Donald Trump

Here's How Donald Trump's 'Patriot Party' Could Become a Political Force

The president could form a sizable splinter party if he's serious, but GOP defectors would have major ballot-access issues. Might they take over a smaller party instead?


"Goodbye. We love you. We will be back in some form," Donald Trump said at the end of his final speech as president of the United States. "Have a good life. We will see you soon."

But how soon? And in what form?

These questions prompted much speculative chatter Tuesday, after The Wall Street Journal published a short, anonymously sourced article stating that "Trump has talked in recent days with associates about forming a new political party," to be named the Patriot Party.

If serious (always a critical "if" with Trump), the former president's trial balloon has the potential to disrupt America's two-party balance in the most significant way since the Kansas-Nebraska Act split the Whigs in 1854, helping give rise to the Republican Party.

If the 45th president takes his ball and goes home, he won't be alone. While Trump's public approval has consistently been the lowest of any modern president—and closed with a thud—it remains high among Republicans: 79 percent, according to a January 15–17 Morning Consult poll. His average GOP approval rating during the past four years was a record-tying 88 percent, per Gallup. (Among Democrats, it was a record-shattering low of 7 percent.) Until further notice, he remains the most popular figure in the party. A January 15–18 Civiqs poll showed that Trump voters, by a two-to-one margin, preferred characterizing themselves as "Trump supporters" rather than Republican Party supporters.

Sen. Rand Paul (R–Ky.) warned on Fox News last Friday that if GOP senators vote to convict Trump of impeachment, "it'll destroy the party. A third of the Republicans will leave." If so, that would likely include elected officials. Remember that just under half the GOP's congressional delegation voted on January 6—even after the violent siege of their workplace—against certifying Joe Biden's Electoral College victory, even though the theories behind their objections had been serially debunked, including by a number of Trump-appointed judges.

So the raw material for a Trumpian defection is there. But could he really do it? I see four main obstacles, beginning with the man himself:

1. It takes a lot of thankless, expensive drudgery without an immediate, flashy payoff. Not exactly what you'd expect from a leisure-loving 74-year-old corner-cutter who isn't exactly known for his lengthy attention span.

"At the risk of understatement," says Libertarian Party Chair Joe Bishop-Henchman, "starting a new political party is very hard. It requires a lot of money, a lot of work, a lot of volunteers. We'll see, but it's very difficult to do."

Aside from the ballot-access hurdles (on which more below), there is an important fundraising bottleneck at the beginning of a new party's life: The incumbents, including minor parties, that have "national committees" as recognized by the Federal Elections Commissions (FEC), are able to accept donations at $35,000 a pop. Individual campaigns along the lines of a prospective Trump 2024? Just $5,000.

And here's the catch about graduating to the big boys' fundraising club: The FEC won't grant national committee status until a political party holds a national convention, establishes national headquarters, sets up state party committees, and has a "sufficient number of party-designated federal candidates on the ballot in a sufficient number of states in different geographic areas." In other words, the Patriot Party better get cranking right now to compete in a whole bunch of 2022 House and Senate races; in the meantime, the candidates and the party will have to either self-finance (never a Trump specialty) or collect donations at a fraction of their competitors' size for a minimum of two years.

"You almost have to through an election cycle before you get that qualification," says Constitution Party Chair James Clymer, citing Ross Perot's experience self-financing his independent run in 1992 before forming the Reform Party. "The first time around, unless you have somebody who's willing to spend their own money in a big way, it makes it much more difficult to establish."

Trump? Willing to spend his own money in a big way? On other people?

The Constitution Party, founded in 1990 as the U.S. Taxpayers Party, already has a national committee, and it was on the ballot last year in more states (17) than hip hop billionaire Kanye West. But the party's ballot access, membership, and vote totals are all trending downward, and its 8th place 2020 presidential nominee, Don Blankenship, is more known for being the coal executive ex-con who coined the nickname "Cocaine Mitch" for Sen. Mitch McConnell (R–Ky.) than he is for competing against Joe Biden.

