You Have Libertarian Alternatives to Biden and Trump This November

Libertarian Party candidate Jo Jorgensen will be on every state’s ballot.

The media obsess about Trump/Biden, but another candidate will be on every state ballot: Libertarian Party nominee Jo Jorgensen.

Dr. Jorgensen, a psychology lecturer at Clemson University, is very different from Donald Trump and Joe Biden. Instead of promising government solutions, she tells people, "You can spend your money better than the politicians."

I like that. So, she's the subject of my video this week.

I start with COVID-19. Libertarians are skeptical of government action, but a pandemic may be the rare situation when government should act. People need protection from contagious people. No one wants medical facilities overwhelmed.

When politicians issued lockdown orders, their actions were praised by most media. "There are no libertarians in a pandemic," smug people said to me.

Jorgensen says that's nonsense, that COVID-19 became one more excuse for authoritarian politicians to boss people around.

"Is it right for the government to take away tens of millions of jobs? I say no. Young people could be out there and have no more risks than having the flu."

If government stepped back, she says, the private sector would lead the way. She points out that Walmart required masks be worn in all their stores. "It shows that, yes, we can be adults without government telling us we need to be adults."

I tell Jorgensen that my former Fox Business colleague Lou Dobbs calls libertarianism "an absurd philosophy."

"What I think is crazy," she replies, "is spending a lot more than you take in… having troops in the Middle East, which makes us more at risk, just like we saw with 9/11… crazy is actually having taxpayers pay for the defense of Germany and France."

Good points. Why does America need to be the whole world's policeman?

Vice President Biden helped get America into many of its endless wars. President Trump said he'd like to bring our soldiers home, but he hasn't done much of it.

"Instead of fighting wars and having military bases all over the world," Jorgensen says, she'd "make America one giant Switzerland, armed and neutral."

Biden says he would "end gun violence" and that "the Second Amendment is limited." Jorgensen replies, "we limit gun violence by allowing peaceful citizens to arm themselves."

Trump taxed imports, claiming America "loses" when we have a trade deficit.

Jorgensen calls that laughably ignorant. "I have a trade deficit with my gas station because I buy gas from them and they buy nothing from me," says Jorgensen. "It doesn't matter what one country does."

Biden says increasing the minimum wage to $15 is "just a start." Jorgensen quips: "Yeah. A start to minorities not being able to get a rung on the ladder to successful employment."

Jorgensen opposes Trump's immigration restrictions.

I push back: "There are billions of poor people all over the world. Some want to come here to freeload."

Jorgensen replies that welfare programs have rules to prevent freeloading, "Many… have a five-year waiting list." Also, "if you look at people who have the initiative to come here, they typically have the initiative to work."

Biden would spend $2 trillion to try to delay climate change. Jorgensen says the free market is the better way. "Wherever there's big government, there's more pollution."

Neither Trump nor Biden wants to stop the war on drugs. Jorgensen believes that (for adults) all drugs should be legal.

I agree with Jorgensen about most things. But people say a vote for a Libertarian candidate is wasted.

In addition, Jorgensen will be accused of taking votes from Trump at a time when "only Trump might stop big government Democrats." She'll be accused of taking votes from Biden, when "we need to get this clown (Trump) out of office."

"We need to get both clowns away from the presidency," Jorgensen replies.

Jorgensen won't win, but I hope her campaign inspires some Americans to think about the proper role of government.

Jorgensen is absolutely correct when, at the end of our interview, she says: "We've got Washington in everything we do. It's just causing more problems."

COPYRIGHT 2020 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC.

DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM

Comments

[Agammamon]

Why is it that Stossel is the only Reason contributor who talks about the Libertarian Party's candidate rather than just how awful Trump is?

[RabbiHarveyWeinstein]

Go ahead and vote 3rd party. Throw your vote away! I'm ridin' with Biden + Kamala!

[Longtobefree]

And you will be ridin' a bus or train, not a personal car.
If you can get a travel permit.

[Shitlord of the Woodchippers]

I don’t think Feels Up/Heels Up will be allowing anyone to take their own cars tot the re education camps. There won’t be enough gas anyway. After Biden ends all drilling.

[tangith]

I make up to $90 an hour on-line from my home. My story is that I give up operating at walmart to paintings on-line and with a bit strive I with out problem supply in spherical $40h to $86h… DFv someone turned into top to me by way of manner of sharing this hyperlink with me, so now i’m hoping i ought to help a person else accessible through sharing this hyperlink…

strive it, you HERE?..... http://Cashapp1.com

[Kevin Smith]

Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos

[docduracoat]

Kodos... the executioner!

[MatthewSlyfield]

Cthuluhu 2020: The lesser of three evils.

[Gray_Jay]

"Why choose a lesser Evil?"

[MatthewSlyfield]

No, this time around He is the lesser evil.

[Gray_Jay]

Hmph. See if you get eaten first after saying that about Our Dread Majesty.

[Steven Howard]

You make a bigger impact and statment voting 3rd party. Voting for Biden is a wasted vote. It only says you didn't like Trump. Voting for Jorgersen says you didn't like either of the two big spending candidates.

[Freethinksman]

Voting for Biden isn't just the lesser of two evils. Everyone knows that. Trump is the greatest existential threat to our country since at least the (first) Civil War. He has incited the worst instincts in the worst people, and between those two things and his command of the TV camera our country cannot stand another four years of his intentional mayhem. There is no choice this time around if you are a patriot. If Biden loses, we all lose.

[mmmjv]

That is true indeed (There's no "like" option here?)

[mmmjv]

And it also keeps Trump and all his BS for another four years

[MisterB]

May your chains rest lightly.

[JoeB]

Nice try. Shouldn't a good liberal like you vote for the female candidate, as opposed to the old white guy?

[mmmjv]

No, liberals don't just automatically vote for the female

[Henry]

He is voting for the female candidate. The standby one.

[voluntaryist]

"Go ahead and vote..." Throw your sovereignty, your rights away!
I do NOT consent to be governed.

[Chipper Morning Wood---------------------]

Both are important.

[loveconstitution1789]

Trump is the most Libertarian-ish President in over 100 years.

And he has accomplished Most of what he campaigned promised. Even if a LP candidate won the election, there would be fewer rollbacks of government than Trump was able to pull off.

That and the LP has allowed saboteurs to Libertarianism to be on their ticket.

Trump gets my vote.

[perlchpr]

He's not the best or worst I've ever seen.

President Trump said he'd like to bring our soldiers home, but he hasn't done much of it.

I think it's unreasonable to hold this against him though, since every time he tried the people who were previously antiwar screamed like he was trying to wax their taint.

[Eric]

He’s easily the worst Head of State we’ve ever had. But as Chief Executive he has been okay.
POTUS wears so many hats, it really depends upon what’s important to each person that will determine their impressions of the President.

[Agammamon]

Really? Hoover? Harding? Nixon? Bush Jr? Obama?

[Zeb]

I guess it depends on what you look for in a head of state.

[JoeB]

Wilson?

[Mabal Zarhari]

Boom!

[Mabal Zarhari]

Wilson has got to be the worst of all time

[maderid]

Make $6,000-$8,000 A Month Online With No Prior Experience Or Skills Required.FDv Be Your Own Boss And for more info visit any tab this site Thanks a lot just open this link…..

========== CashApp

[MisterB]

Yep.

[De Oppresso Liber]

You do realize that having the consent of the governed through open and fair elections is pretty central to libertarianism and classical liberalism, right? It's the most fundamental aspect. Trump is clearly against fair elections. Therefor, he is the least libertarian, least classically liberal president in at least living memory.

[Agammamon]

Another assertion without support.

I guess just flat out lying works on Twitter or something.

