician.

          1. I like the word games you played there. An EFFECTIVE libertarian politician. What is effective? Cornholding ideology for a few votes?

            This fantasy world you live in where Amash is in bed with authoritarians gives me vertigo. Reevaluate your love of Trump.

    2. You have a very good point. You have to wonder about those taking issue with Amash, but probably voted for Trump even though he was a long time Democrat. Amash’s libertarian credentials are certainly stronger than many so called conservatives.

    3. Amash preferred Independent over Libertarian when he betrayed the Republican voters who put him in office, and only joined the Libertarian Party when he gave up on winning his congressional seat.

      Sad to watch the Libertarian Party get all excited over a grifter with no prospects joining them.

      1. How did he betray anyone?

  12. FiRsT lIbErTaRiAn CoNgReSsMaN

  13. What prog woman is now going to suddenly remember an “incident” from college. Not sure how it works. Do they draw straws?

    1. Amash helpfully denounced Trump as a Republican and his run will only siphon votes away from the GOP, so there’s no need for the politburo to create a scandal.

      1. Joe Walsh is convinced that Amash is only going to help Trump win with this stunt.

        1. Could be right.

          Amash is a Deep State Globalist. The only thing separating him and Bill Kristol is a doobie.

          #NeoClowns weren’t going to vote Trump anyway.

          1. Amash and Kristol totally disagree on foreign policy, you blithering idiot.

          2. Amash a neocon? Lmao.

    2. Actually, it is an essay contest.

  14. A truly awful moment for libertarians. It would have been good if the first Libertarian in Congress had been an actual libertarian, not this unprincipled poseur.

    1. Beggars can’t be choosers. The only thing that is even remotely appealing about him, politically speaking, is his childish feud with Trump. That is entirety of what he brings to table.

      “I haven’t done shit in Congress; I cannot compromise; I cannot work with others. However, I have consistently told Trump to go suck a dick. Vote for me.”

      1. Trump is the one being childish.

    2. Butt sore Trumpkin.

    3. This claim Amash is “not libertarian” is perplexing. Some sort of deep state disinfo campaign?

  15. Instapundit’s take.

    VERY LITTLE: Justin Amash Is Running for President. What Does This Mean for Trump?

  16. Bleech. Amash has said bad things about Dear Leader. He’s no libertarian. Being a libertarian means giving Dear Leader a reach around and sticking two fingers up his buttcrack. I mean, does Justin Amash know anything about the modern libertarian or what? Golly, he’s out of touch.

    1. Supporting a coup by a secret police force against a duly elected president is libertarian?

      1. Impeachment is not a coup, retard.

    2. “American Socialist” is a fan of Amash.

  17. Hey, the next time Vice President Dear Leader goes to Walter Reed to check on coronavirus patients I think he should pretty much french kiss the guy on the gurney. He came pretty close yesterday. Why not go all the way, Mr. Pence? We need a patient zero in the WH. Which, BTW, I’ll put 10 bucks that Dear Leader doesn’t get anywhere near his VP in the next week or so. He’s a well known germaphobe and wouldn’t dare dream of shaking hands with the redneck hick scum he pretends to care about. He’s in it for him and maybe his scummy daughter and son-in-law. That’s about it.

    1. He’s a well known germaphobe and wouldn’t dare dream of shaking hands with the redneck hick scum he pretends to care about.

      No, Trump doesn’t pretend to care about working class people as individuals, he cares about improving the US economy for everybody.

      It’s Democrats, progressives, and socialists who pretend to care about people while adopting policies that keep those people in perpetual poverty and misery.

      It’s Democrats, progressives, and socialists who denigrate the poor as “redneck hick scum”.

      1. Not exactly. They have lots o fake empathy for poor people of color as they are, of course victims of the white hetero patriarchy. The trailer park scum, not so much.

        It’s one of my favorite hypocritical contortions from the irrelevant, bitter clingers who just can’t accept that identity politics is backfiring on them as they continue to lose the culture war,

        “Oh no, we’re not mocking THOSE Walmart shoppers! Just the white ones!”


      2. Trump cares about himself only, you rube.

        1. Good. That makes him a better president than people who act out of empathy.

          1. How does Trump’s anus taste?

    2. I didn’t understand Pence’s reason for not wearing a mask.

      The ostensible reason he gave is that he is tested frequently, so it’s unlikely he has the virus.

      But what was his real reason? Because it would mess up the photo ops? Or he finds masks uncomfortable?