So it's little wonder that the right-of-center, tough-on-immigration party is flirting openly with Trump's not-quite-existent Patriots. "We would like to join forces with them, if that's possible, one way or the other," Clymer says. "I talked with some other people that are part of that, and…we're exploring what possibilities there may be to work in some kind of alliance with them. But this is all very much in the preliminary stages."

2. Americans are third-partiers in the streets, duopolists in the sheets. "Majority in U.S. Still Say a Third Party Is Needed," went the headline over a Gallup poll in October 2018. Two weeks later in the midterm elections, third-party and independent candidates got smoked.

Pre-election polls persistently overcount third-party support by about a third, with many third-curious voters retreating to old habits in the polling booth. Over the past century, nontraditional presidential candidates have exceeded 15 percent of the vote—the minimum polling threshold to get into the duopoly-gatekept presidential debates—just twice: Progressive Robert La Follette's 16.6 percent in 1924, and Perot's 18.9 percent in 1992. Neither were within even 12 percentage points of second place.

The Trump political brand relies heavily on the concept of "winning." He just lost by seven million votes nationwide—and if he bolts the GOP, he'll split that coalition in two. Even given the unusual turbulence of contemporary politics, that does not seem like a formula for first place. Which would be hard for an ego that large to accept. But Trump wouldn't be the only politician facing a gut-check.

3. Ballot access is a huge pain for third parties in non-presidential races. Trump could pretty easily (if expensively) get on most or all ballots in 2024, but GOP defectors who came along would be faced with roadblocks they've never before encountered.

"Here's the most extreme example," says Richard Winger, editor of the indispensable third-party newsletter Ballot Access News. "The Georgia ballot access law for independent candidates and minor parties for the U.S. House was passed in 1943. So it's 77 years old, and in 77 years no minor party has ever been able to get on the ballot for U.S. House in Georgia if it's a regularly scheduled election." (There are lawsuits pending.)

So while one could easily imagine Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R–Ga.), a woman with a history of QAnon enthusiasm and Parkland massacre false-flaggism who has vowed to impeach Joe Biden, following her president out of the GOP, Greene would as the law stands likely not be able to run for re-election. Elected politicians generall prefer not to volunteer for unemployment.

"It's a mistake for anyone to think of ballot access as a package," Winger says. "It is radically different for president than it is for…offices like U.S. House and state legislature. For president, it's far easier. That's why you see the Libertarian Party four times has got its presidential nominee on the ballot in all jurisdictions, yet typically, you only see a fifth or a fourth of the U.S. House seats with a Libertarian running, maybe 5 percent of the state legislative seats up with Libertarians running….But for president, except for Texas and California, there's no really, really hard state."

To achieve national committee status, and thus lower the burn rate of initial cash necessary to build a viable electoral apparatus, the Patriot Party would have to convince a significant number of Republican elected officials to jump into a fundraising and ballot-access climate harsher than they've ever contemplated.

Would one-third of the elected GOP take that bet? I'll take the under, unless they go the merger route. But that way has its own challenges.

4. Taking over an existing third party requires you to…take over an existing third party. These are not mere empty vessels parked outside major-party national conventions with the engine running. They tend to be collections of idiosyncratic cusses who have painstakingly if shambolically crafted specific political organizations and cultures. Transplants are far from guaranteed to be absorbed by the host.

Who could the Patriots merge with? You can safely scratch off the left-wing parties: the Greens (fourth place for president in 2020), the Party for Socialism & Liberation (in sixth place), and all the scraggly groupings on a state ballot or two with "Socialist" or "Progressive" in the title. Kanye's Birthday Party (seventh) doesn't look built to last, and Brock Pierce (ninth) is an independent building something rather non-Trumpy.

