Election 2020

The Case Against Trump: Donald Trump Is an Enemy of Freedom

When it comes to limiting the size and scope of government and protecting individual liberties, America's 45th president has been actively malign.

|

This is part of Reason's November 2020 issue election cover package. Read the case against Joe Biden here.

We do not view Lyndon Johnson's presidency through the lens of the Texan's legendary vulgarity; the Great Society and Vietnam War loom much larger on his scorecard. Nor do we judge George Washington's generalship by the Continental Army's autumn 1776 squandering of New York—every leader of consequence has bad days or weeks in the face of unprecedented challenge.

So before assessing Donald Trump's worthiness to receive a second term, let us set aside the two cudgels wielded most often by his media and Democratic tormentors: the 45th president's polarizing personality, and his administration's scattershot response to a once-in-a-century pandemic.

Focusing on Trump's deeds, instead of words, from Inauguration Day until just before the first reported U.S. death from COVID-19 on February 29, is a clarifying, even liberating, exercise. At a time when so much of American discourse is about symbolism instead of policy, adjectives instead of nouns, feelings instead of facts, this approach waves away the toxic political fog and drills down into the bedrock of this presidency. What has the Manhattan real estate developer actually built in Washington; how has that already impacted the lives of his constituents; and what lasting changes are likely if his job performance is ratified by the voting public in November?

Working through those questions will produce different answers for everyone, but here's a preview of mine: On the broad federal issues I care about most—limiting the size and scope of government, protecting individual liberties, allowing for peaceable exchange between willing partners, and contributing to international peace and human flourishing—Trump has been not just passively suboptimal but actively malign. Rewarding his record will cement bad policy and complete the Republican Party's transformation into a vehicle for big-government nationalism that's openly suspicious of free markets and perceived enemies.

The Trillion-Dollar Tax

"Keep your eye on one thing and one thing only: how much government is spending," economist Milton Friedman famously said during the Carter administration. "Because that's the true tax."

Under Trump's signature, even before the coronavirus, the sticker price on that annual levy was jacked up by almost $1 trillion.

The Constitution tasks Congress, not the president, with initiating all federal expenditures. The Budget Control Act of 1974 further instructs the legislature to pass a dozen specific appropriations each year by certain deadlines. The last time those deadlines were met was in 1994. This is a "broken system that Congress has created," Rep. Justin Amash (L–Mich.) says.

Instead of budget deliberations with debates and amendments and votes, there are closed-door negotiations between House and Senate leadership that typically produce either last-minute continuing resolutions to keep the federal apparatus functioning or must-pass omnibus bills that no member has enough time to read. But if the core blame for our budgetary dysfunction rests squarely on the shoulders of those choosing to fritter away the legislative branch's prerogatives, that should not let this or any president off the hook.

Congressional terror at making recorded votes on issues of potential controversy consciously offloads decision-making responsibility onto the executive. Which means that presidents have real power to shape legislative behavior. When asked in September 2019, for example, about taking up a gun bill that had been passed by the House of Representatives, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R–Ky.) sounded more like a White House spokesman than the leader of a co-equal branch: "The administration is in the process of studying what they're prepared to support, if anything."

Republicans, of whom Trump is by far the country's most popular within the party, held a majority in both chambers on Capitol Hill during his first two years of office. In the waning days of that 114th Congress, McConnell's No. 2 in leadership, Sen. John Cornyn (R–Texas), was queried by reporters about the Senate's approach to funding the federal government past a December 22, 2018, deadline. "I don't know of a specific plan yet," Cornyn said, just days before the lights went out. The legislative branch was waiting on appropriations instructions from the White House.

So what has Trump done with his considerable leverage to affect the level of federal expenditures? Sign a half-dozen continuing resolutions, plus a few longer-term omnibus deals, that together eliminated Obama-era spending caps, suspended the debt ceiling borrowing limit, and ratcheted up the size of government, all at the tail end of a historically long economic expansion and stock market bull run.

Federal spending under Barack Obama went from $2.98 trillion in George W. Bush's last full fiscal year of 2008 to $3.52 trillion in the stimulus-weighted fiscal year of 2009, an increase for which Obama and the Democratic-controlled 111th Congress deserve the lion's share of responsibility. Since the 44th president's last full fiscal year of 2016 saw expenditures of $3.85 trillion, we can say that during his two terms of office—which included a major federal response to an economic crisis—annual spending went up by around $900 billion.

Trump matched that increase in just one term, before his own crisis hit.

Fiscal 2017 featured spending of $3.98 trillion, with most of the $140 billion increase over the previous year coming under Trump's sharpie. Then things really took off—$4.11 trillion in 2018, $4.45 trillion in 2019, and a whopping $4.79 trillion destination at the halfway point of fiscal 2020. And then came the pandemic.

Discretionary spending—meaning that part of the budget (roughly one-third) requiring explicit congressional approval, as opposed to "mandatory" items such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid—never topped $1.2 trillion during Obama's second term. Trump's wholly owned, pre-virus budgets saw the discretionary portions rise from $1.28 trillion to $1.36 trillion to $1.44 trillion.

Congressional Republicans, who had put the budgetary screws on Obama as soon as they won a House majority in January 2011, lost their appetite for hardball the moment the GOP regained control of the Senate four years later. Trump in 2015–16 then ran and won handily on the least fiscally conservative platform of a crowded presidential primary field, serially mocking the entitlement-reform mantras mouthed by a generation of fiscal conservatives. "We're going to save your Social Security without killing it, like so many people want to do," he vowed at a June 2016 rally. "And your Medicare."

The reason that Republicans and Democrats alike (if not quite in equal measures) spent decades before 2015 talking about the need to restructure the country's old-age transfer programs is that, as the historically large baby boom generation shifts from contributor to recipient, these programs are on an inexorable trajectory toward insolvency. In 1950 there were 16.5 workers paying into Social Security for every one retiree receiving benefits; in 2019 that ratio was just 2.9 to 1. In an annual report finished just prior to the pandemic, the Social Security Administration Trustees projected that the trust fund, if politicians continued doing nothing, would be forced to enact automatic, across-the-board cuts to recipients beginning in 2035.

Yet doing nothing has been Trump's intention all along. In March 2017, Robert Draper of The New York Times Magazine suggested to the president that conservatives should not expect entitlement reform during his first term. "I think you're right," Trump accurately forecasted, before pivoting to the virtues of government spending: "We're also going to prime the pump. You know what I mean by 'prime the pump'? In order to get [the economy] going, and going big league, and having the jobs coming in…we're going to have to prime the pump to some extent. In other words: Spend money to make a lot more money in the future. And that'll happen." You can't say he didn't warn us.

The president did flex his muscles on two notable occasions during congressional budget negotiations, each leading to government shutdowns. But that wasn't because Congress was spending too much—it was because lawmakers were spending too little for his liking on immigration enforcement.

Conservatism during Obama's first term was all about blocking Obamacare, forcing conversations about entitlement solvency, and raising the alarm over trillion-dollar budget deficits. Republicans in Trump's first term have failed to reform Obamacare, sidestepped conversations about long-term fiscal sustainability, and brought trillion-dollar deficits roaring back.

In December 2018, when there were still at least some advisers inside the White House mouthing concerns about a future debt crisis, the president reportedly dismissed them by saying, "Yeah, but I won't be here." There is only one sure way to make that prediction come true.

Industrial Policy Making

Donald Trump in 2016 became the first GOP presidential candidate to successfully campaign on trade protectionism since Herbert Hoover. And though he doesn't have a Smoot-Hawley tariff on his ledger, the president has made consumer goods more expensive, export markets more difficult to access, and government subsidization of industrial sectors more likely, both here and abroad.

Republicans during the Obama presidency made great hay, and rightly so, over the $11.3 billion the federal government lost in its post–financial crisis takeover and restructuring of General Motors. Trump's trade wars have topped that number three years running on agriculture bailouts alone—$12 billion to compensate for the retaliatory clampdowns on export-market access in 2018, $16 billion in 2019, and $19 billion in 2020 pre-COVID.

"We now have a huge $20 billion-plus farm subsidy program that most experts are worried is never going to disappear," says trade lawyer and Cato Institute analyst Scott Lincicome. "There's nothing so permanent as a temporary government program. That old Milton Friedman line is certainly true in the case of farm subsidies."

The president has expanded the latitude for his successors and America's trade partners alike to use bogus justifications for erecting tariffs. In March 2018, Trump exercised the little-used Section 232 national security exemption to the 1962 Trade Expansion Act in order to enact a 25 percent tariff on imported steel and a 10 percent tariff on aluminum. This despite the fact that his own military rejected the security argument, that six of the top 10 foreign suppliers of steel are NATO allies, and that two months later the president himself tweeted that the tariffs were in response to a Canadian tariff on dairy products.

"For decades, presidents, and governments in general around the world, were extremely hesitant to invoke national security in order to achieve economic protectionism for really not national-security-related grounds," Lincicome says. "The Trump administration has really opened Pandora's Box with respect to Section 232."

The move "has provided future administrations a really easy way to unilaterally implement certain policies," Lincicome continues. "So, for example, you could quite easily see a Biden administration determining that climate change is a national security threat and thus imposing national security tariffs on imports from countries that don't sign under the Paris agreement." With courts generally deferential to the executive branch's national security claims (and with Congress dispositionally unwilling to take on the president), future trade wars now have a template.

As predicted by the vast majority of trade economists, Trump's tariffs have failed in their stated intent to prop up domestic producers and jobs, triggered reciprocal actions that have punished American exporters, and created a cottage industry of lobbying in Washington for exemptions.

Trump campaigned against the seven-decade Washington-led international system of mutual tariff reduction without ever having a coherent plan to replace it. His promised bilateral trade deals have mostly failed to materialize; other countries and blocs are now signing pacts that freeze out American producers; and the dispute-resolution body at the World Trade Organization (WTO), which has historically proven favorable to U.S. claims, has ground to a halt because of Trump's unwillingness to appoint representatives.

Sen. Josh Hawley (R–Mo.) and his allies like to say "we should get out of the WTO" and "replace it with something that doesn't kowtow to China," Lincicome says. "The problem is, [Trump has] done none of that. Instead, it's all just might-makes-right unilateralism."

The president's troubled negotiations with China, in addition to materially harming U.S. consumers and producers, have by his own admission discouraged him at several key moments from speaking out about the communist country's human rights atrocities against its Uighur population and its ongoing crackdown against Hong Kong. Now that talks have broken down in an election year, the administration is ratcheting up its aggressiveness, including through an August executive order to kick out the Chinese-owned social media video giant TikTok within 45 days.

The president's trade record and hands-on approach to industrial policy threaten to overrun one of the best aspects of his first term—his conscious, system-wide slowdown of the ever-expanding administrative state.

"Trump's regulatory streamlining," the Competitive Enterprise Institute stated in May in its annual regulations survey The Ten Thousand Commandments, "is being offset by his own favorable comments and explicit actions toward regulatory intervention in the following areas: Antitrust intervention, financial regulation, hospital and pharmaceutical price transparency mandates and price controls, speech and social media regulation, tech regulation, digital taxes, bipartisan large-scale infrastructure spending with regulatory effects, trade restrictions, farming and agriculture, subsidies with regulatory effect, telecommunications regulation, including for 5G infrastructure; personal liberties: health-tracking, vaping, supplements, and firearms; industrial policy or market socialist funding mechanisms (in scientific research, artificial intelligence, and a Space Force), [and] welfare and labor regulations."

Trump's shocking win in 2016, particularly in an industrial Midwest that Democrat Hillary Clinton barely visited, may have led political commentators to overcorrect for their previous blind spots by convincing themselves voters were against free trade. In fact, public approval of international trade has reached record polling highs during Trump's first term. The president is once again campaigning to the left of the Democratic nominee on tariffs; another victory would likely turn a decisive majority of the political class against the single greatest global anti-poverty measure ever invented.

Immigration Cruelty

On his eighth day in office, Trump signed an executive order asserting that "whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."

First up for suspension were all travelers—including, during the first 48 hours, a half-million legal U.S. permanent residents—from Syria, Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen, plus any refugee from anywhere on earth. College students, green-card holders, and people who had finally gained admission after years of waiting for permission boarded flights under one set of conditions, only to discover upon landing in an American city that the rulebook had changed and they had to turn back. The move caused chaos and anguish at airports and in immigrant communities all over the country.

The travel ban was challenged and rewritten several times, but in 2018's 5–4 Trump v. Hawaii decision, the Supreme Court codified the chief executive's power to select which foreigners can and cannot enter the country, including based on factors (such as religion or political beliefs) that if applied to legal U.S. residents would be deemed unconstitutional.

Though Trump emphasized cracking down on illegal immigration during the 2016 campaign, in fact his deportation numbers pale in comparison to Barack Obama's. Instead, his "biggest contribution" has been restricting the legal variety, according to Cato Institute immigration policy analyst David Bier. "We're talking about just an incredible number of actions to reduce legal immigration," he says. Beginning, most ungenerously, with refugees.

Fueled by grisly wars in the Middle East and Africa, the global population of refugees doubled between 2012 and 2017, from 10 million to 20 million, a historically high level where it has remained ever since. The incoming president, having won on the most restrictionist platform since World War II–era Franklin Roosevelt, promptly slashed America's refugee intake to historic lows—22,000 in fiscal year 2018, down from 85,000 in 2016.

The last time worldwide refugees doubled in so short a span, in the late 1970s and early 1980s, presidents Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan took lead roles in organizing the global response, and America welcomed into the country roughly 1 out of every 70 refugees—from Vietnam, Cambodia, the Soviet Union, Iran, Cuba, and so forth. Under Trump, the U.S. has withdrawn from anything like leadership of the free-world response, and its refugee intake is more like 1 out of every 900.

Though the Trump administration had already reduced just about every category of legal immigration, some of the most significant restrictions went into effect only this year. The new "public charge" rule, wherein applicants for visas are required to prove that they'll never go on welfare, will precipitate massive reductions in by far the most common type of immigration: the family-sponsored visa, which traditionally has accounted for six out of every seven legal immigrants to the United States.

"This rule basically makes it impossible to get around it if you're poor and you don't have a college degree," Bier says. "We're forcibly separating U.S. citizens from their spouses, from their parents….It is something [that], if it was imposed on any other U.S. citizen, would be considered an affront to liberty and an imposition that we wouldn't tolerate for a second if the spouse was born in the United States or a parent was born in the United States."

Trump has changed asylum rules so that even those with ironclad cases of being persecuted back home will be automatically returned there if they enter America via a third country. Asylum seekers who arrive at ports of entry to make their cases are now routinely turned away instead of processed. The number of foreign college students has been chopped down. And most shockingly, in numbers never before seen, the White House made a conscious policy to separate minor children from their asylum-seeking parents.

"This was an intentional effort by the Trump administration to target parents with children," Bier says. "And not based on any kind of risk factor or criminal history or prior crossings or anything. It was, 'If you're a parent and you are crossing with a kid, we're going to target you for prosecution specifically.'…The zero-tolerance justification was just a facade to justify what they wanted to do, which was terrify these asylum seekers into not coming, basically."

Even more than trade, immigration was a signature Trump campaign issue in 2016, and it's been a focus of his attention in the Oval Office. If you believe it humane for U.S. citizens to be able to import their foreign-born immediate family, or for children to not be separated from their parents, or for America to extend a helping hand to the world's wretched, or for deserving asylum seekers to be able to make their cases, then Donald Trump is anathema to your values. Like trade, immigration has on balance contributed to the wealth of America and lifted tens of millions of people out of poverty. The president's opposition to the free movement of people from countries he disfavors will, if he receives another term, be translated into policy that actively harms millions of U.S. citizens, for many years to come.

Crisis Management

In considering Trump's presidency through February 2020, it is fair to ask what he did to prepare for a crisis such as the one now crippling the country. Because no matter what or when or how, the crisis always comes.

Here the president's erratic temperament comes into play. He has proven an alienating figure in the international arena, repeatedly insulting America's traditional allies while cultivating a more dodgy and less powerful band of cronies in places like Hungary and Saudi Arabia. Pandemics require urgent global cooperation; instead the president has spent precious time dubbing COVID-19 the "China virus" and doubling down on supply chain–damaging trade wars.

"Let's face it—we've pissed off almost every other country in the world at a time when global collaboration for a vaccine or a cure is most needed," Lincicome says. "And that type of action has consequences. If a vaccine is developed outside of the United States, and it's developed in a country with which we've had pretty hostile trade and economic relations, will Americans be disadvantaged in terms of access?"

Economic crises are like margin calls, exposing where governments have left themselves out of position and creating sharp new demands for government services even as the tax base dwindles. Trump inherited a growing economy, a bullish market, a massive debt burden, and a certain future implosion of the old-age entitlement programs. Instead of saving for the inevitable rainy day, the president primed the pump, ran deficits back over $1 trillion, and put the country in a historically vulnerable position to make the biggest economic policy gamble—and commitment—since the New Deal.

Meanwhile, his preexisting management style—demanding private loyalty and public flattery from his ever-revolving Cabinet, personalizing policy responses and entire federal departments, contradicting himself and the available facts on a daily basis—has shown itself to be a tangible governing handicap. The first rule of pandemic crisis response is that public officials must be sane, sober, and truthful in communicating with the public. Trump did not build his remarkable career around these traits.

Republican voters will flatter themselves this fall by imagining that they're striking a blow against socialism and doddering old men. And it's true: The Democrat in this race looks a few cards short of a full deck while sitting atop a party desperate to fulfill generations' worth of big-government fantasies.

But we don't need to conjure up an erratic authoritarian to fight off. He's sitting right there in the Oval Office.

NEXT: Mask Mandate Doesn't Violate the First Amendment

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. Wow! An overly long piece on economics and nary a mention of Trump’s historic reduction of the corporate tax rate from 35 to 21%! This is the single most important economic development in the US in decades, and Welch memory-holes it to bash Trump. Moreover Welch criticizes Trump’s government shutdown as if that was a bad thing because he did it for the wrong reason.

    And no mention of Trump keeping us out of foreign wars and initiating peace treaties in the Middle East. Reading this article should actually one’s support of Trump, as it is so limited in scope, one realizes Trump has had an awfully good run.

    1. Matt Welch is a pro-war internationalist when he isn’t campaigning for racial segregation of the public schools up there in his NYC shit hole.

      1. Segregation of public schools would accomplish little, abolition of government schools would. Education is a parental responsibility, not that of the taxpayer. It is further the parent who could select a school in keeping with their family values and culture.

        1. I quit working at shoprite and now I make $65-85 per/h. How? I’m working online! My work didn’t exactly make me happy so I decided to take a chance on something new… after 4 years it was so hard to quit my day job but now I couldn’t be happier.

          Here’s what I do…>> Click here

        2. US Dollar Rain Earns upto $550 to $750 per day by google fantastic job oppertunity provide for our community pepoles who,s already using facebook to earn money 85000$ every month and more through facebook and google new project to create money at home withen few hours.Everybody can get this job now and start earning online by just open this link and then go through instructions to get started……….COPY HERE====Go For More Details

        3. Matt Welch’s claims are just dogshit.

          Trump is a better President that:
          Obama
          W. Bush
          Bill Clinton
          H Bush
          Reagan
          Carter
          Ford
          Nixon
          LBJ
          JFK
          Eisenhower
          Truman
          FDR
          Hoover
          Wilson
          Harding
          Taft
          Roosevelt
          ….

          As for economics, the economy under Trump has made other Politicians jealous for its results and even recovered quickly in most states after the Kungflu hoax. Congress controls the purse, the national debt increases were already at ~$22 trillion when Obama left office and all of the last 3 budgets were veto proof.

          Trump’s federal response to the Kungflu hysteria has been fantastic. He lets states deal with it as the Constitution was designed and Blue states have hurt their residents.

          1. Also, on Every Single Issue that Walsh droned on about, Biden (and especially Heels Up Harris) would be orders of magnitude WORSE.

            Trump sucks, but Democrats blow dirty goat ass.

            1. Am with you 100%. I don’t get Reason’s consistent bullshit, fake-high-minded, a-pox-on-both-your-houses mien these last few months. Makes little sense to adopt a “living in a vacuum” lens when assessing candidates/parties that are — currently — so starkly different.
              It’s gonna be Trump or Biden-and-execrable-Harris. So why the fuck open the door to the ascendant bullshit-woke, quasi-Fascist, anti-capitalist, extreme racialist, free-speech-despising segment of the Democrat party (with its salivating & overt cohorts in mainstream media, academia, and pop culture)?

              1. I quit working at shoprite and now I make $65-85 per/h. How? I’m working online! My work didn’t exactly make me happy so I decided to take a chance on something new…HTr after 4 years it was so hard to quit my day job but now I couldn’t be happier.

                Here’s what I do…>> Click here

            2. I think Matt and this Bier guy from Cato have a thing. A couple of things.

      2. Since you are attacking Matt Welch as a person, rather than any of his arguments, SIV, we’ll just take that as proof that you have no rebuttals to any of his actual points and that his conclusion, that Trump is an enemy of freedom, is not something you are competently able to challenge.

        1. See? Tha doesn’t sound anything like real Chipper.

          1. Fuck off, Tulpa.

            1. You first fake Chipper.

        2. Still missing Hillary? Pining for Harris, are ya’? It’s really all about the immigration here, isn’t it? It’s a Cato thing. Where’s OBL when you need him/her?

      3. “On the broad federal issues I care about most—limiting the size and scope of government, protecting individual liberties, allowing for peaceable exchange between willing partners, and contributing to international peace and human flourishing”

        The irony of an anarchist who says he’s oh so concerned about limiting the size and scope of government on the one hand, while equally asserting that “human flourishing” is a federal issue would be hilarious if it weren’t so totalitarian.

        An American who believes in self-government, who believes in rule of law, believes that *our* “federal issue” is to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to *ourselves* and our *posterity*.

        Ourselves and our posterity. Not the whole world. The federal government was not delegated powers to wage a Human Flourishing Jihad.

      4. But ONLY for his people, no segregation for anyone else – THAT’S raciiiiiiisssssssssssssst!

      1. It’s funny how Reason has no support even among the few who bother to read them.
        Reason’s tweet for this article has maybe 20 responses. Not a single one is supportive. About half dismissive, half contemptuous. On more good news, all the contemptuous are Trump supporters – no discernable Biden support.
        #MAGA
        https://twitter.com/reason/status/1312905471980974080

    2. I am making 7 to 6 dollar par hour at home on laptop ,, This is make happy But now i am Working 4 hour Dailly and make 40 dollar Easily .. This is enough for me to happy my family..how ?? i am making this so u can do it Easily…Visit Here

      1. I guess Trump’s been so bad that now even the scammers won’t pay minimum wage?

    3. The article is titled ‘the case against Trump’, so why expect to see any positive comments within it? Sure Reason is busy drafting dueling ‘the case for Trump’ and Biden articles now.

      1. The usual infantalism of Reason.

        Never “this is better than the alternatives, and here’s why”. Always “everything’s horrible, but us!”

    4. I am making 7 to 6 dollar par hour at home on laptop ,, This is make happy But now i am Working 4 hour Dailly and Abe make 40 dollar Easily .. This is enough for me to happy my family..how ?? i am making this so u can do it Easily…Visit Here

    5. The piece is titled, “The Case Against Trump”. It is a companion piece to “The Case Against Biden”, from the print magazine.

      1. Donald Trump Is an Enemy of Freedom

        Did you miss this?

        Bringing up arguments on freedom while ignoring both sides if a ledger is utterly dishonest. We know that is your preferred style.

        Even if this is sold the case against, framing it explicitly as being an enemy is dishonest.

        1. You are absolutely correct. Calling Trump an enemy of freedom is overstatement.

        2. One one side of the ledger is the $4.5 trillion budget. What’s on the other side? The tax cut? Does that balance it out? Yeah, that’s gonna be a ‘no’ from me, dawg.

          1. So, you’re very bad at faking Chipper.

      2. Yeah there’s a companion piece and both are missing the libertarian case for each candidate (well, there’s no such case for Biden).

        IMHO, JesseAZ provides a good quick summary of the case for Trump.

        Welch is an excellent writer, but this wasn’t convincing. On spending, I believe Trump sees it as a battle he can only lose. On trade, Welch fails to note that Trump has stated he wants free trade. Trump is using trade policy to get foreign countries to lower their trade barriers which is good for the citizens of both countries. On immigration it seems everyone including Reason agree the immigration laws are a mess. One can easily argue Trump is trying to fix that by getting the Democrats to the table (and they’ve refused) and he wants immigrants who contribute to the economy instead of living off welfare which seems libertarian at least on welfare policy. As for crisis management, Trump spent days working on the Covid situation, including cutting a lot of red tape. Given it takes 7 years to get new drugs approved, I’m very glad he did that (and IMHO it’s fair to say he got some good karma from that for himself in spite of his bad example of mask use).

    6. this article is the case against Trump, and it’s hard to deny. the case for Trump is much lower tax rates, reducing regulations, and a more humble foreign policy, avoiding unnecessary wars, quite good on the libertarian front.

      1. It would be, except:
        – lowering taxes while dramatically increasing spending is inevitably going to lead to tax increases and/or inflation.
        – regulation may be reduced, but arbitrary, one-off interventions in particular company’s and industries is something Trump loves to do.
        – there is more talk than action on reducing foreign adventurism.

        I don’t even know where “humble” foreign policy can be claimed. Perhaps you meant less interventionist.

        1. more pro libertarians to tax to match slending. That has worked well in the past. Lol. Still denying youre not a leftist masquerading as a libertarian?

          but arbitrary, one-off interventions in particular company’s and industries is something Trump loves to do.

          Except he ordered all cabinets to reduce their regulations, he didnt single put any one fucktard. This was part of his reduce before increasing before adding to new ones order made in the first year. So why are you lying?

          1. I didn’t argue anywhere for more taxes to match spending. If I had my druthers we would cut spending.

          2. Somehow we’ve forgotten all about his executive order banning evictions. Really sticking up for the economic rights and deregulation of landlords.

        2. 1. Yes, the true measure of tax is spending, because it has to be paid out of revenue, inflation, or borrowing. Cutting taxes but raising spending just increases inflation and/or borrowing and is a transparent fig leaf.

          2. Businesses need predictability more than anything. Tariffs and trade wars changing on a whim, shutting down entire businesses (TikTok), volatile tweets threatening new regulations; these all discourage investment.

          3. Trump has started a lot fewer wars than Obama or Bush II, but he sure hasn’t cut them back much. He loves to yap about national security when it comes to tariffs and trade, but when it comes to shutting down the wars started by his predecessors, he is all hat and no cattle.