[BYODB]

Of course, by this logic it would mean that no one could possibly question the results of any election without being fundamentally against elections.

This, obviously, means that politicians like Al Gore are fundamentally against elections.

The reason why is because you seem to imply that doubting election results = being against elections.

[ImanAzol]

He seems to be against unfair elections. Hence the liberal hate.

[Nedmorlef]

I couldn't have said it better. We have become so divided as a nation that, a vote for Biden is a vote against Trump. And a vote for Trump is a vote against Biden. Otherwise you're just throwing your vote away voting for anyone else. One of these two men are going to be president. No libertarian has ever won an election and Trump looks really good. You may not like him as a person but, he is one of the best presidents in our lifetime.

[voluntaryist]

You have a right to vote, i.e., throw away your sovereignty, your life, liberty, property rights. Freedom means you can self-destruct. Count me OUT! I use my freedom to chose self-governance, self-respect, self-responsibility, self-esteem, self-confidence.

[Fred G. Sanford]

What part of him is "Libertarianish"? His tariffs? His anti-immigration policies? His massive spending? Oh yeah, he's a Libertarian all right.

[Pippers]

His racism. It's his racism that makes him "Libertarianish".

Well, and Rand Paul calling for the FBI to arrest people first, then investigate them later. That's pretty "Libertarianish" also, and he backs Trump so that must mean they are both "Libertarianish".

Maybe it's the massive expansion of government Trump has done that makes him "Libertarianish".

His constant aggression against LGBTQ+, specifically transgendered citizens from existing. That must also mean he is "Libertarianish".

I guess in the end, if you're a Republican that means you are "Libertarianish".

I guess we could look at Biden, who wants nothing more than every citizen to be treated as equals and reform where it is needed to achieve that goal. He also doesn't think the pandemic is a hoax, so we might have the insane amount of deaths drop off at some point as well. I guess that means we're all Socialists now, and is in no way "Libertarianish".

[Johnimo]

Trump has given us a very Libertarian Supreme Court Justice in Gorsuch. I'm voting for Donald Trump. Furthermore, he got us out of the lopsided Paris Climate Accord which failed to demand a clean enviornment from India and China, while immediately penalizing US industry. I'm voting for Donald Trump. Trump gave us another Supreme Court Justice who is a Constitutional Conservative. I'm voting for Donald Trump. Donald Trump lowered the business income tax to the same levels as they have in Sweden. I'm voting for Donald Trump.

[fdog50]

Sorry, Jorgensen just doesn't measure up to the political dynamo that was Gary Johnson.

[JoeB]

So cruel.

[JD Daily]

She was interviewed a month or so ago by Tom Gresham on his Sunday "Gun Talk" show. Her responses were pathetic. On 2A issues she doesn't know a watt from a twat.

[Stacy Howell]

Because Trump is awful and voting for a 3rd party candidate right now is a ridiculous thing to do. I voted Democrat for the first time last election, and I will do so again in the hopes of getting Trump out of office.

[Delroy]

No discussion of BLM, which is possibly the topic most small l librarians are annoyed by Jo's handling?

[RabbiHarveyWeinstein]

The Libertarian party doesn't believe in antiquated social notions, such as the nuclear family. If children want to eat, they should get a job on Chaturbate or the coal mines of West Virginia.

[Don't look at me!]

Polishing monocles is a perfectly good job for children.

[Rat on a train]

Some people have diversified. From each orphan according to its abilities. To each according to its needs.

[Quo Usque Tandem]

And it's all for the greater good, right?

[Shitlord of the Woodchippers]

Yes, and I hear Buttplug likes to have young boys polish his ‘monocle’. Jeffy approves of that sort of thing, but only if an illegal alien is involved.

[No Way, Ted]

"The Libertarian party doesn’t believe in antiquated social notions, such as the nuclear family."

The word you were looking for isn't "Libertarian"; it's "Marxist".

[ImanAzol]

I think you're referring to the Demorrhoids, though they'd insist the kids belong to the Underage Sex Workers' Union, so they'd have benefits.

[JoeB]

and...neither does BLM! Try harder, Rabbi.

[Chipper Morning Wood---------------------]

No, libertarians are not annoyed for her support of the BLM movement's principles. Only racists masquerading as libertarians have a problem with what she said about BLM.

[Social Justice is neither]

Don't forget her walking back her support for BLM with a call for being actively racist...um, I mean anti-racist. Makes sense you'd be supporting this.

If she'd just tried to distance herself from the violent, racist, marxist organization of BLM that would be fine but instead she told everyone to accept their narrative framing.

[R Mac]

I’m not exactly sure what being actively anti-racist means, but I know the libertarian presidential candidate shouldn’t say we must do it.

[Nardz]

Eunuch, like pretty much all pathological leftists, is racist.
It's all projection and "virtue" begging from there

[R Mac]

When you call people racist that don’t agree with you, is it just an endorphin thing, or do you actually get a hard on?

[Flatulus]

Only a semi; he has to rub the nips to get full mast.

[Dturtleman]

What kind of monster ARE you?!? (vomits forcefully)

[Mother's lament]

"I call people who disagree with me 'racists'.
The argument may not involve racial issues, but because they're now 'racists' I can refuse to engage their arguments because they're racist's arguments. I am very smart." - t. Chipper

[Chipper Morning Wood---------------------]

I wonder why that statement triggered you so much.

[R Mac]

Not triggered, just curious what drives such stupidity.

[De Oppresso Liber]

No, you and the usual suspects are certainly triggered. Look at that, 7 responses to a 2 line comment.

BLM aside, people who think that there is no systemic racism in the US, who think the only solution and only problem that has caused riots is a lack of police violence being unleashed on protesters are probably racists, or at the best, simpletons who cannot extrapolate cause and effect past one step.

[Agammamon]

. . . simpletons who cannot extrapolate cause and effect past one step.

All the violence and unrest is happening in Democratic strongholds, perpetrated by Democratic Party supporters.

Maybe you could try to extrapolate from that.

[R Mac]

You’re either confused what triggered means, or who I am Lying Jeffy.

[zzubu8ym9p]

My Boy pal makes $75/hour on net. he has been job less for six months.VSe However he earns$16453 genuinely working at the internet for some hours.
Immediately join from the source….► CashApp

[ImanAzol]

90% of the systemic racism is by Demorrhoids. As is 90% of the systemic anti-semitism, sexism, ableism, classism, straightism and religious intolerance.

The police have been jackboots to everyone for decades. At least, in Demorrhoid run cities.

[Chipper Morning Wood---------------------]

When you call people racist that don’t agree with you, is it just an endorphin thing, or do you actually get a hard on?

I'll let you know if I ever make such a statement. But man, you sure get all worked up when someone speaks out against racism.

[Nardz]

"when someone speaks out against racism."

L
O
L

[Dang Long]

Two posts in a row?

You mad!

[Shitlord of the Woodchippers]

You don’t work anyone up. It’s just so bizarre how you progs try to lecture people about decent behavior when you have no morals, ethics, or decency yourselves.

You’re amoral trash with no sense of decency. Did you know that?

[Chipper Morning Wood---------------------]

^Spoken by a guy who regularly promotes violence and wants to kill people that don't share his political views.

[ImanAzol]

Are you accusing him of being a Demorrhoid?

That would explain why you think he's racist.

[Nardz]

His name is eunuch... he's an innie

[R Mac]

So calling people racist makes xer wet?

[Eric]

From what I’ve seen there are two primary schools of thought for those that truly want to see positive changes for black people:

1. Empower and support black people and communities so that they can raise themselves up and achieve greater things.

2. Disempower and tear down the rest of society to effectively “equal the playing field”.

I support #1 as it falls in line with my view of an America that provides equal opportunity for all regardless of race, color, gender, etc.
#2 scares me as it makes us all worse in the long run. And unfortunately it seems to be the method that many on the left are pushing for.