      1. The mask is symbol of totalitarian lock down in this context.
        Good move not to wear it

  18. First Libertarian Member of Congress

    This is a bit like… the president “identifying as woman” and then getting declared “the first female president”.

    1. Darn, you beat me to it.

      I was also going to ask are we supposed to talk about him as if he was always a libertarian congress member like we do with post-op trans?

    2. Nice.

    3. How is Amash not a libertarian?

  19. *skims over a handful of comments*

    Nope, not even worth bothering with this one.

    1. That is the rational decision.

  20. When I look at these candidates, I think most Americans see the same thing I’m seeing, which is these two candidates aren’t up to being president of the United States

    Neither are you, though for different reasons.

    1. Can you say what those reasons are?

      1. He’s ineffective, unable to compromise, and willing to uphold principle regardless of consequences.

        1. Earlier you said he’s unprincipled. Now he’s TOO principled. Which is it?

  21. Where do I get my yard signs and bumper stickers.

  22. “with a sitting member of Congress proudly waving the Libertarian flag.”

    Is it proud when it takes a year and a vanity play at the presidency to finally move over?

    1. This is the best argument against Amash. If he’s a libertarian, then why wasn’t he a Libertarian prior to now.

      But, that being said, warmed over ex-Republicans have given libertarians the best exposure in the mainstream of politics. See Ron Paul, Gary Johnson. Amash fits that mold pretty well.

      1. Amash preferred Independent over Libertarian when he betrayed the Republican voters who put him in office, and only joined the Libertarian Party when he gave up on winning his congressional seat.

  23. He can’t win many votes, but is he willing to build a movement? The LP has built nothing, while Ron Paul has had some success. Rothbard was right about developing the movement as the Leninists did. What hurts Amashbis that he’s thoughtful, while the grass roots are unlearned and clownish.

    1. Just my personal opinion: Rothbard ruined the Libertarian Party early on by introducing a purist caucus and accompanying oaths to one particular, purist formulation of libertarianism.

    2. So you’re saying he is a bloviating intellectual. We can agree on that.

      1. And Trump is a bloviating moron.

  24. Opportunist Party

    1. Kind of. For all the other offices the Libertarian Party runs candidates for, they tend to run Libertarians, but the Presidential candidate is always like an open audition.

  25. I still don’t understand how a sitting member of the legislature can just change the party alignment through a press release. Shouldn’t they have to resign their seat when they resign from the party? “The People” elected a Republican.

    1. The words “Republican” or “political party” aren’t in the US Constitution. Individuals are elected to office. Individuals serve in office.

    2. If he discovered that he was actually a woman, everyone would be more understanding.

  26. someone had to be first… he may not be the best choice but it is important still…

    1. Yes, but literally anybody could have been first by simply declaring himself as a Libertarian. The first elected LP member will be a much more meaningful distinction.

  27. Which would you prefer in your final election?

    Tying your political future to straight party voting for Donald Trump, and then losing the seat you held for 5 terms while everyone points and laughs.

    Being a Candidate on the Presidential Ballot where you can play the role of the plucky underdog.

  28. “Yet he says his seat could have been defended.”

    Yeahnope. He decided to trade being a big fish in a small pond for his current small fish in a big pond status, since it wasn’t going to last past the next election anyway.

    1. graftier pastures.

  29. “…claims that the 2020 presidential contest is a ‘winnable race’ for a Libertarian Party…” Yeah, right. Explain to me again how sheep’s bladders may be used to prevent earthquakes.

    He should challenge Peters for the Michigan Senate seat. Far more likely to make a difference there.

    1. Don’t think that race comes up until 2025.

        1. I’m not from Michigan, so maybe there’s something I’m missing. He assumed office in 2019 according to wikipedia. Senate terms are for six years, so the race is in 2024.

          I wrote 2015 above, but is my point valid? That Amash has many years after losing the Presidential race to challenge Peters.

  30. “Justin Amash Becomes the First Libertarian Member of Congress”
    Sorry but no. He was elected as a Republican. A real First Libertarian will run as a Libertarian and be someone with strong enough personal fortitude to be honest about who and what he is. Amash got his feeling hurt and is now trying to hurt the person President Trump that hurt his feelings. Libertarians find a better person than Amash to represent you.

  31. I’m generally of the opinion that it is difficult to be a real “pro-lifer” social conservative and also be a libertarian. Most real pro-lifers want federal legislation declaring all abortions illegal from the point of conception. We already have the Hyde amendment restricting federal funds going to abortion. Amash could also say he also wants no federal funds going to planned parenthood (even though most of that is for mammograms, STD monitoring and birth control). However, if he (theoretically) as president would appoint more hard-core Catholic anti-choicers to the Supreme court who would reverse Roe-wade and make abortion before pregnancy is detectable illegal in the most of the South that is not a libertarian point of view IMO.

