Joe Biden

11 Trillion Reasons To Fear Joe Biden's Presidency

The former vice president's vision of an all-powerful government goes far beyond massive spending and tax hikes.


By my calculation, there are at the very least 11 trillion reasons to worry about Democratic presidential contender Joe Biden. He's the odds-on favorite to beat incumbent Donald Trump on November 3. Not only is the former vice president likely to win, but FiveThirtyEight predicts Democrats have a 74-in-100 chance of taking the Senate while holding the House of Representatives, meaning that he will have a great opportunity to deliver on all of his campaign promises, which add up to a mind-blowing total of $11 trillion in new federal spending over the coming decade. His "platform is more liberal than that of every past Democratic nominee," writes The Washington Post.

That's bad news not just for the economy but for a wide range of libertarian concerns about things such as individual autonomy, free speech, school choice, and gun rights. In last week's debate with Trump, Biden warned that we are entering a "dark winter." He was talking about rising COVID-19 cases, but his own platform is likely to keep us at home, out of work, and in a bad place for a long time to come.

Biden's expansive vision is about more than vastly increasing spending, but let's start there because the numbers are simply staggering. He's proposing $11 trillion in brand new spending over the next decade, according to the Manhattan Institute's Brian Riedl. Big-ticket new items include $1.4 trillion to expand Obamacare; $2 trillion on his version of a Green New Deal; jacking Social Security and Supplemental Security Income by $1 trillion; and goosing spending on preschool, K-12, and higher education by $1.5 trillion. Biden has also signed on to a $3.3 trillion stimulus spending plan pushed by House and Senate Democrats.

All of this new spending would be layered on top of an existing annual federal budget that has swelled to nearly $7 trillion in fiscal year 2020, from a record-high yet relatively cheap $4.4 trillion in 2019. To pay for this new largess, Biden has laid out $3.6 trillion in tax hikes over the coming decade, resulting in what Riedl says is "the largest permanent tax increase since World War II." Much of the new revenue would come from boosting corporate income taxes back to what they were before Republicans lowered them during Trump's first year in office. Yet despite all the hikes, Biden would still manage to increase the national debt (and thus depress long-term economic growth) by about $5.6 trillion between 2021 and 2030, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.

Despite Biden's claims that no one in a household making under $400,000 a year would pay one red cent more in taxes, it's inevitable that everyone will feel the pinch. First, notes Richard Rubin in The Wall Street Journal, Biden is calling for a reinstatement of the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate. Second,

the corporate tax increases would indirectly affect households at all income levels. That's because the burden of that tax is borne mostly by shareholders and, over the long run, by workers. So anyone owning stocks could be affected and eventually, companies may raise wages less than they otherwise would.

Worse still, the new levies, along with a bevy of new regulations on energy, health care, and more that Biden has promised, will almost certainly stall the economy big time. Analysts at the Hoover Institution calculate, according to Reason's Billy Binion, "that over the next decade, these changes would prompt the economy to shed 4.9 million jobs and the gross domestic product to drop $2.6 trillion." And in the year 2030, "U.S. consumption would be down $1.5 trillion and median-income households would make $6,500 less."

Using the Hoover study as a guide, the economic conservatives at The Wall Street Journal's opinion page take pains to note that Biden's plan won't tank the economy overnight. Rather, they rightly fear his "proposals will have a long-term corrosive impact by raising the cost of capital, reducing the incentive to work and invest, and reducing productivity across the economy." They illustrate how that works:

To take only one example, the electrification of most passenger cars would increase the per capita demand for electric power by 25% even as more than 70% of baseline electric power from fossil fuels would go offline. Bridging this supply-demand gulf would require enormous subsidies and far more investment and labor to achieve the same energy output. Mr. Biden's energy plans would cut total factor productivity by 1%-2% across the entire economy.

Perhaps even scarier than Biden's explicit plans to tax, spend, and regulate what already exists are the seemingly infinite promises he has made to push new government controls onto virtually all aspects of our lives. He wants to repeal Section 230, the law that protects online platforms from legal liability for speech generated by users, and wants to "take a really hard look" at breaking up tech companies, especially Facebook. He's called for an end to federal funding for charter schools and the reinstatement of ineffective assault-weapons bans and countless other gun-control measures.

Pick any page of his campaign website's extensive "vision" section and you'll find endless proposals to tinker with everyday life and employment. He pledges to "aggressively pursue employers who violate labor laws, participate in wage theft, or cheat on their taxes by intentionally misclassifying employees as independent contractors" and also to "establish an Environmental and Climate Justice Division within the U.S. Department of Justice." What sort of bureaucracy do those sorts of things require? The same sorts of questions are raised by his on-again, off-again endorsement of a federal mask mandate. On many, perhaps most, issues, Joe Biden's America will be one in which political and economic power is unified under Washington's control. 

He will be all things to all people and it's hard to know where any single agenda ends and another begins. Hence, in a section devoted to "Joe's Agenda for Students," he promises to require "aggressive methane pollution limits for oil and gas operations" while also making "four-year public colleges and universities tuition-free for all students whose family incomes are below $125,000."

As Reason's publisher Mike Alissi noted in Reason's recent roundup of how the staff is voting:

These ideas aren't just rhetoric from a blowhard. Depending on what happens in the Senate, they're likely to become law, undermining economic growth and moving us backward on First and Second Amendment protections, school choice, property rights, consumer freedom, campus due process, worker freedom, energy choices, and so much more.

Joe Biden has been in national politics for some 47 years, almost 10 years more than most of us are old. Because of various scandals (he dropped out of the 1988 presidential race after it came out that he'd plagiarized details of his own biography from a British politician!) and gaffes (in 2008, he asked a wheelchair-bound supporter to "stand up…and let 'em see you"), he was a late-night punchline for much of his half-century in the public eye.

But he is a battle-hardened politician whose time has finally come and who has a very good chance of being the next president of the United States. He will also likely have Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress that are even more expansionist than he is. His season in the sun—coming decades after he first tossed his hat into the presidential ring—may well usher in a dark winter that will persist long after next year's first crocuses bloom.

NEXT: To Ban Evictions During COVID-19, the CDC Demands Huge Expansion of Executive Power

Joe Biden Election 2020 Donald Trump Green New Deal Democratic Party Regulation

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

Please to post comments

598 responses to “11 Trillion Reasons To Fear Joe Biden's Presidency

  1. PS: Joe Biden is corrupt AF!

    1. Nick "worries" too much. Biden won't beat Trump.

      1. Well, not legitimately...

        1. I get paid over $87 per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. Acv I never thought I'd be able to do it but my best friend earns over 10k a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless.
          Visit this website........... Visit Here

        2. True.
          Those damn voters tend to cause a lot of confusion - - - - - - - - - - - -

          1. I quit working at shop rite and now I make $65-85 per/h. How? I’m working online! My work didn’t qwq 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 So i try use.

            Here’s what I do…>>Easy work to Home

            1. Google easily work and google pays me every hour and every week just $5K to $8K for doing online work from home. I am a universty student and I work n my part time just 2 to 3 hours a day easily from home. Anm Now every one can earn extra cash for doing online home system and make a good life by just open this website and follow instructions on this page… Visit Here

            2. 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

          2. I am now making extra $19k or more every month from home by doing very simple and easy job online from home. I have received exactly $20845 last month from this home job. Join now this job and start making JAK extra Job cash online by follow instruction on the given website…..

            For more detail visit the given link....Click here

      2. No thanks to Nick. Nick clearly loves trump, yet he is voting for some other guy.

        1. I quit working at shop rite and now I make $65-85 per/h. How? I’m working online! My work didn’t asf 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 So i try use.

          Here’s what I do.......>>>><<<<< Making Money

    2. Google pays for every Person every hour online working from home job. I have received $23K in this month easily and I earns every weeks $5K to 8$K on the internet. A Every Person join this working easily by just just open this website and follow instructions..Visit here for full details

    3. Joe Biden would raise the national debt by 11 trillion over the next decade?!?

      That’s child’s play, considering Donald Trump has added 8.3 trillion over just 4 years.

      Allow me feign outrage!?!?!

      1. More is better?

        1. What makes you think trump wouldn’t add another 8 trillion onto the national debt in 4 years? Or more.

          At this point it’s more likely republicans add unrepentant spending onto the national debt than for Democrats.

          Historically speaking, Democrats have presided over bigger stock market increases, more job growth, lower federal debt, and better overall economies.

          Biden won’t be any different.

          1. It's mostly Congress that controls spending, and with all the Democrats and RINOs wanting to spend, why not blame the voters for who we collectively elected for the spending? Trump knows it's a battle he can't win, yet he has Pelosi blocking a huge spending bill (a miracle IMHO).

            Gillespie just explained how much more Biden will be spending, so there is a difference between Biden and Trump. Gillespie also forgot to add the cost of the president being compromised by China and Russia. That'll get Biden to subsidize Chinese exports to the US via the Import Export Bank.

          2. Your assertion would carry more weight if it didn't completely ignore the information laid out in the article. Biden's spending is only one facet of the issue, drive-by.

            1. 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 happy so I decided to take a chance on something ase new after 4 years it was so hard to quit my day job but now I couldn’t be happier So i try use.
              Here’s what I do.......EasY EarninG

        2. What makes you think trump wouldn’t add another 8 trillion onto the national debt in 4 years?

          Wouldn't that be better than 11 trillion?

          At this point it’s more likely republicans add unrepentant spending onto the national debt than for Democrats.

          Because Biden will add 11T in spending, and Trump will add 8T? I'm not sure my math agrees with yours.

          Historically speaking, Democrats have presided over bigger stock market increases, more job growth, lower federal debt, and better overall economies.

          You mean, like, in the 19th century?

          1. The article said 11t over the next decade (1.1t per year). Another 8t under trump =2t per year), and not even looking at long term damage in republican spending.

            It’s pure hypocrisy. It’s funny how Republican policies do not generate better economies, yet that is somehow seen as gospel. I guess if you lie over and over enough it becomes truth.

          2. Are you drunk, or do you just hate information? Prior to ol T-Slippy, s&P gains were far and away higher under Clinton and Obama than Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II. Honestly, it’s barely even a comparison. 19th Century?! Why would type something so easily disproven? What happened to this magazine......

      2. Cotations always seem to fall off when new bots post.

      3. Oh, well that's a relief!

    4. Well A: He isn't. Or rather nothing legit seems to suggest he is. TVRudy and Donald Trump are hardly a source to trust regarding anything. If you can't see that this whole Hunter thing is nothing but a reprise of the same goddamned joke he tried to play on Hillary in 2016, well...I don't know what to say.

      And B: Feel free to mock me with "Orange Man Bad" bullshit. If you can't see that Trump's petty little counterproductive trade wars are completely antithetical to free market conservatism, I have a Mar-A-Lago you can join for cheap. If you think our allies respect our president and would be inclined to defend us without question, you just aren't paying attention. There are real problems in the world. Trump is at least the enabler, if not cause, of many of them.

      The fears of a Biden presidency are real and significant. But they are hypotheticals and worse-case what-ifs. I will take those over the known quantity of Donald Trump any day. I honestly- no hyperbole- think we would be far better served with no president at all if Trump is the alternative. At least there wouldn't be someone actively causing harm. It is just unfathomable that so many people have fallen under his sway. Some people see through him as easily as through glass. Other people believe the hype and bullshit he can only support with his own insistance- and much of that is easily proven false by what we can see with our own eyes. I don't understand you guys. Maybe it's simple stupidity? I don't know. I am baffled. Good luck in the future. Your resumé will be kept on file.

      1. He's clearly corrupt. Dude's got a history going back at least to when he was first elected of being a money-grubbing SOB. But he's corrupt in a conventional way, which is oddly comforting.

        the same goddamned joke he tried to play on Hillary in 2016

        Erm, you mean the joke Obama's FBI chief played on Hillary when trying to run cover for his future boss? Whatever you say, you contrarian rebel, you. Way to counteract the ORANGE MAN BAD! accusations that are so obviously headed your way.

        I've already not voted for Trump (in either year!), but the hyperbole on the part of his opponents is absurd. Maybe <a href=";someone can expand upon this observation.

        1. I take little solace knowing my vote cancelled yours out.

          1. I am making over $ 17485 a month working low maintenance online from home. I continued hearing others disclose to me how much cash they can make on the web so I chose to investigate it.BFc I was so honored I unearthed this program and has completely changed my life.last month her check was 14770 simply dealing with the PC for a couple of hours in my available time every week.

            This is my specialty........... Home Profit System

      2. Lay off the lead paint chips dude!

    5. Nick Gillespie is the reason I read Reason

      1. Leather jacket and ENB being a cunt are why I read unreason. that and libertarians who blast unreason communists who shill propaganda for Democrats.

        This rag has gone to shit and its fun to read why this toilet paper happened.

        Lefties and theor useful idiots destroy everything.

    6. And he will be elected president. He is the most corrupt politician in my lifetime.

    7. $11T Nick?
      Debt money, money created by private institutions, has no intrinsic value. We are at the start of transition in our relationship to work and money. Proposals from Andrew Yang and others are evidence. The longer we hang on to the old concepts the more suffering this transition will cause.

      No one really knows the total of the money supply. The Fed stopped tracking M3 in the 90s. We are all aware there exists
      a notional value in derivatives that is several times greater than the documented money supply.

      Money is a distribution issue not a supply issue.
      Debt is non-issue.

  2. But he is a battle-hardened politician whose time has finally come and who has a very good chance of being the next president of the United States. He will also likely have Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress that are even more expansionist than he is.

    Never-Trumpers: "We told you so..."

    1. This is Trump's legacy: pushing the country to the left as an overreaction to his continual fuck-ups and incompetence, blatant corruption, stoking of division, and elevation of white grievance politics to an art form.

      1. White grievance, as compared to decades of every other form of grievance pushed by the left. Fuck you must be a parody or lack any critical thinking skills.

        1. And what flat out corruption. I see this charge but never any specifics.

        2. Look at yesterday's ACB thread. Chipper was pushing leftist talking points in it. He's a leftist.

      2. "elevation of white grievance politics to an art form."

        That must be why Trump is so popular among minorities.

      3. That's a matter of your biased perception, not a reflection of reality. It's Trump's fault that the pathology of the progressive left has been manifesting itself? He's responsible for the psychotic ramblings, behaviors and actions of the progressive left? He's responsible for their hyperbole and lies? He's responsible for the fools buying into that hyperbole, lying, and other nonsense? So now people can't vote for a particular candidate of whom the left might disapprove? People have to placate the left because of their childish temper tantrums? You're merely deflecting responsibility away from where it belongs. If the roles were reversed, you'd be singing a different tune and crying the blues about the right.

      4. This alleged "white grievance" is a fallacious misrepresentation. Also, any feelings white people may have toward the political and social climate in this country, that can be fallaciously misrepresented as "white grievance" by deceptive slanderers and mudslingers like you, is a reaction to the hate and vitriol spewing forth from the left. And you enable it. So you own it. If you hate that Trump is president, blame yourself.

      5. Just like Bush expanding political power and surveillance and war pushed the country to Obama, and Obama's overreach pushed the country to Trump...;

      6. This nonsense only happened in the left-wing media and in your head. In the real world, however, most of Trump's presidency has actually been: rising wages and incomes across the board, more people working than ever, more people owning homes, stock-market highs, etc.