Among the top 10 finishers in 2020, that leaves just four potential M&A targets for Team Trump: the aforementioned Constitution Party, the Libertarian Party (in third place for a third consecutive presidential election), the Alliance Party (sixth), and the American Solidarity Party (10th). Taking those in reverse order:

The American Solidarity Party (ASP) first attracted my attention in October when The American Conservative published its pre-election symposium of staff voting intentions, and three writers (Rod Dreher, Gracy Olmstead, and Howard Ahmanson) backed ASP nominee Brian Carroll. "When I read the platform of the ASP, I found that I didn't agree with everything," Dreher explained, "but the overwhelming majority of its pro-family, Christian Democratic (in the European sense) policies I could endorse."

The American Conservative was co-founded by Pat Buchanan, and Buchananite paleoconservatism is widely understood as the intellectual and ideological forerunner to Trumpism. (At least its modern variant—when Trump briefly ran against Buchanan for the 2000 Reform Party nomination, he pronounced Pitchfork Pat's views "prehistoric.") So could the Transitive Property of Paleos apply to the ASP?

Not so fast, explains American Solidary Party Chair Skylar Covich.

"One of our big concerns is Trump's rhetoric. That's what got a lot of members interested in the party," Covich says. (The party was incorporated in 2016, attracting a lot of never-Trump Republicans and pro-life Democrats.) "There are also concerns about Trump's immigration policy, all of what went on with the detention camps at the border and the kids in cages, that sort of thing….We want to have the mindset of being welcoming and humane toward immigrants, and providing a path to citizenship." Sounds like a nonstarter.

I'm not sure many people could pick out the Alliance Party in a police lineup. Its 2020 presidential nominee, perennial candidate Rocky De La Fuente, has in the past five years run for at least five elected offices for at least five different political parties (Democratic, American Delta, Reform, Republican, and now Alliance, in roughly that order). De La Fuente has also secured the Reform Party nomination the past two presidential elections, in case you're wondering where Perotism went.

Alliance thus far is an amalgamation of independent minor parties pushing centrist mush and succeeding mostly in obtaining modest ballot access (15 states) for an ideologically promiscuous serial presidential candidate. (Not that there's anything wrong with that!) It's hard to visualize Planet Trump signing onto a platform warning about gun violence and "the existential threat of climate change," but then, it's hard to imagine more than a very small number of people knowing what the Alliance Party stands for in the first place.

Odds of a Patriot merger? Not high.

How about the political party that came in third place in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, that received a whopping 70 percent of the non-duopoly vote, whose members tend to share Trump's sporadic rhetorical distaste of "endless wars" and the "Deep State," and whose presidential nominations merely require achieving a 50 percent delegate vote in a national convention?

Well, the Libertarian Party is basically having its biggest January in years, says Bishop-Henchman. And not because of disaffected Trump supporters.

"We were out very quickly and very strongly denouncing what those people were doing at the Capitol," Bishop-Henchman says. "My phone's been nonstop since the Capitol from people who used to be in the Libertarian Party and quit it because they thought it wasn't going anywhere. They're coming back. A lot of people who are like, "I was holding out hope for the Republican Party, but I mean, the Trumpists control it."

So the anti-RINO faction isn't turning toward the Libertarians?

"I'm not really seeing that," he says. "I mean, Trump still has a 60 percent approval rating from the Republicans. If he were to run again, I think he'd still win the primary. The GOP's very much where Trumpists are still nowadays."

Aside from having all sorts of MAGA-incompatible planks in the party platform, the Libertarian Party right now would have some extra inhospitality due to Trump's final hours in office, when he declined to extend libertarian-favored clemency for Edward Snowden, Julian Assange, Reality Winner, and Ross Ulbricht.

As for some kind of infiltration or hostile takeover? "I think the Libertarian Party is pretty well protected," says Richard Winger. "It's age, partly. I mean, being over 50 years old, it has such strong traditions and a consistent policy of stances on the issues; it's really soaked in." You also can't exactly waltz into the party and immediately become a state delegate to the national convention. "There's rules," he said. "I mean, Libertarians have thought about this for a long time."