[De Oppresso Liber]

Other than affirmative action, I can't think of another policy that fits #2. Any examples?

[ImanAzol]

You can probably google "riots" and find some examples.

[Eric]

Some of the worst examples I’ve seen are the ludicrous boycotts against STEM as well as the Defund the Police initiatives. Other things like the government allowing Chaz or rioting are disconcerting to me. Especially when the entire MSM has cowardly ceded the narrative to the fringe of the left, normalizing racism and violence as long as they are committed against non-blacks.

[Agammamon]

Ah, so we're racists if we don't support an organization that is not only run by marxists but exists solely to promote the interests of one segment of the population (chosen by race) over the interests of the rest of the population?

BLM is promoting black interests over human interests - but *we're* the racists?

[Chipper Morning Wood---------------------]

If you notice that I, and Jo Jorgensen, said nothing about the BLM organization, but about the movement. Any arguments that the two are the same are simply disingenuous.

[Agammamon]

BLM 'movement' hasn't disavowed the racists in their midst.

Also, the BLM 'movement' is supporting the interests of one race over the interests of people in general - but we're the racists, right?

https://freebeacon.com/culture/tony-baltimore-school-buckles-to-anti-semitic-demands-of-black-lives-matter-activists/

[Henry]

Where can one contact the "movement," as opposed to the "organization?"

Me, I'm a fan of Proud Boys. The movement, now, not the organization. That's so much better, right?

[JoeB]

So, respect for hard work is racist? Not part of the the "Black" paradigm? How can you critical race theory idiots not hear yourselves sounding like Jim Crow?

[Juice]

I like when she tweets stuff like this:

Then stop "managing" 350 million people like they're one unit! Give them liberty to make their own decisions, let THEM live THEIR life, and stop making your neighbor live the life YOU think they should lead.

or

It's time to ask #BidenHarris2020 why @KamalaHarris has shown no interest in co-sponsoring the Justice for Breonna Taylor Act that would ban no-knock warrants across the country. She's on the committee that could move it forward.

Tweeting Critical Social Justice Theory catch phrases, not so much. But, she only did that once or twice and I think she learned her lesson from that.

[Hoot Smawley]

She's running for President...if she didn't know that before she started her campaign, she's too far back in the learning curve to get points for it.

Here's the reality...you can have a President who's already proven he can accomplish *some* of the things that most libertarians claim they want (Trump), you can have a President who represents pretty much everything most libertarians hate and who has dementia and will be removed for a leftist (Biden), or you can vote for Jo Jorgensen, who has accomplished nothing particularly notable in her professional life, watch her go down in flames, and on the .00001% chance that she actually got elected you can watch the establishment Republicans and socialist Dems completely destroy her while she gets nothing done.

That's your choice.

[Steven Howard]

Nobody votes for Jorgersen thinking she will be elected; they vote for Jorgersen to make a statement they aren't happy with Biden or Trump, or by our two party system.

[ImanAzol]

Trump made a couple of screwups on gun control, which will haunt us forever. In which he's on par with every Republican since Nixon.

He gave lip service to asset forfeiture, but the courts are addressing it, including his own appointees.

Otherwise, he's been neutral to good on most issues. He's let the states fuck their own citizens under sovereignty, stuck to border, trade and economic issues.

JorJor came out in favor of Marxians and had to walk it back. That shows ignorance or lack of judgment or playing to what she thought the audience was.

No thanks.

[CE]

Most Libertarians are opposed to the Bureau of Land Management. Just sell off all the federal lands, or deed them to the states.

[Agammamon]

Ugh, actually . . . don't do this.

Locally, BLM is far more permissive about what you can do on those Federal lands than my state is. Don't need OH permits for vehicles, no trail restrictions, can shoot, etc.

[Zeb]

It's like electing someone who believes in creationism. The belief is ridiculous, but it really has very little bearing on how they actually perform in office. Her vague statements about anti-racism have little bearing on what she could or would do as president.
Plus, she won't be elected in any case, so it's just a symbolic vote.

[No Way, Ted]

It helps when identifying libertarian enclaves in states. You can look at election results and see what percentage and number of votes cast in a certain county were for the Libertarian Party.

[Trollificus]

Hmmm...carefully not mentioned.

If she's gullible enough to believe the CRT-informed bullshit that BLM spouts, nope. First Libertarian I won't vote for in...what? 8 elections? Worse, she not only doesn't discretely, politely disbelieve that bullshit, but FELL FOR IT?

Not in a hundred years.

[Don't look at me!]

She points out that Walmart required masks be worn in all their stores. "It shows that, yes, we can be adults without government telling us we need to be adults."
Give me a break.

[Zeb]

And that private entities as well as government can treat us like stupid children.

[Squirrelloid]

By my count this is only the third Reason article about Jorgensen since her nomination. That's shameful.

OTOH, thank you Stossel for covering her.

[Sometimes a Great Notion]

Maybe the libertarians are slow rolling her? Last time Gary had lots of early coverage* and some momentum early on but between his stoner demeanor, Aleppo and Weld loves Hillary, and the usual vote switching to a major party; they only managed 3%. While 3% is good for the libertarian party it was disappointing when the other candidates were easily the most hated candidates in US history.

* for a libertarian

[perlchpr]

it was disappointing when the other candidates were easily the most hated candidates in US history

I think that actually harmed Gary. I suspect that a lot of the voting in the last election was fear driven. "Oh fuck! I can't let them win!" In an election where ~50% of the country didn't feel that the "other" main party candidate was an existential threat, they might be more willing to "throw their vote away" on a third party.

I actually think this helps explain the increasingly shitty candidates we've been getting my whole life.

[DRM]

I think that actually harmed Gary.

No, you don't, because it is impossible to reach that conclusion by any process that could actually be described as "thinking".

Johnson 2016 got three times the popular vote percentage of any other Libertarian presidential run ever, including Johnson 2012. At the same time, the Green Party's Jill Stein also trebled her popular vote percentage, 2016 over 2012.

The only unifying factor to explain the trebling of support for both the Libertarian and Green candidates in their repeat runs is that the major-party candidates' historically-high negatives convinced a good fraction of people that it was worth casting a third-party vote.

Concluding that those negatives hurt the third-party candidates is too stupid for words to express.

[perlchpr]

I had figured Gary did as well as he did this go around because he was actually the LP candidate the whole time, not just after his GOP candidacy failed, and because he's actually a good candidate. I expect that Stein's numbers were significantly boosted by mad Bernie supporters.

And that's why I think Gary would have done even better if the other two candidates weren't so polarizing. You may disagree with my position there, and I'm certainly willing to listen to arguments against it, but it is a position with thought behind it. However much that may shock you.

[Commenter_XY]

Yeah, I agree. For a libertarian-oriented publication, there is appallingly little coverage of the Libertarian candidate for office. You'd think that Pravda Reason would publish a state by state look at candidates for federal office running as Libertarians.

[Gray_Jay]

"You’d think that Reason would publish a state by state look at candidates for federal office running as Libertarians."

That would be useful. That also sounds like work. More work than simply rewording what comes over the columnists' Twitter timelines.

Jorgensen seems like a perfectly nice person, who is a political neophyte, and is in no way, shape, or form ready for this job. State Rep? Or City Council seat? She's got my vote.

Not that she'd do much good there. Houston, a few years back, voted a no-shit Randian onto the City Council. You never saw so many 14-1, 13-1 votes in your life. I thought it was hilarious, and I agreed with her, but it was a definition of 'quixotic.'

Vote for Jo or to stave off the drooling evil eternal Senator and his Sith Apprentice? It's not a hard choice.