        3. there is more talk than action on reducing foreign adventurism

          Remember when Trump got the NORKs to the negotiating table, and signed an agreement with the Taliban. He got those horses to water even if he couldn’t make them drink, and that in itself is an amazing accomplishment.
          How is that not action? Those were the biggest moves in diplomacy since Nixon in China. There’s not been this kind of action in almost fifty years.

          1. Oh yeah how is that agreement with dear Kim going? Last I heard his missile and nuclear plans were going fine and they were testing submarine launched missiles. They also put their military on high alert at the DMZ recently.

            The agreement with the Taliban. Yup they are known for keeping agreements. All they agreed to amounts to an orderly retreat for us. Nothing else has changed. Hope it turns out better than it did for the British in 1842.

            1. “The agreement with the Taliban. Yup they are known for keeping agreements. ”

              Which is, of course, nothing to do with Trump.

            2. Oh yeah how is that agreement with dear Kim going?

              Did you miss this part?

              “He got those horses to water even if he couldn’t make them drink, and that in itself is an amazing accomplishment.

              No of course you didn’t. You just couldn’t rebut it so you pretended to misunderstand what I wrote.

              “The agreement with the Taliban. Yup they are known for keeping agreements.

              Well that’s very Neoconish of you. Hurrah for perpetual war, huh.

              1. Funny how willing CACLLs are to give Trump partial credit, even when he has failed to get any actual results.

                1. He got results. In February Taliban and Trump signed a peace agreement to end 18-year war, remember? (Of course you do, but it’s not helpful to your narrative, is it)

                  However your party elders decided that perpetual war is better and on July 1, 2020, the Dem-controlled House Armed Services Committee overwhelmingly voted in favor of an amendment to stop Trump from withdrawing U.S. troops from Afghanistan.

                  The sheer fucking evil of it is mindblowing. You guys fucked the peace process and yet you have the gall to say “failed to get results”?
                  Fuck you, warmonger.

                  And what the hell are CACLLs?

                2. Funny how jackholes like you are unwilling to give Trump credit for anything at all.

              2. It is not an amazing accomplishment. He played right into a trap with the Norks.

                As for Afghanistan Trump inherited a stupid war. We are not out yet. Hopefully getting there. So he gets credit for not making a dumb move and doubling down. Did you know we agreed to remove sanctions and free up their money?

                One good thing is Jared got a few gulf states and Israel to finally shake hands. This has been slowly happening for decades since they were never at war. Those Arabs are just fine with the Jews staying in the Jewish state and doing some business. They have been doing that since antiquity. Somebody did some good diplomatic work there.

      2. Forget taxes, that’s just how we pay today, for our spending (or part of our spending) the real cost of the government is the spending.
        Trump’s foreign policy has been a disaster. North Korea, Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, lets not forget Russia and China. And then there’s the good will to our friends, Canada, Germany, England, France.
        Oh wait, he did have a part in brokering a peace deal between two countries that were so far part that they couldn’t attack each other if they wanted to – I guess that’s “low hanging fruit”

        1. Horseshit. Trump’s foreign policy has been nothing great. But to call it a disaster when we have actually made PROGRESS on peace in the first 30 years is pretty good.

          Let’s talk about net peace. Several wars have simmered on under Trump’s watch. But we have also seen two major peace accords. That seems to be a net benefit. Any new wars? Not to my knowledge. One killing of an asshole, while specifically declining to bomb collateral factories/refineries. That seems to be the most provocative thing Trump has done, which is shit loads of nothing compared to the two predecessors.

          I agree on Taxes, and government spending. Trump (and the GOP) has been an unmitigated disaster. Unfortunately no one gives a shit about the budget. But when it comes to foreign policy, Trump has been not bad, which is pretty fucking spectacular if you grade on a curve.

          1. 3 major peace accords.
            I think you’re forgetting Serbia and Kosovo

    7. Lol yes just one unmitigated success after another.

      1. Yes, and all that despite several coup attempts from the DNC and an early GOPe rebellion.

        1. Right. A “coup” that would have instated Pence as President.

          1. Not really, if they actually got Trump on sething then tying Pence to it as his vice is simple.

            Your gotchas are dumb.

      2. There would be so many more if we had people like you put down, Tony.

    8. Freedom like:

      Reduced taxes
      Reduced regulations
      Zeroing out aca mandate
      No new wars
      Troop reduction
      First step
      Allowing federalism for covid restrictions (lockdowns are on the states)
      Ordering FDA to fast track certain measures

      If thats being an enemy to Freedom…

      There have been misteps:
      Bump stock
      Continuing the Healthcare conversations with democrats
      Agreeing and working with covid spend increases.

      But he can’t be blamed for:
      Veto proof budgets
      Shut down

      Both were entirely contained within congress.

      1. I would add pulling out of the Paris accord and federalist MJ policy.

      2. You forgot his ban on evictions.

    9. Wow! An overly long piece on economics and nary a mention of Trump’s historic reduction of the corporate tax rate from 35 to 21%! This is the single most important economic development in the US in decades

      You are correct. This is hardly ever mentioned and yet it was probably the single biggest reason for the booming economy pre-Wuhan.

      1. That’s complete and utter nonsense.

        1. Fuck off Sarah Palins Buttplug 2

        2. Oh? Why exactly is it nonsense?

          1. Well, we all know the economy never recovered from Nov. 9, 2016, right?

            1. Yes, and the empire never ended.

        3. Fuck off, lying shitpile.

    10. I am making 7 to 6 dollar par hour at home on laptop ,, This is make happy But now i am Working 4 hour Dailly and make 40 dollar Easily .. This is enough for me to happy my family..how ?? i am making this so u can do it Easily…Visit Here

    11. Google is by and by paying $27485 to $29658 consistently for taking a shot at the web from home. I have joined this action 2 months back and I have earned $31547 in my first month from this action. I can say my life is improved completely! Take a gander at it what I do…..Visit Here

    12. US Dollar Rain Earns upto $550 to $750 per day by google fantastic job oppertunity provide for our community pepoles who,s already using facebook to earn money 85000$ every month and more through facebook and google new project to create money at home withen few hours.Everybody can get this job now and start earning online by just open this link and then go through instructions to get started……….COPY HERE====Go For More Details

    13. Yes, cutting taxes and regulations is a move towards freedom. All were afraid Trump would get us into wars but he has stayed clear. He actually made a minor step towards reducing foreign involvement after my entire 60 lifetime of it growing even through 2 Obama terms (the only thing positive I thought would come from his election).
      The Reason libertarian bubble, academic discussion of Libertarian purity that doesn’t impact policy one iota. Need to do it incrementally. The Trump judicial nominees are a move in that direction.

    14. So companies getting a tax cut is just how you equalize crimes against humanity at the border, like separating families from their kids and losing contact with the kids? Putting them in cages? Almost any of the large areas of Trump’s actions are clear justification for him not being reelected. Fortunately he has destroyed any case for re-election. People would for an authoritarian in the us apparently is he promises illusory tax cuts and just delivers them for billionaires.

    15. US Dollar Rain Earns upto $550 to $750 per day by google fantastic job oppertunity provide for our community pepoles who,s already using facebook to earn money 85000$ every month and more through facebook and google new project to create money at home withen few hours.Everybody can get this job now and start earning online by just open this link and then go through instructions to get started……….COPY HERE====Go For More Details

    16. I quit working at shoprite and now I make $65-85 per/h. How? I’m working online! My work didn’t exactly make me Abr happy so I decided to take a chance on something new…after 4 years it was so hard to quit my day job but now I couldn’t be happier.

      Here’s what I do…>>Visit Here

    17. I quit working at shoprite and now I make $65-85 per/h. How? I’m working online! My work didn’t exactly make me Abt happy so I decided to take a chance on something new…after 4 years it was so hard to quit my day job but now I couldn’t be happier.

      Here’s what I do…>>Visit Here

    18. I quit working at shop rite and now I make $65-85 per/h. How? I’m working online! My work didn’t exactly make me job happy so I decided to take a chance on something new… after 4 years it was so hard to quit my day job but now I couldn’t be happier.

      Here’s what I do…>>Visit Here

    19. I quit working at shop rite and now I make $65-85 per/h. How? I’m working online! My work didn’t exactly make me joh happy so I decided to take a chance on something new… after 4 years it was so hard to quit my day job but now I couldn’t be happier.

      Here’s what I do…>>Visit Here

    20. Tax cuts without spending cuts are a special form of pandering.

  2. Most everything in this critique makes Trump the very model of a modern U.S. president.

    Voters don’t care about spending, not really. They don’t care about increasing immigration. Even immigrants who have gained citizenship don’t mind if the door is closed behind them. International cooperation and honest communication with China on pandemics that they (may have) started is a pipe dream. Do we truly believe D.C. could have done anything to stave off COVID-19? (It maybe could have stopped complete economic devastation in response to it, but unfortunately it is an election year.)

    So his deeds aside, we come back around to his personality. His personal style is caustic and off-putting to all I would think but his most devoted fans. So is I imagine every other politician, but most have the pedigree to hide it. Biden barely can. I don’t recall Trump going after anyone personally but other leaders and politicians, or entertainers who’ve come after him. The main issue with trump’s personality seems to be what it brings out in everyone else. That’s hardly all on Trump.

    Besides Gorsuch, the lack of new wars and the slight road bump on regulation, he’s been your standard terrible president. But all that was better than you were going to get from Hillary. If we’re lucky Biden will be a lateral move.

    1. If we’re lucky Biden will be a lateral move.
      Prepare to be very disappointed.

      1. Biden will be lateral soon enough. Probably by February 1st at the latest.
        It’s four years of President Harris that really terrify me.

        1. And apparently the media has decided this possibility is taboo for discussion.

          1. There are plenty of media outlets where this wouldn’t be a taboo topic at all: Fox, Hannitu, Rush, dozens of conservative blogs and websites.

            1. So you can cite many examples then?

              1. She’s become almost as dishonest as the lying pieces of shit she white knights for.

            2. You think Fox is pro-Trump? Do you even watch it or do you just continue to hold on to illusions from 6 years past?

              1. Um,….yeah they are pro-Trump, but it’s not a complete cheering section, they have done some criticism and usually invite on opposing viewpoints – unlike NBCBSABCNPRCNNBBC that are echo chambers of ProgressiveSocialistBLMantifa BS.

                1. Fox overall is definitely not pro Trump.
                  There is a split among their roster, and their main shows are pro Trump, but the managerial slant is very much anti Trump. They pimp the same narratives and use the same framing as the rest of the MSM. They don’t push back on the covid19 bs or the race baiting at all. The only difference is their main draws are Trump partisans, and they give some coverage (on occasion) to news CNN completely ignores.
                  But make no mistake, they are barely disguised controlled “opposition”.

            3. Fox?

              The station Chris Wallace works for? And Shep Smith for years?

              Right.

        2. I’m looking forward to the next Republican, a moderate conservative (tight on finances, loose on social issues) and hopefully better than a 4th grade education. Not to knock Bush, seems like a nice enough guy, but Bush, then Trump. Republicans are truly going backward.

    2. Wow. 4 paragraphs from Fist, the most parsimonious and efficient wordsmith on the board formerly known as Hit and Run.

      You know you’ve screwed the pooch when you get a 4 paragraph rebuke from Fist. That’s like an 8 volume screed from Cyto.

      1. Except it wasn’t a rebuke. It built on what Welch wrote.

        1. Hey look fuckbag Mike is pretending to read minds again.

      2. What would the literary exchange rate be in Ken-post?

        1. First wrote about a third of a Ken.

          1. you forgot about Ken’s follow up clarifying post(s) to his own posts.

            I actually read them though. I don’t always agree with Ken, but his points are well reasoned and factual.

            1. Yeah, Ken’s OK, but loves to type lots of words. It would take a lot of time to actually read everything he writes.

      3. How does it compare to Agile Cyborg poetry?

        1. Nothing compares. I miss it.

    3. I can think of one instance of Trump’s going after someone with little provocation, and it’s a truly bizarre example that highlights how petty and vindictive he is. He took time out from this first campaign to diss Penn & Teller’s Broadway show. At that point, all that Penn had done was say that Trump had “piss-colored” hair, and Teller had, of course, said nothing.

      Trump’s insinuations against Joe Scarborough, hinting that he is a murderer, went way over the line of decency, although it was a case where, as you say, Trump could see himself as hitting back.

      Trump also has a habit of dissing people whom he brought into his inner circle of advisors and staff, after he has fired them. Are you sure all of those attacks were cases where the other person said something first?

      1. if everyone has a problem with you, maybe you’re the problem

        1. Are you talking about Trump or Dee?

        2. Penn and Scarborough were both being snide assholes and were shocked to find a politician that repaid them in kind. Bush would have bent over and asked for another.
          As for the bureaucrats like John Bolton complaining, Top Men don’t appreciate being told to fuck off when they keep pushing the same old Neocon solutions for every problem. But fuck them.

          1. Buttfuck them indeed!

          2. If you piss Bolton off you’re probably doing something right.

  3. Welch must’ve won the rock, paper, scissors game. This was the bonafides-signaling column that they were all dying to write.
    I bet he still had to mud-wrestle ENB for it after.

    The odd thing is Welch managed to use some actual legitimate criticisms instead of the usual orangemanbad. Ctrl+f doesn’t even find “racist”, “waronger” or “Cheeto Hitler”.
    It’s almost refreshing.

    1. I am pleasantly surprised FOR ONCE that a right-wing Trump-nut-gargler could hint that there might actually BE “…some actual legitimate criticisms …”!!!

      Being the right-wing Trump-nut-gargler that you are, though, OF COURSE you had to follow it up with orangemanbad!

      Ask and ye shall receive! HERE are the details about…

      Orange Man bad?!? He BAD, all right! He SOOO BAD, He be GOOD! He be GREAT! He Make America Great Again!

      We KNOW He can Make America Great Again, because, as a bad-ass businessman, He Made Himself and His Family Great Again! He Pussy Grabber in Chief!

      See The Atlantic article by using the below search-string in quotes:
      “The Many Scandals of Donald Trump: A Cheat Sheet” or this one…

      https://reason.com/2019/09/02/republicans-choose-trumpism-over-property-rights-and-the-rule-of-law/

      He pussy-grab His creditors in 7 bankruptcies, His illegal sub-human workers ripped off of pay on His building projects, and His “students” in His fake Get-Rich-like-Me realty schools, and so on. So, He has a GREAT record of ripping others off! So SURELY He can rip off other nations, other ethnic groups, etc., in trade wars and border wars, for the benefit of ALL of us!!!

      All Hail to THE Pussy Grabber in Chief!!!

      Most of all, HAIL the Chief, for having revoked karma! What comes around, will no longer go around!!! The Donald has figured out that all of the un-Americans are SOOO stupid, that we can pussy-grab them all day, every day, and they will NEVER think of pussy-grabbing us right back!

      Orange Man Bad-Ass Pussy-Grabber all right!

      We CAN grab all the pussy, all the time, and NONE will be smart enough to EVER grab our pussies right back!

      These voters simply cannot or will not recognize the central illusion of politics… You can pussy-grab all of the people some of the time, and you can pussy-grab some of the people all of the time, but you cannot pussy-grab all of the people all of the time! Sooner or later, karma catches up, and the others will pussy-grab you right back!

      1. Hey Sqrls, you dirty Hitler-loving racist, go fuck yourself.

        Also, orangemanbad, Sqrls.
        Orangemanbad.

        1. That was pretty racist when he said all black people have warrants.

          1. then white knight defended him multiple times. Liberals are obsessed with race and continue to be the actual racists.

            The documentary Uncle Tom was excellent for exposing this. So are all the videos of young white liberals yelling racist shit at black cops.

      2. Squirrelly, you need to quit procrastinating and kill yourself right away.

      3. Go die in a fire, fucko.

    2. You think a lot about ENB and mud wrestling, eh?

      1. You squawk like a bird a lot, racist.

        1. Totally, if you disregard all context.

          1. there is no context that can make saying all young black men are felons as being non racist.

            1. Evil One = Father of Lies! JesseSPAZ is an apple fallen from the Evil One’s tree, and apples don’t fall far from the tree! Fish swim, babies poop diapers, and JesseSPAZ lies!

              JesseSPAZ being a total liar again! What a TOTAL surprise!

              https://reason.com/2020/09/15/viral-videos-show-georgia-deputies-beating-a-passenger-for-not-having-a-drivers-license/#comments

              SQRLSY One
              September.15.2020 at 11:14 am
              All young black males have felony arrest warrants out for them… THAT is the problem here! For things like selling “loosie” cigarettes, and for blowing on cheap plastic flutes w/o permiSSion! From the SS!!!

              To find precise details on what NOT to do, to avoid the flute police, please see http: //www.churchofsqrls.com/ DONT_DO_THIS/ … This has been a pubic service, courtesy of the Church of SQRLS!

              Hey lying asshole… Is it ME killing black men for selling loosies, or is it Der TrumpfenFuhrer’s Government Almighty and the Evil One, co-bosses of Der JesseBahFuhrer?

              1. Fuck off Sqrlsy, you racist Hitler-lovin’ fuck.

              2. It’s you. You’re the racist. Trump helps make it easier for young black men to get jobs. You make it easier for them to be killed by police following your policies locally.

                So,as,usual, you have blood on you hands, and shit on your face from those port-o-potty buffets where you engorge yourself with excrement.

              3. You said all you racist fuck.

                1. Let’s see if we can find JesseSPAZ engaging in hyperbole… Hmmm…

                  https://reason.com/2020/02/07/michael-bloomberg-and-the-imperious-presidency-2/#comment-8120734

                  JesseSPAZ comment: “He can fire political appointees for any fucking reason he wants.” (Referring to Trump, of course).
                  Jesse’s over-archingly lusting after the super-powers of the Trumptatorship YET AGAIN!!!
                  Trump can fire them for not assigning their entire paychecks to Trump… For not licking Trump’s balls as much as JesseSPAZ does… For turning down Trump’s requests for then to perform personal murder-for-hire… For having fucked Stormy Daniels out of turn, when it was Trump’s turn… For Air Force Captain-Sir-Dude-Sir-Pilot-Sir refusing orders to go and bomb Nancy Pelosi’s house…

                  Just when I was rooting for JesseSPAZ to turn from his evil ways, he doubles down on Trumptatorship-worship AGAIN!

                  JesseAz
                  February.7.2020 at 9:18 am
                  Yes. Plainly written in a thread discussing his ability to fire political appointees, namely ambassadors. That power is unbounded. He can fire political appointees for any fucking reason he wants. The power is unbounded. It doesnt require Congress. Congress can not modify that power.

                  Holy shit you’re fucking retarded.

                  1. Fuck off racist, you said all.

                  2. Fuck off Sqrlsy, you racist Hitler-lovin’ fuck.

                  3. Eat shit and die, racist scum.

              4. Wouldn’t the loosies selling guys killers be BloombergenFuhrer’s or deblasioenFuhrer’s government almighty? Or Der obamaenFuhrer’s?

                Der.

                1. Point well taken. Demoblican Government Almighty CLEARLY shares the blame!

                  Sad to say, I for one, clearly detect the Trumptatorshit taking the cops’s sides, just about EVERY SINGLE STINKIN’ TIME, over the sides of the oppressed! Except if the “oppressed” are Proud Boys, or some such…

                  1. Fuck off Sqrlsy, you racist Hitler-lovin’ fuck.

      2. First time I ever mentioned ENB and mud wrestling, but this’s your job so whatever.
        I also mentioned with Welch. Do you want to explore that too?

          1. Okay. You go first.

            1. It gets lonely up in the Great White North, eh?

              1. Not really.
                Now go on.

  4. Sadly, all this and more may be true statements of how awful Trump is, but there’s a simple retort to all of it. President Joe Biden. You don’t have the choice of a good President, just Trump or Biden. You don’t have the choice of a President who is going to drastically reduce the size and scope and cost of government, just Trump or Biden. You don’t have the choice of a President who is going to return the Federal government to it’s Constitutionally-authorized role, just Trump or Biden. You don’t have the choice of a President who is dedicated to liberty for the American people, just Trump or Biden. As awful as Trump may be, Biden is unthinkably worse.

    1. So then, pretty much, we are stuck with either a Hair-Smeller in Chief, or a Pussy Grabber in Chief!

      1. Orangemanbad, Sqrls.

        1. Trumpcandonowrong Bitch’s Bitching

          1. Orangemanbad, Sarc.

            1. Poor sarc’s broken. I’m actually starting to miss his bad jokes.

              #sad

          2. Everyone here has said trump has done wrong dumbfuck. You refuse to notice because you prefer a world of histrionic strawmen. Because you have no intellect to form a cogent argument.

            1. Because orangemanbad is an argument?

              In case you didn’t notice, that’s what I was responding to.

              Try being honest. For once.

              1. Orangemanbad, Sarc.

            2. PAGING JESSEAZ! HEY DISHONEST FUCKWAD! YOU DO SEE I WAS RESPONDING IN KIND, DON’T YOU? PAGING DISHONEST FUCKWAD! (oh shit, twenty people might respond to that last call)

              1. Except this is all you fucking do now dummy. You even admitted it a week ago when you said you dont make arguments shithead. You’re pathetic and broken. Show me one cogent argument from the last week.

                1. My reply went into the moderation bin because it contained three links.

                  So F on 2:11, 3:11, and 2:30. Timestamps.

                  I’m no fucking leftist. I’m also not a conservative.

                  And I’m more of a man than you because I can apologize when I’m wrong.

                  1. So CTRL-F, my brackets got edited out.

                    1. Orangemanbad, Sarc.

                  2. Add 1:51 to the list.

                  3. “ And I’m more of a man than you because I can apologize when I’m wrong.”

                    Ok go.

                  4. No, I’m fucking leftist.
                    FTFY

                    Silly Sarc, your sentence was all mixed up. It sounded like you were pretending that you weren’t a far left bien pensant.

                2. I’ve got housework to do. I don’t have a maid. So I’ll check back in an hour or two.

                  I expect you’ll still be a hostile asshole because to be otherwise would mean admitting to being wrong, and I don’t think you’re capable of that.

                  1. “I’ve got housework to do”

                    This is how he says he’s getting wine drunk too early.

                    Or is this fake sarc because he lies about posting on weekends?

                    1. “I don’t have a maid” means his mom will have to come clean his room.

      2. Well, Mother’s isn’t. He isn’t even an American.

        1. More bigotry from the racist.

          1. If I have a weird vendetta for Canadian Republicans that is something-ist, but racist doesn’t apply. I don’t even know Mother’s race.

            1. Youre a wall builder. You hate foreigners more than you claim trump does.

            2. If Mexicans are a race why aren’t Canadians?

              1. They’re a bunch of dirty icebacks!

              2. Mexicans aren’t a race.

                1. Go away you sad fucking racist.

                2. Then why are all the lefties saying ICE and the wall are racist? It’s like 90% of Tony and Buttplug’s shtick.

                  1. This is where it is really getting ridiculous. A Canadian trying to lecture on Mexican border policy.

                    Calling people racist because they have a thing about Mexicans and Latin American people immigrating is a misnomer. Xenophobe or nationalist is more accurate.

                    1. Call it what you want, your racism and bigotry have been exposed for all to see.

                    2. Nancy Pelosi called it racist. Schumer called it racist. AOC called it racist. Harris called it racist.
                      Here at Reason Shikha called it racist. ENB called it racist. Binion called it racist and Welch called it racist.
                      In this very thread we’re in Tony called it racist and Sqrls called it racist.

                      You’re not simply getting ridiculous with your dishonesty, you’re getting disgusting.

            3. Think of Canadian republicans as like Israelites dispersed amongst the nations. The live in other countries but their spirits still resonate to the homeland and its founding values. Its like the old saying, you don’t get to choose your family but you choose your friends.

              1. (TBH I don’t really think very much of Republicans. But I see the American Democratic party, the Davos crowd and the American clerisy as an existential threats to Western civilization, and Trump and the Republicans are the only thing standing in their way.)

            4. Crikey, there’s no fucking GOP in Canada, there are liberals, conservatives. American lefties are really not well educated.

              1. Thank you, Captain O.

                1. Lol. You thanked him for calling you stupid.

      3. Someone forgot about Joe and his penchant for groping anything female.

    2. Recent history shows us exactly which formula best restricts government growth – a Dem POTUS and GOP House.

      Clinton in the 90s and Obama’s last six years were the best of times both in limited growth and a vibrant economy,

      1. Recent history shows

        You misspelled “insanity”, Plug.

        1. No, he is completely correct. A Democratic President and a GOP House is the best recipe to slow government growth. Only a completely blind partisan would disagree with that.

          1. We know thats you guy.

      2. Obama, ” I have a pen to fix that. ” – there’s many more examples beyond your cherry-picked ones that defeat your theory.

        1. Did Obama ever attempt to use his pen, to willy-nilly outlaw software applications which people used to communicate with? With total disregard for the USA Constitution’s provisions for free speech?

          1. He used his Pen to void Immigration Law passed by Congress – a far more violation to the US Constitution than blocking one single foreign website.

            1. There’s also Congress’s spending power, bypassed by Trump… Trump willy-nilly moved military-bases-refurbishment money to build his “Big, Beautiful” walls after… Surprise, surprise! The Mexicans did NOT pay for them!

              1. Orangemanbad

              2. Has Mamma descended to the Tulpa level of totally mindless shit-posting? Annoying, for no other purpose than to be annoying? Or are Tulpa and Mamma one and the same?

                1. You’re the last one who should ever be bitching about shitposting, Sqrls.
                  All you ever do is copypaste the same garbled rants over and over.

                  1. So, is that a good or bad thing?

                    If it is a bad thing, why are YOU doing it? Have you no personal agency? Does SQRLSY control your actions?

                    1. Count stands at 9:1 right now. I had to count, ’cause I know Mamma won’t or can’t.

                      HOW HIGH does the count need to go, Mamma? Are you capable of putting your clit back in your pants, or is that asking too much?

                    2. says the guy shitposting about someone from Canada being on a libertarian board over and over lol.

                    3. Seriously White Knight?
                      All you ever do is essentially post “Nuh uh” to everything John or Jesse or Ken write and you’re going after me?

                    4. I really don’t. I almost always make a comment with an actual rebuttal of whatever non-factual thing was said to advance the CACLL narrative. I do much more than say, nuh uh.

                    5. There are at least eight examples in this very thread where not only have you not provided a rebuttal but refused to when pressed.

                  2. Count the number of times that Mamma posted some version of “orangemanbad” here, and the number of times I posted my response, and get back to us? Or, can you count yet?