That leaves the Constitution Party as the most likely—and most willing—merger partner.

"I look very much at policy, and what he has done, we would be an agreement with 95 percent of that, I believe," party chair Clymer says. "I think we're certainly close enough that it would be a very good fit for both of us."

Perusing the party principles and policies, there are indeed many overlaps, "whether it's border security, America first, populism…trade," Clymer says. Might be a snag or two in the party's foundational emphasis on "integrity" ("We are committed to restoring honesty, integrity, and accountability to government"). Then there's the whole "Constitution" part, which has never been Trump's strong suit.

But Clymer takes the hopeful view.

"I don't know that Trump himself, and I don't of the other people who follow him—I don't know that they're quite as grounded in the Constitution itself and…constitutional principles as what the Constitution Party is," he acknowledges. "But some of it I think may be just education and understanding."

Winger for one sees a possible fit.

"There's quite a few Constitution Party units that are on the ballot where it's rather difficult to get on," he says. "They're an asset."

Ultimately, the biggest determinant of whether Trump bolts, aside from his own energy for the project, may be whether he even has to. Most of the Republican Party's machinery remains in solidly loyalist hands.

Ronna McDaniel was unanimously re-elected to head the party just two weeks ago. The presidential re-election campaign and the Republican National Committee in 2018 effectively (and unprecedentedly) merged, installing Trumpists atop almost all state parties, cancelling contested primary elections, and not even bothering to produce a new party platform in 2020. Such is Trump's continuing pull that one of the safest jobs in politics—Mitch McConnell's control of the Senate Republican caucus—may be in jeopardy if the minority leader chooses to back impeachment.

Trump may be gone from the White House, but his potential ability to shape the landscape of two-party politics, and now third-party jockeying, remains high.

"In a few months, we'll have a much better sense of what's happening with these parties," former Libertarian congressman Justin Amash tells me. "Everything is in flux right now."

NEXT: Biden Set To Entrench Trumpist Protectionism With 'Buy American' Order

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.

  1. Yeah it`s Possible…Anybody can earn 250$+ daily… You can earn from 6000-12000 a month or even more if you work as a full time job…It’s easy, just follow instructions on this page, read it carefully from start to finish… It’s a flexible job but a good
    eaning opportunity.. Here is More information.

    1. I get paid 95 $ each hour for work at home on my PC. I never thought I’d have the option to do it however my old buddy abd is gaining 65k$/month to month by carrying out this responsibility and she gave me how.

      Give it a shot on following website……..READ MORE

  2. Since I started fre+lancing I’ve been bringing in (((($)))90 bucks/h… I sit at home and i am doing my work from my laptop. CMs Th℮ best thing is that i get more time to spent with my family and with my kids and in the same time i can earn enough to support them…

    You can do it too. Start here—— > > > Home Profit System

    1. Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than dDC regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
      on this page……..MORE READ

  3. For number 3. Ballot access is a huge pain for third parties in every race, just ask the green party’s presidential candidate about their ballot access in wisconson and Pennsylvania.

    1. Weird how that wasn’t thwarting the will of voters, though.

      1. I am making a good salary from home $1200-$2500/week , which is amazing, under a year back I was jobless in a horrible economy.And I thank God every day I was blessed with these instructions and now it’s my duty to pay it forward and share it with And Everyone, Here For MORE INFO PLEASE Just check this SITE…… Visit Here

    2. Rand putting party over principle as always, what a clown.

    3. Matt Welch (and other anti Trumpers) wants Trump to create a third party so the Democrats will control the White House and Congress for the next eight years.

      Teddy Roosevelt elected KKK promoting racist Democrat Woodrow Wilson as President in 1912 because he created the Bull Moose Party to challenge Republican Taft.