[Commenter_XY]

That would be useful. That also sounds like work. More work than simply rewording what comes over the columnists’ Twitter timelines.

Oh the horror....Pravda's Reason's writers would have to do actual work. 🙂

[Henry]

"Jorgensen seems like a perfectly nice person, who is a political neophyte"
...despite having run for Vice President 25 years ago...

[Dillinger]

>>libertarian-oriented publication

lol

[perlchpr]

"notionally libertarian oriented publication"

😉

[R Mac]

Unfortunately in this election, there is only one alternative to supporting the Marxist BLM organization, so for the first time since I was 18 and voted for Slick Willy, I will not be voting libertarian for president. And for the first time in my life, will vote republican.

Lucky for me, I won’t have to hold my nose while I do it anymore than I did when I voted for Gay Jay.

[Mother's lament]

I will never ever vote Republican!
(Because I can't, cause I'm not American. But go Trump. The only candidate capable of destroying the clerisy)

[R Mac]

“cause I’m not American.”

Then why do you even think you can post here, you subhuman!

[Gray_Jay]

Meh, Rufus posts here, and he's a bagged milk drinker. Plus one of the better posters here. Keep 'em coming, ML.

[Nardz]

If you vote D, they'll let you vote here...

[Rat on a train]

He can even vote from the convenience of his home.

[Dturtleman]

If you’re registered D, but you’re already dead, don’t worry; they’ll vote on your behalf, and then post here on tReason, on your behalf, to stan for Biden/Harris, the most libertarian ticket EVER!!!

[Dillinger]

check your mailbox.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

I honestly don't understand being a single-issue anti-BLM voter. How much power do you really think that they have?

And how would voting for JoJo now be any different than voting for Gay Jay then? Sure neither one of them are doctrinaire Libertarians, and both said a couple of dumb things (depending on your point of view), but in all other respects, if Gay Jay was superior to Trump then, how is Jo Jo not superior to Trump now?

[Nardz]

She, like you, is racist

[chemjeff radical individualist]

Sure man whatever. Wanting to oppose racism is the same as racism.

[Earth Skeptic]

Maybe. But wanting to promote constraints on what people think is not libertarian.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

Look. If I told you, "You must call your mom on Mother's Day", do you think that this statement means:

A. If you don't call Mom, then I will send agents of the state to throw you in jail

or

B. Calling Mom is what a decent person would do

?

It is just fringey paranoia and a knee-jerk reaction to claim that what JoJo *really* meant was something like A, and not B.

I mean, in the entire rest of her platform, she speaks about how individuals ought to have control over their own lives, that they are better prepared to make decisions for themselves than some government agency. And with that one single tweet, I am supposed to believe that that one tweet represents the "real JoJo" and the entire rest of her career and her platform is rubbish? Really?

There is just too much knee-jerk reaction to interpret any phrase that *might* have been something that Ta-Neishi Coates *might* have said as equivalent to left-wing authoritarian diktats. It is absurd.

[JoeB]

Like you're not going to vote for Biden/Harris. Just stop.

[perlchpr]

Wanting to oppose racism is the same as racism.

No, but the ideology labeled "anti-racism" is not exactly what it says on the tin, from what I've seen. (I'm still waiting for Kendi's first book from the library.) The ideology labeled "anti-racism" seems to in fact demand racism, just applied the other way.

Much like how the ideology labeled "anti-fascism" is "opposition to fascists, by which we mean everyone who isn't a communist".

[Zeb]

It's not even just applied the other way. It seems to me that this movement is also incredibly condescending and infantilizing to black people. Telling them that they are victims incapable of getting ahead because of historical trauma is not the way to empower and improve people's lives.

[Compelled Speechless]

Exactly. If Ibram Kendi had grown up listening to Ibram Kendi, he would never have become as successful as Ibram Kendi on his own (and a lot of self-hating white people's) terms.

[Nardz]

It's actively anti-aspirational

[Nardz]

You keep defining and prioritizing people by their skin color while calling others racist then

[Zeb]

What is being sold as "anti-racism" today is not in opposition to racism. It is explicitly racist.

[R Mac]

“I honestly don’t understand”

I know.

[R Mac]

Here’s a hint: it’s because you’re not very bright and refuse to listen to your betters.

[Compelled Speechless]

What is this talk of betters? Does that R in your name secretly stand for Reverend?

[The_Unknown_Pundit]

Democrats are slobbering all over the BLM, and the fact that the Donks do so tells me were their sympathies lie. They play footsie with Antifa, anti-American rabble. Screw them.

[Ben of Houston]

I can understand it as a matter of principal. Saying BLM is good is one thing. However, the political support they are receiving at this point is denying reality.

Rioters tried to set fire to the condo of mayor of Portland Monday night. A condo building full of people, and they threw burning debris into the lobby in an attempt to burn it to the ground. Fortunately, the fire didn't take, but politicians are still defending this sort of rampant destruction and are lying about what is going on.

If a politician would lie about something so blatant, how can we trust them on anything?

[Henry]

"How much power do you really think that [BLM] have?'
It depends. Are you talking joules, lumens, foot pounds, or just general brisance?
I'm just glad they're releasing it all in blue metropolises.

[No Way, Ted]

Wait. There's a Republican candidate running for president?

[Mother's lament]

Love you John, but JoJo isn't really an alternative to Biden.

Also, libertarianism is a life philosophy. Not a political party.

[R Mac]

It could be both. But a lot would have to change for that to be true. Including the current Libertarian Party.

[Hoot Smawley]

The Libertarian Party is nothing but a refuge for people too dysfunctional and disagreeable to get anywhere in one of the major parties.

If you are looking to have a political career, you literally have a better chance of doing so with no political party affiliation at all than you do as a member of the Libertarian Party. True independents have actually gotten themselves elected to Congress. The LP has never won a Congressional race. Or a governor's race. And only about 10 state legislature races. And their best showing in a presidential race was about 3%. John Anderson and the short-lived Reform Party did better in their presidential elections.

[Henry]

It's a bunch of people who think people should not be ruled, vying for the position of ruler.
It's like holding a Miss Vegetarian contest and offering a grand prize of a year's supply of bacon.

[Dillinger]

>>Not a political party

too many individuals.

[Hoot Smawley]

Not even individuals. Just crackpots. The party is run by dysfunctional cranks.

[Nardz]

Nope

[North49]

It is not enough to be passively anti-establishment; You MUST be actively libertarian.

[JeremyR]

That Walmart thing is weird. They ask people to not wear asks, and if they refuse, they still them shop.

But if they required it, they would have to call the police on them. Which is why Walmart doesn't require them, having experienced a couple dozen stores looted and burned down.

[Ben of Houston]

There are many things that are worth asking nicely and should be followed out of manners and respect, but are not worth escalating to official action.

[Liberty Lover]

I have voted for the Libertarian party candidate for President my whole life. It has done no good. The Libertarian party is irreverent. I am not a Libertarian, I am a libertarian. I now vote 'No". While both candidates are severely flawed, I still think Trump is the better choice.

[Zeb]

Voting (as an individual act) never does any good.

[Terry Anne Lieber (Don't Feed Tony)]

Jo is the LINO alternative and we all know that even if she was an actual libertarian, it wouldn't matter on a presidential election since a 3rd party ticket cannot possibly win.

If actual libertarians, in- or outside of the LP, want to change the politics of this country then they must start with local offices first. The WH should be the last thing on their mind.

[Hoot Smawley]

They can't win those either. They currently occupy zero state legislature seats. They've never won a Congressional or gubernatorial race. The overwhelming majority of their elected official occupy low-level and mostly inconsequential non-partisan seats.

And that's after almost 50 years of existence. You could give them another 50 and they'll be no further along.