        Also, if there should be an overcorrection to Trump, it certainly shouldn't be on policy. For the most part, Trump has been run-of-the-mill Republican on policy. Nothing extreme about what he did. The "overcorrection" is irrational. Then again, these Dems have spent the whole summer burning down their own cities for the sake of social justice (and they're gonna make you pay for it)...

      7. You’ve got it exactly backwards.

        Trump is the result of the country moving far left, particularly in their zeal to wage the culture war with the federal government, not the other way around.

      8. "This is Trump’s legacy: pushing the country to the left as an overreaction to his continual fuck-ups and incompetence, blatant corruption, stoking of division, and elevation of white grievance politics to an art form."

        So the devil made you do it, you pathetic piece of lefty shit?

      9. "white grievance politics"??? TF?

        The Left has DEMANDED more "white identity". They badly NEED it to justify their insanely racist obsessions, but dang it, there wasn't really enough of it, even with re-definitions and re-calibration of what constituted "offense" and "violence".

        So they've gone actively one the offensive, aided by press and entertainment media. Pushing and pushing, insulting and accusing, and actively destroying anything that "those damn white guys" actually valued in media or art.

        I'd be concerned if it didn't get a reaction, and that reaction is FAR from an "art form". Yet.

        1. Who hurt you? Is your ego so fragile that you need to believe this nonsense to get out of bed in the morning?

    2. HAHA. Never-Trumpers like Romney? Who never will be president like Joe Biden will never be president.

      1. Joe Biden will be president for a few months longer than Mitt Romney will be president.

    3. Any "we told you so"s are so well earned I'm surprised the former cultists don't get a tattoo saying that. You elect a narcissistic idiot, you get a fucked up country. Told you so.

      1. Enough about Obama already. It's been four years!

        1. And if you still can't spot the conman, you're absolutely his mark. He's done a helluva job at rousing his rabble base. But that's all. Terrifying his own dimwitted voters of mail-in voting will prove to be his single biggest regret. The young angry unemployed may turn out on voting day for him, but his dotard compatriots are too settled in to their broken-down lazy-boys to get their asses out. They wanted to mail in their votes, but Trump's fear mongering of an election process that's generations old scared them from doing it. And then he he told them they might just have to die. How idiots can continue to support this idiot man-child is beyond me. It's beyond any decent person.

  3. His "platform is more liberal than that of every past Democratic nominee," writes The Washington Post.

    That's bad news not just for the economy but for a wide range of libertarian concerns about things such as individual autonomy, free speech, school choice, and gun rights.

    Remember, Trump killed classical liberalism.

    You dumb fucks.

    1. It's more progressive, not more liberal

      1. Nothing is less liberal than a progressive.

        1. "Progressive" is pretty much the opposite of "Liberal," unless you define "Progress" as "Progress toward Liberty." But no current "Progressives" do. Quite the opposite, really.

          1. On economic issues, yes, progressivism is the opposite of classical liberalism.

            1. On all issues. "Live and let live" is the opposite of "I know how things should be."

              1. All issues? What about social issues such as police brutality or legalization of marijuana? What about wanting a less interventionist foreign policy?

                1. Yes because Biden has never favored interventionist foreign policies or championed draconian drug laws. Oh wait he has done that far more than Trump.

                  1. "Yes because Biden has never favored interventionist foreign policies.."

                    Until there's some vig available.

                  2. Huh? I wasn't talking about Biden. Biden is terrible on foreign policy.

                2. There may be narrow agreement on certain issues sometimes, but the philosophical reasoning behind those points of agreement is not the same. Progressives want to legalize pot because they think it's an OK drug for people to use recreationally. Libertarians want to leaglize everything because it's none of you business and wrong to punish people for things that don't harm anyone else.

                  1. Progressives want to legalize pot because they think it’s an OK drug for people to use recreationally. Libertarians want to leaglize everything because it’s none of you business and wrong to punish people for things that don’t harm anyone else.

                    ^ This.

                  2. Progressives want to legalize weed because it's popular right now, and they want to regulate and tax it. Remember, it was progressives who originated prohibition on both alcohol and drugs (and the backlash to prohibition is why FDR rebranded the left as "liberal" from "progressive").
                    Progressives are "against" police brutality only as much as it can be used as a cudgel, and fundamentally seek to impose a totalitarian police state.

                  3. You pretend there is philosophical reasoning for progressives to want to legalize pot? There is none. Their natural authoritarianism was overbalanced by political expediency and potential revenue, and Biden's entire political career indicates that was no mean feat.

                    1. Yes, progressives have a governing philosophy. That's how you can tell they are progressives. They think the way progressives do.

                  4. If we are going to argue that it's wrong to hold libertarian views for the wrong reasons, we are going to open up a giant can of worms.

                  5. There's a third reason, that enforcing draconian laws for such a relatively benign herb disproportionately affects certain demographic groups...especially groups disfavored by our justice system.

                    This one thing has gone a long way to create and enforce income disparities.

                    And then, when legalization was the TOP question in an online town hall Obama had in 2009, he just fucking laughed about it.
                    But fuck Trump, sure.

                3. What about social issues such as police brutality or legalization of marijuana? What about wanting a less interventionist foreign policy?

                  Liberty is preferable in those areas, too.

                4. Also a number of Red states will likely legalize pot with far less restrictions and taxes than their blue counterparts this election cycle. Conservative voters want to legalize marijuana with less restrictions, progressive want to legalize marijuana to tax it and heavily restrict it, thus insuring the black market remains more desirable.

                5. Is that the police brutality found in most major cities? Is that the legalization after blue inner cities asked for major laws? Is that the less interventionist policy that is suing Trump for removing troops?

                6. somehow I missed the part where Biden/Harris are promising not to intervene in foreign affairs. there's a reason the Lincoln Project Neocons are endorsing them, and it's ain't the Green Raw Deal.

                7. Less interventionist??? Are you smoking Hunter’s shit? How do you think we get to live the way we do here in America? It ain’t from keeping the military parked at home that’s for sure.

    2. From the article...

      "He wants to repeal Section 230, the law that protects online platforms from legal liability for speech generated by users..."

      Hey all of ye who want to micro-manage and boss around the owners of NOT YOUR WEB SITES! Joe Biden is your go-to guy, to get you what you want!

      1. The difference is that Biden wants to increase censorship whereas most conservatives oppose section 230 because they feel it shields tech companies from any responsibilities to their users and blocks almost any legal recourse to arbitrary (or not so arbitrary and frankly partisan) censorship in violation of TOS that are changed at random. I don't necessarily agree with their argument but to pretend that they are the same is tribalist bullshit.

        1. That's funny, I hear the word "censorship" a whole lot from conservatives when it comes to tech companies. I don't hear "contract violation" much, if at all.

          1. That is because of selective hearing. Almost all the ones who argue against 230, JesseAz, John etc all use the contract violation argument. Selective hearing on your part or flat out lying

            1. I've been arguing the contract law angle for months, it is my primary issue. Chipper is just plain dishonest.

              likewise, censorship still occurs even outside a government forcing. Changing definitions of words is something leftists appear to like doing.

              1. Please provide some exact contract language from the terms of service agreement of a tech company and then examples of how that tech company violated the service. And then explain why they weren't sued for this violation and how the federal government needs to step in to enforce the contract.

                1. Yeah Chipper Morning Wood go Chipper Morning Wood go!!!!

                  Conservatards can NOT answer these questions! All that they can do, is call the pro-property-rights, pro-individual-freedoms, people names! Like the grade-school bullies that they are!

              2. The way I see it, 230 is a lose lose situation.

          2. It's all "whaaa....I'm not being treated fairly." Which is what baby Trump does 90% of the time also..and to be fair, most of the people of the left as well. So much cry... Pretty soon we'll all have something to cry about.

          3. I don’t hear “contract violation” much, if at all.

            Well Chipper's not been actually reading responses or he's flat out lying again.
            Probably both.

            1. "Contract violation" in this context is almost 100% pure bullshit! The services are for FREE! If you don't like the services, you can ask for your money back! All $0,000.00 of it!

              From the top of these comments: "We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time." (Reason's comments, at the top of each and every page of this kind).

              I bet most web sites of this kind have similar language! NO contract violations here, if they selectively take down your comments! Deal with it; cry more!

              1. You just proved the fact that they do argue contract issues but you feel that isn't important.

                1. Lefties really hate contracts so it makes sense that they undermine them as much as possible.

                  Look what they try to do to the US constitution, the supreme contract of them all.

              2. Yes, they do argue contract issues, and it is a totally made-up lie! As I have just demonstrated! If one does what one promises to do (and does not do what one has promises not to do), then there is NO contract violation! It is that simple!

                If the people who make this argument vis-a-vis "Section 230" simply prefaced their argument with, "I make no pretensions about NOT lying, here", then one could NOT justifiably accuse them of having "broken a contract" when they lie!

                1. Contracts don't require a monetary content dummy.

                2. JesseSPAZ never requires honesty, liar!

                  Readers, beware! Do not be deceived by JesseAZ! JesseAZ does NOT believe that LIES are bad in ANY way! Only ACTIONS matter, ethically or morally! See
                  “Words are words dumbfuck. Actions are where morals and ethics lie.”, says JesseAZ. When confronted with offers of hush money, illegal commands (from a commanding military officer), offers of murder for hire, libel, slander, lies in court, yelling “fire” in a crowded theater, inciting riots, fighting words, forged signatures, threatening to kill elected officials, false representations concerning products or services for sale… these are all “merely” cases of “using words”. Just like the Evil One (AKA “Father of Lies”), Jesse says lies are all A-OK and utterly harmless! So do NOT believe ANYTHING that you hear from JesseAZ!

                  Also according to the same source, JesseAZ is TOTALLY on board with dictatorship (presumably so long as it is an “R” dictator that we are talking of).
                  With reference to Trump, JesseAZ says…
                  “He is not constitutionally bound on any actions he performed.”

                  I say again, this is important…
                  “He is not constitutionally bound on any actions he performed.”
                  We need a BRILLIANTLY persuasive new movie from JesseAZ to “Wake Up, America!”, to flesh out the concept that “The Triumph of The Will of The Trump, Trumps All”! Including the USA Constitution. In fact, USA military personnel should start swearing allegiance to Trump, NOT to some stupid, moldering old piece of paper!
                  Previous Powerful People have blazed a path for us to follow here, slackers!!!

                  1. Nothing you just posted is pertinent at all, most of it is incoherent. And it is blatant moving the goal posts after your original point was destroyed.

                    1. So you and JesseSPAZ still insist on being whiners and crybabies about FREE services, which CLEARLY spell out that they reserve the right to delete your comments? And you can just dream up some sort of "implied contracts" and then go whine and cry to Government Almighty to get Government Almighty to "fix" it for you?

                      Wow! Greed, self-righteousness, and power-hunger seems to have very few, if any, limits, in the hearts and minds of SOME people!

                    2. I didn't whine about anything I pointed out that you were wrong about conservatives making the contract argument. Never did I say I agree with them or not, just pointed out you were wrong.

                    3. Do YOU agree when conservatives make the contract argument? Inquiring minds want to KNOW!

                    4. They make the contract argument as I have demonstrated. I am not necessarily endorsing that argument but yes they do make it. Is your shoe size larger than your IQ, I've shown it extensively? Fuck you are an idiot

                    5. "I do not necessarily disagree", says the fence-straddling politician!

                      Such fence-straddling politicians say MUCH meaningless malarkey, but... Surprise! The open-minded listener... If such a rare beast is to be found anywhere nearby... Is left utterly clueless as to where the fence-straddling politician actually stands! What hill will fence-straddling politician chose to die on? No one knows!

                      THAT is why they are fence-straddling politicians, and not at ALL related to TRUE LEADERS, who will stand for SOMETHING!!!

                      The Hottest Places in Hell Are Reserved for Those Who in a Period of Moral Crisis Maintain Their Neutrality


                    6. Once again nonsequitor, barely cohorent, ad hominems is proof that you argument is destroyed so your fall back is always to attack the messenger with incomprehensible screeching and ranting. You can't make a valid argument so you resort to personal attacks. You can't stand anyone disagreeing with you so you try and shame them with word salads and personal insults. Proof again that your IQ barely exceeds your shoe size.

                    7. “I do not necessarily disagree”, says the fence-straddling politician!

                      What side of the fence do YOU sit on, fence straddler? The side that says a bunch of mumbo-jumbo is sufficient to take over the property rights of a web site owner? If that's OK with you, is it also OK for a bunch of mumbo-jumbo to be used to take over the property rights of a cake-baker who does NOT want to bake that gay wedding cake? Or do you live in "might makes right" land, where sheer political power (the power of violence and the threat of violence) is enough for you and your buddies to just TAKE what you want? In "might makes right" land, what is good for the goose, is NOT good for the unprincipled, selfish, self-righteous gander, and that is just TOTALLY OK with you, is that right?

          4. How about 'Congress shall make no law'? Have you heard that? Whether you think section 230 protects some peoples' right to assemble online, whether it protects some peoples' right to free speech, or whether it voids others' right to petition, if it does any one of those, as a law enacted by Congress, it's a violation of the 1A.

            You haven't heard the contract violation arguments in protest because you voluntarily terminate your own thinking in defense of a law enacted by Congress. You wouldn't care if Google were extracting content at gunpoint as long as the content creators agreed to the contract.

            1. That is one HUGE splat of utter malarkey, to disguise YOUR urges to claim the property rights that belong to OTHER people!

              FREE services, hello?!?! And you agreed to the terms of contract? And you STILL want to whine and carp for MORE-MORE-MORE?!?! Are there ANY limits to your greed, self-righteousness, and power-hunger?

              "Free" not good enough for ya? Pay for your own web site at Go-Daddy, as I did! Quit yer bitchin', cry-baby!

              1. Your argument is rebutted so I ce again you resort to sophomoric insults. You can't make a mature argument so instead posy word salad juvenile insults. This is why no one ever takes you seriously, you're a bigger fucking joke Tony and almost as bad as Hihn. And as predictable and Tulpa.

                1. 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 .

                  Thank You! -Reason Staff

                  1. Yeah still nothing coherent and juvenile insults when you lose keep it up. Every time you post jibberish like this you further prove my point. Like a dog returning to it's vomit you don't have the self control not to rise to the bait.

                    1. And you don't have the self-control and intellectual coherence needed to answer a simple question... Instead, YOU resort to insults!

                      Do YOU think that conservatives are correct, in asserting that there are "implied contract rights" or some such, that imply that (for example) should NOT (contrary to their assertions) have the right, to take DOWN, comments (on THEIR web site), that they don't like? Do YOU agree that random assholes should be able to property-control-grab, in such cases? When the provider is providing services for FREE?

                      HOW GREEDY are you? WHAT will it take, to satisfy your unquenchable thirst?

                    2. Why should I answer your question when you haven't yet made any attempt to have a mature discussion and have insulted me from the moment I pointed out Chipper was wrong and you misrepresented Conservatives arguments? Why would I give a clearly delusional, thin skinned sophomoric person like you the gratification of reasonable debate since you have shown no inclination to rationale, respective debate.

                    3. And seriously how do you get greedy out of any of my posts? And since when do libertarian capitalist despise greed?

                    4. Self-righteousness is a form of greed. As a libertarian-oriented person, I do NOT advocate the use of Government Almighty FORCE to "make" greedy persons behave as I think that they should behave! As long as they respect my rights (negative rights to be left alone, not positive rights for me to steal their money), I say, use persuasion, not coercion! And I am using persuasion to TRY my best, to ask you to tame your greed! Leave alone, the owners of other people's web sites, and their rights to use their property as they see fit! I see NO acknowledgement from you, of the rights of such web site owners!