                    1. Orangemanbad, Sqrls.

                      As long as you keep posting your lazy, retarded copypasta, this is my reply to you.
                      Want it to stop? Stop trolling with your copypasted rants and I’ll stop too.

                    2. Asshole’s count of gratuitous, meaningless “orangemanbad” posts now stands at 10 here. My ONE post about that had a link and references and some very soundly grounded assumptions or nearly-indisputable facts about the GREED of greedy, selfish, short-sighted voters… With the content of my post here, NEVER having been disputed, by ye right-wing nut-jobs, with ANYTHING other than name-calling!

                      MY post was in response to YOUR post, shit-poster!

                      Count now stands at 10:1, shitposter! HOW MUCH MORE shit are you going to post, shitposter?

                    3. Fuck off racist.

                    4. Like the orangemanbad is the copypasta you shitpost, Sqrls. You spam your idiot Tim the Enchanter twaddle at least twice a thread too.

                    5. I LOOOVE to encourage literary talent when I see it, Mamma! My good friends on Reason staff have encouraged me to encourage promising writers! So here you go!

                      Do you recall the awesome enchanter named “Tim”, in “Monty Python and the Search for the Holy Grail”? The one who could “summon fire without flint or tinder”? Well, you remind me of Tim… You are an enchanter who can summon persuasion without facts or logic!

                      So I discussed your awesome talents with some dear personal friends on the Reason staff… Accordingly…

                      Reason staff has asked me to convey the following message to you:

                      Hi Fantastically Talented Author:

                      Obviously, you are a silver-tongued orator, and you also know how to translate your spectacular talents to the written word! We at Reason have need for writers like you, who have near-magical persuasive powers, without having to write at great, tedious length, or resorting to boring facts and citations.

                      At Reason, we pay above-market-band salaries to permanent staff, or above-market-band per-word-based fees to freelancers, at your choice. To both permanent staff, and to free-lancers, we provide excellent health, dental, and vision benefits. We also provide FREE unlimited access to nubile young groupies, although we do firmly stipulate that persuasion, not coercion, MUST be applied when taking advantage of said nubile young groupies.

                      Please send your resume, and another sample of your writings, along with your salary or fee demands, to ReasonNeedsBrilliantlyPersuasiveWriters@Reason.com .

                      Thank You! -Reason Staff

                    6. Orangemanbad, Sqrls.

                  3. The reason squirlsy shits all over the board is because he’s hungry.

                    1. Wow, what literary talent and rapier wit! Let’s see if I can match or exceed it, with some OTHER brilliantly smart comments that I have created just now!

                      Fuck off, spaz!
                      You eat shit, you said so yourself!
                      You’re a racist Hitler-lover!
                      Take your meds!
                      That’s so retarded!
                      You’re a Marxist!
                      Your feet stink and you don’t love Trump!
                      Your source is leftist, so it must be false!
                      Trump rules and leftists drool!
                      You are SOOO icky-poo!
                      But Goo-Goo-Gah-Gah!

                      Wow, I am now 11 times as smart and original as you are!

              3. Need a link to obama doing the same with the aca exchanges?

          2. No, he just used the IRS to shut down political groups he disagreed with, cretin.

        2. The only fiscal matter Obama used his “pen” for during those last six years was to sign a bill to reduce the size of government (The Budget Control Act). The deficit steadily declined and spending increases were held to existing mandatory entitlements.

          I know you GOP fanboys can’t give up the fact that your party has been a fiscal disaster since 2000 but you need a dose of reality once in a while.

          1. lmao!!! The Budget Control Act was passed by Congress NOT executive order. In the House (purse) [D]Nay-Votes 95 [R]Nay-Votes 66. Previous bill was the “Cut, Cap and Balance Act” written by the [R] party.

            “Reid, like Boehner several days before, was initially opposed to the idea, but was eventually convinced to go along with it, with the understanding that the sequester was intended as an enforcement tool rather than a true budget proposal.” wiki

            You’re just chuck full of bullsh*t.

            1. Obama signed it with his pen, you imbecile. He negotiated it with Boehner. The topic is fiscal responsibility which Obama had and Trump ignores.

              That is why I put pen in quotes.

              1. When we poke fun of Obama’s “pen” it’s not about signing congressionally passed legislation it’s about Executive Order (over-riding congress).

                Obama was never “fiscal responsible” until the [R] took both the house and senate and forced it that way. You only use your cherry-picked “Obama deficits” when the entire budget was controlled by the [R] party.

                I’m thinking you don’t understand any of this do you? Not very up-to-date on government proceedings? I’m not that great either but these things are pretty fundamentally basic.

                1. I’m fully informed and I know that from the outset in 2008 Obama campaigned on cutting the deficit in half – which he did.


                  updated 2/21/2009 6:06:08 PM
                  WASHINGTON — Barack Obama wants to cut the federal deficit in half by the end of his first term, mostly by scaling back Iraq war spending, raising taxes on the wealthiest and streamlining government, an administration official said Saturday as the president worked to finalize his first budget request.

                  Obama’s proposal for the 2010 fiscal year that begins Oct. 1 projects that the estimated $1.3 trillion deficit he has inherited from former President George W. Bush will be halved to $533 billion by 2013.

                  “We can’t generate sustained growth without getting our deficits under control,” Obama said in a weekly radio and Internet address that seemed to preview his intentions. He said his budget will be “sober in its assessments, honest in its accounting, and lays out in detail my strategy for investing in what we need, cutting what we don’t, and restoring fiscal discipline.”

                  1. “cutting the deficit in half” lmao… You left off, “after tripling the budget”. Say, I’ll give you 2-Quarters for a 1-Dollar!!!! It amazes me people old enough to post a comment still falls for that fraudulent trick.

                    Democrats have ALWAYS been the party of spending. How anyone can even argue that anymore is just blind partisan ignorance.

                    1. “…It amazes me people old enough to post a comment still falls for that fraudulent trick…”

                      2-digit IQ will make that happen.

                    2. You are too generous. One digit will suffice.

                  2. So you know what is meant when bringing up Obama’s pen, and posted about something different on purpose?

                    There’s a word for that…that’s it, dishonest.

                    1. It’s a fake buttplug. He’s just trolling and saying shit.

                  3. Every obama budget submitted to the House was 40-60% higher than what was signed by Paul Ryan in the house shit for brains.

                    1. You aren’t honest on this issue and you have no intention of being honest. Your only political idea in the world is Republicans good Democrats bad. There is no evidence that could sway you from this first principle, not even the plainly real fact that Republicans, every single time, spend more public money than Democrats. You simply do not care.

                    2. Hey faggot, he’s being completely accurate. Obama’s budget proposals were always around a trillion dollars higher than even what Ryan wanted to spend.

                      I’m not sure if you’re lying or just an ignorant moron. Best you focus less on attempting to criticize Jesse and more on drinking your Drano.

                    3. I am not the one with a problem with spending money to solve a major economic or health crisis.

                    4. Tony, do basic research before saying someone else is wrong. It just makes you look retarded.

                      And if you have no problem with xovid spending, go talk to your lover SPB.

                    5. Tony
                      October.4.2020 at 2:29 pm
                      I am not the one with a problem with spending money to solve a major economic or health crisis.

                      Sure you are, you’re spending money that doesn’t belong to you.

                    6. If it belongs to the Treasury, it is our money. Trump is the tax cheat, thus Trump is the thief. One of the biggest thieves in human history actually.

                    7. “If it belongs to the Treasury it is our money.”

                      It doesn’t and that doesnt even make sense. We are not the Treasury dumbfuck.

                      So, again, you’re a thief spending money that doesn’t beling to you.

                    8. “Trump is the tax cheat, thus Trump is the thief. ”

                      Ladies and grntlemen, Tony finally admitted that he thinks all of your private property belongs to the government.

                      He is evil.

                    9. I didn’t say that. The only people advocating an extreme position are the ones saying no taxation is ever legitimate.

                    10. “I didn’t say that”

                      I quoted you motherfucker.

                      Checkmate.

                    11. Tony
                      October.4.2020 at 4:00 pm
                      If it belongs to the Treasury, it is our money. Trump is the tax cheat, thus Trump is the thief.

                      So he’s stealing his own money?

                      Tony is so stupid.

                    12. Fuck off, lying Tony the shithead.

                2. TJJ2000
                  October.4.2020 at 9:32 am
                  “When we poke fun of Obama’s “pen” it’s not about signing congressionally passed legislation it’s about Executive Order (over-riding congress)….”

                  You really can’t expect a room-temp IQ like turd to understand that sort of explanation; he simply runs with any lame interpretation he can imagine and hopes someone is stupid enough to buy it.

      3. Under 2% growth is vibrant? Obama economy was a third to half on the back of energy exploration, something he fought. Growth was impeded due to exploratory rights on federal lands and waters. The economy grew in spite of him dummy.

    3. ^This… But I found it enlightening that Rand Paul lobbied on a lot you’ve mentioned and was ran-out of elections within the first few states.

      1. yeah, Republicans could have nominated Rand Paul, or even Ted Cruz, if they wanted to move in the direction of more limited government. But they went with Trump, to crack down on Chinese trade and Mexican immigration. He’s doing pretty much what he promised them.

        1. Trump was the only one who could have survived the media dog-pile that is conducted against any republican nominee . so the republicans lucked out with trump in that they actually captured the presidency. In retrospect i hope its clear to everyone that noone else from the republican primaries could have won the 2016 election.

    4. You are wrong. Biden could only be better, because there is no way to really be worse than Trump.

      1. Hitler and Stalin’s love child, if we thought either of them were actually bad /leftists

      2. Mod, you say the stupidest things.

      3. I agree. Biden might be the first president since Grover Cleveland that is actually not worse than his predecessor, because of what a colossal fuck Trump turned out to be. With that said, Biden is still gonna be horrible.

        1. Nothing at all like Chipper.

        2. “…… first president since Grover Cleveland……”

          Yeah, O sucked, but worse than W? Seems like an odd admission if you’re a dem or liberal. Maybe you’re not.

      4. that is hardly a moderate statement. and false on its face.

      5. Wow, you couldn’t be more stupid or wrong if you tried.

    5. I guess. I’ll vote for Jo.

      1. “I guess. I’ll vote for Jo”
        *pulls lever for Biden*

        Sure thing, WK.

        1. Hes in city based on his posts. He can claim a handbag accessory like vote since he doesn’t have to care about biden there.

    6. To continue to accept the two-party system, and the idea that you have to vote for the lesser of two evils, as the candidates offered up by the Republicans and Democrats get shittier and shittier every four years is to be a sheep, it’s putting your stamp of approval of both parties and the mess they have co-created.

      1. “the idea that you have to vote for the lesser of two evils, ”

        it’s an idiom you retard

      2. White Knight gets it. Your vote doesn’t matter anyway. Why not use it constructively, instead of sucking Trump’s dick?

    7. So how about we pick the one who is capable of dealing with the crisis we are living through, since you’re willing to compromise so much?

        1. Fair enough, but it’s hard to imagine a worse approach than Trump’s, and that does have facts in evidence in the form of a body count.

          1. “…Fair enough, but it’s hard to imagine a worse approach than Trump’s,..”

            You’re pretty bad at ‘imagining’; Cuomo.

            1. You are a star specimen for the Republican Party. I want you to know that. You don’t need any cumbersome talking points. You just need talking words. To you, entirety of the story of the coronavirus response is completely summed up by a single word: Cuomo. The propaganda is almost beautiful in its effectiveness on you. Zenlike.

              1. Do you think it was a good idea to send Covid patients to nursing homes?

                1. That’s literally the only policy idea you people support. Lock up the old people so everyone else can have better jobs numbers. Right?

                  Cuomo had the first and worst outbreak. He made mistakes. That does not excuse any of Trump’s actions, does it? No matter how much you want it to be so, Trump as president is not completely without responsibility in this matter. And if he survives the very disease he downplayed, maybe he’ll figure that out.

                  1. “That does not excuse any of Trump’s actions”

                    What actions, Tony? What were Trump’s responsibilities and not the state governors that led to what you’re alluding to?

                    1. Jesus fucking Christ you people.

                    2. He can’t tell you. He doesn’t really understand any of this. It’s beyond his ken (dolls).

                    3. He’s the fucking president of the United States! You morons made Obama responsible for small terrorist attack half a planet away. At the very, very least he is, like it or not, a role model. It’s not even deniable that his total carelessness with respect to the disease has resulted in mass death.

                      And he might even be among the dead soon. You people are bending over more backward to defend this man than 80% of the country. You are the cult. You are the threat.

                    4. You didnt answer the question tony.

                    5. We task the CDC with such crises. That is the federal government. This is not just a national crisis but a global one. And you’re telling me you actually believe the buck stops at the governor level? Do you even care that you sound ridiculous?

                    6. “We task the CDC with such crises”

                      Trump is not the CDC.

                      Still haven’t answered.

                    7. “And you’re telling me you actually believe the buck stops at the governor level? Do you even care that you sound ridiculous?”

                      You don’t seem to.

                      Do you really think we cant see you utterly failing to list anything?

                      Spastically changing the subject and throwing around stupid distractions like you did there won’t help you.

                    8. Me – What were Trump’s responsibilities and not the state governors that led to what you’re alluding to?

                      Tony – He’s the fucking president of the United States!
                      Yes he is, but that’s not answering the question, Tony.

                      Tony – We task the CDC with such crises.
                      Trump’s not the CDC. He can’t speak for them. That’s not answering the question, Tony.

                      What were Trump’s responsibilities he failed to do that lead to the deaths you claim he’s responsible for, Tony?
                      Don’t weasel out.

                  2. “That’s literally the only policy idea you people support.”

                    Wow, you’re really a dishonest piece of shit.

                    1. So you want to take the sick old people out of their permanent cages for treatment at hospitals? Do we have separate quarantined hospitals for them? We have to lock up the doctors and nurses too, right?

                      Or maybe you don’t even care to think through what you’re talking about and you’re just resorting to face sounds for the purpose of desperately and ineffectually defending Republican politicians during yet another of their globally calamitous failures.

                    2. So still not answering the question, and still making up bullshit out of whole cloth.

                    3. The question being what responsibility does the president have to the health and safety of the American people?

                      Oh gee I dunno, probably somewhat more of a responsibility than he has policing the free speech of football players, I’d guess.

                    4. “The question being what responsibility does the president have to the health and safety of the American people?”

                      No.

                      Stop running. We know you dont have an answer.

                    5. ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTION, TONY!

                      I’m so sick of your weaselly bullshit. You made the claim, now back it up.

                  3. As opposed to lock up age working adults who are healthy to save the over 70?

                    1. Not making the problem worse would be a great first start.

                    2. Still not answering.

                    3. “Not making the problem worse would be a great first start.”
                      So you think Trump’s doing a pretty good job? Glad to hear it.

                    4. You mean like Cuomo did by forcing nursing home to take covid patients, you mendacious turd-gargler?

                      Fuck off and die slowly and painfully.

                  4. Trump did not force Cuomo do make any choices, none of Trump’s ‘actions’ had anything to do with Cuomo making the choice to send people to their deaths. The CDC is not ‘Trump’s CDC’ now any more than it was ‘Obama’s CDC’ during the last presidency. Cuomo is a piece of work who killed his own people, and doesn’t have the integrity to own his mistakes. He blames the CDC and Trump, just like you, and like you, he will continue to point the finger at others and insist that they need to ‘figure things out.’

                  5. “That’s literally the only policy idea you people support. Lock up the old people so everyone else can have better jobs numbers. Right?..”
                    Quit pulling lies out of your ass, shitstain:
                    The only people here supporting locking up anyone are cowardly left shits like you and JFree. Most everyone else suggests that people who are high risk take their own measures and let the rest of us

                    “Cuomo had the first and worst outbreak. He made mistakes.”
                    Yeah, mistakes were made! What’s thousands of excess deaths between a couple of lefty shits like you and him?

                    1. *let the rest of us get on with our lives*

              2. You made a claim, I factually refuted it and you respond that I must be a Republican.
                You realize that’s what happened there, don’t you, lefty fucking ignoramus?

          2. 60 million Americans got H1N1. Now do covid 19. Different IFR. Used up all the PPE and never replenished. Good work obama/biden.

    8. well, there is someone named “Jo Jorgensen” on every state ballot. I wonder what her plans for government spending and personal freedom are?

      1. Complete and utter submission to race based marxism

  5. Long story short, both candidates suck. What a shock.

    I hope they don’t do The Case Against Jo Jorgensen. I watched her interview with ENB and there is. I question that she’s not only better than the Biden and Trump, she’s actually excellent: both in how well her views correlate with mine and in how much more intelligent and eloquent she appears. Even better, Gary Johnson was with voting for over the garbage candidates the two main parties fielded in both of the last two elections, but Jorgensen can run rings around Johnson without even trying.

    1. *there is no question

      You know, maybe we need a candidate who would mandate an edit button.

      1. A president that mandates what Reason does with its comments section isn’t very libertarian slaver!

      2. Except rather than simply mandate an edit button, they’d create a new cabinet position, the Department of Edit Buttons, and then give it a $35 billion per year budget. They’d spend part of it on public service campaigns explaining how to use edit buttons, and most of the rest on grants to states who would then give it to sites creating edit buttons. They’d also be issuing regulations on button size and shape (what if someone cuts themselves on a sharp button corner?), determining whether to indicate when the button was used, etc. The Secretary of Edit Buttons would be 19th in line to the Presidency, as befitting such an important position.

        What do you mean the Supreme Court would rule it a violation of the 1st Amendment? If they tried that we would simply increase the court to 19 members, since that is a totally reasonable thing to do when you don’t like how a court is ruling.

    2. Jo Jorgensen
      @Jorgensen4POTUS
      Last night, I attended the #BLM candlelight vigil to honor victims of police brutality.
      I did not speak, for they are not my stories to tell.
      Now is the time to listen, to remember and honor these victims.
      #SayTheirNames

      Jo Jorgensen
      @Jorgensen4POTUS
      It is not enough to be passively not racist, we must be actively anti-racist.
      #BlackLivesMatter

      But seriously “I did not speak, for they are not my stories to tell” made me lol.

      1. “But seriously “I did not speak, for they are not my stories to tell” made me lol.”

        I could see how Mamma would laugh at the utterly bizarre concept of having enough humility to stay silent!

        1. It was cheesy as hell, Sqrls. And if you weren’t such an insane Hitler-loving nutbag, you’d be embarrassed for her.

          Also orangemanbad, Sqrls.

          1. Obviously, you don’t listen.

            One cannot learn by talking, but by listening.

            1. No, we learn by questioning, challenging (including ourselves), and thinking. Not by absorbing emotional rants and ideology.

              1. This.
                Not to mention it was overly pretentious. I think that was her academic background coming through though.

                1. and virtue signaling for the woke vote

          2. If you were embarrassed on a daily basis by what Biden and Trump say and do, a single embarrassing remark from Jorgensen is nothing by comparison. There is seriously no contest in who’s the best of the three. I wouldn’t consider wasting a on either of the terrible two. Doesn’t matter if she doesn’t win. It’s important to send a message to the two parties that they can kiss our asses. Enough people do that and things will finally change for the better.

            1. Unfortunately you are not going to find many such people here. I don’t know where the libertarians of yore who used to populate this website went. Maybe there is a Libertopia land somewhere I don’t know about. Like Tolkien’s elves leaving for the Grey Havens.

              Or maybe they just gave up.

              1. They didn’t leave for the grey havens, they left from the grey havens.

                1. Correct. I had forgotten.

                  1. Well you’re fucking stupid so shit like that happens to you.

                    1. As opposed to turd-gargler here with the single-digit IQ.

              2. It does seem that way, unfortunately.

            2. What is a leppo?

            3. If you were embarrassed on a daily basis by what Biden and Trump say and do, a single embarrassing remark from Jorgensen is nothing by comparison

              Biden is obviously senile and Trump’s been bloviating for forty years now, it’s his shtick.

              Jorgensen on the other hand was deliberately framing her language to appeal to the authoritarian postmodernists on the left. Using a cheesy critical race theory platitude she was signaling that she was one of them.
              I don’t think for a second that she actually is, but her willingness to publicly identify with them is far worse than hair sniffing and being mean on Twitter.

            4. I’ve been voting Libertarian for 20 years. It’s really sending a message!

            5. I’ve voted for every Libertarian candidate since Harry Browne. I, too my everlasting shame, voted for Bill Fucking Weld. I’m done with these clowns. As bad as Trump may be the only real alternative is infinitely worse. My state is solidly blue so my vote doesn’t even matter. But I’m voting Trump anyway. A pox on the Ds and the Ls.

          3. But I like cheese. (puts on old Carpenters album. Ok cheesy but Karen had the chops to pull it off)

            1. Karen Carpenter was class and her brother was a talented composer. People were too edgy back then to appreciate them properly.

              1. And despite the fact that Hal Blaine recorded the drum parts even he admitted that she was a good drummer.

          4. No, it wasn’t cheesy. It was empathic. So no wonder you don’t understand it, you fucking marmot.

            1. You sound nothing like real Chipper

            2. She was using a well-worn, cheesy critical race theory platitude to signal to the woke that she was one of them.

              Her willingness to publicly identify with them is far worse than hair sniffing and being mean on Twitter.

            3. Haha. Empathy is so……… empathic?

      2. I’d seriously question if Jo Jorgensen isn’t just a Democratic prop puppet used to take votes from Trump. Just a thought.

        1. Who knows. Some people are Trump puppets designed to take away votes from libertarians. Hard to tell these days.

          1. Except Trump is already the primary nominee so any “Trump puppet” already lost.

            Actually isn’t there a minimum of electoral votes to win the Presidency and if a third (say fourth) party cuts that minimum too low what happens?? I could be completely off-base on the thought but with the little beliefs I do have about the election; If Jo Jorgensen appeals to Trump supporters who want even more of a constitutional government and cuts voters from Trump’s base for a generally believed impossible nominee doesn’t that leave the door open for Democrats to take the presidency simply because the constitutional voter now is split between two candidates?

      3. That’s pretty awful. She attended an event where she showed concern for victims of police brutality. Pretty damning.

        1. What ‘event’ was that again?

          1. You posted it: “ Last night, I attended the #BLM candlelight vigil to honor victims of police brutality.”

            1. Exactly.

              Now Black lives do matter, and the slogan is fine.

              However, the organization BLM is literally a Marxist hate group funded by a billionaire, bent on the destruction of Western cultural values. They’re the antithesis of libertarianism.

              Her willingness to signal an association was either an incredibly poor lapse in judgment, or indicative of something far worse.

              1. You are making too much of it. She attended a candlelight vigil. That’s not an endorsement nor an alliance.

                1. Jo Jorgensen
                  @Jorgensen4POTUS
                  It is not enough to be passively not racist, we must be actively anti-racist.
                  #BlackLivesMatter #BLM

                  It’s an endorsement.

      4. so the libertarian case against Jorgensen is that she sympathizes with people protesting against police brutality and racism? seems like everyone should sympathize with that cause. so she didn’t condemn the excesses of the movement, or root out the hidden agenda of some of the organizers. it’s Twitter, not Hit and Run.

        1. BLM are not “against police brutality and racism”. They are revolutionary Marxists who are setting the cause of police reform back by decades. To not be smart enough to realize that is, in my opinion, disqualifying in a presidential candidate. Jo lost my vote by being a useful idiot.

          1. The phrase “revolutionary Marxists” outs you as a talk radio NPC.

            1. Nothing like Chipper at all, your fake Buttplug is also terrible

              1. Eh, just as dickless and desperate as ever

            2. They literally claimed to be Marxist on their website for two years.

              1. Well, that’s just, like, an opinion, dude.

            3. Fuck off and die, shitstain.

        2. Yes and despite what people try and make of it she did not in any way endorse BLM. If you read the Reason piece on it she actually scolds them.

          1. Bullshit. She tried to draw a distinction between the movement and the “organization” (scare quotes hers) that share the name, but there is no distinction. The so-called movement is made up of people engaged in the exact same kind of violent behavior for the exact same ill-defined crusade against “systemic racism”. They do not correctly identify the problems with policing in this country, and their methods discredit them. As I said above, they’ve set the cause of police reform back by decades for exactly these reasons.

            1. Seriously, if you have a fucking problem with Jo’s support of the BLM movement, you were never even in the libertarian ballpark, and good fucking riddance to you.

              1. Ok thanks fake Chipper!

              2. No True Scotsman!

              3. Like you have any right to say what is “libertarian”, fucking shitstain. BLM is Marxist and doesn’t give a flying fuck about dead black people unless they were killed by cops.

        3. And if the nazis were supporters of adopting kittens you’d support then because their name sounded good?

          How fucking dumb are some of you? They had to scrub their website for a reason. They are assaulting diners and others for a reason.

          You can’t ignore the harm they are doing because they offer platitudes. That’s just ignorant.

        4. “…… seems like everyone should sympathize with that cause.”

          And some would demand it be mandatory. Great way to gain support.

    3. Yup Jo Jo is awesome. It is refreshing to hear a candidate with actual principles, who is intelligent, articulate and of good character. Which means she is doomed but I am voting for her anyway.

      The only wasted vote is when you vote for something you do not believe in. If there was not a libertarian option I would just stay home.

      1. Jo has signaled that she is either too stupid to recognize totalitarian marxism, or is okay with it.

        http://twitter.com/SomeBitchIKnow/status/1312552844231421955?s=19

        1. Oh Marx. Few people know this but he is forgotten for his best thing —- Bowling. He was a very good bowler. Not well known because he didn’t go for the championships. He just played for fun.

          1. You know who else liked bowling?

              1. I like bowling but I DONT ROLL ON SHABBOS!

            1. The skinheads

                1. Even though they’re allies not all fascists are skinheads.

                  1. Jesus, guys. Camper Van Beethoven.

                    1. I don’t think he was a racist like you.

                      Do you have a cite?

            2. Guys who like eight year olds?

              Eight year olds, Dude.

  6. But we don’t need to conjure up an erratic authoritarian to fight off. He’s sitting right there in the Oval Office.

    An erratic authoritarian with the by far the worst fiscal record in history. Yes, Welch put the profligate spending of Trump/GOP under the spotlight but he avoided quantifying the monstrous deficits created.

    “We’re also going to prime the pump. You know what I mean by ‘prime the pump’? In order to get [the economy] going, and going big league, and having the jobs coming in…we’re going to have to prime the pump to some extent. In other words: Spend money to make a lot more money in the future. And that’ll happen.”

    Trump did warn us about his massive spending but there was no pump priming effect as GDP languished in the mid 2% range.

    The Con Man’s fiscal record is a disaster – massive spending with no payoff.