    1. It’s not difficult there’s been a divide on this issue in the LP since it’s founding. You either believe it’s some personal medical choice, or it’s state sanctioned killing. In any case the number of abortions each year has been cut in half since the peak 30 years ago. The reason is better pharmaceuticals and more availability of same. Education here helps.

      The state should not be involved in our private medical decisions any more than they should be involved in our marriages or raising and educating our children. This is the problem democrats have – it’s a choice when it’s abortion, but not a choice when it’s anything else. They are fundamentally flawed and hypocritical partisans. Republicans might be social conservatives but do you really hear about clinic bombings or threats against clings any more? No of course not because everyone (except the Dems) can see the writing on the wall, that abortion is becoming relegated to the past and won’t be an issue for anyone in the future. But every democrat will hate on any new Supreme Court nominee because of the abortion issue, and hypocritically ignore a sex abuser like Joe Biden and Bill Clinton because they want more liberal judges.

    2. I think it is difficult to be pro-abortion rights and believe in inherent human rights. The easiest argument for the legality of abortion is to argue that human rights are granted on the sufferance of the state and not an inherent condition of humanity. It hard to make an argument for abortion and the universality of human rights without using pretzel logic.

      1. It hard to make an argument for abortion and the universality of human rights without using pretzel logic.

        No it isn’t. The universality of human rights applies to existing individual humans, not human genetic material or ‘potential humans’. I.e. a given living individual human has rights because it’s a living individual human. A human heart kept alive in a jar, for example, is genetically human but does not have rights. There is an extra element of agency and consciousness that have to be present before we consider it “human” in the sense of “rights-bearing.”

        At the moment of conception, and probably throughout gestation, a fetus is no ways near being a human individual endowed with rights (and the responsibilities that attend those rights). Humans don’t acquire universal human rights until they become capable of moral agency.

        Why would a ten-day old fetus be subject to the concept of universal human rights? Should they be allowed to vote? Bear arms?

        1. Silly argument. A 17 year old does not have the right to vote or buy guns, so according to your logic he’s not a human as well.

          A two year old is not capable of “moral agency.”

          A human heart is not an organism but merely one organ. A fetus is an organism with unique DNA.

          Lack of viability is a better argument than what you have presented.

        2. Umm… a tay day old infant doesn’t have moral agency either.
          If you want to say killing a human is legal up to the point they develop moral agency, say a year or two old, that’s consistent.
          But if you want to use moral agency as your justification, the position “fetus ok to kill, newborn killing is murder” is inconsistent and unprincipled

      2. My argument is that the “inherent condition of humanity” which gives rise to human rights is our cognition. We have rights because we are sapient, conscious, self-aware, whatever you want to call it. It’s conditional on a certain level of brain activity. Since a newly conceived zygote has no brain, it clearly has no rights. A newborn baby clearly does have rights. Then you’ve just got the nine month span in between to account for. Determining when exactly rights attach is a question that’s partially medical, partially philosophical, and definitely shouldn’t be left up to government.

        I back this up with appeal to our moral intuitions regarding other species. Insects for example, we give no consideration to whatsoever. We can do whatever we please to them, because their cognition is so primitive. Mammals get a higher degree of concern. Sure we can kill and eat them, but we don’t condone unnecessary cruelty to them. Further, our level of concern for them often depends on their perceived intelligence. Apes and cetaceans tend to draw more concern than rodents. And in speculative fiction, we all pretty much agree that aliens or even artificial intelligences with sufficient self-awareness should receive full human rights.

        1. Determining when exactly rights attach is a question that’s partially medical, partially philosophical, and definitely shouldn’t be left up to government.

          ^ This right here.

        2. Government has to draw the line somewhere.

        3. An eight month old fetus has brain activity. No matter where you fall on the abortion debate, government has to draw the line at some point regarding when the fetus has rights. Having the government stay out means aborting nine month old fetuses with impunity.

          1. I don’t see why. It is perfectly legitimate to say that protection by the US government begins only at birth, just like it is perfectly legitimate to say that protection by the US government begins only on US territory. The US government does not, and can’t, protect human rights for everybody everywhere.

            1. It’s funny that you are pro-abortion yet support Trump.

            2. “It is perfectly legitimate to say that protection by the US government begins only at birth, just like it is perfectly legitimate to say that protection by the US government begins only on US territory”

              This is by far the best argument I’ve ever heard on the issue.