[docduracoat]

I completely agree!
The libertarians need to win school board, county clerk, city council and mayoral elections.
Then a few governors and senators.
With some experience winning and governing, then they have a chance at President

[Henry]

The Catch-22 is that the low-level positions like school board, zoning board, parks & recreation, etc. are positions any true libertarian would want to see abolished, not served. Having to serve in one of these positions before qualifying for higher office is like having to murder one of your Family's enemies before qualifying for a management-level Mafia position.

[Longtobefree]

To be a Libertarian president, you have to get elected.
The Libertarian party has a platform that does not appeal to very many voters.
Trump has done many more libertarian things since elected than any Democrat, (and most Republicans) have ever thought of.
I have many issues where I disagree with the Republican party, but no where near as many as where I disagree with the Democratic party. In a desperate attempt to retain the few individual freedoms left, I will vote Republican in the next election.

[Commenter_XY]

I do not agree with every policy position Jo Jorgensen advocates. And that is fine. Ed Koch famously said, "If you agree with me on 7 out of 10 things, you should vote for me. But if you agree with me on 10 out of 10 things, you should see a psychiatrist"

So it is with Dr. Jorgensen. I don't agree with her 100%, but her governing philosophy is much closer to what I think the appropriate role of the federal government should be, than either POTUS Trump or Slow Joe. So she gets my vote.

Since I live in the People's Republic of NJ, it won't matter. NJ is the bluest of blue states. Now down ballot, I am absolutely going to vote out that useless son of a bitch Andy Kim, and vote for David Richter (Team R candidate). And I will vote for Rik Mehta because I absolutely despise Cory 'Empty Fucking Suit' Booker.

Libertarians are not even running a candidate in my district.

[Dturtleman]

Don’t say you hate Corey! You’ll make Rosario cry!

[Hattori Hanzo]

You could have run in your district. LP is a bottom-up party. It is enough of a struggle having to continually funding lawsuits to keep the party on the ballot across the country. There isn't resources to recruit candidates to run.

[Commenter_XY]

And subject myself to asshole ignorant reporters asking asinine questions? And those ignoramus reporters write and distort things to destroy my family and friends? No thanks.

[arpiniant1]

Nope
only more ways to re elect trumpski

[SIV]

Neither Trump nor Biden wants to stop the war on drugs. Jorgensen believes that (for adults) all drugs should be legal.

That's an improvement over GayJay who said only marijuana should be legal.

[Brandybuck]

You voted for Trump or Hillary because Gary wasn't pure enough?

[Henry]

I voted for Trump or Hillary because back in 1996 I told that fucking backstabber Bill Weld that I had cast my last vote for him for any position whatsoever. The fact that Johnson insisted on him as his running mate lost me to Johnson for good.

[Pippers]

If stopping the war on drugs made it onto your top 10 list for candidates then I would love to hear about the lizard people and underground pizza parlor theories.

With all the insanity in the country today something like that should be around #50 on things to be thinking about. I'm not saying it isn't important in some other timeline when the world isn't currently burning, but ... the world is currently burning.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

Don't vote for the duopoly. Don't endorse their campaigns of lies and fear. Don't validate what they've done - the trillions in debt, the surveillance state, the war on drugs, the routine infringement of all our liberties that is just taken for granted now.

Voting for either Team Red or Team Blue is to get more of the same. If you think America is doing swell right now, then go ahead and vote for them to keep doing what they've been doing.

In every election, it is always the non-incumbent who claims, "Vote for me for real change". Obama had "hope and change". Trump had "only I can fix it". They are just empty slogans. Don't fall for their propaganda.

Don't let your emotional hatred for the other team cloud your judgment. Speaking only for myself, it is not a secret that I utterly loathe Team Red. I want to see Republicans defeated at every level. What Republicans have devolved into - a cult-like entity abandoning even a pretense of principle in order to profess their slavish devotion to Dear Leader Trump - is disgusting and embarrassing. There are days where I want to vote for Biden just to spite the Republicans. Just to "pwn the cons". But that is just an emotional reaction. We can't let ourselves devolve into that type of emotional immaturity.

We will never see anything approaching libertarian change in this country if we keep voting for more of the same.

Honestly, I don't care what your politics are - voting for the duopoly is a waste of time in any event.

[Juice]

Don’t vote

Don't worry. I won't.

[Enjoy Every Sandwich]

Whatever the utilitarian merits of voting either Republican or Democrat, both of those parties need to remember that it's my vote. I'll cast it as I choose.

[Compelled Speechless]

If I were Biden reading this, I would be able to deduce that you ain't black!

[Echo Chamber]

Last cycle Johnson and the Green party candidate got a ton of media attention. This cycle it's crickets. The 3rd-party odds weren't any different last time. What changed?

[Brandybuck]

The media didn't think Trump could win. They have concocted a lot of theories about why, ranging from Putin to Facebook to voter suppression, but among them is the theory that "gosh, more people voted for third party than there was a gap between Hillary and Donald".

And so they dare not mention that any one is running, lest Biden lose a single vote in a deep blue state.

[Gray_Jay]

Got it in one, Brandy. Something like 77,000 votes in three states was the difference between Trump and Clinton. The Green Party in one state alone had more votes than that.

That's not going to happen again if our media betters have anything to say about it.

[creech]

The only real way to throw away your vote is to vote against your principles. Your one vote won't determine any state or national election. Stay true to yourself or be another sap who thinks the winner carefully examines each vote and voter's mind and is grateful to someone who abandoned his principles.

[NoVaNick]

If I lived in a state where my vote mattered, I might consider voting otherwise, but since Virginia is firmly in the blue column, I will vote for Jo Jorgenson just so I can tell my kids I voted, and she is the least toxic candidate.

[Brandybuck]

I'm in California so my vote matters even less than yours. It's a nice excuse to get the cultists off my back. Helps a little, but still people screaming in my face that a single vote from me can turn California to Trump. Yeah right. Cultists. The Biden groupies aren't any better.

But even if my state did hang in the balance, I still wouldn't vote for either of them. I do consider one of them to be significantly worse than the other, but the lesser evil is still evil and I won't vote for evil.

[Weigel's Cock Ring]

There are “Biden groupies”?? I suppose they must exist.., but I swear I have yet to see one, anywhere.

Biden has less genuine grassroots support that I can see, both within his own party and the country at large, than any democrat presidential candidate I can remember since Jimmy Carter’s futile attempt to get re-elected.

Even Hildog, as unlikeable as she is, had a real base of intense passionate supporters that this sad old man doesn’t come anywhere close to.

[NoVaNick]

They have tried to fix that by adding Kamala to the ticket, kind of like pouring ketchup all over a tasteless overcooked burger.

[NoVaNick]

But most progs’ opinion on Biden is the same as my son’s reaction to not liking his lunch options - “I guess I’ll have PBJ then...”

[Mother's lament]

IMHO Kamala's more like vinegar than ketchup.

[JoeB]

Used ketchup.

[Hoot Smawley]

There was a good interview on Stuart Varney's show today, with RNC chair Ronna McDaniel, where she pointed out that despite a large amount of money on-hand, the Democrats had no grassroots campaign infrastructure at all for Biden. Like nothing. I live in a state that hasn't gone red since 1988, and there are no Biden/Harris signs anywhere. Not one that I've seen, even in blue areas.

They are voting Biden to check the box, not because they think Biden is any good. Zero enthusiasm for the guy and his campaign is a trainwreck.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

Of course, let's trust the RNC chair to speak honestly about the Democrats' campaign.

[Hoot Smawley]

I trust that you'll always shill for the Dems because you're Creepy Joe's target demographic.

Better keep away from schoolyards. When Trump wins, he's not going to be favorably disposed towards your demographic and will be enforcing the sex offender laws.