    1. I agree that Trump should have kept the government ‘shut down’ a lot longer than 35 days.

      1. It would have been much better if he also sequestered all the democrats, and the RINOs in GitMo. Forever.

    2. One of his few tweets from Walter Reed was urging Republicans to work with Democrats to pass another trillions of dollars stimulus bill.

    3. Obama was far worse when it came to spending, lying fuckwit.

  7. Thanks Welch!

    Just a wee tad more of touching upon how the Trumptatorshit is openly inviting senseless right-wing violence in the USA, in reaction to ANY Trump election loss (no matter HOW legitimate and overwhelming), would have been a good idea, though, IMHO.

    The case is easy and simple… Der TrumpfenFuhrer has done half of our work already!

    Right-wing nut-jobs like to dismiss the idea of unjust, senseless violence being the result of LIES told by said right-wing nuts. This is just a Fairy Tale, they say.

    They are WRONG!

    Pizzagate! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pizzagate_conspiracy_theory

    1. Part II…

      HERE are the lies being told NOW, to right-wing nut-jobs, in hopes of stirring up “Pizza-Gate Part II”!
      https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/24/politics/trump-election-warnings-leaving-office/index.html
      A list of the times Trump has said he won’t accept the election results or leave office if he loses
      Essential heart and core of the LIE by Trump: “ANY election results not confirming MEEE as Your Emperor, MUST be fraudulent!”
      September 13 rally: “The Democrats are trying to rig this election because that’s the only way they’re going to win,” he said.

      1. Orangemanbad

        1. Well, let’s talk about his orange face. It is a rather odd thing that he seems to be doing intentionally.

          While he has been in Walter Reed, Trump has either been pale from being sick or hasn’t been applying the orange stuff. Or both.

          He looks a lot better. It’s an existence proof that he is not orange-skinned by nature. So, his insistence on orangeness does demonstrate poor taste, a stubborn tendency not to listen to constructive criticism, and possibly a distorted perception of reality.

          1. You say so many idiotic things. No wonder you get constant beat downs when you post here.

            1. What was idiotic about what I said?

              1. The leftist talking points you often issue.

                1. Word for word from the Twitterati

                  1. Ah, so I said something any normal, observant person might say about someone who has oddly inflicted themselves with orange skin, on purpose, voluntarily.

                    You took offense at it because you are, for some odd reason, deeply invested in defending and identifying with a politician, and sensitive about any criticisms of him.

                    Sorry, this doesn’t make me an idiot. It makes you a humorless President worshiper.

                    1. Nobody took offense, at least I didn’t nor did it look like JessieAZ was offended.
                      Merely pointing out that you’re regurgitating well worn talking points.

                    2. You’re neither normal nor observant, fuckhead.

                  2. It’s odd, too, because Mother’s had been bringing up the color of Trump’s skin all day, and when I say, OK, let’s talk about the color of Trump’s skin you get mad at me. Take it until with Mother’s; he’s the one who keeps talking about Trump being orange.

                    1. Heh, you’ve been taking Tony lessons.

                      You know exactly what Orangemanbad is all about.

                    2. You’re still talking about his orangenicity.

                    3. You’re still stuck on stupid, which is your normal.

  8. Entire books have been written about how terrible Drumpf is. But from a Koch / Reason libertarian perspective, one key fact stands out:

    Drumpf has been disastrous for the net worth of Charles Koch, the billionaire who funds Reason.com.

    And I don’t want to hear about how Bezos (and Gates and Musk and Zuckerberg and Ballmer and Page and Ellison and Brin and the Waltons) managed to thrive in the Drumpf economy, so it’s Mr. Koch’s fault he hasn’t done the same. That’s actually an unfair comparison. Our benefactor’s businesses depend on a constant influx of highly-skilled labor (especially from Mexico). It’s not Mr. Koch’s fault he failed to anticipate an alt-right white nationalist takeover of the Presidency.

    #OpenTheBordersToHelpCharlesKoch
    #VoteBidenToHelpCharlesKoch
    #50BillionIsntEnough

    1. “Entire books have been written about how terrible Drumpf is.”

      You should read them. I read the recent books by Bolton and Woodward and was surprised at how well Trump is portrayed.

      Bolton’s book concentrates on foreign affairs and shows Trump to exercise a good deal of restraint and a willingness to talk with leaders previous presidents have shunned. Admirable qualities in anyone, especially a president.

      Woodward’s book shows Trump as in command of the facts and aware of their import. He’s shown to be capable of adult conversation, at least in private. That perhaps sounds like damning with faint praise but I’ve only heard Trump in public posing as a populist pandering to delusional base.

      You should read these books in their entirety. They may give you a fuller picture of the man.

      1. Woodward’s book shows Trump as in command of the facts and aware of their import. He’s shown to be capable of adult conversation, at least in private.

        Trump spoke candidly to Woodward about COVID-19 yet he constantly panders to his crazy base. What does that say about him?

        Woodward’s conclusion (as you know) is that Trump is unfit for office.

        1. “What does that say about him?”

          He wants to appeal to his base. Older white men with high school education. That’s his first priority.

          1. Yeah, those horrible older white men with high school educations! Why don’t they know their place and shut up! Peasants like that should let the aristocracy rule over them! It’s the Democrat way!

            1. “Yeah, those horrible older white men with high school educations!”

              There’s nothing horrible about them. It’s Trump’s political base, and after November they will continue to be important to Trump as customer/viewer base for whatever business venture he embarks on.

              1. Either your sarcasm meter is broken, or you need to express yourself more clearly.

                1. Pandering to his base is Trump’s priority. He’s betting that building a Trump brand loyalty among uneducated white males will be more lucrative in the end than governing well, or governing at all. This time next year, Ttump like will have put government service behind him and will again be earning his keep as television celebrity.

                  1. Pandering to his base is Trump’s priority.

                    Why in the world would “pandering to one’s base” be a political strategy?

                    He’s betting that building a Trump brand loyalty among uneducated white males will be more lucrative in the end

                    I agree. And, Democrats, in contrast, are pandering to the highly educated, privileged elites, and that is certainly lucrative for them because those people have money.

                    Any decent human being should be filled with disgust at that electoral strategy. Obviously, you think it’s wonderful.

                    1. “Why in the world would “pandering to one’s base” be a political strategy?”

                      By default. It’s called leading from behind. If you have no firm political strategy of your own, the celebrities on FOX will be happy to provide guidance.

                      “Any decent human being should be filled with disgust at that electoral strategy.”

                      Decency is lacking. Politics is about the pursuit of power.

          2. “Fucking plebians, not obeying the Brahmins!”

            1. Far from it. Trump once said “I love the uneducated.” Something Jesus Christ might be expected to say, were he among us.

        2. his crazy base

          Are they the ones burning down cities, looting and assaulting diners, or are they the ones that think it’s wrong?

          1. The ones burning down the cities don’t just think it’s wrong. They know it’s wrong. That’s why they do it.

            1. Erm, no. The folks burning and looting have rationalized their behavior. This implies they believe they are in the right.

              1. That bullshit passes for clever reparte’ to trueman.

  9. Look at it this way. The presidential ballot is going to have 3 choices for racial and gender identity politics…or Trump (unless you live in a state where the Constitution Party is on the ballot)

    1. You think by voting for Trump, you are somehow avoiding race and gender?

      1. Trump doesn’t play identity politics.

        1. Either does Jo.

          1. Yes, but neither you or mtrueman have any actual intent on voting for Jo.

            1. I see. I plainly state who I am voting for, but you are going to somehow be in that voting booth making me vote for someone else.

              Is this your plan for how you, a Canadian, can get a vote in for Trump.

              1. If you didn’t sound like Tom Perez in 99% of your posts, I’d be more inclined to believe you.

        2. “Trump doesn’t play identity politics.”

          You think it’s a coincidence that Trump’s giving a woman the nod for the vacant seat on the supreme court? Yet another Catholic, no less. Seems that Trump plays identity politics so well you don’t even notice it.

          1. Haha. Ok. Damn him for learning a lesson from last time!

            You mad, bro?

            1. I don’t think Trump is deeply involved in the choice of judges. Surely he simply rubber stamps the selections passed on to him by right wing advocacy groups of lawyers.

  10. Hmm; lets see here
    1. Trumps maximum spending barely covers Obama’s spending 8-years later….
    – lets all ignore inflation or that fact spending goes up always with time; 1935 FDR only cost $8B but back then candy-bars were $0.01 but it was staggeringly more than the $3B previously.
    – lets all ignore deficits (that reflex a growing population) of which Obama through his first term 3x!! any amount Trump has ran.

    2. Industrial Policy = Tariffs? Actually quite a misnomer.

    3. Immigration Control (Actually a good thing in my book)

    4. Crisis Management (oh, now; we’ll ignore all the deregulation done and talk about well practically nothing.) But yes the 87% Democratic written Cares Act was a disaster.

    For a slam article about a candidate – this really has no foundation in it. Just as well go back to calling Trump a racist because these cherry-picked narrative articles don’t cut the mustard.

    1. What is this garbage you are spewing about deficits?

      2020 will be $3.3 trillion (source CBO)

      https://www.cbo.gov/topics/budget#:~:text=September%202%2C%202020%20CBO%20projects%20a%20federal%20budget,pandemic%20and%20the%20enactment%20of%20legislation%20in%20response.

      Obama left a $500 billion deficit in FY 2017.

      Trump is 6x worse.

      1. lol…. The 2020 “Projections”???
        Non-Projected – Obama Deficits
        2009 $1.4T
        2010 $1.3T
        2011 $1.3T
        2012 $1T
        Non-Projected – Trump Deficits
        2019 $502B
        2018 $413B
        2017 $457B

        Chuck full of B.S. again. But I’ll give you credit if this so called $3.3T materializes into truth. I’m very against the Cares Act and all the COVID-19 stimulus being thrown out. You seem to ignore that 87% of the provisions were pitched by the [D] party though.

        1. WASHINGTON — Barack Obama wants to cut the federal deficit in half by the end of his first term, mostly by scaling back Iraq war spending, raising taxes on the wealthiest and streamlining government, an administration official said Saturday as the president worked to finalize his first budget request.

          Obama’s proposal for the 2010 fiscal year that begins Oct. 1 projects that the estimated $1.3 trillion deficit he has inherited from former President George W. Bush will be halved to $533 billion by 2013.

          Yes, Bush left Obama a huge deficit which he cut in half. Trump has run it up 6x worse than Obama left him.

          Now bow down to my superior knowledge and call it a learning experience for yourself.

          1. lmao! GWB 2008 EOY deficit = $458B… So Obama was a LIAR too; no surprise there.

            1. GWB 2007 EOY deficit = $160B… The crap you try to sell is so chuck full of ignorance, lies and deceit. Why can’t you lefties BE HONEST…

            2. CBO said Bush left a $1.2 trillion deficit you moron.

              Here is a LINK for proof:

              https://money.cnn.com/2009/01/07/news/economy/cbo_2009_budget_outlook/

              Bush was still president in Jan 2009 when CBO did their annual report.

              1. CNN.COM??? Oh, common… Even if it wasn’t chuck full of BS (which it is) you’re still excusing the next 3-years of Trillion dollar deficits. Even if one throws in the TARP bill under GWB (which passed under GWB but was executed by Obama) that bill actually netted a profit in the end. A profit entirely consumed and then some under Obama.

                1. The CBO is the source, pal. No other sources matter.

                  Do you want the fucking CBO link from Jan 09, 2009 where Bush is still POTUS? I have it.

                2. “CBO projects that the deficit this year will total $1.2 trillion, or 8.3 percent of GDP.”

                  https://www.cbo.gov/publication/24860

                  JANUARY 7, 2009. Bush was POTUS.

                  Now STFU

                  1. Your doing it again —- This morning CBO released the Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2009-2019…
                    “CBO projects”
                    “Outlook”
                    “CBO expects”

                    … and in other news; The world will burn, or I mean freeze, or I mean the climate will surely change.

                    Your using predictions not ACTUAL information.

                    1. What else do we expect from Kiddie Raper?

                  2. That budget wasn’t signed until February and by Obama, lying shitstain.

              2. Lying shitstain lies some more.

                Barack Obama signed the FY2009 budget in February 2009, five months late, because the Democratic Congress didn’t want to let W veto it.

                So that FY2009 budget deficit is ALL OBAMA, mendacious shitstain.

  11. Two wolves (Dems, GOP) and a sheep ( hard working no handout Americans) voting what to have for dinner.

    1. Two wolves
      More one Lovecraftian horror and a retarded coyote.

      1. Nah, both are Lovecraftian horrors. Orange Cthulhu (causes insanity) and Senile Azathoth (unaware).

        1. A younger Biden could be Nyarlathotep, but the shapeshifter with a thousand forms.

    2. But the D wolf is trying ever-so-hard to be vegan.

    3. except there aren’t as many hard working no handout Americans as you think.

    4. The side-effects of believing the USA is a Democracy instead of a Republic.

  12. Just more proof that Reason is a Democrat publication. Because there’s no way they’d make a case against Biden. So one-sided. Fucking pathetic.

    1. We missed you at yesterday’s shouting match, Sarcasmic!

      https://reason.com/2020/10/03/the-case-against-biden-joe-bidens-politics-of-panic/

      By “we” I mean the vanishingly few libertarians left on this site… It has become BADLY befestered by right-wing authoritarians! I agree with Echospinner on THAT one, for sure!

      I hold little hope of changing the minds of those who are already “politically perfect”. I’m just hoping to help convince the casual reader that libertarians aren’t all brainwashed by The Trumptatorshit! And stimulate some thought from time to time…

      1. It was sarcasm. He was mocking Trumptards.

        1. My bad, you knew it.

        2. Yeah man, Sarcasmic is sarcastic! But thanks for covering for those who might possibly be confused!

          1. And Sqrlsy loves Hitler.

            SQRLSY One
            September.30.2020 at 12:53 pm

            Yes! This FURTHER proves that Hitler was NOT a racist!
            Since even Hitler wasn’t a racist, we can pretty firmly conclude that racism isn’t a “thing” at all!

            But orangemanbad, right Sqrls?

            1. Hey, I’ve got an idea! Let’s take stuff that was meant as hyperbole or a joke and then claim the person meant it! Like pussy grabbing or killing someone in Time Square! Oh wait. We can’t apply that standard to our team. But we can dishonestly do it to the other guy! Hell yeah!

              1. You and Squirrely are in league with Kiddie Raper. Maybe he can take you both to his NAMBLA meetings.

                  1. There are some commenters you should completely ignore, sarcasmic. You try to figure some semblance of reason in their comments, some sense of good-faith arguing, some decency. There is none. All they want is a reaction out of you, because that’s they only way anyone pays attention to them. Just set your phasers to ‘ignore.’

                    1. It doesn’t sound like Chipper at all. Tulpa is right. This is a fake.

                    2. “Just set your phasers to ‘ignore.’”

                      And this is a line from Jeff. Obviously running a fake of Chipper.

                    3. What’s your short list?

                    4. And what if I’m armed with blasters?

                    5. I think the pro Trumpers are beginning to get a whiff of defeat. And it stinks! Maybe there will be an abandonment by their leader due to a repeat of the bonespurs gambit updated to our pestilential times. It saved him from being sent to the slaughter back in the 60s.

                    6. mtrueman
                      October.4.2020 at 6:23 pm
                      “I think the pro Trumpers are beginning to get a whiff of defeat…”

                      There may be enough brain-dead lefties to do that, but we can hope for the best.

                    7. “we can hope for the best.”

                      Parroting Obama now? I can see the flop sweat right through the intertubes.

                1. Those would be fighting words if you said that to my face, and there’s a chance the courts would side with me if I responded with violence.

                  Coward.

                  1. Lolol you weakly keyboard warriored me too ahahaha

          2. Good luck with that. When Trump “makes a joke” the Trumpsters go nuts at those who take him at his word. When me, you, jeff or alphabet makes a joke YOU WERE SERIOUS YOU HATE TRUMP HISTRIONICS STRAWMAN AAAAUUUGGGHH!

            1. I’m sorry Trump’s jokes upset you so much.

      2. We missed you at yesterday’s shouting match, Sarcasmic!

        That would imply that you and Sarc aren’t the same person, which I’m not entirely convinced of.

        I hold little hope of changing the minds of those who are already “politically perfect”. I’m just hoping to help convince the casual reader that libertarians aren’t all brainwashed by The Trumptatorshit! And stimulate some thought from time to time…

        If this is really your goal, you are probably doing more harm than good to your case. I get what you’re trying to do. The whole joke at this point is overtired and too self-referential + way too much thread shitting and senseless bickering for any casual reader to absorb whatever point you think you’re making.
        It’s like you’re parodying a parody of someone who’s really bad at parodying a parody, aka you end up always being the butt of the joke and not in a dominant-artistic ‘laughing-with-you’ kind of way.

        1. Sarcasmic comes across as a little less insane than Buttplug and Sqrls. I think WK and/or maybe Jeff are more likely alternate socks.

        2. Why would I do that? Seriously, why? To get more abuse? C’mon.
          Tulpa uses a million different handles because he’s a dishonest fuck who baits, manipulates, and otherwise does his best to engage in dishonest arguments. If he always used the same name he’d increase his chances of being ignored. But why would I post the same shit under multiple names, inviting the same hatred for being critical of Fearless Leader? Why would I do that?

          1. It’s not about you disliking Trump. It’s about you regularly being a disingenuous weasel that always ends up backing the progs.

            How do you not understand that?

            1. Backing the progs? Please give me an example.

              On occasion the progs are right when they unwittingly agree with what libertarians have been arguing for decades. Broken clock and all that. Also, criticism of Trump doesn’t equal support of progs. Libertarians like free trade. So criticism of Trump’s trade war is libertarian, regardless of if the progs support it or not. Libertarians support free movement of people. So criticism of Trump’s immigration policy is libertarian, not support of progs. Libertarians have been advocating for police reform longer than I’ve been alive. Progs coming around to the idea doesn’t mean I support progs.

              Does that make any sense?

                  1. Not when you’ve been drinking.

      3. “By “we” I mean the vanishingly few libertarians left on this site…”

        Maybe a roll-call is in order…..

        1. The majority consensus is that true libertarians love Trump and everyone else is a leftist.

            1. Don’t tell that to Nail. He’ll think we’re the same person.

              1. Pathetic sock puppet is pathetic.

              2. Rememeber when you tried to lure me to Boston so you could sexually assault me?

                Everyone else does.

                1. That was at the beginning of his break.

              3. lol I could care less if you’re sqrlsy, Buttplug, Chipper, $park¥ and Libertytruthteller1 (RIP Hihn) at the same time. Why would you do it ? Irdk, I don’t really sit around thinking about this shit when I’m not here commenting. Your comments now have that victimhood vibe that the ‘non-leftists’ Chemtard, WK, Chip etc all have, so in my head I read all your comments in the same voice. That’s it.

                All I know for certain is that Hihn is looking on from above sneering at us right now.

                (smirk in peace)

          1. “The majority consensus is that true libertarians love Trump and everyone else is a leftist.”

            Yeah. I have noticed that opinion is pretty common.

  13. In regards to spending, Matt Welch ignored three important points:

    1. 1) “In March 2017, Robert Draper of The New York Times Magazine suggested to the president that conservatives should not expect entitlement reform during his first term.”

      —-Matt Welch

      In June of 2017, President Trump championed a bill in the Senate (another version of which had already passed the House) that according to the CBO would have cut Medicaid spending by $772 billion.

      https://www.cbo.gov/publication/52849

      President Trump twisted every arm in the Republican controlled Senate (from Collins in Maine to Murkowsi in Alaska) to try to get that bill passed. Staff here at Reason, especially Peter Suderman, actively opposed that bill, ostensibly for what it didn’t do! That would have been the first time in history that we’ve cut that socialist entitlement program, and Reason opposed the bill.

      That means President Trump has more credibility than Reason when it comes to cutting entitlement spending. Opposing cuts to a socialist entitlement program if President Trump is fighting for them is probably the clearest evidence of Reason staff’s derangement syndrome.

      Because people claim to be capitalists and in favor of smaller government doesn’t make it so. To be a capitalist in favor of smaller government, you need to support cutting socialist entitlement programs when the opportunity arises. If you oppose cutting $772 billion from Medicaid, then whatever else you are, you are not a capitalist and you are not a fiscal conservative. President Trump scores higher than Reason just on that one count alone.

    2. 2) President Trump is fighting to cut spending at its source by bringing both the Afghanistan War and the Iraq War to a close.

      President Trump negotiated a deal with the Taliban to get us out of Afghanistan completely by the end of this upcoming April. Peace talks in Qatar between the Taliban and the U.S. backed government in Kabul have stalled because the Kabul government is hoping that if Biden is elected, the U.S. will abandon Trump’s peace deal with the Taliban. I see no reason to doubt their assessment. If Biden is elected, we may not get out of Afghanistan until sometime after we get out of Germany, Japan, and South Korea.

      Meanwhile, President Trump continues to withdraw troops from Iraq. Trump is withdrawing so many U.S. troops from Iraq that we’ll soon be down to only 3,000. Getting us out of these countries doesn’t require Congress to cut spending, but it saves the taxpayers money. Simultaneously, President Trump is approving the sale of hardware to our allies in the region–so the taxpayers won’t need to pay to send troops there in the future.

      Does anyone here think Biden would have negotiated with the Taliban?

      1. Negotiated with the Taliban? Funniest thing I have read all day.

        You don’t negotiate with the Taliban. You try and arrange an orderly retreat which is what we are doing. Nothing else has changed. I just hope it doesn’t turn out the way it did for the British.

        Glad we are getting out of that hell hole.

        1. Actually President Trump did negotiate with the Taliban, signed a deal with them on February 29, 2020, and both the Taliban and President Trump have abided by the terms of the peace agreement they negotiated–which remains in effect and within the terms agreed on back in February.

          “Within the first 135 days of the deal the US will reduce its forces in Afghanistan to 8,600, with allies also drawing down their forces proportionately.

          . . . .

          The deal also provides for a prisoner swap. Some 5,000 Taliban prisoners and 1,000 Afghan security force prisoners would be exchanged by 10 March, when talks between the Taliban and the Afghan government are due to start.

          The US will also lift sanctions against the Taliban and work with the UN to lift its separate sanctions against the group.”

          —-BBC, February 29, 2020

          The deal also required the Taliban a) not to initiate operations targeting Americans, b) to renounce both terrorism and any association with Al Qaeda, and c) to refuse to allow Al Qaeda to use any territory within the Taliban’s control.

          Like any deal, it also encompasses specific withdrawal dates, created a framework for the exchange of prisoners, and included a ceasefire between the United States and the Taliban. If the Taliban continues to abide by all the terms of the deal–which they have done every step of the way–then we are scheduled to be out of Afghanistan completely by the end of April, 2021.

          If it hadn’t been for President Trump’s negotiations with the Taliban, the Taliban wouldn’t be in Doha right now negotiating a peace agreement with the U.S. backed government in Kabul, the prisoner exchanges that are practically complete wouldn’t have happened, and there wouldn’t have been a cease fire between the U.S. and the Taliban.

          And the fact remains 1) Hillary Clinton would never have negotiated with the Taliban for any reason and 2) Joe Biden wouldn’t have taken the political risks necessary to negotiate such an agreement either–much less sign it like President Trump did. The Taliban could make a total ass out of Trump at any time, either by taking major action targeting American troops specifically or by reasserting its support for Al Qaeda and allowing them to use Taliban held territory in Afghanistan for their operations against the United States. Biden doesn’t have the balls to take on that kind of political risk, Trump does–and we know that because he took those risks. Either that, or he just thinks getting us out of Afghanistan is in the best interests of the United States and he’s putting America’s interests first.

          If we hadn’t elected Trump, there wouldn’t be any agreement or schedule for us to withdraw completely by the end of April, and if Biden is elected, there is no guarantee that he will abide by the terms of the peace agreement President Trump negotiated.

          1. I’m amazed by how many lefties here have no idea that it happened.

            1. The list of good things that have happened that lefties are completely clueless about would exceed the maximum comment length here.

        2. Spent a lot of time around the Taliban, have you? A veritable expert, one might say?

          1. The funny thing is he calls it a peace agreement.

            It is a surrender. It needed to happen. Stupid war and we lost. Not one of our finest moments to crow about.

            I will be looking forward to the last helicopter lifting off the embassy roof.

    3. 3) President Trump single-handedly killed a $3.5 trillion stimulus bill that would have sent $1 trillion to bail out the states–especially the states of California and New York and their outrageous hundreds of billions of dollars worth of unfunded pension obligations. By using his authority to extend unemployment benefits without the Senate being forced to approve all that stimulus spending in order to get unemployment benefits authorized through the end of the election, President may have done more to make the government smaller than any President since before FDR. If Joe Biden is elected president, the states probably will get a bail out. If President Trump is reelected, the states will not get a bailout.

      “In the public sector, officials responded to the COVID-19 pandemic by furloughing workers at shuttered facilities and trimming payrolls in the face of substantial projected budget shortfalls. Colleges, school districts, and other areas of state and local government have shed approximately 1.5 million jobs since March, but most have been furloughs or temporary layoffs, according to the U.S. Department of Labor. In all, employment for the sector has fallen to its lowest levels since 2001, eclipsing the declines that followed the Great Recession.

      . . . .

      Nationally, local education employment has declined more than 9% since March. Ellerson Ng said she expects teachers and instructional staff to be among the last to face cuts . . . . The state government education workforce, mostly public colleges and universities, similarly suffered a substantial blow, decreasing more than 9% in the weeks since the shutdowns began in response to the pandemic. Outside of education, employment for cities, counties, and other local governments was down about 8% in May from pre-pandemic levels in March, according to the federal data.

      —-Pew Research

      https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/articles/2020/06/16/how-covid-19-is-driving-big-job-losses-in-state-and-local-government

      That data was from three months ago–and state and local government has continued to contract since then. If they laid off about 10% of their government staff, yeah, that means state and local government is getting smaller. Starving those governments of cash is the only way to make them smaller. They will never be so flush with cash that they decide to cut spending (or their pension plans), and the reason they’re being starved of revenue right now is because of 1) the pandemic, the lockdowns, and the recession and 2) because President Trump forcefully and persistently refused to back any “stimulus” plan that included a pure bailout for the states.

      President Trump has offered money to reimburse states for the cost of reopening their schools and making them safe IF IF IF they reopen their schools. He won’t offer them more money to build more classrooms so that they can space students further apart, etc.–unless they use that money to actually reopen the schools–because if it weren’t for that requirement, they’d use the money to bail out their unfunded pension systems–a problem that predated the coronavirus and has nothing to do keeping kids safe.