                      You make fun of me and others who actually defend property rights... YOU are righteous, and others are WRONG-WRONG-WRONG!!! You are greedy for righteousness... Other ways of looking at things, are WRONG, you think! Your way MUST be defended, and there can be NO other valid ways to think!

                      This ultimately leads to evil... You might want to read this book: M. Scott Peck, The People of the Lie.

                    5. You denigrate self rightousness whenbl your posts are nothing but self rightously ridiculing anyone who disagrees with you? Once again proving you have no self awareness. Keep posting like this the more you do the more people realize all your charges against others apply double to you.

                    6. And where did I ever claim I am right and everyone else is wrong? I have never claimed that but you have multiple times. You look down your nose at anyone who disagrees with you. There is nothing more self rightous than that.

                    7. And I don't make fun of others who defend property rights. I make fun of you and chipper because you don't accurately portray people's arguments, e.g. you lie. I am all for personal property rights and dare you to find a post that says otherwise. As for section 230, I think it is complicated but overall I am opposed to overturning it because I think that would make things worse. I do think the contractual argument is stronger than you do but don't agree 230 stops people suing under contractual breach unfortunately some judges have interpreted it that way. Overall I don't want the government regulating or controlling the internet but also realize that Facebook, Twitter et al are partisan assholes. And I think the start your own company is oversimplification buy that still isn't a good argument to overturn section 230. I don't discount the contractual argument but also am not sold on the idea it would solve anything or even be winnable. In other words I don't believe in your false dichotomy. And don't dismiss others arguments out of hand, while not necessarily agreeing with them. I know for someone who has trouble with nuance and being open minded that that will be hard for you to understand and your take will be I am on the fence because you only see the world in good (your opinion) and in bad (everyone who disagrees with you) because you are convinced anyone who disagrees with you are authoritarians and evil. And you accused others of being self righteous.

                    8. "As for section 230, I think it is complicated but overall I am opposed to overturning it because I think that would make things worse."

                      I am glad to see that you have some common sense! It was like pulling teeth to get that out of you though!

                      Now please explain the above to JesseAZ, who hardly ever can see common sense of this kind, and NEVER admits error!

        2. The difference is that Biden wants to increase censorship

          It is, once again, more 'both sides' bullshit. One side is clearly saying "They aren't controlling the narrative hard enough, we need to fix that." and the other side is saying "They're controlling the narrative too hard and should be more liable for the risks of such action."

          One side thinks you have a nice business and would hate to see something unfortunate happen to it, the other wishes you'd bring back their favorite menu items. So, obviously, the users/customers you've pissed off are just as bad as the mafiosos threatening to seize your business and run it for you.

          1. If you are not paying for a service, then you are the product, not the customer.

      2. "maKe yOUr oWn iNtErNeT, rEthUgliCAns"

        1. Hey whining crybaby... I pay for my own web site at Go-Daddy. I say some VERY sarcastic and un-politically-correct, intolerant things about cults like Scientology there (and Government Almighty as well). I am QUITE sure that a LOT of "tolerant" liberal-type folks at Google etc. would NOT be happy with the types of things I wrote! Yet, if you do a search-string "Scienfoology", Google will take you STRAIGHT to MY web site, top hit! #1!

          Your whining and crying is (just about ) UTTERLY without basis!

          1. Your website is unfunny and sucks dick... also orangemanbad, Sqrls.

            1. God he has gone full Hihn, he has created his own stupid website, next he will make an enemies list. Senility?

            2. also orangemanbad, Sqrls.

              Ask, and ye shall receive wisdom! Knock, and the doors will be opened wide for ye! The pearls will yea verily be cast even unto the swine! Now it is up to YE, having been led to the water, whether ye will DRINK deeply, or if ye will just horse around!

              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…


              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. Once again keep it up you just prove how much of a low intellectual clown you are who can't stomach disagreement with you, you think skinned cry baby.

                1. So you deny that what comes around, goes around? That you will reap as you sew? Good luck to you, since you seem bound and determined to learn the hard way!

                  1. When have I ever done this? Not a single time. You are fucking worse than Tulpa. Good job there.

                  2. And it is hardly what comes around goes around when you always act this way preemptively you disingenuous fuck.

                    1. 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!

                      This is a truth of life among intelligent, social beings (of all species) everywhere, and it pissed you off! Truth hurts, doesn't it?

                      How well did Trump's pussy-grabbing work with our international trade partners?

                      Trump promised to win the trade war with China. He failed

                    2. Not at all a rebuttal buy once again changing the subject to something completely unrelated. Fuck you can't help but move the goal posts when countered

          2. And the only person crying seems to be you ad your arguments are countered one by one. This post you just wrote is nothing but crying. When your response to a counter to a narrative is to post a word salad of insults you are the crybaby.

            1. Says the fence-straddling politician who will NOT even tell us what it thinks! Perhaps because it can NOT actually THINK?

              1. Says the goal post shifting moron who attacks me for not stating my personal opinion after your initial argument is disproven
                Keep up the good work, the more you post the stronger my argument that you are an intellectual thin skinned authoritative who can't stand people disagreeing with becomes.

                1. Please point out to me, where I ever stated that conservative greedy people are NOT making the argument that some invisible "contract rights" give them the right to take over the property of web site owners? Did I EVER deny that conservatives are making this utterly absurd argument? Or did I refute the LIES that they are telling here?

                  WHERE did I deny that conservatives are arguing this way? PLEASE tell me?

                  1. Hey all of ye who want to micro-manage and boss around the owners of NOT YOUR WEB SITES! Joe Biden is your
                    So not directly but totally misrepresented what their argument is, which I pointed out. Then chipper piped up no one makes that argument. And then you began attacking me when I pointed out Chipper was wrong. So you didn't say it directly but you sure ad hell attacked me for showing Chipper he was wrong. And you misrepresented what conservatives arguments are and then you blithely dismissed those arguments because you disagree with them.
                    So in totality you seem okay with Chipper lying about the conservative argument and willing to attack anyone who pointed out his disingenuousness. So the logical conclusion is that you agreed with his lies and gee the need to attack people who factually pointed out his lies.

                    1. It is VERY hard to refute your stupid ideas (I highly suspect that I know what they are by your tone) when you won't explicitly state what they are! Do you, or do you not, think that you have some "secret rights" or "implied contract" with, whereby you should have legal recourse to go running and crying to Government Almighty, for "remedy", when they take down (as they announced that they reserve the right to do), your comments, which they allowed you to post FOR FREE?

                      And once again, HOW DEEP runs your desires to grab more-more-more, and HOW DEEP is your unquenchable thirst?

                    2. Ask like a mature adult who is actually willing to debate and I will answer you. Continuing asking like a spoiled brat and I refuse to engage with you as an adult.
                      And since you I refuse to answer you have no idea if my ideas are stupid or not, your assertion without evidence shows how unwilling you are to act like an adult and actually respectively debate. Keep digging that hole. You just keep proving how intellectually dishonest and immature you are and how thin skinned you are. Keep responding because so am enjoying watching you destroy any iota of respectability you ever had.

          3. You’re fucking weird sqrlsy. Your content makes me want to puke. I hope you kill yourself before turning into Buffalo Bill.

            1. Hey Granite-for-brains…
              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!

    3. Oh yeah. I'm sure we'd be in Libertarian Paradise if Hillary Clinton were President.

  4. According to the cool kids, Reason hates Trump and loves Biden. Therefor this piece by The Jacket doesn't exist.

    Nothing to see here. Move along and bitch about Reason on another article.

    1. Fuck off schmuck. Or pay attention to the articles written. They have exactly two that are anti-Biden.

      1. No, schmuck, there are exactly zero. Reason in 100% in the tank for Biden. All the cool kids say so so it must be true.

        1. you think Unreason is biased in their coverage, sarcasmic?

          1. I don't think they're particularly biased towards either candidate. Contrary to what liberals said when Obama was president, Reason is not a conservative rag. And contrary to what the cool kids say right now I wouldn't say they're a progressive rag either. They do consistently offend the biases of the fans of those who are currently in power, which right now means your pretty panties getting into a mighty twist.

            1. "...And contrary to what the cool kids say right now..."

              Your jealousy is pathetic to read.

              1. No one would refer to you as "cool" without some heavy sarcasm.

                1. Epic burn bro.

                2. You look good in green.

              2. Let's be fair... It isn't just his jealousy.

            2. "I don’t think they’re particularly biased towards either candidate."

              Uh-huh. Thanks for writing that, though.

              1. He just wades into random threads and spouts hyperbolic political strawmen arguments for fun, not because he is biased.

            3. Thanks for complimenting my panties.,

              They're just Hanes, though.

          2. They seem to have some kind of bias against Trump. I don't see any reason to believe there is an overall bias towards Biden, though.

            1. Considering Trump's wars on free trade and immigration, it's no small wonder that a libertarian magazine would have a bias against him. He's not what any sane person would call a libertarian.

              1. I don't see how unfettered immigration is innately libertarian.

                1. intrinsically*

                2. That's because you're an idiot.

                3. I think your strawman is made of straw.

                  1. Yeah, that was poor. Let me say this: I believe our immigration system needs to be streamlined. The fewer the lawyers needed, the better it is. However, I'm skeptical of the argument that more immigration correlates with more prosperity.

                    1. However, I’m skeptical of the argument that more immigration correlates with more prosperity.

                      The idea is you've got more people producing stuff and consuming stuff within the political boundaries. There isn't a fixed number of jobs that immigrants "steal," rather they create jobs by creating demand while also producing stuff.

                      The contrarian argument is that they only come here for free shit.

                      I don't dismiss either argument.

                    2. ...and many people are skeptical of the argument that immigration is a financial burden on the citizenry.

                    3. I don't believe in the whole "job stealing" angle. When I worked low-skill jobs, I've seen a lot of Americans who don't deserve shit. However, importing more poor and uneducated individuals doesn't seem like an amazing idea--especially as automation increases. Rather, as one improves the immigration process, one hopes more skilled workers immigrate.

                    4. I'm not arguing with you dude. Just saying that the current president and the current policies aren't very libertarian. That's all.

                    5. Okay. Well, I hope you're still coming to my sexy matinee. There's going to be watersports, scat-play, and a Rush tribute band. I've also hired some security to keep buttplug out. He tried to bring some kids with him--which was weird.

                    6. I don't mind Buttplug as long as he doesn't bring any minors. No Tulpas though. I mean, only allow human beings if that's not too much to ask.

                    7. I mean, dead people can be pretty arousing too.

                    8. That's not my thing. Gotta be warm to be enjoyable, and dead bodies bloat when they're warm. If I was into fatties I might have a different take, but I'm not.

                    9. The Tony Continuum
                      importing more poor and uneducated individuals doesn’t seem like an amazing idea

                      This is true. Consider how the left frames the "poor" by looking at "inequality". If an economy is making everyone better off (as ours is) they need to game the statistics to support their political arguments. There's no better tactic than forming a new cohort of very poor people with no historical antecedent in America. To ensure that outcome the left wants people who don't speak our language and don't have the education to assimilate to our economy, better immigrants wouldn't help their cause. This cohort makes the economic outcomes look more negative which leftists use to justify additional taxation and redistribution the primary beneficiaries of which are the government bureaucrats managing the programs and directing the political hatred.

                      All this was very clear during the Picketty boomlet a decade or so ago. As much as people point to stagnant incomes in fact that data showed the lowest quintile had improved average real incomes by 20-25% since the mid 70s (the data presented). Now consider what this data would reflect if there were no illegal immigration. Half the calculated bottom quintile wouldn't be here moving the income quintile break significantly upward. There's no way to quantify how much but it's significant, likely 20 points or more.

                      The point is that people whose families were here in the 70s have experienced much greater economic improvement than these generic statistics show and leftists will do anything to continue hiding this fact.

                    10. Doing whatever correlates with more prosperity is not a tenet of libertarianism. Not interfering with people's peaceful voluntary activities is.
                      I think that you can make the case that unlimited immigration is not desirable right now as a practical matter, largely because of the welfare state and the use of immigrants as political pawns. But that is a compromise, not a libertarian position.

                    11. Doing whatever correlates with more prosperity is not a tenet of libertarianism.

                      Why frame it this way when it isn't the point? The point is that poor immigrants result in greater government limitations on freedom.

                    12. He framed it that way because you successfully countered his point so he shifted the goal posts.

                4. There is plenty of room between "unfettered" and the current policies of protectionist zenophobia.

                  1. *xenophobia*

                  2. There is plenty of room between “unfettered” and the current policies of protectionist
                    True. I admit to my exaggeration.
                    the current policies of protectionist zenophobia.
                    You may consider those policies poor, but I'm not sure how it's xenophobia.

                    1. Furrners r takin our jerb and goin on welfare!

                    2. Sarcastic calls 0ut straw land and then straw land himself conservative arguments even worse than the poster he called out. Fucking hypocrite.

                    3. soldiermedic76, you do realize that when I misspell words and use excessive punctuation that I'm being intentionally hyperbolic, right?

                    4. It doesn't matter because your hyperbole is still a straw man and meant to denigrate only one side and not the other.

                    5. Sarcasmic is too dumb to understand your point. I've called him out on this for weeks now.

                    6. I’m an equal opportunity hyper-boler, dood. You only pay attention when I’m making fun of your team.

                    7. You aren't equal opportunity, unless everyone else is wrong. Notice no one agreed with your assertion but multiple posters laughed at your assertion. You may believe you are equal opportunity but you are the only one.

                  3. There is plenty of room between “unfettered” and the current policies of protectionist zenophobia.

                    There is no room between unfettered and the belief any immigration restriction is racist and xenophobic.

                    1. I think sarcasmic missed your point and didn't realize you were denigrating those who label any restriction ads xenophobic.

                  4. Equal opportunity hyperbole? Since when? Rarely see you use hyperbole against Democrats. Occasionally but nowhere near as often as you use it to attack the right. Stop the revisionist bullshit.

                    1. Who is in power? That’s who gets the flak.

        2. Go easy on them, sarcasmic. Their brains are not big enough to process more than two categories. There is only "us" and "them." If you are not "us," you must be "them." If don't like Trump, you must be a leftist. There can be no other possibility.

          1. We should take your room temperature IQ, knee jerk hatred of conservatives as the gospel right? Fucking libertarians for kneeling to their betters.

          2. You decided to go with "no sides" today? Changing it up daily or is it hourly at this point?

        3. Reason is not 100% pro-Biden. Half the staff are voting for Jorgensen. But they are about 5% pro-Trump.

      2. Look, sarcasmic isn't the brightest bulb and is emotionally invested in Reason being a site for collective circle jerking about how shitty everyone else is.
        If you voice doubt about the both sides narrative, his whole reason for being becomes untenable and he can't come here for his free therapy anymore.

        1. Shouldn't you be plotting the murder of your political foes?

          1. Nardz loves to put himself on FBI lists. He is on several by now.

            1. I'm quite sure that everyone who posts on these comments is on several lists.

              1. "Sarc's got 'em on the list — he's got 'em on the list;
                And they'll none of 'em be missed — they'll none of 'em be missed"

                You can hardly wait to fire up those post-Trump Truth & Reconciliation inquisitions, huh.