            3. What about state government?

              Saying that it should be legal to kill a nine month old fetus seems morally deranged to me.

      3. It isn’t the job of the US government to protect the rights of every human being on this planet. There is no inherent contradiction between considering abortion to be both immoral and a form of homicide, yet not to want the US government to intervene.

        Purely legally, fetuses simply don’t fall in the category of entities protected by the US Constitution.

        1. But there are laws protecting animals. Animals aren’t protected by the Constitution. Also how is the Constitution relevant to state laws on abortion?

  32. I was working in the lab, late one night
    When my eyes beheld an eerie sight
    For my monster from his slab, began to rise
    And suddenly to my surprise

    He was Amash, he was the monster Amash
    The monster Amash, it was a graveyard smash
    He was Amash, it caught on in a flash
    He was Amash, he was the monster Amash

  33. Amash – Hey, Guys, I’m a candidate who has name recognition and also thinks using Hayek’s knowledge in society principals are a great way to govern.

    Libertarians – Fuck off!

    We’re a joke of a party.

    1. Can’t disagree. That’s why this libertarian isn’t a member of the Libertarian Party anymore.

      Still, I’ll vote for Amash if the LP makes them their candidate.

      1. Amash is a them? You might be more comfortable voting for a non binary candidate. It’s only a matter of time.

        I assume Amash still identifies with his birth gender, but the way he switches parties, who knows?


    2. Amash is a Mueller Inquisition shill. Some of us would rather see, you know, a LIBERTARIAN carrying the banner than some warmed over conservative IC fellator.

      1. #LibertariansForTheDeepStateCoup

      2. Fuck off.

    3. Obama, Hillary, and Biden – We have name recognition and we believe in free markets and free speech and the Second Amendment!

      Libertarians – No you don’t.

      That’s not a joke.

    4. The LP is a bit of a goat rodeo, to borrow from Kevin Williamson. And there are lots of disaffected people who claim to be libertarian, and are anything but. This extends not just to this comment section but everywhere. It is funny then that most thinking adults in their private lives are instinctively libertarian in their dealings.

      Amash is a very effective messenger and communicator of the philosophy, which I think is the most important thing in a candidate. If he must lose he should do so touting the virtues of liberty.

  34. Go on Fick Anzeigen and relax yourself a little

  35. A member of Congress dares to put an (L) next to his name for the first time in history and risk a presidential run.

    I can see why this is a problem for some here.

    1. The problem is it’s a waste of time and money. The LP cannot win, have never actually won electoral votes without a faithless elector, and are just noise in the debate. There will be one winner selected from two major parties who have the cash and the clout to win. My hope is that it’s not serial sex abuser Joe Biden because I want to see more rational and constitutional judges who lean to the conservative side. Trump may not be to your liking, but he’s at least a good foil for the hard left wing socialists who have corrupted our political system and our youth with failed 20th century ideas. Right now we are in debt to our eyeballs, and the future promises reach $200 trillion for the rest of the century. A future Congress and President will need to make hard choices and I am convinced that democrats will make the wrong ones. Libertarians might have some good ideas but would be puppets for the manipulative and awful democratic socialists infesting Congress.

      1. Then we do not agree at any level.

        1. Pretty strong endorsement of his argument then

          1. There is no point in arguing when fundamentals are that far apart.

            If someone else does not want to support the Libertarian party or candidate and chooses something else neither of us needs to justify our choices. As Harry Browne famously said “nobody owes you anything”.

      2. Trump is just adding more to the debt.

    2. “A member of Congress dares to put an (L) next to his name for the first time in history…”

      That depends on if you’re specifically talking about FEDERAL Congress. Alaska voted for Dick Randolph in 1978 and again in 1980. He was, IMO, the first person to win a seat in Congress under the Libertarian flag (and didn’t run as an R first) and actually pushed true libertarian values. He was probably the most influential politician in Alaska during that time since he was the one who helped repeal the state income tax. Alaska used to elect several people with the (L) after their name in local and state level. I truly don’t understand the flap about Amash becoming a (L) or somehow it’s news of importance.

      1. Congress = FEDERAL. State legislative bodies are called “legislatures.”

    3. Judging by the comments, the fix is already in. Really a shame “libertarians” value liberty so little they will vote for Trump over a guy who is consistently, unapologetically libertarian.

  36. Amash is an IC shill which puts him on par with most “Libertarian” presidential candidates (remember Bob “Patriot Act” Barr?) Hornberger is infinitely better than this dork, but Amash will bring more eyes to the LP.