      Suffice it to say, if you want to see the government of your state get smaller (and what libertarian doesn’t?), then you better hope President Trump is reelected–because Biden will bail those states out as soon as he’s inaugurated but if Trump is reelected, those states will be forced to start making tough choices not about whether to cut spending but about what to cut first.

      1. ^Very Good read – thank you for posting those media-hidden details.

      2. And all three of those actions have been spun by the Left and the media (but I repeat myself) into horrible fascist, white supremacist actions that demand Trump be ousted: he wants to kill our seniors on medicare, soft on war on terrorism and disrespects our allies and harms our standing in the world community, and refuses to help those devastated by covid-19 and his mishandling of the pandemic.

        1. When Trump walks across the Potomac, the NYT, WaPom, CNN, CBS and others will headline “Trump Can’t Swim!’

    4. POTUS Trump is much less an enemy of freedom as Matt Welch is to rationality and logical thought.

  14. What has become of libertarianism?

    I expect the next diatribe to bash Trump for getting rid of the PPACA Mandate, bash him for allowing us the freedom to starve, and double down on the unilateralism bad & globalism good crap, etc.

    Maybe you are discovering your inner socialist?

    1. We should not confuse the staff of Reason with the state of libertarianism.

      Hunter S. Thompson wrote about the Hells Angels without actually being one of the Hells Angels, some journalists write about art or food without actually being artists or chefs, and some journalists write about libertarian capitalism without actually being libertarian capitalists. The things they write aren’t necessarily about the state of libertarianism.

      There may have been a time when they wrote with a legitimately libertarian voice, but now it’s more like what elitist journalists on the left want to scream in the ears of libertarian capitalists.

      1. “We should not confuse the staff of Reason with the state of libertarianism”

        That’s all well and good, but to the general public, including those inclined to start considering libertarianism, Reason is a, possibly the, official representative.

        1. Someone should start a libertarian magazine.

          1. I was a registered Libertarian for at least 10 years before I’d ever heard of Reason magazine.

            Growing up in Maryland and Virginia, where you’re likely to grow up caring about the Declaration of Independence and the principles of the Constitution, and you can’t escape at least one field trip to Mt. Vernon, Monticello, Fort McHenry, and then growing up in the go-go ’80s, when capitalism and entrepreneurship not only led to an explosion of economic growth but also led to the implosion of the Soviet Union, you really didn’t need Reason to see how the world works and why.

            I didn’t pick up on the libertarian label until I saw it associated with Milton Friedman, whose “Free to Choose” helped put my ideas into context. Back in the day, we used to read books.

            1. Growing up in Maryland and Virginia, where you’re likely to grow up caring about the Declaration of Independence and the principles of the Constitution
              Based on how they vote, I don’t believe this.

            2. I was born in Montgomery County and lived there until I was 12. The one thing I miss about that area is the proximity to US history.
              But we’re not talking about learning how the world works, we’re talking about the brand “libertarianism” and how the world actually works.
              Fact: Reason is one of the primary representatives of the brand “libertarianism” to the general public, who tend to be uninformed about the finer points and internal squabbles of its policy.
              If you think Reason is a good representative for you and your brand, cool. I’d disagree, but it is what it is.
              And that’s my point.

              FYI: your presidential candidate is also representing your brand, whether you like it or not.

        2. That’s all well and good, but to the general public, including those inclined to start considering libertarianism, Reason is a, possibly the, official representative.

          *casts mail in ballot for Babylon Bee*

        3. there’s always LewRockwell.com. but they don’t allow comments.

  15. Americans are generally positive about the way democracy is working in the United States. Yet a majority also says that the “fundamental design and structure” of U.S. government is in need of “significant changes” to make it work today. Republicans are more likely than Democrats to say U.S. democracy is working at least somewhat well, and less likely to say government is in need of sweeping changes. Go To Link

    1. The USA isn’t a democracy! It’s a REPUBLIC…

      1. Republics are democracies. So are single party socialist states. Democratic just means that the people somehow self govern.

        1. WRONG! Republics have a Constitution; a Supreme Law of governing that doesn’t (or shouldn’t) yield to peoples simple majority (voting to eat the sheep)…. It has zero to do with self-governing which is actually enforced in the Supreme Law by INDIVIDUAL rights above mob-majority democracy.

          The USA is based on that Constitution (therefore; is a Republic – NOT democracy) and as such the citizens SHOULD be electing representatives who “swear to uphold and enforce the U.S. Constitution” NOT elected to IGNORE the U.S. Constitution and produce a “plan” of the biggest mobster entitlements.

          1. Edit-> “It has zero to do with self-governing”.
            Fix-> “Democracy has zero to do with self-governing”

          2. Insisting on some fine distinction between the two terms just shows how little you actually know about the subject. In political science, if people want to discuss differences between different forms of government, they use precise terms to say what they mean. The meaning of the terms “republic” and “democracy” is ill-defined, depends on context, and is strongly overlapping.

            Definition of democracy 1a : government by the people especially : rule of the majority
            b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

            Definition of republic
            1a(1) : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president
            (2) : a political unit (such as a nation) having such a form of government
            b(1) : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law
            (2) : a political unit (such as a nation) having such a form of government

          3. “Democracy has zero to do with self-governing”

            Since “democracy” literally means “rule by the people”, that should give you a clue that it must have something to do with self-government.

            1. Since “democracy” literally means “rule by the people”
              WRONG!
              That’s not “self-governing” that’s “mob-governing”.

              It sickens me how even you NOYB2; who is usually very thought provoking bought into this “no difference between a democracy and a republic stunt” play-on behind the doors the lefties have pitched with their redefinition of words.

              …and to the ________ for which it stands, one nation…..

              “In a republic, laws are made by representatives chosen the people and must comply with a constitution that specifically protects the rights of the minority from the will of the majority.”

              “In a republic, an official set of fundamental laws, like the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, prohibits the government from limiting or taking away certain “inalienable” rights of the people, even if that government was freely chosen by a majority of the people. In a pure democracy, the voting majority has almost limitless power over the minority. “

              1. It sickens me how even you NOYB2; who is usually very thought provoking bought into this “no difference between a democracy and a republic stunt” Lefties have been doing plenty of nasty redefinitions.

                Madison tried to draw this distinction in Federalist 10, which would be the most relevant to discussions of the US form of government, but his definitions differ fundamentally from yours; I suggest you read up on it.

                The fact of the matter is that “republic” and “democracy” are ill-defined terms; if you want to be understood, use more precise terms.

                But there’s a bigger problem with your response…

                …and to the [republic] for which it stands, one nation…..

                It’s ironic that you cite a passage composed by a socialist during the progressive era to speak up against supposed leftist abuse of language. In fact, the notion that the “USA is a republic” is itself a leftist notion.

                There is only one place in the founding documents (DI, Constitution, BoR) where the term “Republic” appears (Article 4, Section 4):

                The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government

                That states clearly that the United States itself is not a republic at all, it is a union of states, each of which are guaranteed to be republics. The union itself is not a republic, only its members.

                constitution that specifically protects the rights of the minority from the will of the majority

                European constitutions “protect rights”; the US Constitution does not protect rights, it delegates limited state powers to a federal government. Until incorporation in the 19th century, only state constitutions protected rights of minorities, and they did so inconsistently.

                1. So; you’re going to tell me the Constitution made every State of the Union Republican but it itself is Democratic? Give me a break. And we know this because the Constitution says so WHERE???

                  1. Is NAFTA a “republic” or a “democracy”? Is NATO a “republic” or a “democracy”? Obviously, they are neither because they aren’t states, they are limited agreements among sovereign states. Likewise, the United States was conceived as an agreement between states, not a state in itself.

                    The idea of the United States as a state in itself is something promoted by progressives and leftists because that’s how they can exercise centralized power. That’s, among other things, why a socialist created the Pledge of Allegiance and tried to define the entire nation as a single Republic.

                    For practical purposes, the US has become a single nation state now, with an ill-defined form of government that has grown over more than a century of progressive reinterpretation of the Constitution. It’s pointless to quibble over semantic differences between republics and democracies.

                    If you care about liberty, you shouldn’t concede this “USA-is-a-state” view, you should instead defend the original conception of the United States as a loose union of separate states that have delegated limited, enumerated powers under a cooperation agreement.

                    1. Right; I agree with everything you said there – but if people are going to refer to “our” democracy or even federal union as a democracy that is wrong. It has a Constitution (Supreme Law) it’s representatives are sworn to uphold the supreme law – in that respect its FAR more of a Republic than anything else unless just addressed as a Union.

                      Thus; The union is certainly NOT the democracy everyone touts about – it’s by FAR more of a Republic than anything else.

                    2. It has a Constitution (Supreme Law) it’s representatives are sworn to uphold the supreme law – in that respect its FAR more of a Republic than anything else

                      The USSR and East Germany also had Constitutions, representatives, and government employees sworn to uphold it. The USSR even was a “Union of Soviet Socialist Republics“. West Germany, on the other hand, called itself the Federal Republic of Germany, yet never had a constitution. And the Federalist papers use definitions of “republic” and “democracy” that differ completely from yours again.

                      If you want to be understood, rather than starting semantic arguments, you need to use more specific terms and terms that relate to the context you want to discuss.

                      FWIW, the biggest difference between the US and other nations isn’t that the US has a Constitution (lots of countries have that), but that the Constitution enumerates governmental powers rather than specific rights.

                    3. Granite; but considering the bigger picture in modern US society – where championing ‘democracy’ is compulsively referring to a mob-rule without any Supreme Law and a ‘Republic’ IS actually in the Constitution as well as many-sources already insisting that intent; in today’s common language the assertion isn’t off-base at all.

                      Down into the depths of semantics and historical variations of definitions you’re correct; but in the big picture of the modern world and the way the words are used in today’s politics – you cannot deny my assertion is by far off-base.

                      But; just to keep these pesky semantics arguments off the plate I’ll try to address it as a ‘Constitutional Republic’ instead of just ‘Republic’ but don’t expect me to write the entire Constitution every-time I want to make that widely-accepted and understood point. 🙂

  16. Trumpty Dumpty, He’s quite off-the-wall,
    Trumpty Dumpty won’t stay in His toilet stall
    He just goes ahead and takes His shits,
    Totally regardless of whereever He sits
    Whenever He simply, no way, can sleep,
    He Twits us His thoughts, they’re all SOOO deep!
    He simply must, He MUST, Twit us His bird,
    No matter the words, however absurd!
    He sits and snorts His coke with a spoon,
    Then He brazenly shoots us His moon!
    They say He’ll be impeached by June,
    Man, oh man, June cannot come too soon!
    So He sits and jiggles His balls,
    Then He Twitters upon the walls
    “Some come here to sit and think,
    Some come here to shit and stink
    But I come here to scratch my balls,
    And read the writings on the walls
    Here I sit, My cheeks a-flexin’
    Giving birth to another Texan!
    Here I sit, on the pooper,
    Giving birth to another state trooper!
    He who writes these lines of wit,
    Wraps His Trump in little balls,
    He who reads these lines of wit,
    Eats those loser’s balls of shit!”

    1. I never really thought about it that way.

      Thanks, you’ve completely changed my mind!

      1. It’s funny above where he said he’s trying to convince casual readers about libertarianism.

    2. Orangemanbad, Sqrls.

    3. Squirrel up a tree goes freeqee for Donnee.

      1. You’re a poet!
        We didn’t know it!

        AND… Yer feet are Longfellows!

        1. You said you eat shit.

    4. Fuck off and die, shitstain.

  17. Freedom-wise:

    Trump spent part of his first 4 years in office liberating the people that his opponents spent their last 50 years in office jailing, and sometimes laughing about it.

    So, there’s that.

  18. “Nor do we judge George Washington’s generalship by the Continental Army’s autumn 1776 squandering of New York”

    But we do judge him for the ill-fated decision to retake NY, amirite?

    1. “Old Peter Minuit had nothing to lose when he bought the isle of Manhattan / For twenty-six dollars and a bottle of booze, and they threw in the Bronx and Staten / Pete thought he had the best of the bargain, but the poor red man just grinned / And he grunted “ugh!” (meaning “okay” in his jargon) for he knew poor Pete was skinned.”

  19. Excuse me, but the real reasons were supposed to disapprove of Trump are:

    He’s a Russian spy
    He had an inappropriate phone call with the president of the Ukraine
    He doesn’t pay enough taxes
    He screwed a hooker
    He’s racist immigration stance

    Your talk of policy seems particularly tone deaf for the current moment. Do better.

  20. “Keep your eye on one thing and one thing only: how much government is spending,” economist Milton Friedman

    It’s no wonder why they are trying to cancel him now

  21. P.S. If Somebody wants to show me where I’m wrong on those three points I outlined above–using facts and logic–I’d really appreciate it.

    P.P.S. We haven’t even started talking about the differences between Biden and Trump on issues like gun rights and the Green New Deal.

    If Reason tried to write a pair of articles titled, “The case for Trump” and, “The Case for Biden”, the poor journalist making the case for Biden would either run out of material or be forced to lie through his or her teeth to make the libertarian capitalist case for Biden.

    The very best reason to vote for Trump may be that Biden and the progressives he works with are so dangerous that having Trump in White House is the most libertarian and capitalist outcome that can be reasonably hoped for–because if the progressive socialists that control the Democratic party were to gain control of the White House, it would be a complete disaster for libertarian capitalism.

    From the Green New Deal and stacking the Supreme Court to bailing out the states and coming after our gun rights, where’s the upside of Biden winning the White House for libertarian capitalists?

    1. There is no upside. I’m not a big fan of Trump, but Jesus Christ, the Democrats have all gone completely insane.

      And we aren’t even talking about the ones that are burning and pillaging the major metro areas, yet.

      1. I know you’re not traveling to these cities that are supposedly being burned out by leftist mobs, so when you see videos of burning cars and such, you need to make sure they were actually shot in America and not some African shithole. There is a ton of propaganda around this, and I know you would hate to participate in generating racial violence needlessly.

        1. You can google credible news stories of left wing protestors starting fires and assaulting people.

          There’s really no need to go creationist over this.

          1. I can find plenty of video of paramilitary mobs brandishing semiautomatic weapons too. They’re there to get legal kills of black protesters and Antifa. That’s why they’re there. If they were Muslims everyone on this board would be cool with shoving them in a cage for terrorism.

            1. You do realize “they had no business being there; they were looking for trouble” is usually an excuse people offer to justify murdering black people.

              Do try not to become what you hate.

              1. If an Antifa murders two people, he won’t be made into an internet rock star like Rittenhouse was by the psychopathic right. So no worries there.

                1. Right, Antifa just needs to murder one to become a left hero, and when he gets whacked a martyr.

                  1. Every bit of graffiti or every broken fingernail is a propaganda win for FOX News. The left gains nothing from property destruction or murder. That’s probably why the proud boys follow them around trying to incite violence.

                    Terrorism by the right is excused however, as long as they have white skin. That’s the dynamic we’re working with.

                    1. Antifa is white people.

                    2. Your incessant agitation against leftists would have virtually no bite if not for the racial grievance behind it.

                    3. no bite if not for the racial grievance behind it.

                      Fuck off with your slimy race-baiting attempts, Tony. You have no power here.

                2. Rittenhouse isn’t a star. He’s also not the kind of murdering vermin that comprise antifa.

                  1. Link to one murder committed by Antifa.

                    1. “That’s different, Tulpa, because shut up” – t. Tony

            2. “I can find plenty of video of paramilitary mobs brandishing semiautomatic weapons too…”

              Burning down buildings =/= holding a gun, and you are probably too stupid to recognize that.

              1. Yeah, one is arson and the other is terrorism.

                1. So you are too stupid.
                  One is arson, the other is nothing at all.

                  1. When you’re an anti-2A lefty piece of shit, citizens holding guns is scary.

                    1. The guns aren’t meant to be scary? Are they intended as fashion accessories?

                    2. They’re meant to be used to defend property and against having your face broken by a bike lock or skateboard.

                    3. All those guys with guns have property along the street?

                    4. I thought it was all “ours” Tones?

            3. ‘They’re there to get legal kills of black protesters and Antifa. That’s why they’re there.’

              Telepathy due to quinoa, kale and soy? That’s some impressive mindreading, beyond the lying about the weapons. And the ad hominem about the Muslims in a cage, you are saying more about yourself than people here.

        2. 1500 businesses destroyed in Minneapolis don’t need propaganda video. 100 days of rioting in Portland don’t need propaganda video. A mob taking over downtown Seattle doesn’t need propaganda video.

          1. So why do they keep pushing the fake videos anyway?

            Protesters are agitating against a corrupt state. The militias are looking to shoot themselves some leftists. Libertarians universally side with the violent state-supporting mob.

            1. Protesters are agitating against a corrupt state.
              Minneapolis+Minesota run by dems.
              Portland+Oregon, run by dems.
              Seattle+ Washington, run by dems.
              Chicago+Illinois, run by dems
              Your brain is in a corrupt agitated state and is beyond help.

              1. Antifa has no love for Democrats. But even less love for rank morons who do absolutely nothing but lamely defend the Republican party. It’s so obvious and ridiculous it makes me actually cringe at you. There are serious issues in the world and your contribution to every conversation is to suck Republican dick. What a revolting piece of shit you are.

                1. Antifa has no love for Democrats
                  But democrats have nothing but love for antifa. How are the riots going in Oklahoma you cowardly sissy? Why aren’t you out burning and looting for justice? Why are you hanging around a Libertarian website you gaping flaming pink asshole? Is it the rough trade?

                  1. You’re not even mentioning Republican governors who are willfully shitting the bed on covid. Republicans could kill millions of Americans and you’d still be sucking their dicks. You’re not a serious person, and you have made that choice.

                    1. Where the fuck did COVID come up you Turnip? Did you mislay your talking points? Stick to your onesies and cocoa. Thanksgiving will be here soon enough for you to pester your relatives.

                    2. Your contribution to this correlation is that Democrats happen to be in charge of major cities. That’s been true for many decades. Have they always been anarchic hellscspes, or are you not even remotely interested in talking honestly about the situation?

                      Your only idea is to let Republicans off the hook for everything. It’s extremely boring, apart from anything else.

                    3. Tony deflects, as usual. You’re a real lying piece of shit Tony.

                      All of this is on the democrats. But your kind will never accept accountability for anything.

                    4. You mean the problems you want to talk about but not the one killing hundreds of thousands of people? I thought China was responsible for that. Or is it immigrants? Definitely not the actual guy in charge spending every day treating hygiene rules as an assault on his masculinity. He’s the head of the party of personal responsibility, so I guess nature decided to weigh in on the matter.

                      Damn those Democrats for giving Trump covid. How did they infiltrate that mask-free Republican circle jerk and give it to them?

                    5. Governor Cuomo of New York killed thousands of nursing-home residents by forcing them to take in covid patients, lying fuckwit, and you’re still sucking shit-covered Democrat cock.

                2. Yeah, show me all those Antifa Trump voters, lying shithead.

            2. Protesters are agitating against a corrupt state.

              Yet, at the same time, they are also agitating for an even more corrupt state.

        3. I live in St. Louis, Tony. I helped clean up after the Ferguson Riots in 2014. As a volunteer.

          Fuck you.

          1. The question is how much you want to shred the constitution to deal with this problem.

            1. “The question is how much you want to shred the constitution to deal with this problem.”

              No, the question is do you really believe that anyone other than you and your lefty shit buds believe your steaming pile of shit?

            2. No, the issue here is that you just tried to hand-wave away months and months of violent rioting as a figment of our collective imaginations.

              It’s a god damned lie, and you know it’s a lie.

              1. Yet the only people murdering anyone are the Trump cult. As they excuse hundreds of thousands of deaths including possibly that of Trump himself.

                I will be concerned about scary blacks when I’m sure that your allies won’t use it as an excuse to murder people and support cops who murder people. They’re out there protesting for a reason.

                1. “Yet the only people murdering anyone are the Trump cult.”

                  There’s levels of dishonesty, but you’ve found a new low, shitstain.
                  Hint: Trump didn’t ‘invent’ the ‘rona, and unlike, oh, Cuomo, nothing he’s done has made the least difference in the spread of the disease.

                  1. And the black bookstore owner in Milwaukee the press won’t talk about

                2. Repeat: President Barack Obama — with the encouragement of VP Joe Biden — murdered more black Africans than all other US presidents combined.

                  “Hold your nose and vote for Biden” doesn’t pass the smell test.

                3. Lying shitstain Tony lies some more.

        4. ‘Some African shithole’ is not the approved language, but you have further demonstrated that your ingroup are hypocrites after the meltdown when Trump used these words, and racists. As for the video footage, yeah, no, those are US cities, with US citizens chanting dumb slogans.

        5. Funny you should mention that…

          http://twitter.com/zerosum24/status/1312590627842994177?s=19

          NFAC fucked around and had another accidental discharge.

    2. Trump is calling for more stimulus from his hospital bed. Not as much as the Democrats, but he’s not making the case to end the bailouts and get everyone back to work.

    3. “…where’s the upside of Biden winning the White House for libertarian capitalists?”

      1. Rescind immigration restrictions. Expand DACA. Initiate another amnesty. Expand H1-B issuances. All would increase the supply of workers and drop wage costs for the LCs you discuss.

      2. End all tariff threats and restrictions on imports from China and the EU.

      3. Start some mechanism for establishing and guaranteeing racial equity in criminal justice, maintaining the existing AA preferences in higher education and government investment. Spin it as lowering governmental barriers to minority improvement.

      Anyway, that’s how I’d start trying to organize that hypothetical article.

      1. 1) DACA isn’t libertarian or a solution to that problem. If DACA had been ruled unconstitutional, Congress would have acted to save those people from deportation. Keeping them in limbo with an unconstitutional eo isn’t the solution.

        2) There isn’t a good reason to think that Biden is better on trade with China than Trump.

        3) There isn’t anything libertarian about AA. The government has no business discriminating against anybody on the basis of race from a libertarian perspective.

        1. Keeping them in limbo with an unconstitutional eo isn’t the solution.

          But it’s a good thing for “Libertarian” capitalists.

          There isn’t a good reason to think that Biden is better on trade with China than Trump.

          Better for China for sure: the reason is the millions of dollars they have funneled to his family.

          There isn’t anything libertarian about AA. The government has no business discriminating against anybody on the basis of race from a libertarian perspective.

          But it’s a good thing for “Libertarian” capitalists.

  22. The wave of violence sweeping this country hit home for me last night. The body of a state trooper lay, draped in Old Glory, on a slab in my trauma bay.

    1. What caused the Trooper to end up that way?

      Horrible part of both jobs, law enforcement and emergency medicine.

  23. Shouldn’t the case against someone focus on those things his opponents would do differently?

    Unless this is going to suddenly turn into a libertarian magazine that actually promotes Jo.

    1. Why would a libertarian magazine promote Jo?

  24. Trump, himself and others promoted the idea of a businessman as President. What was forgotten was that Trump is not a really good businessman. His main skill is borrowing money, running a company badly and then declaring bankruptcy. He has his money and his creditors have nothing. This is the way he has treated our country and the results will likely be the same. Trump will exit in January no worse than before and the American people will have a wrecked economy, more division and a raging pandemic. Historians will tell us that the American people were no different than the students of Trump U and his casino investors, we were conned.

    1. Exactly. Spot on analysis.

      He pulled the greatest con of all time. With absolutely no credentials or experience he became the most powerful man in the richest country on earth. He didn’t invest a dime. He does not even pay taxes like the rest of us poor shlubs. The joke is on us.

      1. Agree with the both of you above! However, we should cut Trump SOME amount of at least a small break for being a “lover, not a fighter”!

        As evidence that Trump does have SOME love in His Blessed Heart, please see the love-letter below, that He composed for Leona Helmsley:

        Mash Letter from The Donald to Leona Helmsley

        Roses are red,
        Violets are blue,
        Won’t you come here,
        And join My Crew?
        Won’t you please join My Quest?
        The honest taxpayers, to molest?
        I like to collect babes, as if they were Cocker Spaniels,
        You’d look quite nice, right next to Stormy Daniels!
        You’d be quite sexy, in My YUUGE harem,
        With My BIGLY contributors, I like to share ‘em!
        “Taxes are for the little people”
        For a campaign slogan, it sounds GREAT!
        Won’t you help Me fool the greedy sheeple?
        To their suffering, you and I, we could masturbate!
        Brad Parscale, My old campaign pal,
        Wants to kill himself, what killer style!
        Won’t you stay with Me a while,
        And be My campaign gal?

        1. Fuck off, Sqrlsy, you Hitler-lovin’ racist.

        2. Kill yourself.

          1. Shitsy Shitler, drinking Shitsy Kool-Aid in a spiraling vortex of darkness, cannot or will not see the Light… It’s a VERY sad song! Kinda like this…

            He’s a real Kool-Aid Man,
            Sitting in his Kool-Aid Land,
            Playing with his Kool-Aid Gland,
            Has no thoughts that help the people,
            He wants to turn them all to sheeple!
            On the sheeple, his Master would feast,
            Master? A disaster! Just the nastiest Beast!
            Kool-Aid man, please listen,
            You don’t know, what you’re missin’,
            Kool-Aid man, better thoughts are at hand,
            The Beast, to LEAVE, you must COMMAND!

            A helpful book is to be found here: M. Scott Peck, Glimpses of the Devil
            https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1439167265/reasonmagazinea-20/

            Hey Shitsy Shitler…
            If EVERYONE who makes you look bad, by being smarter and better-looking than you, killed themselves, per your wishes, then there would be NO ONE left!
            Who would feed you? Who’s tits would you suck at, to make a living? WHO would change your perpetually-smelly DIAPERS?!!?
            You’d better come up with a better plan, Stan!

            1. Fuck off racist.

            2. Quit quoting me, Sqrlsy, you dirty Hitler-loving racist.

            3. Go die in a fire, shit-gargling fuckwit.

      2. For the facts, in context, see…

        https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/09/trumps-tax-returns-proves-he-just-another-moocher/616516/

        Trump Just Lost Control of the Game
        His tax returns dispel all his pretensions to wealth and sacrifice, and his reelection campaign is running out of time.

        1. Fuck off, Sqrlsy.

        2. You wouldn’t know a fact if it was buggering you in your gapped shithole.

    2. “…What was forgotten was that Trump is not a really good businessman…”

      As if an adolescent with a raging case of TDS were competent to make such a judgement:
      “As of October 2020, Donald Trump has an estimated net worth of around $4 billion. He made his billion-dollar empire as a businessman and succeeded his father. He also earned handsomely when he worked for television. His annual salary was $60 million for his show ‘The Celebrity Apprentice’.”