      1. Thanks, did a quick Ctrl-F to see if anyone mentioned Bull Moose already, which I seriously doubt Trump could outdo.

    4. I am making a good salary online from home.I’ve made 97,999 dollar.s so for last 5 months working online and I’m a full time student.SXed I’m using an online business opportunity I’m just so happy that I found out about it………….Visit……….Home Profit System

    5. How many here have actually read Nixon’s Anti-Libertarian Law? As for the Econazis, last I tried their platform was, I believe, over twice as long as the combined Kleptocracy platforms. Those added up to nearly 70,000 words of hateful initiation of force the Greens and commies would be hard-pressed to outdo.

  4. At the turn of the previous century, we had a Socialist party with a platform. That platform became Democratic party dogma and the law. Give people the threat to leave and GOP leadership will have to actually listen to them.

    That, and the new party can always just endorse candidates instead of running their own, when that makes sense. For the many lopsided districts where one party is guaranteed the win, hammer the GOP to make a stand you like.

    1. Since the Donald is a teetotaler with a hostile takeover track record, the old line target of least resistance may be the Prohibitionist Party.

      Still, with a leftover war chest the size of his, if aquitted by the Senate he can afford to go Green:

      1. I think Trump’s spirit is broken. I don’t think he will be doing much of anything from now on. Let’s hope he stays out of the public eye for the good of the country. But he’s risen from the ashes before, so who knows.

    2. Look at what happened in the U.K. with UKIP. The threat of them pulling away Conservative voters on a single issue mandate forced the Conservatives into a referendum on the EU. If enough people threaten (figuratively not literally, for all the woke censors out there) the Republican Party then they will change their direction. We saw this briefly with the Tea Party. I don’t think a 3rd party trying to fight it’s way through the challenges imposed by the two main parties is worth it. Put your efforts into shaping the direction of the existing parties.

    3. My understanding is that most states make it illegal for more than one party to endorse a candidate.

      1. No, they just make it illegal for a candidate to appear on the ballot as the nominee of more than one party. That doesn’t prevent a party from endorsing the other party’s candidate, it just doesn’t get indicated on the ballot that way. In fact you don’t even have to be a political party to endorse candidates; take the NRA or the AFL-CIO, for instance.

        1. 8 US states allow some form of cross-endorsement, aka electoral fusion

    4. ALL the God’s Own Prohibitionist party look-alikes are–like the GOP itself–copies of the Prohibition party that merged with the Klan and backed Bert Hoover’s shoot-and-confiscate prohibitionism. The Tea, Consta2shun and other green-teeth Dixiecrat copies blend race-suicide eugenics and National Socialist altruism into Republican asset-forfeiture with an eggbeater. What they pour out is in every case a counterweight to Libertarian-Party spoiler vote clout, only in the form of a bluff. Girl-bulliers threatening to leave the GOP are same creeps who cost Trump the election. “Birth of a Nation” and “Reefer Madness” no longer line people up at the box-office. The Crashes they cause line people up begging for handouts.

  5. For those of you that were concerned that Reason’s coverage of Trump would end yesterday, I present you this. Trump really is going to be their Goldstein, so enjoy hearing about how bad the orange man is in perpetuity.

    1. Dude, it’s been one day. C’mon.

      1. So like EVERY DAY of the Biden presidency?

    2. You guys have a lot of rules about what Reason is allowed to do.

      1. “strong>  The White Knight<"





    3. Cry some more about the news.

      1. cry more about your boo being awful

    4. I’m sure they’ll give it up soon. Give it a couple weeks. The commentators though… I’m sure we’ll have to listen to LC talk about how Trump was robbed an election until they shut his internet off.

    5. Trump the former Dem was hijacked by Mitt’s Mormons, the KKK and all manner of National Socialist girl-bulliers. Women voters tossed the bastids out on their fat asses, but admitting that would be bad optics. Therefore “we wuz robbed” is the cry of all frustrated political rapists. No political party has ever admitted error since 1840.