    That said I’d rather see the LP focus on winning congressional races as opposed to unwinnable, quixotic presidential campaigns.

  37. Justin Amash: a study in vanity — This preening egotist is the anti-Ron Paul

    1. Yeah, sadly, that article about gets it right.

  38. The LP needs to focus on one thing, prohibiting government from initiating force. They might gain a little traction.

  39. He’s “pro-life”, meaning he just doesn’t want to pay for your murder.

    That’s a principled stance for a libertarian.

  40. More accurate headline: “Amash completes self immolation of political career.”

  41. Once again, our junior-high mentality president can’t resist mocking an opponent. What a joke. Seriously, I’m amazed there are any people out there that still think this emperor has clothes on.

    1. Among the blind, the one eyed man Is king.

  42. It’s really hilarious so many so-called libertarians not only support Trump, but see him as some kind of savior figure.

    Trump is not a libertarian, he has no set ideology really. If he has any, it’s his own greatness. Trump’s ideology is Trump.

    1. Trump’s complete lack of consistent ideology has resulted in him doing the right thing on a non-zero number of occasions. Every other president in my lifetime has had an ideology that resulted in them doing the wrong thing in every possible instance. That makes Trump the best president in my lifetime by default.

      1. I’ve been saying for years now that we essentially elected a pair of dice president, which is better than anything we’ve had in a long, long time.

    2. trump has no core principles. the next time he makes one of his non-sequiter inconsistent blathering pronouncements watch the next two days as his toadies tell us “what he meant”.

      i’m glad he thumped hillary but really let’s not any of us pretend he is anything except a self impressed self promoter. and an opportunist of the first order. he is lucky the dems are too stupid to find someone worth voting for or this recent virus would have made him vulnerable.

    3. I don’t care what a president is, I care what a president does, relative to other available choices.

  43. Hard for a flip flopper to call out a flip flopper eh there former Republican member?

  44. Justin Amash isn’t a Libertarian. He’s a NeverTrump RINO.

    1. Butt sore Trumpkin loser.

  45. Sad way to retire from politics…

  46. So he’s not seeking re-election to the House and instead running for President as a Libertarian? Why didn’t you ask him why he decide to retire now?

    1. It is great he is not running again for Congress and will allow the Republicans to run a real candidate. He knows he could not win again and is taking the only course possible even though it is a slim chance it is at least something. His Anti-Trump policy will draw many Democrats that are appalled at the thought of voting for poor old Biden and help give President Trump an even easier win. Even some of the Bernie bro’s that were contemplating holding their nose and voting for Biden now have an choice. He will not peel off any of the Trump supporters but should give President Trump a nice boost by peeling off moderate Democrats.

      1. What exactly is a “real Republican candidate”? Someone who supports huge budget deficits and protectionists trade policies? Lol.

  47. While I think Amash is the right kind of candidate to compete for the LP nomination, I do not see a “Libertarian Moment” in 2020.

    His argument is the other two guys are bad choices, not that he is a good choice, or even that the other two parties are bad choices. That may have been a good argument in 2016, but I am not sure it is a winning argument today.

    In other words, Amash is not promoting libertarian principals as the solution for America at this moment in time. And to be honest, I don’t know if that message will sell. It could, if it were framed right. The bureaucracy failed America. The government didn’t trust you and over-restricted everything, making everything worse. We need freedom both in the government, to be innovative, and not be stifled by its own bureaucracy , and we need to trust people to make the right decisions for themselves when it comes to protecting ourselves against the spread of the virus.

    However, I believe too many people want mommy and daddy government to make the bad virus go away. And they want the government to provide their health care and give them an allowance until the bad virus is gone.

    If Amash is smart, he will go back and look at how Ross Perot positioned himself, and the Reform Party, against George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton, and against the Republican and Democrat parties. There is a reason Perot got a higher percentage of the popular vote than any other third-party candidate: He was perceived as a third option to the two other parties, not the two other candidates.

    Right now, it looks like both Jim Gray and Justin Amash are serious candidates for the LP nomination. I do not see how Larry Sharpe does not get the VP nomination. Either ticket could be strong, but the message will be critical.

    1. While I think Amash is the right kind of candidate to compete for the LP nomination, I do not see a “Libertarian Moment” in 2020.

      One where Amash wins? Certainly not. One where Biden so thoroughly implodes as a candidate that the race becomes one between Trump and Amash (that Amash loses)? Not outside the realm of the possible.