      How’s your burger-flipping job going, you pathetic piece of shit?

      1. These morons don’t understand the first thing about business.

        1. Or the Constitution, or pretty much anything about the USA.

  25. The collective mind explosion if Trump is reelected is going to be yuge. I am actually hoping for an uptick in violence as I really want the national guard and fbi to start taking care of the liberal left progtards and their brownshirts blmantifa. We need to really start cleaning out the gene pool and a great place to start is those who caused this destruction. The left is in a mind fuck the likes of which we haven’t seen in a century. Back then they took care of the socialists and commies and brought them to their knees. It’s now our turn.

    1. So if we win do we get to murder you?

      1. That’s shat lefties do the first chance they get; murder people.

      2. I’m your huckleberry.

        1. More like, you are our dingleberry!

          1. Does that idea make you hungry?

          2. Fuck off, Sqrlsy, you dirty Hitler-loving racist.

      3. That is your plan.

        Or maybe you can tell us how you’ll just send us to camps to quarantine the pandemic of “racism”

        1. You’re the idiots trying to get rid of the people fighting fascism.

          1. Antifa IS fascism, lying shitstain.

  26. yeah, the best libertarian case against Trump is that he spends way too much, and interferes with the economy too much with tarriffs and with trying to ban cell phone apps and such. on immigration he continued the distasteful Obama policies which no one called on Obama on, instead of moving toward greater humanity and freedom. but Biden promises to spend much, much more. and Biden’s TV ads don’t talk about repealing ill-advised tarriffs or loosening world trade for greater freedom and prosperity — Biden’s TV ads talk about how tough he is on China.

    1. All of the Biden TV ads in my area are exclusively about how much free shit people can expect to get under the ‘Biden Plan’ ™. There are no specifics about what this plan actually entails, it’s literally just a list of all the free shit we can expect to get:

      – Money for health care
      – Money for child care
      – Money for education
      – Increased minimum wage
      – Armored personnel carriers for the troops in Iraq (what year is it?)
      – etc.

      And all of this is to be paid for by taxes on ‘the rich’ and ‘corporations’. That is the extent of the plan details.

      1. Lefties, “The R-Party Spends TOO much!!!” It’s so ironic it’s actually funny.

    1. lol…. Nazi (synonym for: National Socialism). Democrats latest call for “National Socialism”. Yep, solidarity DOES matter…

      1. Hot take did you come up with that yourself.

        1. Nope; It’s in every dictionary ever written – Wikipedia, Britannica, Cambridge, Oxford, Collins, Webster, etc.. etc.. etc..

          1. You do know that the socialists were the first people the Nazis killed? You have absolutely not the faintest clue about what you’re trying to talk about.

            1. The first killed were his Nazi confederates Ernst Röhm and his SA sewing circle. So you’re right, he did kill the socialists first.

              1. The beer hall putsch was a good 10 years before Ernst Rohm’s death. Munich police were murdered by the Nazi putschists 10 years before Rohm.

                The notion, by the way, that Rohm or Hitler were Marxist or Leftist is ludicrous. They were right wing reactionaries and Naziism was their reaction to socialism.

                1. ^Someone’s been eating FAR too much left-wing propaganda..

            2. Here’s Reich Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels to disagree with Tony:

              Why Are We Socialists?

              We are socialists because we see in socialism, that is the union of all citizens, the only chance to maintain our racial inheritance and to regain our political freedom and renew our German state.

              Socialism is the doctrine of liberation for the working class. It promotes the rise of the fourth class and its incorporation in the political organism of our Fatherland, and is inextricably bound to breaking the present slavery and regaining German freedom. Socialism, therefore, is not merely a matter of the oppressed class, but a matter for everyone, for freeing the German people from slavery is the goal of contemporary policy. Socialism gains its true form only through a total fighting brotherhood with the forward-striving energies of a newly awakened nationalism…

              The bourgeois is about to leave the historical stage. In its place will come the class of productive workers, the working class, that has been up until today oppressed. It is beginning to fulfill its political mission. It is involved in a hard and bitter struggle for political power as it seeks to become part of the national organism. The battle began in the economic realm; it will finish in the political. It is not merely a matter of wages, not only a matter of the number of hours worked in a day — though we may never forget that these are an essential, perhaps even the most significant part of the socialist platform — but it is much more a matter of incorporating a powerful and responsible class in the state, perhaps even to make it the dominant force in the future politics of the fatherland. The bourgeoisie does not want to recognize the strength of the working class…

              We are socialists because we see the social question as a matter of necessity and justice for the very existence of a state for our people, not a question of cheap pity or insulting sentimentality. The worker has a claim to a living standard that corresponds to what he produces. We have no intention of begging for that right. Incorporating him in the state organism is not only a critical matter for him, but for the whole nation. The question is larger than the eight-hour day. It is a matter of forming a new state consciousness that includes every productive citizen. Since the political powers of the day are neither willing nor able to create such a situation, socialism must be fought for. It is a fighting slogan both inwardly and outwardly. It is aimed domestically at the bourgeois parties and Marxism at the same time, because both are sworn enemies of the coming workers’ state. It is directed abroad at all powers that threaten our national existence and thereby the possibility of the coming socialist national state.

              1. Here’s the Wikiquote for Joseph Goebbels official speeches as Reichsminister:
                https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Joseph_Goebbels

                He claims that the Nazi party is a socialist party about a million times.

                The fight between the Nazis and the communists was fraternal.

                1. BTW, Adam Tooze’ “The Wages of Destruction” (an examination of the Nazi economy prior to and during WWII) makes it clear that Hitler was on the exact path with regard to the nationalization of production which Pipes details of Lenin in “A Concise History of the Russian Revolution”.
                  Lenin had longer, since he wasn’t dumb enough to start a war with the west; he merely murdered his subjects.

                  1. “Hitler was on the exact path with regard to the nationalization of production which Pipes details of Lenin in “A Concise History of the Russian Revolution”.

                    You need to expand your reading. Hitler nationalized the German bank because of anti-semitism. He feared the international banking sector was rife with Jews, which it was to some extent. The domestic banks which were natiionalized under the Weimar regime were re-privatized under Hitler. The big industrial concerns like Krupp remained in private hands.

                    1. For the duration of the war.
                      Finance Minister von Krosigk was clear that they would be nationalized post-war.

                    2. Industry remained in private hands throughout the Nazi regime. Hitler’s ambitious plans to construct a network of highways was publicly funded, as it is in many countries. Germany’s central bank was nationalized because of Hitler’s antisemitism, not because of his love of Marx, who was another Jew Hitler hated. Germany’s regional banks were re-privatized under the Nazis, after they had been nationalized under the Weimar Republic.

              2. This explains why socialism had currency as public relations. Nobody’s denying that it’s in the lie very name. Socialism hadn’t yet been turned into a bogeyman. You’re not getting the point. To ignore the opposition to Marxists is to miss a central point about the Nazis.

                Granted, the main central point is the racial grievance and genocide. Those are the important points of alignment with Trumpism. That’s what you are supporting once we put aside semantic nonsense. And since Trump has offered absolutely no serious support for free-market economics, I’m sure you’d agree.

                1. No it isn’t. They had little disagreement with the marxists about how to run things. The battle was over WHO would be in charge.

                  1. It’s so odd to combine a total fixation on economic systems with little to no knowledge about them.

                    If you’re keeping score, the left is not advocating either Stalinism or Naziism, while the right is advocating Naziism. If you want to ludicrously equate single-payer healthcare to Stalinism, I get to equate neo-Nazis with Nazis.

                    1. “…It’s so odd to combine a total fixation on economic systems with little to no knowledge about them.”

                      Self-knowledge is not one of shitstain’s skill sets.

                    2. You’re not equating anything, and your ‘advocating’ claim is complete horseshit.

                2. Now you’re moving goalposts, Tony.

                  You said: “You do know that the socialists were the first people the Nazis killed? You have absolutely not the faintest clue about what you’re trying to talk about.”

                  You want to know who has absolutely not the faintest clue about what they’re trying to talk about?
                  You.

            3. “You do know that the socialists were the first people the Nazis killed? You have absolutely not the faintest clue about what you’re trying to talk about.”

              When you see Tony tell people they don’t know what they’re talking about, the chances of him not knowing what he’s talking about are extremely high.

              Most of the Brownshirts were socialists.

              “Many of these stormtroopers believed in the socialist promise of National Socialism. They expected the Nazi regime to take more radical economic action, such as breaking up the vast landed estates of the aristocracy, once they obtained national power.[19]

              SS members generally came from the middle class, while the SA had its base among the unemployed and working class. Politically speaking, the SA was more radical than the SS, with its leaders arguing the Nazi revolution had not ended when Hitler achieved power, but rather needed to implement socialism in Germany (see Strasserism).

              . . . .

              Rudolf Diels, the first Gestapo chief, estimated that in 1933 Berlin, 70 percent of new SA recruits were former Communists.[26]

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturmabteilung

              Anti-fa are a bunch of Brownshirts.

              1. “Anti-fa are a bunch of Brownshirts”

                “[The SA’s] primary purposes were providing protection for . . . rallies and assemblies; disrupting the meetings of opposing parties; fighting against the paramilitary units of the opposing parties, . . . , and [intimidation].”

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturmabteilung

                Sound familiar?

                And, per the quote above this one, the difference between anti-fa and the Nazi Brownshirts was not that the Brownshirts weren’t socialists. The Brownshirts were socialists.

                1. Based on his views of the 2nd Amendment, it appears Tony supports left wingers using the threat of violence to disrupt the assembly of people he hates.

                  1. “The Brownshirts were socialists.”

                    This is irrelevant. It was Hitler who was at the center of Naziism. When two Nazis met on the street it was “Heil Hitler” that sounded out in greeting, not “Heil Brownshirt.” Hitler was never a Marxist or a leftist.

                    He did have some characteristics of the left, however. His belief in a classless society and the promise of technical solutions to our problems. His socialist commitment to the car and the network of publicly constructed high ways available to one and all was decades ahead of US Republican’s efforts in that regard.

                    You haven’t read Crabwalk, have you?
                    http://library.lol/fiction/5BB274D560135FEEC98B670A0403F4D5
                    It’s one of Gunther Grass (Tin Drum) later works, semi – autobiographical. Grass was a Socialist from a socialist family, but he joined the SS and tells about his war experiences, including the political bickering between the soldiers. Some were communist, some socialist and some fascist. It also tells about the Strength Through Joy ship, the Wilhelm Gustloff, the cruise ship which embodied the classless ideal of socialism, sunk by Soviet submarines near the end of the war while it was acting as a hospital ship and ferrying civilian refugees. (and weapons too, it must be said)

                2. “The Brownshirts were socialists.”

                  The Socialists had their own organizations, as did the communists. Hitler and his milieu came from the Freikorps. It was a right wing outfit that specialized in disrupting leftist groups and assassinating their leaders. Rosa and Karl were murdered years before the SA appeared on the scene.

              2. Antifa exist for the sole purpose of opposing fascists. It’s right there in the name.

                The equation of an economic system with a political system is you people’s doing. You want people to associate even the barest modern welfare state with Stalinism. You know it’s bullshit. I know it’s bullshit. How demoralizing it must be to practice a politics of trying to convince stupid people of lies.

                When the entire world finds socialism vogue, it’s not terribly instructive to say the worst crime of the Nazis was socialism. That’s rather grotesque, in fact.

                1. “Antifa exist for the sole purpose of opposing fascists. It’s right there in the name.”

                  Because anti-fa accuses everyone they oppose of fascism doesn’t mean their victims are fascists, and just because people oppose and criticize anti-fa’s looting, arson, and violence doesn’t make anti-fa’s critics or opponents fascists either.

                  “Because anti-fa says so” isn’t a good reason to believe anything. Meanwhile, anti-fa exists for the same reasons as the Brownshirts, they have the same socialist revolutionary as the Brownshirts–and they even use the same tactics as the Brownshirts–like rampaging through cities and smashing up the businesses of innocent business owners.

                  It’s disgusting.

                  1. Antifa has been around since the first fascists. Which side would you have been on, I wonder.

                    The thing about fascists with power is that they don’t need to smash any windows. They use laws and legitimized thugs to get their way.

                    1. The reason you’re trying to justify the Brownshirts’ behavior rather than deny that anti-fa is exactly like the Brownshirts in so many ways–including their socialist ideology–is because you can’t deny the fact that anti-fa is exactly like the Brownshirts in so many ways.

                      And if anyone is a fascist around here, Tony, it’s you. Shall we link to all the old posts of you arguing that Jewish people didn’t have a right to their lives during the holocaust–because the Nazi government didn’t say they had a right to their lives? Or how ’bout you arguing that Rosa Parks didn’t have the right to sit in the front of a public bus because the government didn’t say she did?

                      The only person with a fascist ideology around here, Tony, is you. and seeing you defend the disgusting behavior of the Brownshirts–trying to justify destroying the businesses of innocent bystanders–is both disgusting and unsurprising–coming from you.

                    2. Just because your favorite new paramilitary shitheads are calling themselves “anti-fascist” doesn’t mean that they are.

                      Antifa in a nutshell:
                      “We call ourselves the “Anti-fascists” and call everyone who disagrees with us on anything, however unrelated, “Nazis” and “Racists”.
                      How can people not understand this? We can never do anything wrong because we’re opposing Nazis and Racists.
                      It’s so simple to understand.
                      Everything we do is justified because we’re the Anti-fascists and they’re Nazis and Racists.”

                    3. Here’s one of the many times, over the years, that Tony has tried to explain 1) that Rosa Parks didn’t have the right to sit in the front of a public bus and 2) that the Jews didn’t have a right to their lives during the holocaust:

                      “If Rosa Parks had the right to sit at the front of the bus then nobody would know her name. The whole point was that she didn’t have the right at that time.

                      If the Jews had a right to life during the Holocaust, there wouldn’t have been a Holocaust. The whole point is that they had no rights in the most unimaginably horrible way.

                      —-Tony

                      https://reason.com/2013/08/28/the-enduring-legacy-of-mlks-i-have-a-dre/#comment-3968429

                      I don’t think you can be a libertarian and not believe that people’s rights exist regardless of whether the government violates them, and I don’t think you can be a fascist and not believe that people’s rights only exist if the government says so. The idea that our rights only exist if the government says so is the foundation of all totalitarianism.

                      Tony’s beliefs are consistent with fascism. He’s never repudiated them. And Tony is justifying the tactics of anti-fa and the Brownshirts.

                    4. Wow, that’s just sickening, isn’t it Ken.
                      Tony is such a sociopath.

                    5. Wow, that’s just sickening, isn’t it Ken.
                      Tony is such a sociopath.”

                      At the very best, he’s so obsessed with telling libertarians that our rights don’t exist unless the progressives say so that he’s even willing to deny that both Rosa Parks and holocaust victims didn’t have any rights. That’s assuming he’s being dishonest, though–which is giving him the benefit of the doubt.

                      He would march us up against a wall if ordered to do so. He’s like Eichman who obeyed orders at Auschwitz without hesitation. He’s not just a troll. He’s the ol’ banality of evil, which doesn’t mean that there’s a little Eichman inside of all of us.

                      https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/the-grossly-misunderstood-banality-of-evil-theory-1.5448677

                      But there is a little Eichman in Tony, and it’s not just that he’d march us up against the wall just like he justified Brownshirt tactics. It’s that he wouldn’t think it needed to be justified. If there wasn’t a law against it, he’d just do it.

                      I’m with you, though. I don’t think these are dishonest arguments he’s making. He genuinely does not believe that you have any rights unless the government says so. And if he genuinely feels no obligation to respect people’s rights apart from the fear of government, then that’s what we’re talking about when we talk about evil and psychopaths.

                      In which case, we’re being accused of fascism by a totalitarian psychopath.

                    6. A lot of the commentators here are just nutty or heavily propagandized, but Tony’s different. He feels malevolent and sinister.
                      It’s like the difference between a regular political zealot and a serial killer.

                    7. Ken, either you understand perfectly well the parameters of that argument and you’re lying to get more lie clicks, or you don’t understand it and you’re hopeless.

                      My point is to distinguish between the assertion of a right and the actuality of a right. That’s all. Stop being stupid.

                      If the law says you cannot do something without being thrown in prison for it, you don’t have a right to do it. Any man, woman, or goldfish can assert that you *should* have a right to do something. It’s important to make this is-ought distinction so that we know whether we actually have rights or whether oligarchs are merely mollifying us by telling us of all the theoretical rights we might have.

                      These are discussions refuting the silly notion of natural rights. Rights cannot preexist codes of law, and they certainly can’t preexist humans. So they don’t exist somewhere there in the ether of the universe. (How is it possible you’re still not getting this?) Natural rights are mere assertions. I like my rights backed up by force.

                      (Side note: they are highly convenient for hegemonic forces who want to claim they have no choice but to conquer you, what with their natural right to do so and all.)

                    8. Your point is that people’s rights don’t exist unless the government says so–which is the foundation of all totalitarianism. Your support for this position is so extreme, you won’t even admit that Rosa Parks had rights no matter what Jim Crow laws said and that holocaust victims had rights that were violated–no matter what the Nazi government said.

                      . . . and then you want to turn around and defend the tactics of the Brownshirts–because they were so much like anti-fa in so many ways–and then you want to turn around and call people fascists for opposing anti-fa smashing up people’s businesses and burning them to the ground like a bunch of Brownshirts, when the only person around here with anything like a fascist ideology is you and the people you’re defending.

                      You suck because of your totalitarianist belief that people don’t have rights unless the government says so.
                      You suck because you call people fasicsts and then turn around and defend Brownshirt tactics.
                      Basically, you suck.

                    9. Using the word “fascist” descriptively to mean someone who both a) espouses a totalitarian ideology and b) supports Brownshirt tactics is as accurate a use of the term as any use needs to be.

                    10. People don’t have rights unless the government says so. You can assert a right all day long in the absence of government enforcement, but you’ll be asserting it at the wrong end of someone else’s army. Like civil rights. Even the most hardcore conservatives of yore admit that it took federal intervention to realize black civil rights in any meaningful way.

                      How were Holocaust victims’ lives made any better by the assertion of the existence of ethereal rights? Isn’t the relevant thing that they were murdered by the millions?

                      You want rights to be ethereal rather than real so that you don’t have to think about anyone asserting new rights that don’t pertain to you. Fascism has much more to do with such psychopathy than it does street tactics, which have been employed against fascists since the beginning.

                      If rights are set in stone then you get to declare which are real and which are illegitimate. That’s all you’re doing here. Rights for me, none for thee. Conservatism, libertarianism, in a nutshell.

                    11. And putting aside all this me being right and you being wrong, I think the burden is on you to describe what an ethereal right even is. Where does it exist? What created it?

                      Is it not anything more than an assertion on your part about what counts as a right and what doesn’t? A set of rules that is never subject to change, because you say so? Now that sounds a bit totalitarian to me.

                    12. “And putting aside all this me being right and you being wrong, I think the burden is on you to describe what an ethereal right even is. Where does it exist? What created it?”

                      Rights are the obligation to respect other people’s choices, and that obligation arises from their agency. You are not obligated to respect the right of inanimate objects to make choices for themselves. Because inanimate objects can’t make choices, they have no rights. You’re obligated to not rape people, on the other hand, because it violates your obligation to respect their right to make choices for themselves. Your obligation arises from their capacity to make choices.

                      Because ethics is all about people choosing one course of action rather than another, ethics itself arises from the ability to make choices–and so does our obligation to respect the choices of others. Meanwhile, there’s a word for those who only respect other people’s rights because they fear criminal prosecution. If you can’t understand or refuse to recognize that you’re obligated to respect other people’s rights–regardless of whether the government will prosecute you for violating them–then you are what has traditionally been called a psychopath.

                    13. “People don’t have rights unless the government says so.”

                      —-Tony

                      You should find a good clinical therapist, tell him or her that this is central to your view of the world, and see if they can help you. If you tell them that, they’ll have no doubt about you needing their help. Your insurance company will probably pay for treatment. There are official diagnoses for this.

                      “Antisocial personality disorder (ASPD or APD) is a personality disorder characterized by a long-term pattern of disregard for, or violation of, the rights of others.”

                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisocial_personality_disorder

                      Tell the therapist that you want him or her to prove that other people’s rights exist apart from government. They’ll see what the problem is, and they’ll know what to do.

    2. You mean that propaganda poll that polled FORTY-SIX PERCENT Democrats compared to 35 percent Republicans?

      Figured you’d pull out that mendacious shitpoll, shitstain.

  27. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR SHARING THIS  INFORMATION.IF ANY UPDATE WILL AVAILABLE THEN KINDLY LET US KNOW ON AIYCSM

  28. Well this explains the article written about the case against Joe Biden.

  29. Matt, your discounting of all those other issues, as you admit to up front, just minimizes the real danger of this man. It never was just limited to size of government and dollars/deficits. Heck, that’s the same complaint you’ve had about every other recent President, and he’s much, much worse.

    Let’s agree on your complaints and add the teal ultimate issue, courtesy of the libertarian Niskanen Center:

    “There’s no denying the man is, in some sense, a complete moron. He is ignorant and incurious, yet styles himself a genius. This makes him look like he’s too stupid to realize he’s stupid. But he’s not stupid–not even a little. He’s been stealing and beating the rap his entire life, and with constantly mounting stakes. He beat the rap all the way into the Oval Office, which is why he’s not about to leave; …Donald Trump is an abysmal businessman and serial bankrupt worth less than the interest his inherited fortune would have earned had he socked it away in an index fund. Yet he successfully manipulated the media, over decades, into repeating and amplifying a myth that he’s some kind of money-minting savant… When bills come due, Trump simply doesn’t pay, pays off one loan with another he’s somehow managed to bullshit his way into, and/or fills the gaps with a cut of laundered second-world oligarch cash. And he gets away with it, time and again… It is naive and dangerous to underestimate this man.”

    This website needs to stop with giving him a pass because of “debt to equity ratio.” Stop with with limiting him to the same complaints you have about every other President, as if he just makes some mistakes. He’s a con man. Period. So stop being naive. At least some libertarians aren’t.

    https://www.niskanencenter.org/trump-is-plenty-capable/

    1. By the way, Will Wilkinson, who wrote that for Niskanen came out of Cato. He’s not a liberal naysayer.

      1. Hey, jackass! Got an answer on how and when fighting climate change is gonna make those wildfires go away?
        Or can we just assume that’s some bullshit watermelon praying?

      2. “He’s not a liberal naysayer”

        But you just said he came out of Cato Shreek.

  30. “Keep your eye on one thing and one thing only: how much government is spending,” economist Milton Friedman famously said during the Carter administration. “Because that’s the true tax.”

    Even if we go with that for the sake of argument, there are different taxes. Deficit spending is a “tax” on people who hold US dollars and debt; that’s a far better tax than taxing income, capital gains, or corporations, all of which discourage economic growth.

    Of course, annual debt increase under Obama was considerably higher than under Trump even in nominal terms, and even worse in terms of $PPP per capita.

    Donald Trump in 2016 became the first GOP presidential candidate to successfully campaign on trade protectionism since Herbert Hoover.

    Claiming that country-specific tariffs on a communist regime trying to hurt the US amount to “protectionism” is utterly absurd.

    Immigration Cruelty

    What is cruel is the policy Reason and Democrats advocate: luring people to the US with easy ways of circumventing immigration restrictions, forcing Americans to compete with large numbers of desperate migrants, forcing Americans to pay for the healthcare, public health problems, and education of those migrants. The worst part is that the kinds of policies Obama and Reason favor have encouraged large numbers of children to be kidnapped and used as props by desperate people who want to come to the US.

    The president doesn’t just have the power to limit immigration to what the law provides, he has an obligation. And the law is quite clear and quite strict.

    Reason authors, as so often, are full of it. They are useful idiots for progressives and “democratic” socialists.

    1. Get rid of the restrictions and legalize immigrants and every single one of your complaints is solved.

      But it’s not really about law is it? And it’s not really about jobs is it? You don’t want to work for less than minimum wage picking tomatoes. That’s ridiculous.

      1. Heaven forbid people LEARN to work at a young age for what they receive.

        1. Would you cross a militarized border to get a job making pennies picking tomatoes? Work on your own work ethic.

          1. If inside that ‘militarized border’ sat individual freedom and justice – then perhaps; but I wouldn’t be so idiotically stupid as to cross that border for *free* entitlements and then continue to lobby for the exact same morally-bankrupt B.S. I left behind that turned rotten..

            Which coincidentally the numbers point to the ‘idiocy’ being the predominant reason for mass immigration.

            It all goes back to the POWER to STEAL.
            Listen to the left; almost all arguments are that POWER = WEALTH when the truth of the matter is VALUE = WEALTH and POWER is used to STEAL that VALUE. POWER should be used to maintain JUSTICE (Not being able to steal). It’s all right there in front of you; all you have to do is acknowledge it being there instead of playing the ignorance card.

            1. Don’t you think it rather convenient that all these rules about stealing and property were implemented right after white guys stole the entire continent from other people?

              1. To escape Great Britian’s dictatorship.. Yet, even then; the “white guys” (racist much? Oh, actually all sorts of color.) reserved entire swaths of lands for the “other people” today knows as federal land reservations of which State Law has no authority over and Indian Tribe’s are Master of their own territories.

                Ya, that has a lot to do with UBI, Healthcare, Minimum Wage, etc. etc. etc. /s

                1. Oh they reserved parts of other people’s continent for the original inhabitants. How generous! How did that work out for the natives? What’s that? Possibly the worst genocide in human history? How lovely of the Europeans for being so generous.

                  Since immigrants tend to skew young, it’s just a matter of fact that they actually buttress the welfare state rather than take from it, on net. You can look it up. Your supposed central concern about immigration is a lie. Aren’t you relieved?

                  1. “actually buttress the welfare state” — Well then; welcome to the Libertarian party of political policy 🙂

                    1. Yeah I was so convinced that you cared deeply about keeping the social welfare state solvent.

                    2. My bad; I see we’re playing word games again. So let’s the play the what-if game too. What-if we be nice to all the immigrants supposedly “supporting” the welfare state and just CUT the welfare state.

                      Yeah I was so convinced that you cared so deeply about HELPING immigrants…

                    3. I am for helping human beings in general. What are you for?

                    4. The thing is Tony – YOU’RE NOT helping your FORCING OTHERS by slavery BECAUSE you want the government-guns to do it for you.

                    5. I’m against slavery. I would think that’s a given, but with some of you I can’t be sure. We’re slipping into retrograde white supremacy pretty fucking fast.