  6. Trump will disappear like a fart in the wind.

    1. Don’t know, but one thing Welch didn’t mention is Trump is likely to be facing a bunch of legal troubles.

      1. “strong>  The White Knight<"





      2. I hope Trump calls his party “The Progressive Party”, just to pack some extra sand into White Knight’s vagina.

        1. I guess. Wouldn’t matter to me since I’m a libertarian, not a progressive.

          1. Yeh right. When are you going to start criticizing Biden. We’re waiting.

          2. The Progressive Party was the name of Theodore Roosevelt’s party you ahistorical fuck.
            They weren’t progs in today’s sense.

        2. Would you change your current Republican voter registration to Trump’s new party?

          Oh, that’s right, you’re Canadian.

          1. The   ​ White    Knight
            January.12.2021 at 1:37 pm
            Actually, water would be “hydrogen di-oxide”, not monoxide. Guessing you didn’t ever actually take a chemistry class.


            1. i guess he can only make it Democrat then… at least then it will be allowed

              1. this was response to white k’s snark about registration, of course

          2. Ouch, my nationality.

    2. Fantastic work-from-home opportunity for everyone… Work for three to eight hours a day and start getting paid in the range of 7,000-14,000 dollars a month…ERbnm
      Weekly payments……..Visit……….Home Profit System

  7. Take over the Libertarian party. Libertarians can’t complain about people coming in from outside and making political changes they don’t agree with or like, can they?

    1. Have you been to an LP convention? Libertarians can complain about anything and everything.

      1. My immigration comment was too subtle.

        1. Only a right-winger would refer to immigrants as “people coming in from outside and making political changes”. That immigrants want to change the politics of their new home country is a huge assumption right-wingers make with flimsily evidence.

          1. Since when did right-wingers need evidence to support their wild fantasies?

            1. “strong>  The White Knight<"







            2. They like to convince each other they have “evidence”. Like, the “evidence” that several libertarian commenters here have similar thoughts so we must be sock puppets of each other. Or Trump got more votes than he did in 2016, so it is “evidence” that he really won the 2020 election.

              1. The   ​ White    Knight
                January.12.2021 at 1:37 pm
                Actually, water would be “hydrogen di-oxide”, not monoxide. Guessing you didn’t ever actually take a chemistry class.


                1. Will someone give Tulpa some crayons to chew on?

          2. Ask your nearest American Indian neighbor at the next tribal council meeting if the European immigrants made any political changes.

      2. All the candidates are either carpetbaggers or nut-cases anyway. Trump would fit right in.

    2. The LP debuted Roe v Wade in its 1972 and 1976 platforms. Republicans’ Army of God started shooting doctors, setting fire to clinics and setting up gauntlets of rednecks with green teeth to harass women with appointments while sending zombies to infiltrate the LP. About then the “children’s rights” prostitution and pederasty faction out of Chile and East Germany further alienated voters while communist anarchists declared that legalizing murder and institutionalizing war was the only “real” libertarianism. So, yeah, we’ve been infiltrated and ought to restore the original platform ASAP.

  8. There’s this thing called “duverger’s law”.'s_law

    Lots of libertarians know all about it–even if they’ve never heard it referred to by that name.

    Anyway, that’s the reason why third parties won’t win. And, no, taking over a third party won’t win and can’t work either. In order to win, you need to take over one of the two dominant parties.

    Given some distance, the establishment Republicans will lose whatever allure they have, and the Democrats will own all the shitty things they plan to do to us over the next two years. If Trump ran for the Republican nomination in 2024, he’d probably win. He won’t want to be the head of a third party, when he could ruin his enemies in the Republican party with a snap four years from now.

    I doubt Trump will still want to turn four years from now. He’s getting up there in years himself, and he has an incredibly posh life waiting for him–more so than your average retired president.

    1. The Republican Party broke Duverger’s law. The Reform Party almost did. Difficult is not impossible.

      1. Unless you think we’re in something like the runup to the Civil War, a repeat of what the Republicans did is unlikely, and if we are in something like the runup to the Civil War, winning national elections won’t matter in 2024.