      1. And what if Trump thoroughly implodes as a candidate as he currently is doing?

        1. If Biden wins, it was Amash’s fault.

          If Trump wins, it was Amash’s fault.

  48. i’m glad he will bring some discussion of libertrarian theory to the discussion but don’t see him as a very solid libertarian. regrettably the issues he fails on are big ones for me as was the fact that gary johnson would require folks to bake cakes for homo’s against their will. there are probably a lot of issues i can overlook but constitutional ones are part of the purity test i apply. will someone please clone harry browne

    1. Other than abortion, which can honestly be argued both ways from a libertarian standpoint, on what issue is Amash not solidly libertarian?

  49. If Democrats were smart (which they obviously aren’t, IE Biden) They would kick Biden and open the door to Amash. I Libertarians were smart, they would drop some of the crazy leftist ideologies that have infected the LP, like open borders BS.

    1. Why would Democrats nominate someone like Amash who believes in limited government?

  50. It looks like the Democrats that were terrified and appalled at holding their nose and voting for Biden now have an alternative. This will insure a Trump victory because Trump supporters decided a long time ago who they would vote for. This is another blow to the left and they will not even know how to answer. If Biden ever finds his way out of his hidey hole basement where he has been fearfully hiding and criticizing those that have faced this crisis head on each day he may make an incoherent statement about Amash that no one will understand. Maybe poor old quid pro quo Joe will have a good excuse for sexually assaulting the woman accusing him but his confusion and incoherent talking will not be enough to overcome another candidate.

    1. So Amash is a Trump plant?

    2. Twenty women have accused Trump of assault or rape. Trump speaks incoherently.

      1. “Orange man baaaaaaahd!”

        1. 1. He IS, faggot.
          2. I was responding to dan2650, who pointed out the accusation against Biden. If that accusation is relevant, so are the 25 against Trump, moron.
          3. If Biden’s manner of speech is relevant, so is Trump’s. Duh.

  51. RON PAUL was a Libertarian!

    1. Ron Paul was a libertarian.

      Justin Amash is a Libertarian.

      And having that “L” after a Congressman’s title of office and name is very long past due. That it is but one, is sad in the nation that was Libertarian long before the word was coined or the party founded or the nation a nation. The communication difficulties of those times allowed America from the start of settlement to spontaneously grow into a very, if imperfectly so, Libertarian place. In a deeply American sense every time an American must interact with his government is a failure of that government and betrayal of our history and founding.

      If Amash does no more than bring the topic of liberty back to the mainstream discussion, he will have done more for the nation than any politician in years.

      1. But he’s giving up his seat to run for president.

  52. Meanwhile the impeachment and Russian probe he staked his reputation turned out to be a sham and a hit job. It turns out the government DID try to frame Flynn to get to Donald Trump. But Trump bad.

    1. Nope. They weren’t a sham.

  53. So basically he only became a Libertarian once his political career imploded, it became clear he was losing his seat, and he had no other options.

    Sounds like a really principled guy,

    1. Cheri Jacobus’ says Amash is a Trump plant. If that’s the case, a Trumpkin lime you should be kissing his behind. Trump is way behind on the polls and needs someone to siphon votes from Biden.

      1. like you

      2. You mean the same polls that predicted Trump would lose in 2016? Yeah, I’m sure the TDS press has really improved their methodology after four years of continuous fake news.

        Goddamn, you’re a fucking idiot.

        1. YOU are the fucking idiot. Shut up about 2016. What happened in 2016 does not prove what will.happen in 2020, Hillary was well on her way to victory in 2016 before the Comey letter was released. That was a game changer that caused the polls to tighten. Trump needs an October surprise like that to win. And unlike 2016, he has to run on his shitty record this time, so eat shit. Trump is trailing in the rust belt states AND Florida this time. Biden isn’t Hillary. He is more well liked, and he won’t take states for granted like Hillary did. Trump’s approval is at 45 during a national crisis. Wake the fuck up, retard. I can’t wait to laugh at you after the election.

          1. Yeah, Biden isn’t Hillary. For all her faults, Hillary at least was mostly alive, awake, and not senile. One can’t say the same about Biden.

            1. Trump’s nickname is “Dotard.” A literal dog turd would be a step up in being “alive, awake, and not senile.” The knocks on Biden for being “senile” aren’t working because his opponent is a God damn idiot. Nice try, though. It’s all Trumpers really have.

        2. Idiot Hoot Smawley doesn’t know the polls were close in 2016 because of Comey and Russian interference. Lol. Hillary led by 2 in RCP average and won pop vote by 2. Polls were correct.