                    6. Tony; earlier you said gov-guns are needed to make sure no-one doesn’t have insurance. Now; if you were helping; you would’ve started your own insurance company and given everyone insurance. When you point gov-guns at those people who have insurance companies or point gov-guns to take the labor-earnings of others to “auto-enroll” them into insurance plans how exactly is that any different the slavery?

                      I guess you must think that because plantation owners feed their slave’s they weren’t actually slaves at all. No matter gov-guns were used to be sure they had to work (OH, hey, that sounds familiar doesn’t it)…

                      If you want to make sure slavery isn’t re-enacted you need to make sure gov-gun (i.e. POWER) isn’t used to STEAL wealth (period). All the excuses in the world isn’t going to excuse that.

                  2. Oh they reserved parts of other people’s continent for the original inhabitants.

                    Your view of Native Americans and ignorance of history are stunning.

                    The Americas were actually filled with hundreds of nations, bands, and tribes, often at war with each other over territory. The concept of “original inhabitants” makes about as much sense as lumping together the Russians, the Danes, and the Romans as the “original inhabitants” of Europe.

                    Furthermore, 95% of those people died from European diseases without a single shot being fired. The surviving 5% didn’t have any more rights to the land that got freed up than the Europeans.

                  3. Since immigrants tend to skew young, it’s just a matter of fact that they actually buttress the welfare state rather than take from it, on net.

                    Nope, sorry. The only immigrants who actually contribute to the welfare state are those who make substantially above median income. The vast majority of young immigrants are a net drain on society and the welfare state; they decrease the standard of living. That’s particularly true for illegals coming from Mexico and further south.

                    1. Citation needed.

                    2. You didn’t have one.

                    3. Tony, we’ve gone through this before. That Cato article contains numerous errors.

                      Furthermore, it only applies to the current population of legal immigrants admitted legally under selective immigration criteria; even if it were accurate, it wouldn’t apply to an expanded immigrant population.

                    4. Naturally you can provide a cite for these claims.

                    5. Naturally you can provide a cite for these claims.

                      I can and I have. Read past discussions we have had about this, there you will find links and citations.

                  4. ‘Possibly the worst genocide in human history?’ Not even close.

              2. Don’t you think it rather convenient that all these rules about stealing and property were implemented right after white guys stole the entire continent from other people?

                95% of the population of the continental US had died from disease before ever seeing a white guy. So the land was there for the taking. Europeans couldn’t have taken it otherwise.

                Furthermore, Europeans treated Native Americans the same way they treated each other: they made coalitions, fought wars, and resolved borders through treaties. And as in Europe, empires with laws, property rights, militaries, and hierarchical government conquered peoples who didn’t have them. That’s how Rome civilized Europe, and that’s how Europe civilized North America.

                1. “Civilized” is being used as a synonym for “obliterating someone else’s civilization” here.

                  1. “Civilized” is being used as a synonym for “obliterating someone else’s civilization” here.

                    Civilization is a complex society characterized by urban development, social stratification, a hierarchical government, engineering achievements, and widespread written communications. Native Americans had none of those; Europeans brought civilization to North America.

                    Furthermore, civilized or not, the societies of the North American continent collapsed and disappeared from disease within a few decades of Europeans arriving. That wasn’t the fault of Europeans and after that had happened, there was nothing for Europeans to obliterate.

                    And your premise is that Europeans somehow treated Native Americans worse than they treated each other; that’s nonsense too. Europeans did in North America what Romans did across Europe: they conquered and brought civilization. It’s a good thing. None of the political or social structures you like would exist without such conquests.

                    1. “Native Americans had none of those; Europeans brought civilization to North America.”

                      That and smallpox. How incredibly generous of Europe. If anything the natives should still be thanking them.

                    2. “That and smallpox. ”

                      Yeah man totally created that.

                    3. Jesus fuck you guys just toss responsibility off yourself and anyone who looks like you with the ease of a silk shawl.

                      The worst genocide in human history requires germs to really get off the ground. But the worst genocide in human history is ok because we brought property rights to the ungrateful wretches.

                    4. Yeah 16th century humans fabricated smallpox in a lab

                      Go with that Tony.

                    5. Suddenly Tony thinks allowing unfettered unlimited immigration is a potential health and safety threat. He even cites historical precedent.

                      Putting this one in the memory banks.

                    6. In 1493, a Native American Tony probably argued for just opening the borders to Europeans and interacting with them. The rest is history. Let’s not repeat their mistake.

                    7. Do you guys have any political beliefs that don’t align perfectly with those of white supremacists? Just curious.

                    8. Do you guys have any political beliefs that don’t align perfectly with those of white supremacists? Just curious.

                      None of my beliefs align with those of white supremacists. For example, I believe that Native Americans (and other minorities) should be treated as full and equal citizens of the United States, with all the same rights and responsibilities.

                      It is people like you, Tony, who what to draw distinctions between whites and other groups, who argue that non-whites are inferior and are somehow in need of extra help from whites. That makes you the white supremacist, Tony.

                    9. Dude you just got through arguing that the European invasion of and genocide of the Americas was a positive for the Native Americans.

                    10. Dude you just got through arguing that the European invasion of and genocide of the Americas was a positive for the Native Americans.

                      No, Tony, I did not argue that at all. I’m saying that it is wrong to call the accidental introduction of a disease a “genocide”; in your case, it is a bald-faced lie because you know the facts.

                      I’m also pointing out that you are obviously incapable of seeing people as individuals and simply think of them as members of racist groups. That makes you are racial identitarian, not me.

                      People with names like yours murdered, raped, conquered, enslaved, and destroyed throughout the lands of my ancestors; that doesn’t mean that I hold today’s Romans responsible for what happened back then. I’m certainly glad that as a result of the Roman conquest I exist and grew up in a civilized country.

                      Unfortunately, you, Tony, categorize people by race and ancestry, and you want to keep Native Americans from becoming a full part of American civilization and culture. The “white identitarian” in this discussion is you, Tony, not me. I just view myself as American and I value American culture and civilization.

      2. Illegals aren’t immigrants.

        1. They can be made such with the stroke of a pen.

          Because you’re totally concerned with upholding the law and that’s all this is.

          1. They can be made such with the wave of a wand.

          2. Not legally.

            What this is is that the majority of Americans don’t want more immigration.

            1. Yeah, right after THEY (or their ancestors) immigrated, THEN they don’t want no more stinkin’ immigrants! Sounds like rank hypocrisy to me!

              All you anti-immigrant people… Go BACK to where ye came from!

            2. Since when did you give a fuck what the majority of Americans wanted?

              A majority of Americans has never, not once, supported Donald Trump as president.

              1. Since when did you give a fuck what the majority of Americans wanted?

                I don’t, but you do.

                A majority of Americans has never, not once, supported Donald Trump as president.

                Yes, but he was legitimately elected. So, what possible justification can you give in a democratic system of government for increasing immigration if both (1) a great supermajority rejects that policy and (2) the legitimate representative government rejects that policy too? Come on, try to justify it.

                1. Actually the vast minority agrees with you:

                  https://news.gallup.com/poll/1660/immigration.aspx

                  Only 28% want to decrease immigration. Everyone else wants the same or increased.

                  Fascist anti-intellectualism may have its appeals, but you can see its pitfalls.

                  1. Thanks for the link, Tony! I saved it; it should be helpful to refute the liars around here. The liars will never stop lying, but at least we MIGHT be able to sway the casual reader!

                    1. lol… What is this – the popularity project? You lefties are so motivated by the whats-in-cult its really no wonder you can’t fathom any idea of actually having to take care of yourselves.

                    2. As I was saying: “the majority of Americans don’t want more immigration”.

                      Tony’s own link shows it.

                  2. That is the very poll I was referring to: only 34% of Americans in that poll want an increase in immigration.

                    Hence my statement “the majority of Americans don’t want more immigration.”

      3. Get rid of the restrictions and legalize immigrants and every single one of your complaints is solved.

        I’m glad that you agree that the legal restrictions exist.

        That means that when Trump enforces those legal restrictions, he isn’t “an enemy of freedom”, he is doing is job as head of the executive branch.

        1. Because there’s no such thing as an unjust law?

          Jesus Christ I was trying to get to a libertarian board and must have taken a wrong turn to fucking fascist land.

          1. Because there’s no such thing as an unjust law?

            There are plenty of unjust laws. As part of living together peacefully, we agree to abide by unjust laws until we change those laws democratically.

            And we determine which laws are unjust through the democratic process, not by Tony’s fiat.

            Jesus Christ I was trying to get to a libertarian board

            Libertarians aren’t anarchists, we are law abiding citizens, and we expect our fellow citizens to abide by laws as well, even unjust laws.

            1. That means that when Trump enforces those legal restrictions, he isn’t “an enemy of freedom”, he is doing is job as head of the executive branch.

              I’m quoting you. Your argument takes Nixon to the next dimension. It’s not that what the president does is by definition legal, it’s that what he does is by definition pro-freedom. Did you feel this way during the Obama administration?

              1. I’m quoting you. Your argument takes Nixon to the next dimension. It’s not that what the president does is by definition legal, it’s that what he does is by definition pro-freedom.

                You just argued that Trump’s enforcement was an enforcement of unjust laws. Therefore, you already recognize that his actions were lawful (and indeed required) not because “the president did it”, but because Congress had passed those laws.

                Enforcing the law as written isn’t “pro-freedom” or “anti-freedom”, it is simply the basis of living in a peaceful society. The law itself may be “pro-freedom” or “anti-freedom”, but that’s a matter for the legislature, not the executive.

                Did you feel this way during the Obama administration?

                Obama used his executive powers to circumvent laws passed by Congress; that makes the actions of the Obama administration unlawful even if Obama’s intent had been pro-liberty. I addition, when given discretion, Obama preferred authoritarian policies to liberal policies, making Obama actively anti-liberty.

                I have yet to see examples where Trump used discretionary executive authority to act against liberty. Maybe you can come up with examples.

      4. Fuck off, shitstain.

  31. “…”Let’s face it—we’ve pissed off almost every other country in the world at a time when global collaboration for a vaccine or a cure is most needed,” Lincicome says. “And that type of action has consequences. If a vaccine is developed outside of the United States, and it’s developed in a country with which we’ve had pretty hostile trade and economic relations, will Americans be disadvantaged in terms of access?”…”

    Oh.
    Em.
    Gee.
    That is lame enough to have been written by some pathetic p-ile of lefty shit like Tony;
    ‘he didn’t make everybody like us and *IF* someone finds a lollypop, they won’t let us lick it!’.

  32. Why is it that immigrants always enrich our countries, but never their own?

    1. A++++++ Comment!!! I’m stealing this one but I’ll give you credit 🙂

    2. Because most immigrants are looking for opportunities that are denied them in their country of origin. This has been true since the founding of this country. Immigrants come here, work hard and in many cases accept less in return for the opportunity to advance their children. You would know that if you knew American history.

      1. The books on welfare seem to run in direct contrast to your claim.

        1. The stereotype of immigrant-owned businesses supports his claim. Stereotypes exist because they contain some grain of truth.

          1. “some gain of truth” – shouldn’t be so hard to filter with actual immigration policy.

            1. I get the wordplay but it doesn’t make any sense.

              1. Yes we are aware you’re stupid.

        2. Welfare is an opportunity denied them in their native country.

    3. Who says they don’t? They will often make money here and send it home, which can only be mutually beneficial. Maybe if we remove some of our extremely strict barriers to this free economic activity, the original countries can se enough economic growth to reduce emigration.

      1. And the ‘original’ country can’t make their own ‘economic growth’ BECAUSE??????

        1. Why don’t you tell me. That would be fun.

          1. Um, because they have a historical record of being socialist instead of capitalist.. Mexico has right in their Constitution that the “government” is in charge of maintaining a suitable livable wage, housing and food for all citizens.

            Ironically; What you’ve been supporting this whole time is that the USA becomes another Mexico while you simultaneously insist Mexico gets to come here to get “greener pastures”. You’re chasing your own tail.

            1. There is not a jurisdiction in America that does not subsidize housing, food, and healthcare.

              1. Yes there is. My township for one. Jesus you’re dumb.

                1. How do they opt out of federal programs like social security? Are you Amish?

                  1. You do realize that there are different levels of government, right? You know, federal, state, county, city.

                    1. Apparently he does not.

                    2. He does. He just thought he was being clever.

                    3. So socialism only turns into a shithole at the local level?

                    4. Socialism works for families and small groups where everyone knows each other and everyone is accountable. Shirkers can be shamed. Worked great for tribes for thousands of years. So it’s hardwired into our brains. But when the groups get bigger, like towns, counties, states or countries, there is no shame effect. People don’t know who the shirkers are, and worse the shirkers become protected.

                      It can work on a very small scale. But it is not scalable.

                    5. Socialism doesn’t work with small groups either
                      Socialism at Jamestown by David Boaz
                      March 16, 2010

                      https://www.cato.org/blog/socialism-jamestown

                    6. I suppose I should have put a qualifier in there. It can work under some circumstances.

                  2. “So socialism only turns into a shithole at the local level?”

                    Do you think you have to prove your imbecility every day? Do you think most of us here can’t remember that you’re a fucking lefty ignoramus when we start a new day?
                    Or, perhaps, you are so dense that you don’t realize you DO prove, at least once a day, that you should be engaged like that whiny 5-year-old down the street.

              2. And that is why today we’re failing (Recession, Debt, etc..) instead of maintaining an excellent flourishing society we were founded upon.

                1. Was that an excellent flourishing society for everyone involved, do you think? Maybe it was just a tad skewed in favor of the men writing the documents, perhaps?

                  1. “excellent flourishing society for” … those who *earned* it. It’s about the individual; not the collective (i.e. mobster rules).

                    1. Which coincidentally is the very difference between the USA Republic and Socialist mentality.

                    2. Doing generations of backbreaking work and getting paid nothing isn’t enough to earn freedom I guess.

                    3. Maybe they should have taken up guns and earned it that way. We did

                    4. “Doing generations of backbreaking work and getting paid nothing” — sounds like a socialist state might be STEALING all your backbreaking work.

                    5. Nope I’m referring to the Southern oligarchy that a) founded this country and b) was only able to have a functioning market by forcing millions of humans into chattel slavery.

                      White people, just the best, am I right?

                    6. “only able to have a functioning market by forcing millions of humans into chattel slavery.”

                      So gov-slavery good but southern-democrat-slavery bad???
                      “White people”? There it is again! You seem to be pretty hung-up on the color of a persons skin.

                      Well, let me clue you into something here. Republicans (mostly white) fought a bloody civil war to end southern-democrat-slavery. The exact same Democratic party who want’s us all to be slaves of the gov now that they lost that war. This is the party you seem to align yourself with the most; laws the enslave the healthcare workers, laws that enslave the successful, laws that enslave anyone who owns a business. Seems the only people not on the Democratic enslavement list are the ones that are completely useless.

                  2. “Was that an excellent flourishing society for everyone involved, do you think? ”

                    Yes by every metric.

                    1. The next time you have a thought, let it go.

            2. So it seems you think all immigration comes from Mexico. Is India OK?

              1. Nationality really isn’t a factor – but the individuals characteristic would mean more to me personally (of which is pointless in political talk; I have very little to do with). Immigrants who have a proven record of adding VALUE to society vs POWER to steal from a society and supporting these basic fundamentals (i.e. U.S. Constitution) would be on my own personal list of “good immigration” policy.

                1. So you want to judge people as individuals which is good. Why all this talk about Mexico as if all Mexicans can be judged as socialists who want to steal from society?

                  My idea of immigration is to streamline the process. Just give people temporary work and residency permits. No welfare. After A period of time they could reapply. It could be no more difficult than getting a drivers license with current technology. Maybe hire some of those whiz kids from Amazon to design it.

                  If you violate the law other than minor things you are out.

                  It would save a lot of money in border security, walls, courts and all that. Very few would risk an illegal crossing if it were that simple.

                  1. And the #1 theft crime in farming community goes to?????? You guessed right….. Especially the one’s who come over on a work visa; who seem to make a habit of massive house burglaries right before running back to Mexico.

                    And the #1 welfare reception in the U.S. is??? You guessed right; immigrants (minus Asians who actually got natives beat).

                    But that doesn’t make all immigrants thefts and welfare piglets. I know many immigrants that are very very respectable – but when odds are against an idea it is bound to have failure within it.

                    1. Studies from CATO would differ.

                      https://www.cato.org/publications/immigration-research-policy-brief/immigration-welfare-state-immigrant-native-use-rates

                      Nonetheless the welfare state itself as proof against more liberal immigration does not hold much water in a libertarian view. It is more evidence against the welfare state than it is against immigration reform.

                      It is difficult to parse out what is exactly meant by the welfare state as it is different from one state to another and what is included.

                      Medicaid for example. Medicaid is basically a subsidy paid to hospitals and doctors to care for the indigent population. It is pennies on the dollar. Take it away and you will still pay something for it in higher costs. The $80 Tylenol. We could argue about how to deal with that.

                      On a more human level it seems you have a sweeping view of “immigrant”. You choose farm workers as an example. It could be anyone from a farm worker to a neurologist, electrician, carpenter or shopkeeper. Viewing people as a collective is not the way I see things.

                      Libertarians have long argued for free movement of goods, services, and people. It is actually marxists and other state planners who want to restrict and control those factors. The labor factor being key among them. If I restrict the number of plumbers from outside the country then plumbers here will benefit, so goes the thinking and Bernie would agree.

                      If I restrict a product like steel from outside the country our domestic steel will benefit. That has not worked out. There is nothing wrong with American steel, I have a pocket knife made from Tennessee steel. No matter how much I abuse that thing it just keeps going. We need market to compete in, not government intervention and tariffs.

                      Government intervention always fails and always has.

                    2. 1. Check the government records on planned parenthood welfare recipients ( I stopped using opinion studies a few years ago ) they were all B.S.
                      2. Medicaid = pennies on the dollar; there a whole nation in what they call the healthcare crisis who’d disagree with that assertion.
                      3. Viewing people as a collective is not the way I see things. Good for you. Let us know how that pans out when you let all the recent prison parole’s move-into your house.
                      4. Foreign Trade. After you send your $1.5M to x,y,z China steel company and get absolutely nothing in return for it; please do comeback and tell us how government has no right to intervene in foreign “trade”. I don’t necessarily agree that tariff’s are the best solution but if we’re going to champion free-trade why are we championing it for foreign country imports and NOT OUR OWN???? The USA cannot do law enforcement in other nations without a war or a treaty and the Constitution puts those trade-powers in the hands of the federal government; there must have been a substantial reason for it.

        2. Because their governments are, like liberals in this country, hostile to private enterprise. They see businesses as predators because they employ people and sell stuff, and make a profit while doing so. That’s stealing from workers and customers. But taxation? Nope. That’s not theft. Nope. No way.

          1. So you must most strenuously object to immigration from all those socialist European countries, no?

            1. I’m not playing.

              1. I’m curious about the implication that people are born with an economic philosophy encoded on their DNA. If people want to come to America, isn’t it likely that’s because they value something about the American system?

                1. Typical Tony, ignoring sarc and his refusal of consent.

                2. “value something about the American system?” — like the U.S. Constitution that gave the federal government the job of congressional immigration policy?

                  What is seen today is DACA completely UN-Constitutional and thousands of illegal immigrants mostly voting to VIOLATE the very “value in the American System”..

                  It makes people start to think that perhaps the “VALUE” being cherished is created by individual members of it’s society instead of the very VALUE the System of individual justice and freedom provides (not; its the governments job to take care of me).

                  And… just to top off the cake. Perhaps that “VALUE” to STEAL things from other people is exactly what they’re escaping but can’t seem to LEARN the success of the USA is within the individual not the collective ability to steal.

                  1. Who gives a fuck about the constitution. You people either have principles or you don’t. Now that you have the courts you can interpret the constitution any way you want. It’s irrelevant to any discussion of good policy.

                    The value is clearly that it’s the richest country in the world and there are jobs for them. Trading labor for wages is not stealing. Are there ANY libertarians left here?

                    1. “Who gives a fuck about the constitution.”
                      ….that right there will/has been the curse that will cease ….
                      “The value is clearly that it’s the richest country in the world”

                      Think about it Tony…. The USA wasn’t founded on a Pot of Gold.

                    2. It most certainly was. A pot of gold we took after we murdered all the natives.

                    3. CA (the only one with an 1800’s (long gone) speckle of narrated truth to your theory) of founded on a pot of gold (which wasn’t a pot at all; but a resource requiring labor) wasn’t even part of the USA until 1850. 63-Years! after the USA was established.

                      What about the Natives? Didn’t they STEAL it from the Clovis people? Didn’t the Clovis people steal it from the fish? What about the tree’s – they were there first!

                      Your debate points are falling/fading off into the land of historical despair.

    4. Because a lot of places suck. Corrupt government, rampant crime, poverty, war. If you try to complain or do something about it you get thrown in prison or killed. What do you want them to do?

      1. “What do you want them to do?” — LEARN; Stop trying to turn every nation into the socialist h*llhole they keep trying to escape.

        Socialists = Conquer and Consume then complain and move onto the next victim.. You’ll never hear a socialist talk about *earned* or *created* or *produced* or *provided*; it’s all about TAKE, TAKE, TAKE because 100-Million excuses of we’re human therefore we’re entitled to TAKE.

        1. Who is arguing for socialism? We were talking about immigration.

        2. Besides I think the term socialism is kind of meaningless now. Forcibly taking my money in the form of taxes and transferring it to someone else is not socialism. Everyone does that. By that definition Donald Trump is a socialist. He just took my hard earned pay and gave it to some soybean farmer in Iowa.

          1. The [D] party did that more-so ( I swear; does everyone mute the fact I’ve spilled like 10-times now ) Farm Subsidies 100% [D] support, 13-[R] against; ironically farm states [R] representatives.

            Now, “Who is arguing for socialism? We were talking about immigration.” — “taxes and transferring it to someone else is not socialism. Everyone does that.”

            The USA wasn’t founded to DO THAT (not socialist) and while your right many countries do exactly that; that is the socialist ideology immigrants from socialist countries carry with them (the government should take care of me; cries..) as fits within the contents of my comment that LEARNING that it’s not the governments job to take care of them which always is the excuse used to emigrate the exact h*llhole they ran away from.

            1. .. and by h*llhole I mean exactly what you multi-worded; “Corrupt government, rampant crime, poverty, war. If you try to complain or do something about it you get thrown in prison or killed.”

        3. Learn what? That the Taliban just burned down my fields, took my goats and threatened to take my son for their army? I think learning that I need to get the fuck out of here is a good lesson.

  33. Anti-White liberals and respectable conservatives that support massive 3rd world immigration and forced Multiculturalism for Every White country and Only White countries say that they are “anti-racist”, but their policies will lead to a world with no White children i.e White Genocide.
Anti-racist is just a code word for anti-White.

  34. Where exactly in the Constitution is the President authorized to deal with infectious diseases? The President’s job is to deal with other heads of state concerning international affairs on behalf of the states. Keeping Mary Jane Rottencrotch from getting the sniffles isn’t in his purview.

    1. But it is the purview of the king. If god sends bad stuff down on the people, it is because the king is a bad king, dontcha know?

  35. [FOR USA ] Making money online more than $15k just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money…Read More.

  36. Matt Welch must be one of those Bill Maher-Libertarians — someone that believes that sending people to room 101, telling children to report their parents and neighbors to the government, beating people in the streets while corrupt DAs put their violent criminals back on the streets (while prosecuting people like Kyle Rittenhouse and cops to the most extreme extent) and the government framing people like Flynn and Trump (not to mention wiping Lois Lerner’s email records from a system specifically designed to preserve such data) is more “libertarian” than re-electing Trump.

    Those evil and absolutely NOT Libertarian things are what will be the norm if Trump is not re-elected.

    1. Kyle Rittenhouse is at least guilty of manslaughter. I know people here will disagree, but letting a 17 year old go armed to a civil disturbance to “protect businesses” is a terrible idea.

      1. It’s still legal.

      2. I disagree. And he will walk on any crime he’s charged with.
        The piece of garbage (Gaige Grosskreutz) that KR shot in the arm (and his friend said: “So the kid shot gaige as he drew his weapon and gaige retreated with his gun in hand. I just talked to Gaige Grosskreutz too his only regret was not killing the kid and hesitating to pull the gun before emptying the entire mag into him”) has gone public and dug his own hole. HE should be prosecuted.

      3. Self-defense, fuckhead. Hope you get thrown in jail for defending yourself when someone tries to kill you, like what happened to Kyle.

      4. Self-defense, fuckhead. Hope you get thrown in jail for defending yourself when someone tries to kill you, like what happened to Kyle.

        Then again with your username, I hope someone parks a bullet in that empty skull of yours.

  37. How did REason this backwards?

    BIDEN is the enemy of freedom and his policies are most targeted at curtailing your freedoms.

    TRUMP is the one who utilizes the politics of panic for a lot of his campaigning.

    How the hell did they get this backward? Unreal.

    1. Because some fucking idiots can’t think past ORANGE MAN BAD.

  38. I think the choice is pretty clear here.

    It’s burn, loot, murder, riot, continued deep state corruption and cucking with commies or

    Donald Trump.

    Choose wisely.

    1. Especially since you’ve established the precedent that presidents aren’t responsible for anything that happens on their watch. What are you gonna do about all the horror Biden promises to unleash? Twiddle your thumbs?

      No, silly Tony, the precedent is that only Democrats are ever responsible for anything. Try to keep up!

      1. No, shitstain, YOU’VE yet to establish Trump’s responsibility for any of your bullshit claims.
        Yes, he presided over one of the greatest economic expansions in history, aided by his pro-business bias and the (at least) reducing the growth of regulations, thereby making people wealthier and healthier.
        No, he did not contribute one bit to the number of wu-flu cases, or more importantly, deaths. Take a look at the D-shitbags like Cuomo for that.

        1. Nobody thinks you are doing their case any favors dude.

          1. “Nobody thinks you are doing their case any favors dude.”

            Nobody thinks you HAVE a case; just lies and misdirection when you’re called on them, you stinking pile of lefty shit.

        2. The key to lasting love and marriage is too always support the good things about a person and overlook the bad.

          1. A marriage yes, but true love is believing the bad parts are actually good because of who they are attached to.

            1. And we see that with the Trumpistas. I am still trying to understand it.

              1. Well it’s a little bit like how you excuse murder, assault, arson, rape and vandalism, except it doesn’t involve excusing murder, assault, arson, rape and vandalism.

                1. Trump is actually guilty of all of these except possibly arson, and there’s still time left.

                  Mass murder if you include all the covid deaths he’s responsible for, not just the people he actually personally breathed on.