        The Reform Party won 19% of the national vote–and that entitled them to zero seats in the electoral college. That’s an excellent example of Duverger’s law at work, not a good example of it not working.

        1. Unlikely =/= impossible.

          Given enough time, every possible thing will happen no mater how improbable.

        2. By “almost” I didn’t mean the 19% results, I meant when Perot was leading in the polls, before responding questionably to Republican dirty tricks and picking a VP with Biden-level mental acuity.

          1. Had not Perot pulled out of the race, changed his mind, then plunged back in we might have had a different result, and te Reform Party might have become something other than a flag of convenience for Perot’s two runs, then a rump to be fought over by various exiles from other parties. Anybody remember Anderson’s “National Unity Party?” A few of my fellow politics-wonks will, but otherwise it sank without a trace, even though JBA received 5% of the vote and qualified for tax-payer subsidy. A Trumpist Party is likelier to wind up like the Bryan Populists or either of the Progressive Parties (TR’s, Henry Wallace’s,) being absorbed by the GOP at some point.

        3. National Socialist girl-bulliers are impervious to reality–as constantly shown bu KKKen and MotherSlammer. What happens is that 3rd-party spoiler votes force the hand of one or another Kleptocracy faction, and they change their platform planks. The People’s commies got the 16th Amendment passed after their 9% tariff income tax of 1894 wrecked the economy and was tossed by the Court. When Woodie finally used it for actual looting, Austria attacked Serbia in another Balkan opium war to save Daddy Warbucks and the Stock Market.

    2. I doubt Trump will still want to turn four years from now.

      IMHO, it depends more on Melania. If she were to leave him (or vis versa) then his chances of running increases. If they stay together, I think she’d rip his balls off before allowing him to run again.

      1. Or they follow the Clinton’s footsteps and Melania runs in 2024.

        1. Mel’s foreign-born. That won’t work.

      2. Dude,

        Trump could have a replacement for Melania already picked out.

        Gimmie a break.

        1. Rumor is it’s the other way around.

      3. There is no way Melania is reaching under Trump’s orange gut for anything.

      4. Trump will be too old in 2024. He’ll be the same age Biden is now.

    3. “he has an incredibly posh life waiting for him–more so than your average retired president”

      criminal investigations(s) and perhaps trials . . . civil claims (already substantial, and which may multiply quickly) . . . shunning by banks, brokers, customers, and vendors . . . substantial debt deadlines . . . impeachment . . . overdue for a divorce . . . eviction from Mar-A-Lago Club (by his neighbors) . . . the health prospects of an obese 74-year-old . . . tax audits (including resolution of a sketchy nine-figure deduction) . . . risks he has created for his children . . . shunning by mainstream America . . . declining businesses . . .

      or, as clingers see it . . . the posh life

      1. Criminal trials – unlikely
        Civil claims – unlikely
        Shunning by banks – those greedy fuckers won’t leave profit on the table – unlikely
        Customers – 70 million voted for him
        Vendors – maybe due to cancel culture
        Impeachment – irrelevant, he’s not President anymore
        Overdue for a divorce – speculation
        Eviction from Mar-a-lago – how exactly?
        Health issues – possibly, like most 74 year olds
        Tax audits – legitimate tax deductions so unless we go back to the Obama era with politicised IRS then unlikely
        Risks for his children – not sure what risks you are referring to here. Violence from the mostly peaceful left maybe?
        Shunning by mainstream America – created a pariah.
        Declining business – more likely to motivate a repeat political run

        1. But how devoted will his followers remain without QAnon? If he’s just a guy and not a savior, they’re surely going to figure out they can get a better guy.

          I enjoy the theory that it will have to be someone with at least his natural talent for saying the racist part out loud, and undoubtedly someone who doesn’t give any hint whatsoever that he has a decent education, but I also believe Republican voters are more distractable than my cat in a box of dental floss.