                1. Where'd you get that from?

                  1. Gilbert & Sullivan's Mikado "I've Got a Little List"

              2. I’m sure that’s absolutely true.

                If you comment regularly on reason, you’re being watched in some form or other.

    2. Reason deserves the criticism, friend. I was once enervated by the bitching and the perceived hyperboles concerning Reason's content, but the complainers were right. And while I think the negativity here is often a bit much, the fact that three motherfucking people writing for this shitheap are voting for Biden is the simplest yet most effective proof of this.

      1. So Republicans "own" the libertarian vote, just like Democrats "own" the black vote?

        1. I'm not sure how you made such an inference. The point is that any publication whose contributors vote for Biden is not a libertarian one.

          1. But if they voted for Trump then they would be libertarian?

            1. Nope.

              1. Then what's your point?

                1. 1. Any publication whose contributors vote for Biden is not a libertarian one.
                  2. A portion of Reason's contributors (plan to) vote for Biden.
                  Thus, Reason is not a libertarian publication. That's my point.

                  1. Would you feel differently if you changed the word 'Biden' to 'Trump' in that sentences? If not then you're just saying that anyone who votes isn't a libertarian.

                    1. I would not. Both are decidedly non-libertarian; however, one of them isn't a step towards a totalitarian state. Thus, I can at least rationalize why one might vote for Trump.

                    2. one of them isn’t a step towards a totalitarian state

                      Fooled me. As I see it they both are.

                    3. Because you are a simplistic thinker who never admits to any of your own failings and doesn't question at all what your betters ( Reason) motives are.b

                    4. As I see it they both are (totalitarian).

                      Good. I was hoping you'd go their.

                      Let's unpack your allegation, sarcasmic.

                      What has Trump done that's as or more totalitarian than his predecessors? No, scratch that.
                      What has Trump done that's genuinely totalitarian, period.

                    5. Under both there will be more legislation and regulation. One way ratchet keeps ratcheting.

                    6. So far Trump's been cutting regulation's, and while Biden is responsible for some of the worst crime legislation ever, Trump's been freeing drug offenders.
                      Your accusation doesn't hold up.

                    7. Jesus Fucking H. Christ. You have mastered the"art" of prog rhetoric.
                      Here we see the "So...what you're saying is..." technique (the"Cathy Newman")

                      And earlier the false binary, followed by projection.

                      Congrats on your mastery, although it's a truly dubious achievement.

              2. The way I see it is that Republicans give lip-service to economic liberty while being openly hostile to personal liberty, meanwhile the Democrats give lip-service to personal liberty while being openly hostile to economic liberty. A libertarian who chooses R presumably values economic liberty over personal liberty, while a libertarian who chooses D presumably values personal liberty over economic liberty. Doesn't make either one a bad person. Foolish? For sure. But bad? No.

                1. "Republicans give lip-service to economic liberty while being openly hostile to personal liberty"

                  How so?

                  1. Drugs, gays, abortion...

                    1. A society of gay drug addicts and dead babies is exactly what I picture when I read the words "personal liberty."

                    2. Welcome to Reason.

                    3. A society of gay drug addicts and dead babies is exactly what I picture when I read the words “personal liberty.”

                      So, you seem to be not-in-favor of certain personal liberties.

                    4. Democrats are worse on everything you listed.
                      They are worse on everything, personal or economic. Which is a stupid made-up distinction btw. Probably made up by progressives who wanted to lie and pretend they care about freedom.

                    5. "abortion"

                      How about cannibalism and freedom to rape too. Go fuck your hat, sarcasmic.

                    6. I’m talking about other points of view, not agreeing with them. You guys are so emotional.

                    7. And democrats are more favorable on drugs how?

                      Or are you memory holing there fact that Biden himself is responsible for many of the more egregious aspects of current drug war policy, while his running mate is widely viewed as having prosecuted the drug war in many of the most egregious ways possible?


                    8. Show me a state with legal weed and I’ll show you a Democrat stronghold.

                    9. Alaska

                    10. Montana, Arkansas and South Dakota also look likely to approve legalized marijuana.

                  2. Alaska? Soon to be Arkansas and Montana. Yeah all Democratic strongholds you stupid fuck.

                    1. Meant in reply to sarcastic obviously false assertion that only Democratic strongholds have legalized marijuana. In fact Alaska had legal marijuana until the 1990s and was the third state to relegalize it.
                      In addition to Montana and Arkansas South Dakota is also likely to legalize marijuana.

                    2. And in my state the people legalized it but a Republican governor refused to allow any regulatory agencies to do their job so it effectively remained illegal until his party lost power. You're gonna construe that to mean I vote for Democrats or some such bullshit, so whatever dood. You take things way too fucking seriously.

                    3. Get proven wrong to your own question so you shifted the goal post. And assumed I would say something I never intended on saying. I don't think you are Democrat but do think you are more opposed to conservatives than you are to progressives and that you make excuses for progressives that you would never make for conservatives. You asserted that all legalized states were Democratic strongholds when disproven you gave an anecdote that doesn't dispell my point but shows your inability to admit you were wrong in your thesis.

                    4. I was wrong. It happens. Go jerk off or whatever.

                2. What personal liberty have you lost under Republicans? Not being able to kill a unique human being because it is in your womb?

                  1. Democrats are wetting their beds about Trump’s Supreme nominee why?

                    1. Because they are hysterical bedwetters?

                      That'd be my guess. Also, add "goalpost shifting" to the "Cathy Newman", projection and false binary techniques.

                      Impressive, but in a bad cause. Unless you plan to work in the legacy media. Then you'd just have to add some Intersectional Oppression Stack points and you're in.

            2. Far more so than if they voted for Biden. There is a case to be made for libertarians voting for Trump. I do not see such a case for Biden.

              1. There are plenty of single-issue voters. For example my mom votes for Republicans because she's pro life. Others vote for Democrats for the exact same reason. Who am I to question them?

                1. Rather others vote for Democrats because Republicans take a pro life stance. Had to correct that lest the grammar police descend with a no-knock warrant.

                  1. If abortion is your measure of freedom as opposed to actual Constitutional rights spelled out in the Bill of Rights, that doesn't speak well of your opinion of liberty.

                    1. Its hard to get an abortion when you dont have a job because of Democrats, you're in jail because of Democrats, you cant leave your house because of Democrats, you cant drive because of democrats, the Chinese overlords dont allow abortions anymore because of Democrats...

        2. Maybe they could vote libertarian?

          1. There are no libertarians on the ballot. The party by the same name is just a bunch of stoned anarchists.

      2. And while I think the negativity here is often a bit much, the fact that three motherfucking people writing for this shitheap are voting for Biden is the simplest yet most effective proof of this.

        That's a small minority, holmes. Most Reason writers are either abstaining or voting for Jo. The Trump cultist commentariat response? They are lying and secretly voting for Biden!

        1. None are voting for Trump and the majority voting for Jo said if they were in swing states they would vote for Biden
          So your argument is pretty telling.

          1. By its own obmissions.

          2. I agree.

            Anyone who votes for Jo, with perhaps the exception being The Jacket, is doing so because they live somewhere where a vote for Jo doesn’t mean much in the end because those states are definitely going red or blue.

            If you’re voting Biden, you simply can’t claim to be a libertarian. It really is that simple, and one might hope that (in a world where living according to principles mattered) every single writer who votes for Biden would be immediately fired from a place like Reason.

            They are demonstrably NOT libertarian, and shouldn’t be flying that banner under the claim that they are.

        2. Yeah, but you were virtually applauding packing the courts last night. So nobody cares what you think about libertarian philosophy.

          1. There is no libertarian position on the correct number of Supreme Court justices.

            1. Is their a libertarian position on changing the number simply so you can place more judges on the court who will restrict freedom? Why yes there is and it is against legislating from the bench and especially against restricting freedom. Can you ever actually make a libertarian argument?

    3. There's a reason there haven't been 50 articles like this. Instead we get one a week before the election when most people's minds are set and many have already voted.

      Ass covering.

      1. True, but Gillespie should still get some credit for writing it.

    4. Has Reason talked about the biggest political corruption scandal to crop up in years or the subsequent coordinated censorship attempts by big media and tech corporations? I wonder why not.

        1. So a week or two after the story broke and was subsequently silenced, there's one article about how it's a non-story and another article or two about how the evil Republicans are using this as an excuse to destroy the First Amendment Of The Internet™. That really proves your point, especially when compared to Reason's 3-year non-stop coverage of the Russia collusion hoax.

          1. They didn't cover it as much as you would have liked and not from the point of view you would have liked? Oh, no. Fetch the fainting couch.

            1. Trying to reinforce the narrative that the Biden corruption scandal is a non-story isn't covering the story, it's burying the story.

              1. Whatever. I'm not invested in this so I really don't care.

                1. Sure you aren't invested that is why anytime one of these rare stories are posted you rush to post about it. Yeah if I buy that I'll also take that ocean front property in Arizona you are offering.

                  1. I'm talking specifically about Hunter. What crawled up your ass, and is it dead yet?

                    1. You're idiotic knee jerk defense of anything Reason writers tell you and your insistence that only conservatives are that short sighted and partisan. And your hypocrisy. And fucker I was talking about Hunter as well. You defend Reason not covering the story in any meaningful way and then claim you aren't invested in the story. This is your fall back whenever you start losing an argument. it is clear to everyone except your fellow Reason sycophants like Chipper and WK.

                    2. “You defend Reason not covering the story in any meaningful way and then claim you aren’t invested in the story.”

                      Yes. Because I don’t give a shit I’m gonna defend Reason for not giving 24/7 coverage of Hunter. Want that, I think FOX and talk radio will deliver. Want a more libertarianish perspective than anyone else I am aware of, stay here and quit bitching at your hosts you ungrateful piece of dung.

                    3. So you defend them doing months of russia reporting,even before Trump was elected but don't care Biden Imay very well be a crook and thus defend little coverage of possibly the largest scandal in recent history? You just admitted you have no problem with Reason covering for Biden. Thank you.

                    4. And no one said 24/7 buy maybe a few actual factual stories about what the allegations are is obviously even to much to ask on your opinion. Yeah, you are so fair.

                  2. Sarcasmic is like White Knight, an unreason protector.

    5. How many Reason staffers have acknowledged they are voting for Biden? How does that compare to Trump? Or even the actual LP candidate? Also how many stories had Reason ran actually covering the Hunter Biden emails vs covering the Social Medias portrayal? And for that matter how much have they covered the fact that Twitter is still blocking the NYP for refusing to take down its story of Biden? Yeah it doesn't appear at all like Reason currently is anywhere near bi-partisan in their reporting. And don't hand me the "well Trump is president excuse" right after Gillispie finally admits Biden would be far worse. During and election year, you would think the "well he is president" argument decreases as a true unpartisan look would spend nearly equal time evaluating the challengers platform. Yes, Reason does run the occasional story about how bad Biden is, but the the ratio of Trump bad to Biden bad stories is at least 5 to 1 if not far greater. In fact that you have to point out these sparsity of stories as an example that those criticizing Reasons partisanship is proof of how rare these stories are. I have seen five different writers in one day write stories about the same issue involving Trump and maybe one story a day (and often less) on Biden.

      1. "but the the ratio of Trump bad to Biden bad stories is at least 5 to 1 if not far greater"

        One of them is in power and doing stuff while the other is not, resulting in more things to write about. Ever think of that?

        1. That only works if one of them isn't trying to get the power. I just fucking said that. That might be a defense a year before the election but is a stupid defense two weeks before the election.

          1. It is not even a good defense 6 months before the election.

      2. One Reasoner I never heard of supported Trump. There were 5 or so Biden voters - mostly the immigration hysterics you'd imagine. Most were not voting or for Jo. Several of these said if they lived where it could matter they'd vote Biden.

        1. Exactly my point. Hardly overwhelming for Jo and definitely slanted towards Biden even among those and definitely among the rest.

          1. And let us not forget ENB labeling all RP supporters as racist this weekend.

            1. It had gotten so bad that long time Reason defenders have even started admitting the bias. As late as this spring Alphabet Soup was defending Reason, he fully admits their bias today. Ken, Square and Overt as late as late as last year were defending Reason but now admit the editorial staff is biased. Only a handful, such as Sacrasmic, the hater Chipper, the barely cohorent Squirrelly, the Lino DoL and trust me I am not a progressive but make up stupid acronyms WK are still defending Reason.

              1. And long time progressive posters such as Tony, Mod4Ever, Molly, etc have joined them in defense recently. That should give them pause but doesn't seem to.

              2. Ken, Square and Overt as late as late as last year were defending Reason but now admit the editorial staff is biased.

                Yep. Not all, and some worse than others - largely the newer people - but there's definitely a bias that I would mostly characterize as "anti-Trump."

                For many of the writers the job seems to be "find libertarian angles on why whatever Trump just did/said was evil."

                1. While ignoring or outright giving cover to the Democrats, while occasionally throwing a bone like this article so Sarcastic can scream "see they aren't biased".

                  1. While ignoring or outright giving cover to the Democrats

                    I suspect that removing Trump from the equation will improve this. I think for the last several years they've been paralyzed by the fear that they might be labelled racist Trump supporters, the way Rand Paul has been (ENB's weekend tweet rant being more evidence of this). They've been prioritizing distancing themselves from Trump over being consistent.

                2. That’s pretty much my take.

                  Whatever the editorial slant at Reason might be described as by them, it’s most certainly contained a very hefty amount of anti-Trump bias, even when a particular topic doesn’t call for it at all. Their slant has been childish and consistent only in that it bashes Trump at every opportunity, even when they have to make up said opportunity.

            2. Did she give a basis or was it witch-trial analysis? As far as I can tell only Dems support open racial discrimination.

              1. It was a tweet and she said good riddance to RP supporters who are leaving the party. Because they are evil and racist and no one will miss them.

                1. And it wasn't the first time she had tweeted similar stuff.

                  1. She has also responded more than once of anyone who criticizes her are just misogynist. And she retweeted supporters who pointed out the majority of those who disagrees with her tweet are old white males.

                    1. Go to yesterday's Hit N Run, several posters referenced it and linked to it.

                    2. And the usual suspects defended her.

                    3. Start here:

                      Head up and down her timeline. See for yourself.

                    4. I can't access twitter due to network firewalling.

            3. I'm a Ron Paul supporter who read all of his columns and speeches from around 2000 to 2012, and he never said one racist word or phrase. Supposedly there were some newsletters from the past under his letterhead which he should have exercised greater editorial control over.

              1. Lefties are liars back then and now, so I dont believe one word they say.

                Destroy the democrat party for the party of,slavery that it is.

  5. I will consider Biden's Presidency a success if the only thing he accomplishes is to move our immigration policy closer to the open borders position advocated by's benefactor Charles Koch.


    1. "a mind-blowing total of $11 trillion in new federal spending over the coming decade"

      Nevertheless, the Democrats are now the party of fiscal responsibility. I'm sure Mr. Buttplug will be along shortly to explain this.

      1. And if buttplug doesn't 'splain it, Hunter will. 🙂

    2. Yes, you could plausibly argue that if the ONLY thing he accomplishes is immigration increase, and accomplishes NONE of his spending and control policies, that would be, relatively speaking, a success.

      1. Depends on how he fixes it. If he does nothing to better immigration laws but only legalized those in the country already, and doesn't push for legislative DACA but simply reinstates it via executive order, that isn't fixing shit and barely better, in fact it just insures that the two sides will dig in deeper. It will be 1986 all over again.