[Paul Hager]

Mr. Stossel & readers:

STUDY about social choice/voting science and Condorcet Voting. With the current voting system (note, the deeply flawed Instant Runoff system is little better) a Libertarian Party candidate on the ballot will split the vote with the most libertarian major party candidate making it more likely for the least libertarian candidate to win. For this reason, the Libertarian Party is actually a mortal threat to libertarian principles and the reason I quite the LP in 2002.

I don't understand why the LP hasn't pushed voting reform and when they do it appears they've cast their lot with the IRV cultists. I will never vote LP again until the LP puts most of its resources behind voting reform.

[NoVaNick]

In the 2013 Virginia governor’s election, the LP candidate Rob Sarvis got 7% of the vote and actually drew more votes from potential McAwful (not libertarian by any stretch) voters than from Cuccinelli (not much of a libertarian either, but better on a few things such as 2A). Your definition of libertarian seems to be the candidate who will protect your rights while shitting on someone else’s

[NoVaNick]

IMO a libertarian protects everyone’s rights by limiting the power of government to shit on its subjects period.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

Your definition of libertarian seems to be the candidate who will protect your rights while shitting on someone else’s

Sadly that seems to be the functional definition of "libertarian" for too many people around here.

[Mother's lament]

Tell that to the man in the mirror, Jeff.

[Brandybuck]

Not a great candidate, but then again, the field was very poor to begin with. Amash are a brief ray of hope, but I guess he didn't want to get caught up in fantasy camp.

Still, she's better than either of the septuagenarians, and I expect her to beat Gary Johnson's numbers simply because no one likes the establishment choices.

What the LP needs to be doing is focusing on local and state races, to build up a "farm team". This strategy of going to sleep for three and a half years, only to wake up for one national race, just isn't cutting it. At the local level the branding does suck. No one wants a purist ranting about how he's going to defund the parks and the sidewalks. As much as an anarchist as I sometimes am, anarchists at political parties are like Quakers at gun rallies. The LP needs to turn its back on purist anarchism and start thinking about actually winning some races. Doesn't mean the purists are wrong, it just means they have no business in political parties. Split the LP into a debate club and a political party, and let the two halves walk away from each other.

[Juice]

Amash are a brief ray of hope, but I guess he didn’t want to get caught up in fantasy camp.

Amash proved to me that he's a real libertarian by being politically inept.

[Homple]

"You Have Libertarian Alternatives to Biden and Trump This November"

And, as long as we're fantasizing, Kate Upton will show up at my house with a gallon of nuru gel and an 8'x10' plastic sheet next time my wife goes to her book club.

[perlchpr]

I'm listening...

[Dillinger]

not include the wife?

[mulched]

Naw, man. Let her get her own fantasy Kate Upton. I ain't sharing.

[Quo Usque Tandem]

I've voted libertarian/ third party for the past 20 years, but there is just too much at stake to essentially throw my vote away in order to feel "moral" about it this time [I reside in one of the "battle ground" States].

[chemjeff radical individualist]

there is just too much at stake

What exactly do you think will happen if either Trump or Biden wins?

Do you think that if Biden wins, rioters will burn America to the ground and conservatives will be sent to death camps?

Do you think that if Trump wins, Nazi fascist stormtroopers will be shooting illegals and sending them to mass graves?

Don't fall for the demagogic nonsense from either Team Blue or Team Red.

Here's what will happen if either Team Blue or Team Red wins: more of the same. We will just continue our slow slide to massive debt, fewer liberties, more culture war nonsense, more American wars overseas, and more pointless bickering about pointless issues. Because that's what happened for the past 50 years or so.

There is too much at stake to vote FOR anyone in the duopoly! They can't solve these huge problems that face all of us. They aren't going to and are barely going to even try.

[Quo Usque Tandem]

If Biden wins and Democrats control congress: Ginsberg will die and be replaced with a flaming liberal, as will as judicial vacancies going forward.

If Trump wins and Republicans maintain control of the Senate: Ginsberg will die and be replaced with a FEDSOC recommended nominee, as will all future judicial vacancies.

What this means to me: I have a far better chance of retaining all aspects of the BOR if Trump wins than if Biden wins.

Not that Trump personally gives a shit; I don't care. It's what is allowed to happen if he wins vs if he doesn't.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

Like John Roberts?
Like Brett Kavanaugh, who hates the Fourth Amendment about as much as any authoritarian progressive?

And if we are looking to SCOTUS and the courts to bail out America, then it's already too late. We should not be expecting the courts to be some type of Jedi Council making all the important decisions for us. The courts should be mostly inconsequential and irrelevant. The only reason SCOTUS has outsized authority now is because the other two branches of government, run by the duopoly, have ceded their authority, kicked the can down the road, and are willing to let courts make the unpopular decisions for them so that the politicians don't have to take the heat for the results, or so the politicians can use the courts as a foil to run against.

Let's try to work towards a system where it doesn't really matter who replaces Ginsburg instead.

[Commenter_XY]

Both justices you mention are light-years more respectful of individual rights than either Ginsberg or Breyer or Sotomayor on their most lucid days.

[Quo Usque Tandem]

I'd prefer a system that doesn't matter who the POTUS is, or how many radicals get elected to Congress.

[Mother's lament]

Do you think that if Biden wins, rioters will burn America to the ground
Not rioters, the political establishment.

and conservatives will be sent to death camps?
And libertarians, and classical liberals, and Evangelical Christians, and Orthodox Jews, and Muslims once they've outlived their usefulness.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

Again if you actually think anyone is literally going to go to death camps if either Biden or Trump are elected, you are a fool who is falling victim to the demagoguery.

[perlchpr]

Do you think that if Biden wins, rioters will burn America to the ground[?]

No, that's what I think will happen (or at least attempt to happen) if Trump wins again.

[Echospinner]

I don’t understand “hold your nose” thinking. Four years is a long time to breathe through your mouth.

Jo is clearly the best choice from a libertarian point of view.

[Nardz]

This statement not based in reality

[Commenter_XY]

Wow...really? How so? Not being a smartass.

[Ersatz]

if i were asked to justify that i'd say that its because a republican can get more (potentially) libertarian stuff done just by virtue of having most - if not all - of his party voting with him. Neither party would feel obligated to vote for libertarian legislation otherwise and if history is any judge - they would actually both vote against most lib leaning ideas. A third party prez would be fought over to whichever dark side thinks it could leverage them much like the wolf and elmer fudd fighting over daffy duck.

[Nardz]

Jo promoted marxist racism.
That's disqualifying.

And were Jo to actually win, which she absolutely will not, she'd sell out - as she proved by promoting marxist racism

[The New Number Two]

Pretty sure she was endorsing the sentiment that black lives do matter, not the BLM organization's platform of revolutionary socialism.

[Ilya Shlyakhter]

Purpose of elections is to make collective decisions. If, on election eve, a candidate polls at 5%, our collective decision as to that candidate has already been made. If there are collective decisions we have not yet made, use your ballot to influence those (unless you truly have no preference there).

[NOYB2]

You vote for the candidate that actually advances the causes you care about most, not the candidate that says the right thing.

Jo wouldn’t be able to handle the presidency; if elected she would be a useful idiot for AOC.

[Azathoth!!]

Vote Jo! She'll prog harder!

[Mother's lament]

Hard to beat "Bake the fucking cake" Johnson.

[Nardz]

And yet she did

[Ken Shultz]

You can only have two alternatives. The LP candidate is an "option" not an "alternative", and that's not just a grammar issue.

The alternative to Biden is Trump.

The alternative to Trump is Biden.

If one isn't elected, the other will be.

The LP candidate is an option. You also have the option of other third-party candidates. You also have the option of principled non-voting.