        3. Trump’s own internal polling shows him down by a lot, stupid fag.

        4. Amash is being castigated by Joe Walsh and other Never Trumpers for doing this as he may swing the election to Trump. I don’t get why he’s doing this; he has no shot at winning. Cheri Jacobus says Amash is a plant for Trump.

  54. NeverTrumpers are already saying that Amash is a plant designed to help Trump win. Maybe they’re right.

    1. Or maybe they’re wrong

  55. Assuming Amash is running for honest reasons, I think it’s a mistake because he has no chance of winning and can only play spoiler. I think he should run for his Congressional district instead, as a Libertarian.

    1. The LP has survived other warriors for the babies cross-dressing as Libertarians in district elections–by cutting them adrift. But Ron Paul froze us below the 1% mark by running with the Human Torch and the doctor-bullying bimbo from Alaska. All three National Socialist “race suicide” candidates made women cross the street in 2008 to avoid the LP and GOP alike. Only the post-crash appeal to 3rd parties coupled with the pro-choice Johnson-Weld ticket put us on the replacement curve at 80% per annum increase in votes.

      1. Is abortion your top issue? Johnson was pro-choice but also went against libertarian principles on issues, including public accommodation laws.

      2. Amash is clearly more intelligent and coherent than Johnson and knows a lot more about libertarianism. He happens to be pro-life, which is a view shared by some libertarians. On everything else, he is clearly more libertarian than Johnson.

    2. Haha. This dude has like 9 consecutive posts, some replying to himself. Talk about an echo chamber.

      Prepare to be disappointed. Again.

      1. Disappointed in what way?

  56. “At the end of a century that has seen the evils of communism, Nazism and other modern tyrannies, the impulse to centralize power remains amazingly persistent.” ~ Joseph Sobran

  57. I don’t think I will actually vote for Biden, but I do think he is the lesser of two evils. Amash is better than both on the issues but has no shot at winning.

  58. [ Work At Home For USA ] ★Sara Jackson paycheck was for 1500 dollars… All i did was simple online work from comfort at home for 3-4 hours/day that I got from this agency I discovered over the internet and they paid me for it 95 bucks every hour…… More Details

  59. This is an extremely exceptionally decent post you shared click here

  60. It’s late finding this act. At least, it’s a thing to be familiar with that there are such events exist. I agree with your Blog and I will be back to inspect it more in the future so please keep up your act. magnifying mirror

  61. Amash knows he doesn’t have a chance in hell to win the election. Amash is trying to make trump a one term president which is the goal of the majority of Americans.

    1. But liberals are saying he will throw the election to Trump.

  62. Amash is a good choice for someone like me who believes in limited government and is repulsed by the main two candidates.

    1. And half the voters. Ireland repealed Amendment 8 by a 2/3 margin. Women have individual rights there, notice that?

      1. Is that the only issue you care about?

        Men and women poll about the same on abortion. Would Amash get that many more voters if he became pro-choice? I kind of doubt it. Women tend to not be libertarians imo because they believe more in big government than in self reliance. Women are okay with free stuff, gun control, and other liberal nonsense. They want to be protected instead of being free.

  63. I view Amash as the least repulsive of the three choices. He’s done a lot of good things, but he went way down the Russia rabbit hole. It’s also pretty cringe the way he is playing this Libertarian run as a “Principles” thing, when it is obvious that he was gonna get shellacked in the next Senate race and this is a last ditch effort to get some notoriety. He had no party support, and he had not chance of winning without it, he was already on slim margins before then.

  64. Amash took a principled position on Trump which brought down the wrath of the RNC and ended his career. That’s a warning shot for Thomas Massie and Rand Paul as to what happens when you color outside the lines.

    As much as I like Amash, he was wrong about impeachment (Randy Barnett makes a good case that Trump wasn’t guilty of an impeachable offense). It’s unfortunate that Amash chose that hill to die on but his career was on life support anyway for as long as he was going to defy the RNC.

    There will not be a “libertarian moment” any time in the foreseeable future. Authoritarianism is on the rise in the first half of the 21st century just as it was in the first half of the 20th century.

    1. Perhaps it is his way of saying that if this is the job I don’t want it. Not like he needs the money or anything.

      Congress was never intended to be a lifetime appointment in the first place.

      The reason to run a candidate is to get the message out. Winning is not going to happen because the two party system is fixed. It is two kids on the see-saw switching sides from time to time.