        1. Yes, but if he ONLY accomplishes that, and DOES NOT accomplish anything else, that is an incredibly great win.

          1. How it doesn't solve the problem and just makes it less likely anything will ever be accomplished.

            1. Because that means no other part of his platform was enacted. Four more years of gridlock is a win.

  6. Yeah, but Trump is so rude and crude and talks so much shit all the goddamn time. I guess this election comes down to the question of whether you'd rather be dead than listen to a fat-headed fuckface for four more years. If polls are to be believed, that's a close call for a lot of people.

    1. A lot of people see they Trump is the one actually killing hundreds of thousands of people.

      1. What would Biden have done differently?

        He makes a ton of noise about how Trump was bad and killed everyone and how everyone would still be alive if only we hadn't put Trump in charge, but I've yet to see anything he's said he'd do differently that would've gotten demonstrably different results.

        Keep in mind in this fantasy world Trump was never elected, so "just do the opposite of Trump" isn't a valid answer.

        1. Not hold maskless political rallies with five thousand people packed in together? Not question the efficacy of masks or tell people that a mask is a major tyranny? Not infect the entire executive branch? Not be the stupidest man alive?

          1. And you think these things actually made a tangible difference to the spread of the virus?

            Do you have any data to back that up?

            1. Yes. There is a planet full of data about pandemic strategies. It turns out that having science-denying psychopaths in power who exist only for the purposes of stroking one guy’s ego is not the best approach.

              1. And none of that data shoes anything works. Guess what the WHO is now saying, as is British Health care, that the lockdowns will result in more collateral deaths than COVID ever would have caused. Yes look at the worldwide data and the only one denying science is fuckers like you.

              2. There is a planet full of data about pandemic strategies.

                Great! You should have no trouble finding some data to prove your point, then.

                1. Never will happen, all they have is generalizations and when pushed they tend to misinterpret the data they do cite. Or give it more credence than the data supports. They actually believe it is possible to stop a novel, zooligical respiratory virus with a low mortality and below average contagious rate. And they also celebrate the fact that some data suggests that immunity is short lived and incomplete, without understanding that this makes any chance of stopping it, even with a vaccine, is even less likely.

                  1. It turns out that having science-denying psychopaths in power who exist only for the purposes of stroking one guy’s ego is not the best approach.

                    Funny - Russia looks pretty good on that map. How do you account for that?

                    1. He can't because he doesn't understand understand raw data without controlling for variables is not proof of anything. His reference to the raw data shows further how he doesn't understand actually science.

                    2. His reference to the raw data shows further how he doesn’t understand actually science.

                      True that. I just thought I'd spoon-feed him the "let's take two countries supposedly controlled by crazy, autocratic dictators who love one another and compare them to test your hypothesis."

                      But I think you're correct that he's probably not scientifically literate enough.

                  2. And that proves what? It doesn't take into account any variables, nor analyze the difference in reporting criteria testing criteria nor attribute any differences to any policies. Basically it rae data not normalized for variables or policy differences. Thanks for proving hoe shallow your analysis is.

                    1. And it rae data and doesn't control for population, percentage tested, reporting lag and it looks like Europe is experiencing similar spikes as the US despite them implementing much greater controls than the US. So basically it reinforces my argument that it is idiotic to believe you can control a novel respiratory virus that is zooligical

                    2. It doesn’t take into account any variables

                      In particular, as you say, population.

                      "Third largest population in the world has highest number of cases, while government of largest population is obviously lying and government of second-largest population likely has no real idea" doesn't make for quite such a dramatic declaration.

              3. And I suppose those science denying Irish, who’ve just completely re-closed their society again, are what you’d call sane people implementing Strategies That Work™️.

                Fuck off.

                The very idea that government can mitigate a virus is ludicrous on its face.

          2. Ah, but the maskless riots were OK. Somehow riots don't spread COVID, but political rallies do. Got it.

            The CDC and Fauci have both questioned the efficacy of masks at various points, only to revert their opinions. Should Trump ignore them when they're advocating for masks, or when they're advocating for no masks?

            1. Two wrongs don't make a right you simpleton.

              1. So you're OK with Biden being wrong too.

        2. What would Biden have done differently?

          He would've done it better...somehow...than George...George...y'know...c'm'on, man. Ancient Chinese secret.

          1. If Biden were President then Andrew Cuomo wouldn't have killed 10,000 nursing home residents.

      2. Yeah but they’re the kind of people who think Tom Hanks is racist.

      3. A lot of people see they Trump is the one actually killing hundreds of thousands of people.

        Yes, mental health is a problem. I blame academia and media. Damaging young people entrusted to you for an education in order to increase your power is an evil choice to make.

      4. The intellectual dishonestly it takes to assert such a claim is just impressive at this point.

        Question, with someone like Trump, there are numerous valid arguments to make to support opposing him, yet you routinely assert false narrative and hyperbolic reasons to oppose Trump. Therefore, do you find that his actual faults are not sufficient enough to justify your opposition to him so you have to exaggerate in order to get there, or do you just do it as a purposeful propaganda tactic by saying the lie enough times to get people to believe it?

        1. Yes is the answer.

          I’ve also found it funny that when the media (and the left in general) has criticized Trump, it’s almost universally with a quote either taken completely out of context, or else “edited” to make it sound worse than what he actually said. If what he said was so terrible, why fucking change or somehow misrepresent it?

          And it’s been going on since before he even took office.

          Any hope the left had at attracting me as a voter was killed simply by how they’ve acted these last 4 years with their perpetual fit throwing bullshit.

          Fuck the left. Fuck Democrats.

          1. I'm right there with you. Their behavior over these last 4 years has been completely atrocious. It's so bad that I now won't vote for Dems that I like. They honestly concern me with the hysteric, hyperbolic, false narrative, authoritarian mindset that many seem to have fully embraced.

    2. Vote

      P.S. Biden's a crook

  7. And his Presidency only emboldens the insane, intolerant, racist and sexist Left wing SJW/BLM/antifa terrorist crowd. It's one more nail in the coffin of individual freedom.

    1. Individual freedom for who? Does that include freedom for women to control their bodies, freedom for a black man to jog down a road, freedom for a gay person to marry the person they love, etc?

      1. Yeah because every conservative especially Trump will end all those freedoms. He just hasn't yet for reasons. Fuck what stupid talking points.

        1. No shit. It’s fucking retarded how the left has characterized Trump.

          They paint caricatures, and try to pass them off as Rembrandt-like portraits.

        2. Well what freedoms has BLM taken away. None that I can see. Antifa isn't even a real thing, its some goofy theory or something. What freedom has Antifa taken away. My taking points are based on things like the Republican party platform (opposing abortion and gay marriage) and on the news (Ahmaud Arbery).

          1. Antifa attacking conservatives, even killing them isn't taking away their freedoms. Okay great insight there. Also, notice you haven't actually pointed out what freedoms you have lost under Trump. Fucking A can you form a cognitive point that isn't easily discredited with facts?

  8. >>FiveThirtyEight predicts


    >>He's the odds-on favorite

    odds are made to separate idiots from their money.

  9. Barrett has been confirmed.
    Now if the Republicans at least keep the Senate, the damage of a Harris presidency will at least be mitigated, if not nullified.

    1. No such thing. Trump is on track to win this time, too.

    2. "Now if the Republicans at least keep the Senate, the damage of a Harris presidency will at least be mitigated, if not nullified."

      LOL No. Court-packing will Item 1 on the Biden agenda.

      1. Number 3 after saving the country from Trump’s catastrophe and fixing the election system after Republican sabotage. Then court packing.

        1. Number 4 getting Tony some money to buy his meds

        2. Number 3 after saving the country from Trump’s catastrophe

          If you think there's a catastrophe Joe Biden can save you from, that just makes me feel sad for you. You are in for grave, grave disappointment.

          1. He can do better than the fat sack of murderous psychotic shit we have now.

            And guess who’s going to be falling over themselves to criticize him? All of a sudden presidents aren’t useless figureheads come Jan. 20. I’ll put money on it.

            1. But it is impossible to do better. You can't stop a novel airborne zooligical virus with a low mortality rate. The fact that you think you can is just evidence of your idiocy.

            2. He can do better than the fat sack of murderous psychotic shit we have now.

              What will he do differently that will make a difference? Please feel free to dip into the mountains of data you claim to have to support your opinion.

              1. He won't they never do. They just make generalized comments about "the rest of the world" and then retreat when you show the rest of the world, especially Europe, isn't really do any better and by some measures worse. or the repeat the obviously false data from China. As if we should copy a totalitarian state.

              2. He already said what he'd do differently you disingenuous partisan sheep.

                1. He already said what he’d do differently you disingenuous partisan sheep.

                  Great - you'll have no trouble answering the question, then.

                  1. Pence nailed this point in the Veep debate. Biden't COVID plan boils down to: 1. Trump's an idiot and 2. SCIENCE!


                    Like half the points on here are either already being done or are totally irrelevant. Seriously, a new fucking Dx code? Where have these people been for the past 7 months?

                    Provide a daily public White House report on how many tests have been done by the CDC, state and local health authorities, and private laboratories.

                    Accelerate the Development of Treatment and Vaccines

                    Ensure the FDA is working with the NIH to prioritize review and authorization for use of COVID-19 countermeasures and strengthen regulatory science at the FDA to make certain it has the needed resources to evaluate the safety and efficacy of new tools.

                    Task the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to help establish a diagnosis code for COVID-19 on an emergency basis so that surveillance can be done using claims data.

                2. And those policies, he has flip flopped on and there is no evidence that they work. And the WHO and several scientist, including the British Health System, have stated those policies will result in more collateral deaths than COVID ever would have caused. But hey who cares about collateral deaths, and who cares that the policies haven't been shown by any place that has implemented them actually work, and who cares that they likely aren't even legal or constitional.

              3. You fail to understand. Biden is secretly a god and has promised to eradicate the virus.

                Don't be a bigot by mocking Tony's religious fervor.

        3. How about fixing the catastrophe created by Biden that put millions of black men in jail, and further broke the concept of black fatherhood, creating a perpetual inter-generational cycle of black men going to prison?

          1. Only Biden can fix that.

  10. So odds are Republicans will return to being fiscally conservative again for at least 4 years.

    1. The debates are invariably GOP: Raise spending 10%. Dem: Raise it 50%.

      Agreed, raise it 45%.

      1. Republicans don’t care about debt and never have. Repeat as necessary. You may begin to understand the actual dynamic where Republicans every single time spend more on useless crap.

        1. You may begin to understand the actual dynamic where Republicans every single time spend more on useless crap.

          And yet, considerably less than Democrats.

          1. It’s just not true.

            1. 2 trillion is less than 11 trillion idiot.

              1. ^ This.

                1. +Obama's and full-democratic-congresses 4-year deficit "record setting streak" still has not been even close to being broken.

                  Tony seems to have the definitions of 'true' and 'false' mixed up...

          2. Tony's defense is Republicans will raise it also (just far less than we will).

          3. Republicans spend vastly more every single time. These are numbers, not opinions.

            Your entire problem is you believe everything their propagandists vomit into your head.

            1. Yeah okay. Keep pushing that line.

            2. Every President in living memory has increased spending more than the last.

              I would be interested in you producing the actual numbers, though, as it would be entertaining.

        2. That couldn’t be because when a sizable number of republicans had had enough of the spending bullshit, they were lambasted by the entire media and the left as Nazi racists trying to kill people?

          That couldn’t be it.

      2. Believe it or not, Gore wanted to increase spending by 8%, and Bush wanted to increase spending by 6%. So they compromised on 20%.

  11. Pfft. Money. We have plenty. Just tax the rich and print more when that goes dry.

    1. Not even sarcastically - that seem to be the sense of the left; No consideration for the underlying 'value' needed to make money have any value for anyone.

  12. I don't know- I can think of 320 million + reasons to think it'll be great. You know, like improving 320 million lives (plus more worldwide I'm sure) even if not all the idiots want it.

    Stay classy reason.

    1. So is he gonna kill or just impoverish/enslave the other 10M? I'm still waiting for my cattle car investment to pay off after Hitler won.

    2. >>You know, like improving 320 million lives


    3. Get up off of your damn knees.

      1. Where else will he make his money?

    4. even if not all the idiots want it

      It's terrible when Citizens don't know what's good for them.

      1. That is why they must learn. It's charity, really.

        1. They'll thank us later.

    5. Yes forcing me to buy automobiles that don't work in my area (to short of range, and unreliable in cold weather), raising my electric prices, hurting my retirement plan, limiting my health choices, limiting my free speech, free expression of religion and right to bear arms, limiting my educational choices for my children will certainly make me more free and better. What a fucking joke.

      1. Not to mention totally destroying the two main industries in my area, agriculture (his agriculture plans will destroy small farmers while benefitting big ag, despite their promises to do the opposite) and oil extraction.

        1. And his green New deal will destroy agriculture and most agriculture had no electric alternative to fossil fuels and this will drive up everyone's food prices. Something that is never discussed in relation to the GND. Trust me, with electricity cheaper than diesel and gas, if farmers and ranchers had electric alternatives they would be using them. John Deere and International are not idiots, they know this, if they could make efficient, reliable tractors, trucks, harvesters, quads, side by side UTVs they would be. Since none exist, it tells you everything you need to know. Oh and central planning for agriculture has a worse track record than for any other industry and one that tends to have even worse add on collateral damage.

          1. central planning for agriculture has a worse track record than for any other industry and one that tends to have even worse add on collateral damage.

            ^ This really deserves highlighting.

            1. If we were told by government when to reap and when to sow, we should soon want for bread.

              1. -- some racist guy who was an actual farmer

                1. Probably a Trump supporter.

            2. it does, yes.

      2. Well, you clearly don't know what's in your own interest, Citizen.

        1. Obviously not. Freedom is so overrated I should give it up so the government can control me.

      3. Agreed we were just talking about trying to drive to Billings to visit family and how long would it take with today's iterations of electric vehicles versus gas. We'd personally be up for trying an electric but mandating something that isn't effective for us trying to cross the state isn't going to work.

        1. I live in Northeast Montana. Five hours. How many recharges would that take? And if you have driven Highway 2 or worse 16, and I 95, how many places are their recharging points. Hell MDoT closes almost half of the fucking rest stops for at least half the year. And add in road construction. Are they ever going to be done improving the stretch between Billings and Forsyth?

          1. Or the section through Miles City?

            1. Yeah I can't imagine haven't been that way in a few years when we were up in Sidney.

              1. Miles City they basically closed it to one lane each way while they put in roundabouts that the semis can't really use. They did the same thing in Poplar.

          2. Pffft! Flyover Country. Food lives there, not people.

            1. lots of rich proglodytes have second (or third) homes in Montana. but they fly in by private plane.

              1. Yeah, Western Montana. Though SM and MT guy were talking about that flat stuff in the East? Missile silos and wheat.

                1. And cows. And great pheasant hunting, antelope hunting, mule deer and great walleye fishing. Don't forget those things.
                  God I got a new phone and can't figure out how to block autoplay or pop ups and reason keeps locking up and issuing me off.

                  1. No edit and fucking glitchy site. I would settle for Reason being illiberal if they could create a fucking working website

                    1. Download Brave browser. It just works. Lots of integral ad-blocking options.

                      I did remember the cows (bison too) as soon as I hit send.