                  Assault and rape–Ask Ivana. Also he used to line up teenage girls at beauty pageants, inspect them like horses, and then tell them to visit his penthouse if they want to win.

                  Vandalism is a fun one. He illegally destroyed historical architecture to make way for his building in New York.

                  So what do you think he is going to burn down before he’s dragged from the White House or leaves Walter Reed in a body bag?

                  Add tax evasion, fraud, and treason, and he’s got BLM beat by a mile.

                  1. No, see Tony, we’re talking about things that have actually happened not ridiculous shit that you made up or read about on Democratic Underground. It’s easy to get confused because you’re a stupid know-nothing faggot with a sub-50 IQ.

                    1. I didn’t say a single thing that isn’t true. I’m sorry you have such a shit choice this election. Well not really considering he’s 14 points behind as a direct result of his awfulness.

                    2. Aha. So what does his sexuality have to do with anything.

                  2. Lying shitstain Tony lies like the pile of shit he is, again.

        3. Tony acts like Trump is king in that bad stuff from god is the king’s fault. Like he wants monarchy back, maybe he misses the grand dances.

    2. Problem is the murder looting and rioting started on his watch and is still going on. So I know there will be excuses but the buck stops there right?

      1. Wait, I thought Trump was a fascist dictator obliterating federalism for sending federal law enforcement to Portland. Now the buck stops there?

  39. Oh, that picture cries out so loudly for alt text!

    1. I know I have been trying to think of one. Lol

      1. How about “Reason wishes the President would take a long walk off a short pier”.

      2. It’s sad when you’re so fucking stupid you can’t come up with your own 2 minutes hate slogans AND actually admit to it.

    2. They want me to bring in a fish, but don’t give me any tackle.

  40. let us set aside the two cudgels wielded most often by his media and Democratic tormentors: the 45th president’s polarizing personality, and his administration’s scattershot response to a once-in-a-century pandemic.

    Sure, Welch, hit and run, just like it used to say. I’d like to know what response you’d’ve considered good that wouldn’t be scattershot.

    1. Well, Cuomo took some direct action and managed to kill a couple of thousand people. And them Newsom pretty much knee-capped the 5th largest economy in the world and then seemed shocked that the tax revenues dropped like a rock.
      Couple of direct operators right there!

      1. But that was done by Democrats, so the staff writers overlook that here.

    2. I’d like to know what response you’d’ve considered good that wouldn’t be scattershot.

      They haven’t exactly made any secret of the answer to that question. Mandatory testing, mandatory lockdowns, mandatory tracking, mandatory vaccination. Libertarians are Marxists.

  41. So what has Trump done with his considerable leverage to affect the level of federal expenditures?

    Prevent the passage by veto-proof bipartisan coalitions of much bigger increases. The president’s leverage is considerable, but not infinite, and the tide was running so strongly in favor of more spending, we’re lucky to get a deal better than what either the Democratic or Republican establishment had in mind.

    1. Trump tried to use his leverage to get a tax holiday instead of rebates, which means there would have been no government skim, and you saw how far that went.
      And how much ink it got.

  42. The Case Against Trump: Donald Trump Is an Enemy of Freedom

    The issue I have here is that there’s no point in making a case against the guy when the case you’re making against the guy is the exact same case you can make against his opponent.

    We have a 40 year track record of Biden being worse.

    In fact, here the case *for* Trump is, like it was in 2016 – he’s not as bad as the person he’s running against.

    1. Trump’s lack of political experience doesn’t count in his favor when it turns out to be an impediment to his doing anything competently.

      1. An incompetent guy of any political orientation is preferable to a competent, politically skilled socialist or progressive.

        1. What did Buckley say about the first 500 names in the phone book.
          Either one can be an impediment in some way. It was pretty clear at the start that Trump had little idea how government actually worked and thought it was like running his business. I think he has gotten better at that.

          OTOH those in it too long can get jaded and have too much water under the bridge.

          1. I am obliged to confess I should sooner live in a society governed by the first two thousand names in the Boston telephone directory than in a society governed by the two thousand faculty members of Harvard University. — William F. Buckley, 1963

        2. I was just speaking in general.
          Not about progressives.

        3. You are really way too concerned that someone, somewhere might get a medical treatment they didn’t pay for.

          Meanwhile Trump is the poorest man on earth and gets experimental drugs on your dime.

          1. You are really way too concerned that someone, somewhere might get a medical treatment they didn’t pay for.

            No, I’m concerned that Democrats will turn the US into the kind of shithole I immigrated from, complete with the kind of shithole, corrupt, broken medical system you favor, and half the population drug addicted and/or obese.

            Meanwhile Trump is the poorest man on earth and gets experimental drugs on your dime.

            I’d be happy to donate if it keeps socialists and progressives out of government. It’s cheaper than having to pick up and leave the country again.

            1. We have the worst health system of any country we could possibly want to emulate. That’s despite its “socialist” components, not because of them. Without those we would truly be a shithole. You can’t claim with a straight face that old destitute people would have more access to care if we took away Medicare and social security.

              1. lol.. Again you keep ignoring the years 1878 till 1929 when medical doctors came to your door for the price of a pizza.

                Heck we don’t even have to compare history — TODAY the unregulated dental industry will show up at your door with a mobile office and fix your teeth for the price of a couple pizza’s.

                1. Your good old days are really old.

                  1. I wonder, what could have possibly happened in the immediate aftermath of 1929 that might have caused a change?

                    1. See the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 – written by Democrats to bail-out one single careless NYC bank…. Why let a single bank in NYC fail; We’ll make the ENTIRE COUNTRY fail trying to support our communistic theories.

              2. Tony, you have no idea what health care in other countries is like.

                And Medicare and social security are crony capitalist ripoffs that have little to do with how socialized medicine and retirement plans work elsewhere.

                A European style system of socialized medicine, while not great, would be an improvement over the Medicare Medicaid crap. But people like you are strictly opposed too that and keep pushing your corrupt and overpriced schemes.

                1. I’m not a Bernie bro, so I’m easy on this subject. Anything that universalizes coverage and significantly lowers costs is fine with me.

                  1. “Anything that universalizes coverage and significantly lowers costs is fine with me.” — Oh, you mean like vehicle insurance? Ya know free-market solutions?

                    1. The only thing that accomplishes that is fully free market healthcare without government involvement. I’m glad that’s fine with you

                  2. You cannot increase coverage and lower cost.

                    1. Do you guys like… ever… consult an empirical fact about anything?

                    2. Yes, Tony, all the time. Do you?

                      Certainly not about healthcare.

                    3. No Tony; we consult reality not someone else’s flapper gas.

              3. That must be why people come to the United States to get medical procedures done, because our health system is so terrible.

                Idiot Tony being an idiot fuckhead, again.

          2. They can have a medical treatment. They already get those for free anyway. You are clueless as to how this all works.

            But a house for free, a car for free, cash for free, electricity and gas for free, cable for free, food for free. That kinda adds up and there’s just not enough to go around Tony.

            Maybe you live in the modern monetary theory fantasy but real life intervenes. When someone doesn’t get paid or gets paid too little, eventually they leave. That’s when you use force to make them work. They pretend to work, you pretend to pay them. Some get roughed up, and some get murdered.

            Socialism is slavery Tony. It’s the end game of all collectivist systems. You know this, yet you pretend it’s a single person getting one medical treatment.

            1. So what, healthcare for poor people is provided by unicorns? What are you talking about? The requirement that ERs treat people and shake them down later? How is that not simply very inefficient socialism?

              Nobody in the Democratic Party is advocating for anything more radical than what exists in Europe. Maybe you are not well-traveled, but a conflagration of hell Denmark is not.

              1. “So what, healthcare for poor people is provided by”

                themselves.

                Stop pretending to be stupid, you convince everyone.

              2. “How is that not simply very inefficient socialism?”

                It isn’t and no one is arguing otherwise you fucking moron, so whatever point you thought you had evaporates.

                1. Tony is very stupid. He thinks the fact that he got a little socialism passed and that it is tolerated obviates it from being socialism somehow.

                  It’s one of the many reasons he is always laughed at.

                  His being grossly obese is another.

              3. “So what, healthcare for poor people is provided by unicorns? What are you talking about? The requirement that ERs treat people and shake them down later? How is that not simply very inefficient socialism?”
                You can visit an ER and if you can’t pay, they have to treat you anyway. The only people dying in the streets anywhere in the US are OD’d druggies.
                And, since that process operates absent any government bureaucracy at all, it is probably as efficient as possible.

                “Nobody in the Democratic Party is advocating for anything more radical than what exists in Europe. Maybe you are not well-traveled, but a conflagration of hell Denmark is not.”
                Fuck you and anybody proposing that, slaver. I want medical care, not a waiting list.

                1. “You can visit an ER and if you can’t pay, they have to treat you anyway…
                  And, since that process operates absent any government bureaucracy at all, it is probably as efficient as possible.”

                  And those treatments are free? No cost whatsoever? And they are forced to treat them because… kindness of their own hearts? No government involvement whatsoever? Sevo, I like you, but you are dumb as a fucking box of dumb.

      2. “…when it turns out to be an impediment to his doing anything competently.”

        When do lefty shits learn that lefty assertions =/= argument or evidence?

        1. They don’t. That’s why they keep whining like stuck pigs.

  43. When Reason publishes “The Case For Trump”. I’m expecting 1 or 2 sentences.

    When Reason publishes “The Case For Biden”, I’m expecting my browser to crash as my system runs out of memory.

    1. Whoever picked the short straw and has to write “The Case For Trump” is probably just fuming right now.

      I hope it was Shikha.

    2. The pair of “case against” articles are from the latest edition of the print magazine. There is no “case for” articles.

      1. Nevermind the fact that Reason publishes a “case for” article in every fucking election since Bush/Gore and endorsed Bernie as the most libertarian candidate 4 years ago.

        1. I.e. Reason has been full of shit for a long time now.

        2. L

          O

          L

          “2. The election of an African-American will end liberal racism as we know it. If an overwhelmingly white nation chooses a black leader, the Jesse Jacksons and other Mau Mauers for identity-based group preferences will be put out of business, as I explained here.”

  44. Welch, those are reasons Trump has not been stellar, none of them involve depriving citizens of their rights or dismantling the Bill of Rights. Less hyperbole, more fact.

    1. Welch is like the entire reason staff dumb as a post. But he makes up for it by writing meandering, incoherent prose and being dishonest.

      1. I was less than generous, he did give facts. They had nothing to do with being an enemy of freedom. Odd, since it came up so often in the Case against Biden. Biden is an enemy of freedom: civil liberties, the Bill of Rights, due process -but a natural ally of fear-mongering with a long career showing it.

  45. Reason: The Case Against Biden
    Commenters: Great article! Hit the nail on the head!
    Reason: The Case Against Trump
    Commenters: What a bunch of trash! Reason has really gone down the toilet! Nothing but left-wing Marxists run this place now! Fire the staff and hire some real libertarians!

    1. Jeff: I don’t like the comments here!
      Fuck off.

    2. Nobody called Welch a Marxist. And the sub-lede is an inaccurate dig at Trump not supported by the article.

      1. Welch IS a self-proclaimed segregationist. He believes the State (NYC anyways) should provide his white girls a school completely segregated from low-achieving and unruly poors of color.

    3. Shorter Jeff:

      “I am very smart and read Vox. Why do you all disagree with meeee…”

    4. Actually, yesterday, nobody had any issues with the article, so they spent half the comments telling Tony and I how much they hate us.

      1. Awwwwwww, poor persecuted shill. Why don’t you head on over to /r/latestagecapitalism and tell them all about it.

      2. “Actually, yesterday, nobody had any issues with the article, so they spent half the comments telling Tony and I how much they hate us.”

        Actually, you’re full of shit; you were called on it regularly.
        Do you think your lies are not noted here, you pathetic piece of lefty shit?

      3. Maybe stop lying and arguing in bad faith and honestly present your arguments, and people wouldn’t be so sick of you.

      4. Well, if you weren’t completely full of shit all the time, people wouldn’t despise you.

  46. “Donald Trump Is an Enemy of Freedom”

    Of the old parties, who isn’t an enemy of freedom?
    We might as well call the Democrat campaign the Harris campaign.
    She seems to be hostile to liberty.

    1. By our standards, nearly everybody is an enemy of freedom.

    2. We might as well call the Democrat campaign the Harris campaign.

      We should – both Harris and Biden do

  47. Wow! This is very disappointing. I have voted the straight libertarian line for 20 plus years. I am now committed to voting all RED. There is a common enemy here, and it is not Trump. All libertarians should go RED at this moment.

    I like Trump, as a libertarian, because he takes on the powers that be. I like Trump because he is not a politician. I like Trump because he takes on mainstream media, which has become a pitiful disgrace.

    Trump dramatically reduced regulations, in every realm, probably more than any other President.

    If you don’t vote for Trump, you vote for Biden/Harris. End of story.

    1. He is not a politician?

      1. Not really, you inconsequential bitch.

      2. Um, no. When was he a politician before running for president? Main stream media, hates his guts. That’s mega libertarian points for me.

        1. He is the incumbent President of the United States with a multimillion dollar campaign, and a four year record in government. He’s the leader of the Republican Party. He is a politician.

          1. Until tomorrow when you’re groping for an argument and he becomes a naive, inexperienced buffoon with no clue how to govern because he isn’t part of the credentialed permanent bureaucracy, right cytotoxic?

            1. WK is the epitome of a raging case of TDS; there is nothing in *any* WK post which can be understood absent that fact.
              WK is a fucking, lefty, lying TDS victim who claims to be otherwise.

            2. Why can’t both be true?

              Isn’t he going a long way to proving that we should probably only elect presidents who didn’t pay someone to take their SAT?

              1. Hey remember when John Kerry was supposed to be the erudite intellectual foil to the bumbling possibly-illiterate George W. Bush and then it turned out Bush had better scores at Yale when they were both attending at nearly the exact same time? Maybe you retarded cunts should consider a new narrative after almost 20 fucking years.

                1. I’m more concerned with the fact that a major political party has supporters who think being educated is optional, if not subversive.

                2. It’s been longer than that. Republican presidents have been considered idiots by the self proclaimed elite, since Ford.

                  1. I’m sure it’s mere coincidence that Republicans haven’t improved this country in any measurable way since Ford.

                    1. Whereas I’m sure it’s mere coincidence that you’ve been dismissing every GOP Presidential candidate since Ford for the same stupid wrong reasons.

                  2. Since Eisenhower, even.

  48. Serious question:
    Has there ever been a presidential campaign platform more inimical to freedom than that of Biden/Harris?

    1. The “migrants and refugees don’t deserve any freedom” is implied.

      1. I don’t agree with Trump’s immigration policies, but this is the very LEAST of our worries right now. You should vote Trump as against the common enemy, or you vote Biden/Harris.

        The enemy is strong, and so is the rise of mob rule. Why? Soft Republicans, I am a libertarian, through and through. You must vote Trump this time.

        1. You’re insane. The actual literal MOST of our worries is Donald Trump. There’s a goddamn pandemic that he’s basically taken the side of against American lives.

          Plus why would I vote for a dead man?

          1. A Kungflu pandemic hoax that is no more dangerous than the flu/cold season around the World.

            201k American deaths while infected but not necessarily the cause of death.

            650k Americans die every year of heart disease.

            This virus is not very dangerous. Trump is dangerous, hence the politics from the Left to scare people.

            1. Trump must be very weak for a mild cold to hospitalize him.

        2. Meanwhile Biden is the most vanilla of moderate Democratic squishes you could possibly ask for. Same with Harris. The hysterics you’re indulging about them are coming from nowhere rational.

          1. Poor Biden and Harris will lose.

    2. Has there ever been a presidential campaign platform more inimical to freedom than that of Biden/Harris?

      William Jennings Bryan, probably.

      1. “William Howard Taft, William Jennings Bryan, William Tell —- whomever. Their spirit is dead— if they ever had one. Your building a rat ship here. A vessel for sea going snitches”

        Love that scene.

        Al Pacino could read a grocery list and make it dramatic.

  49. In case you haven’t figured it out, here’s what the problem is: We, we are the problem. We’re radicals, or at least approximately radical. We judge things by standards such that nearly everybody will come out bad, because we’re on an extreme.

    If you took the average American — forget about the average person worldwide, they’d be worse — and asked what they’d do as president of the United States, they’d come out pretty bad. The problem is, when a Reason blogger writes of the case against Trump, they seem to imagine a standard which is much closer to our views than the average American is. Believe me, Trump is much better for us than the average American would be as president, and the way I know this is by comparison to previous presidents. That we have someone in the White House this good for our interests is shocking. It’s like a miracle happened that out of the sorting process this is what emerged, when usually we’d get someone far worse.

    Jo Jorgensen, whoopee. Those don’t impress me any more, I spent years among them. Plenty of us could do the same. But we all lack the most important thing: popularity.

    1. 1000 percent agree. I’m so “radical” I have never voted anything but libertarian. And, normally, I don’t care. Not this year, not this time. I see a huge threat, for the first time, and it must be eliminated.

      1. Lots of people feel exactly the same and they’re voting against Trump. Most people in fact. The entire election is swinging on people being afraid of Trump.

        Considering the last thing he did was infect half the Republican party with Covid, perhaps they have a point.

    2. Roberta

      Give Jo the DNC budget and staff you would see a very different outcome.

  50. I do have a friend who’s a populist nationalist, and he’s thrilled with Trump, who he says is a populist nationalist, and he’s probably right. As much as I’m enjoying Trump, my populist nationalist friend enjoys him more. So there are some people who’ve hit it even luckier with Trump than libertarians have. But that’s not a problem for me.

    That would be like complaining because one scores in the 90th percentile on some test, because someone else got the top score, or because someone won a substantial prize in a lottery while someone else hit a jackpot. Trump scored a direct hit on populism-nationalism, but in doing so he also inadvertently came closer than almost all presidents do to the libertarian bull’s-eye.

    I’m glad my friend’s happy. It doesn’t bother me that he’s happier than me. Why should it, when I’m happy too?

    1. Name one single libertarian policy Trump favors.

      1. Blocking the Commies like you, Tony, trying to destroy our American way of life.

        1. Doesn’t sound very libertarian to me.

      2. Tax cuts, but we know you can’t count to 1, Tony.

  51. Strange, one post said libertarians are not popular, the next seemed to say populism-nationalism, hit the libertarian bull’s eye, unless I misunderstood, can someone please explain in plain English?

    1. Trump is more satisfying to populist-nationalists, but he should still be very satisfying to libertarians, when judged compared to the average rather than compared to the ideal.

      Radical libertarian candidates for office lack popularity, which is the most important thing for politicians to have.

      1. Yes popularity is the most important thing.

    2. Sure Susan.

      In my view libertarians are not popular because we are selling the idea that government owes you less not more. That is the short version.

      1. True, but only because the average taxpayer is that stupid. The government can only give you back what it takes in taxes, minus administrative costs and waste (which are both monumental at the Federal level). That means the less the government takes the more you have, the more the government takes the less you have.

        The lie is taxing the rich will keep you from paying. The rich are rich for a reason and that is they have strategies to avoid paying high taxes. They will leave the high tax area (city, county, state and nation), including the country, they will move their corporations overseas if need be, and if they cannot, they will raise their prices, so in the end you are the one that ends up paying.

  52. ITT: “libertarians” saying Trump is sliced bread.

    He is a clown, but less dangerous than Biden. And a lot less dangerous that Harris.

    1. You confuse conservatives with libertarians. I don’t read Reason comments much anymore, because it is mostly frustrated conservatives, liberal trolls and spam artists. A libertarian on Reason is a rare thing.

      1. A libertarian on Reason is a rare thing.

        Especially in the Park Slope-to-DuPont Circle axis.

      2. A libertarian writing for Reason is an even more rare thing.

  53. This is typical thing to understand that who will won…………….

  54. This is typical thing to understand that who will won…………….

  55. This is typical thing to understand that who will won…………….

  56. Poor Matt Welch and unreason.

    Another 4 years of Trump as President.

  57. I don’t like Trump, but do think he’s accomplished a few good things. Does Welch think Biden/Harris will be better? At what – immigration? Perhaps. Industrial policy? No way. Taxes? Nope. Getting federal spending under control? Obviously not. I also don’t think anyone should assume the Democrats would have managed the Coronavirus crisis significantly better. Pelosi and Schumer want to keep the economy mostly locked down and keep sending fat unemployment checks out until it’s “safe”. The world has learned a great deal about how to manage COVID-19 now – and keeping the economy locked down is causing more harm than good. We should also remember that there has NEVER been a successful vaccine for any other coronavirus. I suggest we not get too optimistic that the medical scientists will get it right this time – at least not quickly. Herd immunity will likely succeed before any of the vaccines are proven effective and widely administered to the population.

    In 2016 I thought Clinton would win easily, I couldn’t take Trump seriously, so I made a “protest” vote for Gary Johnson. I’m not throwing away my vote on the Libertarian candidate this time – Trump – with all his problems, is better than Biden/Harris. The Democrats have moved too far to the left – and they want to take away more of our freedoms than the crazy orange man.

    1. I’m not voting for Trump, but at least he hasn’t taken away any of my freedom. This can’t be said for the dictator of the Peoples Republic of NJ with his lockdown, which has been far worse than those in most states, and mask mandates. Plenty of other states (NY, PA, CA, MI, IL) are almost as bad.

  58. Welchie Boy may be a disingenuous shitbag, but there is absolutely no way at all to defend this insane spending going on. I was and still am really disappointed that Trump allowed himself to be played for such a fool and a sucker on this by the leftie scum who declared total war on America earlier this year. These creeps should have been told to eat shit, starve to death, and die, and they would almost certainly have been forced into surrendering and allowing normal economic life to continue by now.

    Of course, if he had done that these Reason fugazi libertarians would have criticized the hell out of him for that too, the same way they always criticize the republicans during any government “shutdown”. But the right thing to do is still the right thing to do.

    1. Trump was not played for a fool and a sucker.

      He played the USA and odds are he will again.

  59. Vote Trump, he is:

    1) anti-war
    2) pro-energy

    If Biden wins, the machinations of the national security state to subvert the 2016 election and to then take down Trump will have proven successful. If we no longer have our elections, what is left?

  60. wrong. Landslide.

  61. The new “public charge” rule, wherein applicants for visas are required to prove that they’ll never go on welfare, will precipitate massive reductions in by far the most common type of immigration: the family-sponsored visa, which traditionally has accounted for six out of every seven legal immigrants to the United States.

    Wait… hang on. I’ve been told, repeatedly that immigrants have almost no impact on the welfare system as few take advantage of it. So this rule would hardly affect anyone.

    Oh, and this is a completely reasonable proposal:

    Trump has changed asylum rules so that even those with ironclad cases of being persecuted back home will be automatically returned there if they enter America via a third country.

    We need to get as many safe third countries to participate in the taking in of refugees. This idea that you can leapfrog half a dozen countries which are perfectly capable of taking in a greater share of refugees needs to be put to bed.

    1. Or you can stop futilely trying to keep white people a majority and realize that it won’t be so bad.

      1. Do you want the IQ 70 guy piloting the aircraft you fly on or the IQ 130 guy?

        1. I want you as far away from any complex piece of technology as humanly possible.

  62. I stopped reading when the idiot author, after indicating he knew budget was congressional doings, blamed Trump for spending too much. Author is just another TDS addled brain spewing nonsense.

  63. Trump’s personality is not merely polarizing; it is a textbook example of narcissism & outright sociopathy. There can BE no mistaking it. LBJ was likewise a sociopath, as demonstrated by his obvious involvement in the JFK assassination, both before & after the fact, along with presidents Nixon, Ford & H. W. Bush. How is it even possible that so many can be so naive in this modern information age? I simply cannot wrap my brain around it. I suppose it has to do with how much “fun” it is to be a “deplorable” or a BLMer/ANTIFAg. Perhaps it grows out of a desire not to acknowledge the clear & present factuality of our circumstance as a nation and a society. SMH…

  64. [FOR USA] Single Mom With 4 Kids Lost Her Job But Was Able To Stay On Top By Banking Continuously 1500 Dollars Per Week With An Online Work She Found Over The Internet… Check The Details HERE……>> Copy Here→→→→→ Click Here

  65. I really have trouble squaring Matt’s piece here with President Trump’s Supreme Court nominees. Look, the fact is that Trump simply via winning the election in 2016 and getting presumably three justices confirmed, all of whom are originalists / textualists, has done more to preserve Liberty than Reason Mag. has in 30 years! I’m not trying to be mean. It’s just that objective results matter. I vote for Libertarian candidates but the Libertarian cause has been horribly ineffectual in winning hearts and minds – especially given that the facts of American capitalism were on its side. Matt is right to criticize President Trump’s failings, but given that Trump was so monumentally better for Liberty factoring deregulation and the courts vis-à-vis Hillary Clinton, would demand a more even handed piece of journalism to generate an inclination on the part of the reader to view Matt’s piece as credible.

  66. As president, Trump has attacked a successful American company for its dress code, a successful sector of the economy for allowing its athletes to kneel, individual judges for ruling on his personal lawsuits, people who exercised their constitutional rights to protest, the Federal Reserve for not printing even more money than it already does, states for allowing the same mail-in voting that the military and Trump have long enjoyed, private individuals who tweeted things that displeased him, women who have accused him of sexual assault, and many others. He has tried to undermine a sector of the economy that is highly successful at exporting its products unless it complied with his edict to hold all college classes in person. He has used Federal employees to gas peaceful protesters for a political stunt. Against the wishes of local authorities, he has sent unidentified Federal officials who strayed well beyond their duty to protect a courthouse. He has personally put individuals in danger by ignoring guidelines on COVID. He has implicitly encouraged violence by far right supporters and has downplayed the extent of their violence. He has threatened to undermine the elections by lying about voting fraud. He has tried to extort a foreign nation to help him win his own election. He has knowingly lied about the pandemic and encouraged millions of supporters to put themselves and others at risk. He has rewarded the political murders by autocratic nations of an American resident/journalist and a college student. And that’s the tip of the iceberg.

  67. I want to cast a positive vote where I’m voting for something, instead of casting a negative vote. Having to choose the lesser of two seriously flawed candidates.

    Casting a negative vote is tricky because I detest the very essence of both Trump and Biden. If I was forced to choose, I would probably keep Trump over Biden. My reasoning is that the media would attempt to keep Trump in check, but with Biden the media would become sycophants.

    Luckily, there is a good choice available so I will be voting for Jo Jorgensen.

  68. Trump is real problem for the US

Please to post comments