But the LP candidate is not the alternative to Trump and Biden.

Trump is the alternative to Biden, and Biden is the alternative to Trump--and there are real world implications of that fact.

[102]

●▬▬▬▬PART TIME JOBS▬▬▬▬▬●my co-employee’s ex-wife makes seventy one dollars every hour at the pc. she’s been unemployed for 4 months.. remaining month her take a look at became $13213 operating on the laptop for four hours each day.. take a look at..... Usa Online Jobs

[Dillinger]

(L) ineffective @ Executive as long as (RD) runs Legislative.

[CE]

quite the opposite. An LP Prez could just veto everything, and the only new laws that would be passed would be the ones with 2/3 support. Which would be a big improvement over what we have now, where each party ratchets up the evil as they ping pong power back and forth.

[Dillinger]

Terrified of 2/3 Congress agreeing on anything. I imagine daily veto-overrides

[NOYB2]

But Jo wouldn’t veto everything, she’d quickly fall in line behind the progressive agenda.

[Mother's lament]

She already has.

[CE]

As usual, Stossel cuts to the chase and explains the issue clearly and succinctly. He was on a roll until this:

"Jorgensen won't win, but I hope her campaign inspires some Americans to think about the proper role of government."

Never concede defeat. The votes haven't been cast yet. Jorgensen won't win, unless enough people vote for her. Media pundits (including at Reason) told us in 2016 that Trump wouldn't win.

[BigChiefWahoo]

Whatever the qualities of the Libertarian party candidate, the Libertarian party has no ground game. I had decided to vote for Johnson and Weld back in 2016 (and I did), but when I called the phone number listed on their campaign website, at 2:30 on a weekday afternoon, mind you, all I got was a recording telling me that the mailbox was full. Here in Illinois, the Libertarians had no apparent statewide organization at all. The only evidence of any Libertarian organization was the Lake County Libertarian organization, whose website would sell me a bundle of Johnson-Weld yard signs for $110. Can I really expect anything different this time around? In the end, I only voted for Johnson because I was pretty certain that the Cook County Democrat Machine would somehow carry -ahem- Illinois for HRC, so my vote would have been wasted anyway.

[Mac61]

Voting is stupid, the candidates are stupid, the parties are stupid. Libertarianism is not as stupid as the other choices, but it’s stupid too. Libertarians have made no inroads at the local level despite talking about it for thirty years. Yeah, I’m stupid too. Anyone who would waste their lives making politics their hobby dies stupidly on his or her deathbed. We are all slaves to a reality TV show. There are two parties. There will always be two parties. Libertarianism is a hobby and a fantasy.

[JoeB]

You need a cookie.

[I was a libertarian... in high school]

"We limit gun violence by allowing peaceful citizens to arm themselves."

And that's why we have so little gun violence in this country! Or something! Jorgenson seems like a particularly unconvincing purveyor of the same libertarian talking points I've heard for a few decades.

[NoVaNick]

Slow day at the Biden campaign office, eh?

[perlchpr]

The Basement doesn't have many toys in it that Joe hasn't shit on at least once.

[Echospinner]

It is the money of course. The entrenched establishment has a lock on the big bucks.

If libertarians could grab enough of the votes to make a big difference we could have a fighting chance at getting more into office by attracting some of the big donors and rock star candidates.

[Moderation4ever]

I am disappointed in Jo Jorgensen's response to the question on the handling of the coronavirus pandemic and it leads me to conclude that libertarians are not the people to have in charge when there is a crisis. What Ms. Jorgensen needs to explain is how a libertarian philosophy could respond to a crisis. Here are several follow-up questions she might consider answering; would she impose travel restriction from foreign countries experiencing infectious epidemics, would she use Federal governments health resources to develop voluntary recommendation for business and individuals, would she use Federal resources to expand testing and tracking, would she assist states in procuring supplies, and would she support individuals and businesses that are affected by the pandemic. If Ms. Jorgensen were elected President she could not pretend that pandemics, hurricanes, flooding, wildfires, and earthquakes. I like to know what role she see for the Federal Government in dealing with crisis.

[Echospinner]

Mostly that is a State issue. They are the ones making the rules on Corona, supporting the locals and so on, Same for disasters.

The feds I think should have a role as backup for situations they cannot handle. If we really looked into it I think we would find they are wasting a lot of money on things we don’t need and lining the pockets of suppliers who support them.

[Gregdn]

The only vote wasted is the one not cast.
I routinely vote for the Libertarian candidate when a crappy choice is the only alternative.

[Jon Lester]

JoJo herself convinced me to stop voting for LP ballot access until they start nominating actual libertarians again. Specifically, it was that tweet about how we all need to be "actively anti-racist;" what does that even mean, what should I be doing differently, and why would any libertarian tell me I have to?

[Echospinner]

Same thing as “actively anti-gun control”. Racism is counter to everything libertarians believe. You may not need to do anything yourself but let us not pretend it does not exist.

[mulched]

Is not libertarian to make someone not racist. Is libertarian to leave racists alone with their freedom of association.

[Echospinner]

Of course but racism is counter to the libertarian philosophy. You are free to associate with whomever you wish but libertarians condemn bigotry. You have as an individual no obligation to anyone else. Jo is simply defining her views of where the party stands as a political candidate for president.

From the platform.

“We condemn bigotry as irrational and repugnant. Government should neither deny nor abridge any individual’s human right based upon sex, wealth, ethnicity, creed, age, national origin, personal habits, political preference, or sexual orientation. Members of private organizations retain their rights to set whatever standards of association they deem appropriate, and individuals are free to respond with ostracism, boycotts, and other free market solutions.“

The practice of racism violates the NAP. It is harmful to others and violates their natural rights. This has been a debate in libertarianism for a long time. I am on her side on this. It is the morally correct stance.

[JoeB]

No, that's not what she meant. There is an official definition of "anti-racist", and what you said is not it. Would you agree with actively subjugating those people who choose to not own guns, or voice an anti-gun opinion?

[Echospinner]

Official?

Which official issued such a definition?

Own guns or not. I do not really care. Your personal choice. You can voice any opinion you wish.

I do not wish to subjugate anyone whichever they choose. That is key to a libertarian point of view. The libertarian position is very clear. Read up on it if you care to.

[Echospinner]

Just to add. Of course she can’t tell you what to do. You can be a communist neo-Nazi so long as you do no harm. However she is defining what she believes libertarians stand for. We are against those things. Libertarianism is about equal dignity and respect for all individuals and free market capitalism. As activists, and she is one, she is actively against those things.

[BYODB]

Lets see, two former governors with at least some name recognition and voting record got less than 5% so lets run someone that no one has ever heard of and assume we're going to beat that figure.

Logic, is it in you?

At least with Weld Your Johnson there was the chance of getting above that 5% watermark. With Jo there is no chance. So what is my incentive to vote for them, again? Social signalling? That's not really my bag, baby.

[XM]

She's invisible in the polls and much like libertarian candidates before her has the personality of a potato. She has lots of good ideas but minimal personal connection to voters. A voter has to have some kind of a personal stake in the candidate to form a movement.

LP is stuck eternally inside an ideological purity and bubble. Gary Johnson got 5 mil vote last election. Instead of trying to build on that, they do the same thing they've always done. Principles should remain the same but the messaging and the quality of the candidate shouldn't be. Their game plan should be presenting an upbeat and charismatic candidate who can lure disillusioned voters as the two parties continue to nominate old, dour men with depressing personality.

Worst of all they don't understand their supporters. I'd say at least half of them are center right. I've never heard of a Ron Paul supporter say "damn I wish he was for open borders". Making a big show out of aligning with BLM is an indication that the party doesn't have the money for advisers who can feed them intel on their own base.