    6. even if not all the idiots want it.

      Anyone saying shit like this and complaining about the Christian "gestapo" are disingenuous fucktards.

  13. I expect that one side affect of the Dems trying to implement all their spending plans would be massive blowback in 2022, losing both the House and Senate.

    The COVID-19 lockdowns have already trashed the economy, and it won't recover very soon if the Dems win. Throw all those tax increases into the mix, throw in all the new crippling regulations, and it won't matter how much money they also throw around, people's primary interest in a bad economy is throwing the bums out.

    A Biden + Senate win migth be bad news in the two year short term, but it might be good news in discrediting the tax and spend philosophy for a longer while afterwards. It would be even better if Trump's loss meant the Republicans stopped trying to emulate Trump and went back to at least paying lip service to fiscal responsibility.

    1. This was my 3d-chess thought as well. As much as i don't want to see what those two years look like, its better team blue gets in now and owns what's coming so we can go back to a hopefully sane republican congress/POTUS in the next cycles.

      my big worry about Trump winning again is that if things are bad now, we'll get even WORSE democrats (Potus AOC anyone?) as the response.

      1. The problem is that once implemented it is nearly impossible to get rid of these programs. Two years is all it took to destroy healthcare and make it worse.

    2. Wishful thinking.

      "It totes can't happen here!"

      1. It can, but things would need to be way, way worse. This isn't 1917 Russia, or 1930s China. As my favorite history teacher in high school said, "people in the US aren't going to stage a revolution so they can stand in line for toilet paper."

        1. See: Venezuela

        2. but the people revolting are willfully ignorant of history and economics

          1. but the people revolting are willfully ignorant of history and economics

            True, but they're not starving and in despair. They're just bored. IMHO, this past year has been much more Paris 1968 than Russia 1917.

    3. A Biden + Senate win migth be bad news in the two year short term, but it might be good news in discrediting the tax and spend philosophy for a longer while afterwards.

      I have some hope that way, too. A Biden presidency with Dems in both houses is going to be cartoonishly bad, and I suspect will poison the Democrat brand for a long time to come, especially if the Repubs can take advantage of the four years to retool themselves a bit.

      1. Didn't seem to work in 2010. Yeah they lost the house but kept the Senate and Obama won reelection.

        1. I would argue that this incoming set is even worse than 2010, and Obama only barely won re-election with a fawning media and a not-terribly-inspiring opposition candidate.

          Biden doesn't have anything remotely approaching Obama's charisma, and Harris is arguably worse. He comes off as a huckster and a sleaze, and she as an unprincipled power-grabber. On top of that, they don't really have a big-ticket item like Healthcare to "solve" this time - just a bunch of random spending with a lot of "because random crisis" reasons thrown about. It's wearing thin with a lot of people who are only voting for him because he isn't Trump.

          I think it's going to be similar to 2009-10, but with Biden/Harris leaving a much worse taste in people's mouths, and with a press that's likely to not be quite so universally uncritical.

          I do fear what they're going to accomplish with those two years, though.

    4. "I expect that one side affect of the Dems trying to implement all their spending plans would be massive blowback in 2022, losing both the House and Senate."

      Why do you think that will be allowed to happen?

      1. THATS the question!
        new states, court packing, electoral college reform...
        direct democracy is the in thing with the mostly non-violent crowd

        1. If Biden wins, we're agreed he gets both Houses too, right? Then what stops, provided the Senate decides to get rid of the filibuster entirely:

          1) Court-packing, both SCOTUS and lower judiciary. Establishing another 4-5 Circuits, say.
          2) Gun registration that will morph into gun bans.
          3) DC and Puerto Rico enter the Union.
          4) Amnesty for all undocumented immigrants. Massive lowering of existing barriers to immigration. 1 billion US citizens is a good thing.

          Then the GND starts. And so on...

          After what we've seen this year from the Left and Major Media, why does anyone think those plans won't be put into practice? Further, if those plans are put into practice, why does anyone think a Republican Party to the right of, say, Susan Collins, will ever attain meaningful political power in our lifetimes?

          It's hard to recognize revolutionary change when you're in the middle of it. Consider that we are in such a revolution, and therefore, precedent we've come to expect from prior elections and transitions of power, may not hold true anymore.

          1. Puerto Rico should be allowed to enter the Union if they wish. DC never should.

        2. There can be no electoral college reform sans a constitutional amendment, and I don’t see another amendment possible, maybe ever.

    5. You're assuming the rule of law survives those 2 years, I have my doubts. If they get in and start packing the court, all bets are off.

      That 2022 election that lost them a bunch of seats? Illegitimate. A result of foreign interference. Must be thrown out and redone until we get an election with the proper results. If that isn't possible, well we need to expand Congress or add States until the proper "balance" of power is achieved.

      1. While I don't doubt that those things have been tossed around as possible courses of action, I personally don't think the American people are going to stand for that shit.

        Americans as a general rule seem to me to be very patient with their government, and tend to trust it a bit overmuch, but that doesn't mean that Americans will accept it when things get that openly corrupt.

        1. I guess we'll find out soon.

          We've already accepted that ballots can be turned in after the election, with no postmark and no signature, and they are to be counted as valid. That is open rigging of an election, and we've heard hardly a peep. It would seem as a whole we're quite tolerant of it.

          We've watched as governments of various levels have totally destroyed the US economy, left thousands of people without work and destroyed wealth that took generations to create. There has been no open revolt, in fact a lot of people are advocating for even more destruction.

          You have a lot more faith in our countrymen than I do. We're not going to stand for that shit, we're going to bend over and ask for it without lube.

          1. There has been no open revolt, in fact a lot of people are advocating for even more destruction.

            That's because most people still think their local officials are acting in good faith. Maybe that illusion can be maintained indefinitely, but history suggests otherwise.

            1. Problem is proscription to correct the problem gets progressively worse the longer the problem continues.

              Voting them out like a Whig-party smack down is far more ideal to French Revolution/peasant revolt.

              1. Absolutely agree. A 2022 electoral routing of the Democrats is a hopeful prediction, because if they are able to engineer some way of staying in power while keeping their current policies in place, something far uglier is in our future.

        2. "While I don’t doubt that those things have been tossed around as possible courses of action, I personally don’t think the American people are going to stand for that shit."

          I didn't think they'd stand to be locked in their homes for months, or forced to watch as the middle of their cities burned down, either. My preconceptions of what the American Public will tolerate, have taken a wrenching twist over the last 20 years.

          1. I didn’t think they’d stand to be locked in their homes for months

            As I mentioned above, this is only because they still currently believe in the crisis, for the most part. The more it comes out that this isn't really a crisis, the anger will start to set in. And I don't see how we can not be on the verge of a major wave of crisis fatigue.

            I do wish I were more confident than I am, though.

  14. Not to mention the idiot in chief has swollen the debt 2 trillion (a full 10% of what it was originally) in his first 2 years and that doesn't include all the coronavirus "relief" that just so happened to go mainly to just businesses- not the people who patronize them.

    But hey- at least you're getting back on board the "fiscal conservatism" train early so you can attack Biden before he has lifted a finger. Just like you and all the other "conservatives" always do. Spend like drunken sailors while in power, bitch while you're not. If it weren't for double standards, "conservatives" here wouldn't have any.

    1. You're right, let's go all in with Biden.

    2. Oh, btw, compared to the current Democratic party, $2 trillion in debt IS fiscal conservatism.

      1. Donald Trump killed the Democrats' $3.5 trillion stimulus bill.

        There almost certainly will not be a stimulus bill before the election--because President Trump and the senate Republicans refused to bail out the states. If President Trump is reelected, the states won't be bailed out.

        The layoffs and service cuts we keep hearing progressives scream about in New York City is the sound of the government getting smaller.

        1. P.S. Joe Biden is a crook.

        2. "The layoffs and service cuts we keep hearing progressives scream about in New York City is the sound of the government getting smaller."

          Exactly this.

          There is an easy solution when you cannot afford all the government you want.

        3. Government doesn't exist in a vaccuum. One of the purposes of organized crime is to provide services of various kinds when the government won't.
          It isn't "more" or "less" government. The dance between government, individual, and organized crime is perennial.
          One of the big differences between the US and other places is that more of our locally-grown oligarchs are philosophy-obsessed. Most places the oligarchs just roll high and own things.

    3. you can attack Biden before he has lifted a finger

      He's had 47 years to lift a finger.

      1. Time to give him the finger.

  15. The good news is that all this spending will be financed by the people who asked for it.

    Inflation isn't the problem of people whose investments and income rise with inflation.

    1. I look forward to AOC and Bernie rediscovering the Leninist observation that inflationary spending on social services in developed countries is the means by which those countries perpetuate the exploitation of developing economies. I just know that they'll express their principled opposition to any such spending increases.

  16. Make that 11 trillion and ONE MORE reason to be afraid of a Bidentatorshit…

    For almost 4 years now, I have been running scared that the Trumptatorshit would FORCE me (and other more-open-borders-kinda folks) to wear a blue MALGA hat, in accordance with my views, which would obviously Make America Less Great Again! My blue hat would make it plain for all to see, that I am maliciously MALGAlicious, malignantly MALGAlignant, and malodorously MALGAlodorous! I am breathing more easily now, suspecting that my fears will NOT be realized after all!

    Now I am starting to worry that I might be judged (under a Bidentatorshit) to be NON-Woke! In an era of MAW (Make America Woke) and ORDER, I might be forced to wear a red hat, labeled, “OutMAW, MAWless MAWbreaker!”

  17. It's a relief to see Gillespie write this, and I'm glad to see him bring attention to Biden's assault on our gun rights.

    "He's called for an end to federal funding for charter schools and the reinstatement of ineffective assault-weapons bans and countless other gun-control measures."

    Gillespie linked to Biden's campaign site on this. I'll actually highlight some of the worst things he's promising to do.

    1) Biden will fight to repeal a bill that protects gun manufacturers from liability for shootings that occur with their guns.

    You could easily bankrupt companies that sell guns to police departments or mass shooters if you decided that the victims of illegal shootings could go after the manufacturer of the gun--and it doesn't really matter whether they're actually found guilty in court. The deluge of lawsuits itself could bury them regardless of whether they're found to be responsible for the shooting in civil court. At the very least, companies would probably stop selling certain models--like AR-15s.

    2) Joe Biden promises to, "Ban the manufacture and sale of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines."

    He references the 1994 assault weapon ban as a model and the sunset provision that led to its expiration as the problem with it.

    3) Joe Biden promises to, "Regulate possession of existing assault weapons under the National Firearms Act."

    4) Joe Biden promises to, "End the online sale of firearms and ammunitions."

    You won't be able to buy guns or ammo online anymore.

    5) Joe Biden promises to create a national gun confiscation program.

    "As president, Biden will direct the FBI and ATF to outline a model relinquishment process, enact any necessary legislation to ensure relinquishment when individuals newly fall under one of the federal prohibitions, and then provide technical and financial assistance to state and local governments to establish effective relinquishment processes

    You can read about all of this from Joe Biden's campaign website:

    Together, this agenda represents the most serious and comprehensive attack on our gun rights in American history. And given Joe Biden's refusal to promise not to pack the Supreme Court, we shouldn't expect the Supreme Court to save us. It's up to us to show up at the ballot box and keep Joe Biden out of office.

    This really isn't like other elections.

    1. But Biden returns us to the warm, comforting womb of status-quo center left politics.

    2. PS Biden is a crook and his kid is a pimp.

      1. P.S. Joe Biden is a crook and Hunter Biden is a pimp.

        Important to get the full names out there for search indexing.

    3. "This really isn’t like other elections."

      Repeated, for the slow, "Both Sides!," kids here: who haven't outgrown being that smart kid, walking from class to class in their Misfits jacket, clutching a copy of Atlas Shrugged.

    4. Great post as usual, Ken.

      A few of those are clearly legislative action, modifying the existing legislation would require that.

      But banning online sales? I bet he could get away with that via Executive order, maybe permanently but at the very least until it worked it's way through courts. He could destroy the entire online arms industry the day after inauguration.

      Also, nowhere in that policy does he mention compensating anyone for the arms he'll be confiscating, or obtaining warrants to look for/seize them. He not only intends to shit on the 2nd Amendment, but the 4th and 5th as well.

    5. That all sounds like moderate gun policy that leaves millions of guns in the hands of rednecks. Agree to disagree.

      Trump has actually decided to give up on any attempt to fix a pandemic that is killing hundreds of thousands of people.

      Tell me Ken, does body count ever come in to your assessment of politicians?

      1. "Tell me Ken, does body count ever come in to your assessment of politicians?"

        The irony of a leftist using this line of thinking is immeasurable.

        1. Only because you're a dumbfuck who can't tell the difference between France and North Korea.

          1. Keep distracting from your body count. Whatever helps you sleep at night.

          2. Trump has actually decided to give up on any attempt to fix a pandemic that is killing hundreds of thousands of people.

            Really? You'd think his telling our health institutions to stop working on it would have made the news. You must be really plugged in.

            1. Ya know; another thing about lefty brains that seems pretty persistent is that the President is the almighty God in all matters. If that God won't/can't do it FOR US there's definitely no change anyone could do anything for themselves or anyone else.

              All things come from lefty Gods.

      2. That all sounds like moderate gun policy that leaves millions of guns in the hands of rednecks.

        Who don't deserve them, amirite?

        1. Deserve is a loaded word.

          1. And no one needs more than one loaded word.

      3. The fact you think these policies are moderate, says all we need to know. These are restrictions on a Constitutional right that turn law abiding citizens into criminals or force them to give up legally, protected property and part of their freedom. And will do nothing to stop mass shootings or decrease gun deaths, as most all analysis of the the 1994 assault weapons ban demonstrates. Nothing moderate about restricting freedom with little to no actual increase in safety.

        1. A constitutional right that was just dreamed up out of thin air a few years ago.

          You are the radical here. Ever consider that?

          1. A constitutional right that was just dreamed up out of thin air a few years ago.

            You had never heard of the second amendment until a few years ago?

          2. Tell that to Madison and Monroe, they are quite clear about the fact that it was an individual right and the courts have always acknowledged it as such until the 20th century. The militia argument was widely rejected and was first used to defend racist gun policies laws that forbid minorities from enjoying the same gun rights that whites enjoyed. You obviously know nothing about history on top of science. You accept a slanted narrative but ignore the actual history and writings of the courts and the people who wrote the fucking constitution.

            1. Or Jefferson and Adams who disagrees on just about everything except the meaning of the right to bear arms. Or Jefferson and Hamilton who also disagrees on everything but the meaning of the right to bear arms was an individual right. Or any of the founding fathers. Find one that stated it wasn't an individual right? Just one.

      4. And just so you are aware, the fastest growing population of gun owners are minorities, suburban and urban females. So labeling all gun owners as rednecks just further demonstrates your ignorance.

        1. Those people only buy the good type of gun, not the redneck type.

          1. Yeah, that is why no one can purchase 5.56 ammo it 9 mm ammo and there is a shortage of all of these types of guns. I know you were being sarcastic.

            1. I know you were being sarcastic.

              Me? Never.

              1. Unlike sarcasmic you actually seem to understand what sarcasm is.

    6. And, even if you don't believe Joe will do all that, the Deep State is already hedging its bets.

    7. "Relinquishment" = "confiscation".