      1. When Amash was exiled from the Freedom Caucus which he founded, not a single caucus member came forward to defend him. Not even when his lowness, Kevin McCarthy, attacked Amash for “voting with Pelosi most of the time”, an obvious and easily exposed lie, no one defended Amash.

        If it appears that Amash’s candidacy might actually affect the outcome in any state, his name will magically disappear from the ballot. Last minute claims that the LP failed to meet ballot requirements will end up in court and be resolved sometime around 2025.

  65. I was not going to vote for Trump or Biden. I will vote for Amash, because he is a libertarian. I’m less concerned with things like timing or his stance on Trump. None of that is important.

    If you really care about liberty, you might consider supporting the best messenger of libertarian philosophy we’ve had in a long time.

  66. The 14th Amendment limits government jurisdiction to the use of force on behalf of individuals, not female body parts. That’s what “All persons born” means. Amash is clearly another Republican Army of God castoff infiltrating the LP to cast us as religious fanatics or a revival of the T-totalitarian party. To them, getting rid of our law-changing spoiler votes is “winning”. Ron Paul did that and alienated thinking female voters ever since. After that Trojan Horse our vote share fell below 1% for the longest time. Pro-individual rights Gary increased our vote by 328% in 2016 by backing choice.

    1. That comment below about Johnson was for you. I’m not sure what happened there. I thought I was replying to you.

    2. Johnson tried to sue to force the two parties to let him debate, not realizing libertarians believe in freedom of association. And of course there’s “What’s an Aleppo?” and not being able to name any world leader he admires instead of giving the default answer of “None of them” like Ron Paul would have done.

    3. Why do you care about abortion so much if you don’t have a vagina? I can see being pro-choice, but you are clearly obsessed with the issue.

      Libertarians can be pro-life based on the notion life begins at conception (as that is when a unique human organism is formed) or even “natural rights,” since it is a part of nature that the fetus is able to grow in another human’s body for nine months before birth. Pregnancy can be viewed as not the same as donating an organ to someone who needs it (which of course is and should always be a choice and not mandatory) because the latter is not natural whereas the former is.

      Abortion is a debatable issue within libertarianism. Freedom of association is not. Amash is clearly for more liberty than Johnson and a superior libertarian. That is my view.

    4. Austin Petersen is pro-life yet agnostic. It’s not all about religion.

  67. Johnson wants to force Jews to bake cakes for Nazis, even though they currently don’t have to (foolishly not realizing Nazis aren’t a protected class). Give me a break. That’s individual liberty? Fuck him. He’s an idiot. He only got a decent vote total because of how hated the top two candidates were.

  68. Assuming Amash is running for honest reasons, I think it’s a mistake because he has no chance of winning and can only play spoiler. I think he should run for his Congressional district instead, as a Libertarian. from https://techfle.com/

  69. Justin Amash voted to impeach Trump LITERALLY because Trump threatened to invoke executive privilege. That shows nothing but contempt for the U.S. Constitution….and proves that Justin Amash is no Libertarian. It doesn’t matter how much you hate Trump, you cannot REASONABLY argue that “threatening to invoke privilege” is an impeachable offense. Amash walks with the fascists.

    This is why I left the Libertarian Party years ago. They were literally putting up admitted Socialist candidates in CO.

    1. Yawn.

    2. He voted to impeach Trump because Trump is a Russian puppet and actively used all of his power to prevent investigation into his support of the Russians trying to overthrow Ukraine and bribing the Ukraine government with funds they were already due by Congressional approval. We are Americans and we do not forget and we do not forgive, even Joe Biden is better and I hope he wins.

  70. Newsflash! Your headline is wrong. At least one other Libertarian has been a member of Congress. Ron Paul is a life member of the Libertarian Party who once said, ” I remain a lifetime member of the Libertarian Party and I’m a ten-term Republican Congressman. It is not against the law to participate in more then one political party.” Source: https://reason.com/2008/09/22/ron-pauls-presidential-endorse/

    He returned to Congress after joining the Libertarian Party and running for President as a Libertarian in 1988.

  71. He loses my vote right away because he doesn’t believe in a woman’s right to choose what to do with her body. That’s a real shame, I support him on 75% of the rest of his platform, but ignoring the rights of 51% of the population is political suicide.

    1. Mind you I don’t care if the government doesn’t fun abortions, however, it shouldn’t tell women they can’t do it and if you look through his voting record he very much would enjoy the rejection of RvW

      1. Feminist wimp loser.

    2. Cuck.

  72. It’s great to see a Libertarian Congressman, can we get someone else though?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.