[Rabbi Karen]

Supporting BLM is a disqualifying factor. Trying to make excuses for her is like Nancy Pelosi saying that she didn't know that beauty parlors were locked down.

[EWM]

"Free election of masters does not abolish the masters or the slaves." Herbert Marcuse

[Jess Sain 2]

Thanks for letting me know I have the option for throwing away my vote like a complete moron...well not as moronic as voting for Kamaltoe/Eggplant but close. No I will be voting for Trump in spite of the pathetic mewling noises from Reasonless who is nothing but a pathetic shill for the left.

[weibullguy]

Americans don’t want liberty or freedom. That shit’s scary because it requires personal responsibility and accountability. Both the Democraps and the Republidumbs offer you the opportunity to be a victim. That’s what Americans want, the opportunity to blame someone else for their (usually self-inflicted) problems. Which lever you pull depends on whether the immigrants or the capitalists are the cause of all your woes.

[James K. Polk]

More insanity. The presidential election is not a popularity contest. The winner will pick at least one and probably two Supreme Court justices. Two more Sotomayor's on the court will cause decades of harm to constitutional freedoms that libertarians supposedly value. And now the Democrats have gone insane with censorship. The first amendment is in danger of becoming irrelevant. Trump picks will defend your constitutional rights (they could be better on the 4th amendment I'll admit) and Biden picks will do everything they can to destroy them (except for the 4th amendment where they're pretty good).

[JoeB]

Even in CA, I'll be pulling the lever for Trump. Just to counter at least one of the millions of fake harvested ballots. Also, only Trump can get away with pulling a Soleimani on Soros (with video, please!), collecting $6 trillion from the CCP for their virus damages, and weekly televised beheadings of Antifa and BLM terrorists. Four more years, baby!

[Mike Flores]

Since many "libertarians" voted for Hillary in hopes we could attack Iran and Syria, I need to hear or read that the candidates will not cross over to Biden.

[Ezra MacVie]

If you just can't stand either leading candidate ...
A vote for Jorgenson is as good a use for a vote as any. Maybe better.
Of course, voting might not make any sense, either. But at least it doesn't cost anything.

[voluntaryist]

Voting is consenting to be governed, to be ruled, to be pushed around like a subject, a slave. Still think there is a "good use" for a vote? Every time you vote authoritarians win, you lose.

[jonnysage]

A psychology lecturer? Does she know how to run a business, manage thousands of people, deal with politicians and world leaders? Is she educated on thousands of administrative topics? Does she have military experience? Has she traveled?

Just because she can recite or even understand philosophy doesn't make her a good executive of a country. I'm not sure I can even respect a libertarian who WANTS to be President.

[Fanglemeister]

In 2016 I wanted to vote for Gary based solely on his record as Governor of NM. But I switched my vote to Trump, even though he welched out on a debt to my construction company of $23k back in the 1990s. Why? Because Hillary had a good chance of winning; we all had to do what was necessary to keep her out of the White House.
In 2020 I still dislike Trump, but JarJar seems too wishy washy, has no executive experience, my sense is she would be eaten alive by the Commies. Trump is at least semi-libertarian(ish) and at least he can take multiple punches and still takes the fight to the Commies. I figure to vote for him again, but until then, every time I am mailed a questionnaire from him or the GOP, I load it up with Libertarian responses. *You couldn't get me to vote Slow Joe & the Ho with a gun pointed at my head.

[Johnimo]

I'm with you one hundred percent! This is a no brainer.

[mmmjv]

Voting for anybody except Biden, or not voting at all, will help Trump.

Not in every single case of course. The candidate that would be hurt would be the candidate the person would have voted for. But the thing is it's people on the left who are more likely to vote for a third party candidate or sit home and pout because the Democratic nominee isn't progressive enough. Conservatives don't do that, not nearly as much. If there was a far left Democrat running against a Republican that was just slightly right of center Republicans wouldn't sit home and pout because the Republican wasn't conservative enough. They'd get out and vote, for the Republican.

If you vote for a third party candidate or you don't vote, and if otherwise you would have voted for Biden, you are helping to keep Trump in the White House.

How long does it take to sink to the point where elections are nothing more than a joke? Like they are in North Korea or Russia or any of those other places where the guy who's been there for decades wins by like 97%? This could be your last chance if you don't vote for Biden.

[jonnysage]

But if we vote for Biden, he could win.

[Trollificus]

And there you have it. Whatever anyone thinks of Trump (and I think he's a dumbass NYC blowhard), if you vote for Biden, in a couple of years your President will be someone who's had WIllie Brown's dick in her moiuth. Do we want that?

[Hank Phillips]

Jo has a really GOOD youtube commercial now. This one (though good) is milquetoast by comparison. Throwing the anarchist communist hoof-and-mouth border crossing plank under the bus would help. Stossel should mention that looter prohibitionism has repeatedly wrecked the economy.

[juffa_ema]

do u know about this post..READ MORE

[Paul Hager]

Until the US has adopted Condorcet Voting, an LP vote is either irrelevant or elects the LEAST libertarian candidate. I QUIT the LP in 2002 because I couldn't get the LP to realize the problem or do anything about it. And 2002 was several years into the process.

Incidentally, IRV - adopted in Maine IS NOT A VIABLE REFORM. It throws votes away and because of its many flaws, it is nearly as bad as the current system. It might make a tiny and functionally irrelevant LP possible but no real change for the LP to become significant. Look at 100+ years of Australian experience.

[tlapp]

Trump is appointing judges that are more favorable to the Libertarian philosophy. I voted for Gary Johnson twice hoping he would approach 5% but he appeared to quit once he was not in the debates last time. I would certainly agree with Jorgenson on many more issues but the judiciary will be Trump's legacy. His executive orders will fade as fast as Obama's.
Another Trump term may get a replacement for Breyer and maybe Thomas if he decides to retire along with all the lower courts.
Let's get more Libertarians in the house and senate with a judiciary to back them up.

[gold std]

bingo, any libertarian in any swing state thats votes for Jorgenson needs meds

[gold std]

sorry John you don't have alternatives....why does Reason continually put out this same stupid article every election cycle

[Dillinger]

< OBL

[NoVaNick]

Fuck off, troll! Go back to DailyKos/HuffPo/DU

[NOYB2]

You’re stating typical racist progressive and Democratic views. You’re on the wrong web site buddy.

[Mother's lament]

Oh look, some lefty's trying to astroturf.

[JoeB]

Person 2, we officially object and decry your clearly racist fouling of our pure discussion board. We are all uniformly committed to judging all folks by the content of their character only. We think you are maybe a CCP bot.

[R Mac]

Fuck off Person 2.

[NOYB2]

Not OBL. This post is from the kind of leftist creep who goes on conservative and libertarian websites to create fake posts that can then be used to smear those sites.

[Dillinger]

ya the less-than sign was my grade of his parody

[Mother's lament]

They've been doing it for years.

Some lefty journalist decides to do a hit piece on a non-left/conservative/libertarian site, but as it doesn't match the narrative they decide to make the readers the story.
They then "discover" racist, sexist and violent comments, and an article is published about how X tailors its appeals to violent bigots.

[Ersatz]

^this^

[Ersatz]

so desperately and transparently trying
.. no reasonable doubt

[JoeB]

Well, at this point, Reason deserves it. They're defense (or pathetic caving) will be telling.

[Wintonsts]

[ For USA ]    Single Mom With 4 Kids Lost Her Job But Was Able To Stay On Top By Banking Continuously $1500 Per Week With An Online Work She Found Over The Internet…Check The Details HERE....Check my site.

[ScarlettBaker]

Start making cash online work easily from home.i have received a paycheck of $24K in this month by working online Abq from home.i am a student and i just doing this job in my spare ?Visit Here