      "newly fall under one of the federal prohibitions" = "cast a wider net"

  18. Don't forget that Trump is a disaster also. He nearly wrecked the free market system by inventing tariffs--just ask Billy Binion if you don't believe me.

    Vote for Jorgenson who will save us from both Biden and Trump.

    1. Oh I wish I could. But I am in a swing state and I can't risk more of the orange racist.

      1. So you will instead vote for the senile progressive that has promised to make us less free and destroy the economy. Totes makes sense. Moron. BTW I did vote for Jo.

        1. So you will instead vote for the senile progressive racist that has promised to make us less free and destroy the economy.


  19. Make that 11 trillion and one - POTUS Harris.

  20. It’s hard to believe that I just read an article on Reason that covered Biden without talking about Trump. There wasn’t even a “To be sure...”!

    I’m looking forward to seeing the resident progressives comment on this article and defend Biden’s policies.... while following Gillespie’s lead and not mentioning Trump.

  21. Wait a minute! Wasn't Trump the bad one? Now we have to fear a Biden presidency? When the hell did this happen?

    1. 1787.

    2. >>Now we have to fear a Biden presidency?

      not really no.

      1. Yes, really, yes.

        1. you can fear it all afternoon ... not gonna happen tho

          1. We'll see. Anyone who claims to predict who the Electors end up voting for in December, is trying to sell you something.

            As someone who wants Biden to lose, I'm comforted by the staggering display of public support between Trump and Biden. The boat parades, the rallies: Trump packs arenas with his supporters. Biden largely can't.

            Still, Biden could easily, honestly win this. It's been a revolutionary year.

            1. he can *fraudulently* "win" ... nobody joins a revolution to get to stand in line for toilet paper

  22. anyone looking for a good laugh search youtube for 'Trump zombie ad'. hilarious

    i'm not a trump supporter, but its easily my favorite political ad i've seen in two decades of being a voter

  23. How about an '11 trillion reasons to love Joe Biden' article next?

  24. So he will be a normal Democrat. History shows that Democratic presidents correspond to periods of sustained economic growth.

    1. History shows that Democratic presidents correspond to periods of sustained economic growth.

      FDR on line one . . .

      1. How to turn a recovery into a MUUUUCH longer depression.

        1. I'm sure Biden will be able to find a World War with somebody...

      2. Google pays for every Person every hour online working from home job. I have received $23K in this month easily and I earns every weeks $5K to 8$K on the internet. A Every Person join this working easily by just just open this website and follow instructions..Visit here for full details

    2. Exactly. If you look at the facts, rather than see everything through a retarded partisan lens, the facts are clear: a Democratic President is better for the economy. It's not something I accepted easily, but you can't rail against facts.

      1. Good for big business while stifling small business and competition. Yeah good for oligarchy.

        1. Small businesses prospered post-9/11, during the 2008 crash, or during the 2020 pandemic?

          Look at history man and not just propaganda and assumptions Republicans would like you to make.

          1. And the history shows you violating Continuum edicts at our orgies. Again, why do you bother?

          2. Yes look at the data. Small businesses struggled and grew at the slowest rate in history under Obama while big corporations gained even larger share. Regulations and taxes hurt small business owners, lockdowns hurt small business owners, small business ownership was up under Trump compared to Obama before we started locking down. The fact that in almost every single case regulations designed to "help small businesses" tend to hurt them more than help never seems to get through to idiots like you.

            1. Citation needed.

              1. Small business growth under Obama, 1% growth under Trump 3%.

                1. It's not fair to produce citations when asked. Tony would never do that to you.

      2. D presidents:

        Go ahead,, make your argument.

        1. Funny so many ignore this ---
          Great Depression - Democrat
          Recession - Democrat
          etc.. etc.. etc... Talk about downright lies that became truth to the sheeple.

      3. the facts are clear: a Democratic President is better for the economy

        . . . if that Democratic President has a Republican Congress.

      4. >>a Democratic President is better for the economy

        jeebus cripes. Jimmy Carter.

        1. or if you analyze the clinton presidency at all, one realizes his economic performance was largely a product of when he happened to be president
          -baby boomer cohort in its peak working years
          -internet coming of age/dotcom bubble inflation
          -oversaw the genesis of a housing bubble that didn't pop under his watch

          one of the worst things people keep repeating is that Clinton left some sort of ironclad super economy in his wake. dude was lucky AF.

      5. and as they always say on investment ads, "past performance does not guarantee future results"

  25. National Debt now near WWII levels.. Economic growth trickle down BS nor spending cuts gonna pay it down.

    Taxes are going up regardless who is president.

    1. Not if we keep taxes at the current level and gut federal government by 50%+, including cutting social security and medicare.

      That would give the federal government $2T each year to put toward lowering the debt.

      1. older voters won't go for that, ever.

        the debt will be inflated away.

        the trick is to stop adding to it. in the immortal words of Ross Perot, "when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging."

  26. I have noted a number of people comment that Reason has changed and has now criticized Biden. I suspect this is because they are not waiting for the election results. Trump is in the history books and its time to start looking over President Biden.

    By the way Biden has experience in an administration that rebuild an economy. I am more afraid that Trump will take the American economy the way of his casinos, that is bankruptcy.

    1. If you're trying to do a parody perhaps you should tell us now.

      Otherwise you just sound like a total idiot.

    2. Even the Lefty polls are caving to the fact that Trump is winning.

      1. Right that why Reason has written Trump off. Let me ask this, people are standing in line for 4 to 8 hours to vote Trump out. How long will you stand in line to vote for Trump?

        1. "People are standing in line for 4 to 8 hours to vote Trump out"

          Lol. Nice delusion pumhave going. Are these the same invisible people that go to Biden rallies?

  27. What a load of out-of-touch hot air. We tried Trump’s way. Enjoying your freedom and prosperity?

    1. Actually I, and many others, have; it has continued in spite of the largely unconstitutional lock downs primarily imposed by Democratic governors like Cuomo and Whitmer.

      Get out and get an honest job and support yourself and you might know what I mean.

      1. It’s not Cuomo’s fault that the interior of the country is now seeing infection rates like New York did at the beginning. Oh, I’m sure you’ll try to blame him.

        1. Infection rates but not death rates and we aren't stopping our economies either. Big fucking difference and anyone who thinks you can control or curb a no el, airborne, zooligical, low mortality virus is a moron who doesn't understand the first thing about medicine or science.

          1. Hundreds of thousands of deaths and counting dude, this time with 40% of the country rejecting safety measures because Trump got bored. I don’t know what you’re trying to do here. A low-mortality virus that is highly contagious is very deadly! And it’s not even that low-mortality! You have let partisanship make you dismiss the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people as no big deal. You don’t deserve to have any political power and you shouldn’t be surprised when you don’t.

            1. Says the Tony who got temporarily banned at the monthly Continuum orgy. You have no moral standing after what you did.

            2. But we know the death rates of blue states is much worse than red states.

              For some reason, the people most likely to listen to Trump are doing the best. Who knew?

              1. You’re just talking out of your ass. Cities are where blue people live and cities are good places for a virus to spread. Nevertheless, the red states are now in the shit and New York is doing well. This is all predictable as long as you don’t treat Donald fucking Trump as a medical authority. You people are insane.

                I am looking forward to a president who doesn’t think people deserve to die because they didn’t vote for him.

                1. Right now, we have record cold temperatures in northern red states, far fewer daylight hours and spending more time indoors. And surprise we have new infections. Who would have thought? Fuck you are a simplistic thinker who doesn't understand basic science and yet call others anti-science. You only accept the "science" that supports your narrow partisan views and reject anything that runs contrary to your narrative. That is the epitomy of being anti-science.

                2. We'll see if flips, but last I checked, red states were still way ahead of blue states in terms of deaths per capita.

                  And who's idea was it for all those blue people to live in all those blue cities right on top of each other, and then pretend they could control a pandemic with ridiculous executive orders?

                  If "city density" is enough to make the outcomes much worse in blue states than red states despite policy, then, how valuable is the policy? Apparently, not much.

                  What's insane is trying to stimulate an economy that's shut down. Like we're going to pay people to back to work, while we either order them to stay home, or scare them off work.

                  That's crazy. It's like someone trying to defibrillate a person they've shot with a handgun: it doesn't work that way. Not that the government won't spend trillions pretending.

                  1. Nobody is saying there is a magic button, but Trump could have kept the deaths much lower than he did. He deliberately adopted a "do nothing" policy, a maximum death "herd mentality" strategy, to be precise, and lots of people are dead. More cases than any other country, period. You're not an independent-minded libertarian nonpartisan if you are defending this horror.

                    1. You can't say what Trump should have done that would have saved more lives.

                      You can whine about him giving bad advice, but if it was so bad, red states full of Trump fans would be doing much worse than blue states. That's not the case.

                      Other than shutting the border or violating the constitution, I don't know what you expect, and you would scream to high heaven if he ever did any of those things.

                      I'm not defending Trump as much as pointing out your intellectual dishonesty. There's lots of reasons to hate Trump. You could just go ahead and pick a real one.

                    2. What could he have done? Name one thing supported by data. Because the data suggests nothing would have helped except maybe blue state governors not forcing nursing homes to take in COVID patients, would have reduced deaths.

                    3. Do nothing? Are you mental?

                      Short of declaring martial law and usurping the power of the states, the federal government did about everything they could.

            3. keep beating that drum! all are already aboard that are coming aboard that boat.

            4. Poor Tony. 650,000 Americans die every year of heart disease.

              225,000 deaths while infected means relatively little.

              More and more Americans are not falling for Lefty nonsense.

              1. There will be an estimated 300,000 excess deaths this year. Trump is still making fun of Biden for wearing a mask.

                You horrific morons deserve to never be listened to again. I hope the brief trip on the MAGA train was worth it.

                1. And nothing would have stopped those 300,000 deaths.

                  1. How fucking convenient. Shall I remember your black pill attitude when Biden is president?

                    1. >>300,000 excess deaths

                      if you're gonna do math you gotta subtract the ones who are on the outs already ...

                    2. Yes you can because I base my opinion on science and not just the science that fits my narrative.
                      Obama wasn't responsible for Swine Flu deaths and Trump isn't responsible for COVID deaths, because you can't control a novel, zooligical respiratory virus

                    3. Reality fucks with Lefty fantasy every time. You people are fucking lunatics who are ignorant or refuse to accept scientific method even if you work in scientific fields. It goes to show how far back US education is in the modern age. Politics and communist education are intertwined.

                2. That isn't how excess deaths work. To be an excess death you have to show that they were likely to have lived through the end of the year. Considering most of the deaths are secondary to co morbidities and the majority of deaths, especially early on, were people who had less than a year to live statistically speaking, excess deaths are nowhere near 300,000. Once again you prove you don't understand science or how to interpret data. Keep demonstrating how your processed pro science stance is actually unscientific and pure partisanship. Keep proving my point you only accept science if it supports your narrative and ignore science that is contradictory and even then you don't actually understand the science you claim to support. Also keep proving how scientific illiterate you are. Go back to I fucking love science you unscientific science worshipper. Because it is obvious you don't understand how science actually works.

                3. Tonys citations always fall off.

                  Must be unreasons shitty server contracts.

            5. It isn't highly contagious and even then a 0.03% fatality rate is low mortality. It has a transmission rate around 10% that is not highly contagious. And hundreds of thousands of deaths was unavoidable you can't control an airborne virus and is not huge in a nation of hundreds of millions
              Especially a zooligical one.
              The fact you think anything can control it or eliminate it or stop those most susceptible from dying from a novel respiratory virus just demonstrated how scientific illiterate you are.

              1. So it's not dangerous, but all the hundreds of thousands of deaths were avoidable.

                Science denialism makes you lose elections. Keep that in mind.

                1. You're hoping stupidity (and corruption) wins elections, I see.
                  Fuck off and die.

                2. How were the deaths avoidable? Name one thing that would have stopped the deaths? Because Doctors would love to know what that is. It is dangerous to a small sector of the population, the same as any respiratory virus. Not so much for anyone else. Fuck what sort of that doesn't your lizard brain understand?

                3. You keep asserting the deaths were avoidable, name one country that avoided deaths?

                  1. His repetition has nothing to do with honest argumentation - it has always and only been about the narrative the potus had magical powers and didnt use them so potus is responsible for the deaths that occurred under the protection democrat governors .

        2. It is his fault he murdered all those nursing home patients by forcing them to live with COVID carriers though.

      2. Google pays for every Person every hour online working from home job. I have received $23K in this month easily and I earns every weeks $5K to 8$K on the internet. A Every Person join this working easily by just just open this website and follow instructions..Visit here for full details

    2. What freedom of yours did Trump take away?

      Other than the freedom to have a non-neurotic media, of course.

      1. For millions of people, the freedom to make an income and afford a place to live.

        1. You're a whiner. go out and volunteer and help some folks instead of complaining.

          1. I can’t because there is an uncontrolled pandemic.

            UK researchers have cast serious doubt that any immunity persists beyond a couple months. Womp womp.

            1. Thus the pandemic will never be controlled. And by the very definition of the word, pandemics are uncontrollable. Fuck you can't stop an airborne, novel zooligical virus with a low mortality. It will always spread and you can't stop the spread.

              1. So your preferred strategy is just let all the unlucky die.

                I'm glad I won't have to hear any of your bitching when a (D) is president.

                1. As opposed to increasing deaths from secondary causes greater than the virus ever would have caused to people who would never have died? As opposed to believing contrary to all scientific history that you can control a novel, zooligical respiratory virus with a low mortality rate?

                2. Your answer seems to be to enforce policies that the WHO, British Health Agency and Ontario Health Agency, not to mention a number of US public health experts, have concluded will cause more preventable deaths then the virus ever could have caused. E.g. your policies will kill more people than the virus would or could if we did absolutely nothing, as well as destroy economic growth got the next decade. More preventable deaths of people who wouldn't have died vs doing nothing resulting in less deaths, and mainly those who had less than a year to live and or would have died with or without any lockdown. And destroying economic growth globally (which generally results in more crime and ears BTW, and greater loss of freedom) because we have to do something. How do you defend killing people who wouldn't have died to protect mainly people who had less than a year to live? Yes a small percentage where healthy, or apparently so, but that is the same for annual flu as well. Actually flu generally has a higher percentage of deaths among young and healthy people than COVID. You keep pointing to the hundreds of thousands of deaths but ignore the collateral damage any policy is likely to cause. Do basically you are stating fuck those who missed cancer diagnosis and now treatable cancers become death sentences, fuck the increase in drug and alcohol related deaths, fuck the increase in suicide deaths, fuck the increase in famines, because you hate Trump and want to blame him for something that is beyond anyone's control.

                3. If immunity is short lived that means no vaccine will ever be effective and that also means we can never achieve herd immunity. Thus we must always worry about the virus and must continue lockdowns indefinitely. So is that your preferred strategy? We can't ever eliminate a virus, it had only happened once and took centuries to accomplish and the vaccine created lifelong immunity as did contracting and surviving the virus. Also the virus was so dearly outbreaks were short lived and burned out quickly. Small pox mortality was anywhere from 30-70%, COVID is less than 0.03%.
                  We did eliminate yellow fever in the US but only by destroying the host carrier, mosquitoes. How do you destroy the host carrier of COVID? This includes humans, canines, bats, felines etc? Yellow fever doesn't spread human to human but COVID does, so we can't go the destroy the host route.
                  Because the number of hosts is so large we can't wait for it to die out because it is present in the environment.
                  So if we can't depend on immunity because it short lived and not strong pet your citation and we can't destroy the host carrier and there are so many routes of transmission, what exactly do you propose we do?

              2. Have a little faith.

                We have come a long way since Jenner noticed the milkmaids and started scratching people with cowpox. This battle is far from over. It is history. Perhaps not the best one be part of it but this is our fate.

                At this point all we are doing is trying to buy time as much as possible. It is imperfect trial and error. I am optimistic.

                1. Yes time is what we need, we either develop the first successful coronavirus vaccine for humans in medical history (never been accomplished despite billions of dollars and decades of research) or the virus moves through the population and unfortunately kills off those most susceptible and eventually mortality rate declines as the susceptible population dies off. Or we continue lockdowns which more and more agencies are staying are likely to kill more people than the virus ever could.

                2. So how long do we buy time before we can resume normal? If Tony is right and immunity is short lived, less than four months that doesn't spell much promise for developing an effective vaccine.

                  1. There is no lockdown here. I just took a flight halfway across the country. I can get anything I need or want. Schools are opening. People wear masks in the stores. Outside we do whatever we want.

                    That is not a lockdown.

                    I have no idea how well the new vaccines will work in the population. We do not even know how long term immunity will last in those who have been infected.

                    What we can observe is an international effort to develop vaccines and treatments on a level like never before.

                    I do not know the correct public health measures. Nobody does.

                    I am still optimistic. I would not want to give in just yet. C’mon soldiermedic. The disease is the enemy. We can beat it.

                    You know when things were tough. You would know when the patient was a fighter, “ she’s a trooper” keep going. America is a trooper.

                    1. So we ignore scientific history and all we know about epidemiology for hope. How long did it take from Jenner developing the small pox vaccine until we defeated small pox? Almost 200 years.

                    2. And just because you don't have a lockdown doesn't mean others aren't.

        2. Nice try, but it was left wing scumbags like you in the media and state and local governments who did that.

          You might be able to fool welfare queens in the ghetto with such blatant revisionist history, but you aren’t fooling anyone here, I assure you.

        3. What lockdowns did Trump order? That is right not a single one.

          1. Hence all the death.

            1. Hence more bullshit from shitstain.
              Hint: Trump hasn't the authority to enforce lockdowns, you pathetic piece of lefty shtit.

            2. And hence the highest death rates are stated that have been lockdown since the spring. Fuck you are an idiot. Can't even keep your arguments straight.

            3. How do you justify lockdowns when the WHO, British Health Agency and Ontarian Health agency all have concluded that lockdowns will cause more deaths than COVID ever could?

            4. Except in Georgia. No lockdowns or masks requirements. Schools and businesses are open.

              Were fine.

        4. I'll take that as "nothing."

          Me, too!

        5. correction for Tony, "For millions of people, the freedom to STEAL an income and STEAL a place to live."

          You can 'Make' a house; I just did. You can *earn* income; I just did. No, no Tony; you're confusing 'earn' and/or 'make' with 'steal'.

    3. I was until my Democrat governor decided to lock down the state’s economy while playing a giant game of pin the tail on the donkey mixed with whack-a-mole with Covid policy.

  28. If only Republicans still believed in fiscal conservatism.

    1. Rand Paul does! 🙂

  29. Why is it that EVERY White country is forced to accept mass 3rd world immigration, assimilation, and why is it that Only White countries are forced to become multicultural?
    No one asks that of any non-White country.
    Multiculturalism is a codeword for White Genocide

    1. Well one reason is no one is immigrating to non-white third world sh*tholes. They are all leaving those places. What the real problem is they flee the sh*thole, but then try to turn their new country into the old sh*thole. I just don't understand that?

      1. The principle of Conquer and Consume.

  30. Someone should tell Nick that 538 was WRONG in 2016, will almost certainly be wrong in 2020, and, if nothing changes, will be really wrong in 2024. Quoting their stats is just lazy writing.

    1. >>Quoting their stats is just lazy writing.


  31. But Joe promises not to raise my taxes every night on TV. He is only raising taxes on people with "earned income" over $400,000!

    1. "You can keep your doctor too.." lmao...

    2. Day one I will overturn Trump's tax cuts (which cut taxes on almost all income earners in every bracket) buy I won't raise taxes on people making less than $400,000. Trust me ignore the fact these two comments contradict each other.

  32. We are all hosed.

    My family is all working from home now which I have been doing for years. We are circling the wagons in other ways.

    Government is always the problem not the solution. All you can do is take care of you and yours.

    1. Google pays for every Person every hour online working from home job. I have received $23K in this month easily and I earns every weeks $5K to 8$K on the internet. A Every Person join this working easily by just just open this website and follow instructions..Visit here for full details

    2. did you all quit your jobs at ShopRite?

      1. Nah. I do bookkeeping for certain Asian businessmen who own massage parlors on the east coast.

        The wife runs an offshore betting site. I can’t say more about the rest of us.

        1. And your bullshit is noted.

  33. Google pays for every Person every hour online working from home job. I have received $23K in this month easily and I earns every weeks $5K to 8$K on the internet. A Every Person join this working easily by just just open this website and follow instructions..Visit here for full details

  34. He's like Ex-Lax: Make America Crap Again.

  35. 11 trillion over a decade? I thought you were talking about just his first year's budget, what with all the state bailouts and extended stimulus and Green Raw Deal scams. We don't have a decade to wait for that crucial spending -- the Earth will be an uninhabitable Venusian hell by then. They only gave us 12 years two years ago!

  36. Glad Reason finally started making sense again.

  37. Note to Self: stop reading comments on Reason articles- just read the articles and leave it at that.

    1. Pretty self-satisfied, are you? Proud to send some sort of signal?
      Note to self; looks like we have a new 'superior being' here, who will likely be called on his/her bullshit soon.

    2. Poor unreason staffer. So sad you support Lefty lies.

      Comments are where the lies are challenged. Its why Lefties send in the bots.

  38. C' mon man. $11 Trillion is nothing. You got about 45 million blacks in the USA. They are owed $500,000 each for reparations. That comes out to $225 Trillion dollars. C'mon man get with the program!

  39. I don't think Biden has a snow balls chance of winning. Considering his next to zero rally attendances, and the overwhelming support Trump has. But if...I say IF he were to become President ....the word 'freedom' will come to mean 'enslavement'. Yes, that's how bad it will be!
    ~ Trump 2020!!

  40. Joe is a shell. The question is who will make policy through the shell. Nobody with any sense, that's for sure.

  41. Sure Biden will be a complete disaster for Libertarians and the country but some Reason staffers will vote for him anyway because of, you know, TRUMP. That explains their "reason" in one word. Perhaps as the more impressionable generation takes control of Reason they could change the name of the magazine. "Emotion" sounds good, if it isn't already taken. Which I assume it is. The Democratic Party probably has it trademarked.

    1. Trump is a salient reason to vote for the Democratic Party. Actually I think he is the only reason to vote for a Democrat.

    2. He waits until now to write an anti-Biden article?

  42. $11 trillion over a decade in new spending? Every year over the next decade, the government is gonna run at least $1 trillion in deficits...and that's with no new spending. The economy is going to be wrecked and new spending will easily top $15 if not $20 trillion in this decade. All the Marxist pet projects will see $trillions of funds, including Harris and her income scheme that will cost $6 trillion per year. If the Marxists win next week, in 2022 there will be a revolution and Dems will be swept down the river...that's if they haven't banned voting all together.

  43. Here are the Nagaland State Lottery, Sikkim State Lottery Result, Lottery Sambad Today 11.55am 4pm 8pm Result Time to see the beloved lottery results, which you can download in a moment.After the bygone era, playing a lottery game is now an easy way to earn money in an exciting way.The Lottery Sambad Morning Sikkim State Lottery Nagaland State Lottery published three times a day, is a very quality lottery.

  44. Biden - The Polonius of American politics.

  45. Google paid for every week online work from home 8000 to 10000 dollars.i have received first month $24961 and $35274 in my last month paycheck from Google and i work 3 to 5 hours a day in my spare time easily from home. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it..go to this site for more details… CLICK HERE FOR FULL DETAIL

  46. Manage PTSD, depression and anxiety effectively with the help of Global

  47. Not only the spending but further government control over healthcare, more foreign wars and activist judicial nominees.

  48. Change hurts. It makes people insecure, confused, and angry. People want things to be the same as they’ve always been, because that makes life easier

  49. And you left off a lot of the big ones.

    Net neutrality will return. That was a passionate issue for them. Plus, it was a good way to squeeze some money out of Netflix, Google and Facebook. So say goodbye to those bundles with your mobile phone where you get Hulu or Netflix for free.

    Also, look for the dear colleague letter from the Obama administration to come back with the force of law behind it, probably expanded far beyond universities.

    Citizens United has been a top priority for them for quite a while as well. They have pretty well announced that they are going to at least double the size of the appeals courts, while packing the supreme Court. This would lead to every single federal court in the land being a political machine operating on behalf of the Democrats. So say goodbye to being able to use the federal courts to protect your rights. At least, as long as you are outside of the DNC protected class.

    You also leave out the larger picture associated with his plans on section 230. Remember, the Democrat goal for section 230 reform is to acquire the power to silence their critics and enemies. During the Obama administration, they used other means to accomplish the same goals. There was operation choke point. They used this to excommunicate disfavored people from society. people involved in perfectly legal and legitimate businesses suddenly found themselves unable to participate in the banking system. Progressives have weaponized this using the mob. do you suspect for even one second that abiding administration would not attempt to bring this back with the force of law? You didn't care so much when they prevented check cashing businesses from using the banking system. You may have collect your tongue when this spread to porn actresses. But when the mob demanded that nutty right-wing performers like Alex Jones get excluded from society, you were perfectly happy to applaud from the sidelines. Next time around, do you really think that will be in a different bucket? I sincerely doubt that vox and The Atlantic will stand up to defend you when they move to eliminate this alternate mouthpiece for the evil Koch brothers.

    There is no angle from which this looks good.

    We just had another development in the Flynn case. The judge ordered that the government attest to the validity of every document they submitted under penalty of perjury before he would agree to dismiss the charges against a man that the government now says was framed.

    In those documents, we can read the notes of people who are in the meeting when Joe Biden and Barack Obama directly ordered that Flynn b setup by the FBI to be charged. The notes are brief and note like. But it is unmistakable. Joe Biden pushed to get this guy prosecuted on made-up charges. Obama actively participated in the discussion and ordered that they take action. The orders were not ambiguous either, the entire plan was to take someone that the FBI had just reported as completely innocent of any charge and interview him with the intention of setting him up for a lying to investigators charge. Obama even inquired about how uncooperative he should be with the incoming administration in that meeting.

    This is the guy you are looking to put in the White House. That administration did everything that you fantasize that Trump means when he tweets something like the press is the enemy of the people. Every fever dream about Trump being a dictator want to be pales in comparison to the reality of what the Obama administration actually did. And that's who you guys want to put back in power.

    It is utterly insane. It is sad that the only alternative is a glorified used car salesman. But given the choice between the used car salesman and the mob that promises to utterly destroy the freedoms that our constitution guarantees, it don't really see the intelligence of worrying about the used car salesman's tacky white belt and out of fashion sport blazer.

    1. You might want to repost this in today's threads, Cyto.

      Great as usual.

  50. So net net Biden will increase the debt less than Trump. Sounds good to me! Oh and while none of us may like taxes, show me how Trumps corp tax cuts did anything other than juice stock buybacks and managements pockets? Waiting on those 4 and 5% annual GDPs, not just one quarter of every 12.

    1. The corporate tax cut was a huge benefit to the economy. The US was running one of the highest corporate tax rates in the developed world, which was a significant headwind against growing domestic production and sales. Far cheaper to focus on overseas in the developing world.

      Reducing the corporate tax cut to near the average of the developed world was probably the single biggest reason the US saw such a huge drop in unemployment across all demographics and levels.

    2. "...Oh and while none of us may like taxes, show me how Trumps corp tax cuts did anything other than juice stock buybacks and managements pockets?.."

      Yeah, those market and employment gains were just coincidence I guess.

  51. According to Nicky Boy, we are here to see the greatest political landslide in American - - A Biden win, win, win ! ! ! A 74 out of 100 chance that Biden will dominate the voting. What great news.
    NOT ! ! !

  52. In the event of a Biden win and the Dems winning the Senate, I'd be more worried about the Harris agenda than the Biden "vision". Whether he retires, resigns or gets taken out via 25A, I'd put the likelihood over 50% that Harris would be the POTUS before January of 2022. She's seemed to have a much more dismissive public attitude toward the idea that there are meaningful limits on the power of the Presidency (at least when that power is hypothetically in her hands), if she then goes ahead and packs the USSC we could well get the destruction of the republic that so many of my leftists friends predicted would be brought about by trump (and in the minds of Harris supporters, the more authoritarian she gets, the more they'll blame trump for "making it necessary".

    The only possible saving grace might be if the Dems were to act like they did the last time they controlled both houses of Congress and the Presidency, and imagine themselves as still being the "out of power" party that had to make an end-run around the legislative process to enact Obamacare. They're so inured in identifying as victims, they might just do that again.

  53. amazing post! Loved it

  54. Mr. Gillespie: "That's bad news not just for the economy but for a wide range of libertarian concerns about things such as individual autonomy, free speech, school choice, and gun rights."

    Really? Are you sure your view is not colored by your access to entitlement, money, white male privilege? Or like all straight white males do you simply deny the existence of such a phenomenon?

    You are one of the 117.8 million (as of 2018) white males that has the luxury of belonging to a political party that is a joke to most of us and judging by the boot on Mr. Parasite Supreme's head to your party as well.

    Perhaps before you castigate ANYONE else you ought to try walking a mile or two in the shoes of those who do not share your automatic luxury?

    And I can take your laundry list of posted privileges apart in a neat little bundle; Americans have the right to keep and bear arms IN THE CONTEXT OF A WELL REGULATED MILITIA, a very important part of that amendment to the constitution I have never once see gun nuts remember. School choice is a taxpayer funded allowance to middle class and wealthy people that is a form of legal segregation not on it's face by race, but by social status, you have to have money to access the assistance to send your kids to overwhelmingly white schools. So, you are all for shrinking government and taxes except when you are demanding we foot all or part of the bill for your brats to get superior educations that more than 50% of the nation cannot afford their share of the cost to give their kids the same privilege you have. Yeah, nothing self serving and hypocritical there.

    I will not address your buzzwords about self autonomy which is some meaningless drivel not backed up by either facts or even credible accusations against Biden or the left. Ditto the rubbish about free speech, I will not even bother to ask why you would think your free speech rights are under threat more from the left than the right, and don't bother trying to justify your transparently partisan gibberish, because nobody will lose any rights guaranteed by the constitution under Biden's presidency, and certainly considering the way Trump is attempting to deny the voice of something like 75 million voters in courts he and the right (with Libertarian cheerleaders) are suing to silence.

    Well, there is one thing I can acknowledge that your party has done for America which I must fairly thank you for, in every single state Biden has needed, the last 8 toss up states the margin by which Trump is losing is much smaller than the number of dupes that voted libertarian. One can easily say that it was the libertarians that handed the presidency to Biden because your votes for Jorgensen mostly would otherwise have kept Trump in power, for that I am deeply grateful.

Comments are closed.