          1. it will have to be someone with at least his natural talent for saying the racist part out loud, and undoubtedly someone who doesn’t give any hint whatsoever that he has a decent education

            So . . . Joe Biden?

            1. You mad we found one who doesn’t sound like an English teacher?

              1. You mad we found one who doesn’t sound like an English teacher?

                You may be confused – that was you who was complaining about “someone who doesn’t give any hint whatsoever that he has a decent education.”

                1. He’s a potted plant with a D after its name. Still required by his voters to believe science is real.

        2. Criminal trials seem very likely. There are prosecutors in New York who clearly have it in for him.

          1. I know they’re hard up to get Trump, but they still need a crime first. Vague hand waiving about his taxes isn’t quite going to cut it.

    4. He won’t want to be the head of a third party, when he could ruin his enemies in the Republican party with a snap four years from now.

      Duverger’s law is also why the GOPe has much less to fear from breaking with Trump than the Trumpists like to think. There’s always a new demon to fight.

      Trump won’t want to be head of a (potentially successful) third party because doing so is difficult, expensive, time-consuming, and likely to end in failure. He also has shown zero aptitude or affinity for the grunt work of practical politics so his would be at a greater disadvantage than it might appear from the outset. The end result is most likely a less effective repeat of the Bull Moose Party.

      1. “He also has shown zero aptitude or affinity for the grunt work of practical politics so his would be at a greater disadvantage than it might appear from the outset.”

        True, but he generates a lot of populist appeal. He’d make a great figurehead for someone with ambition and the necessary aptitude and affinity for practical politics.

        1. That’s what I’m thinking. Not that he wants to be president again, he wants to be chairman. And chairman of the GOP as currently structured is nothing. Chairman-figurehead of a new party, however, might be exactly what he’d like, to generate maximum annoyance. He would attract the people to make it work.

      2. Trump could really ruin the Republicans’ chances in 2024 by forming a 3rd party. It would probably guarantee a Harris victory.

    5. Ku Klux Ken misdefined winning. Winning is investing your vote in a way that forces the Kleptocracy’s hand and gets you, the voter (not some looter candidate) less coercion and more freedom. Libertarian spoiler votes are highly leveraged. Four million of them caused the dens to back away from shooting hippies and blacks over plant leaves and to tone down the ban on all non-communist electricity. The GOP exists solely to force women into involuntary labor, and this sufficed to get Trump defeated. Can you say 19th Amendment?

      1. Stick with this look Hank. It suits you.

    6. “Law” is usually reserved for something more solid than “what usually happens, but not always.”

    7. I doubt Trump will still want to turn four years from now. He’s getting up there in years himself, and he has an incredibly posh life waiting for him–more so than your average retired president.

      He has hundreds of millions of dollars in loans coming due that he has personally guaranteed. So I’m not sure he’ll have an “incredibly posh life.”

      He also has a very good chance of being indicted for tax fraud and/or financial fraud in NY.

  9. You also can’t exactly waltz into the party and immediately become a state delegate to the national convention. “There’s rules,” he said. “I mean, Libertarian have thought about this for a long time.”

    Not based on the last three “candidates”

    1. The last time I tried, anyone who was willing to pay their own to the LP national convention could be a state delegate.

  10. Trump was a democrat running as a republican.
    Why can’t he be a patriot running as a republican?
    When I build my own twitbook app, on my own WWW infrastructure, I will redesignate all parties using a standardized naming convention.
    They will be identified first with ‘liberty’ or ‘fascist’, then a percentage of their location on that political spectrum.
    So the current democrats would be fascist-67, and the republicans liberty-23.

    1. “republicans liberty-23”
      only in their rhetoric.
      Republican’s govern more like fascist-45

  11. Well, it’s a given that a Trumpista will run for the LP nomination. The LP has a history of every nutjob from every corner of the multivariate spectrum will run for nomination. But a Trumpista winning is nonsense. Even the “mainstream” nominees like Barr had to at least genuflect towards the NAP. I can’t see any Trumpista signing that pledge. It goes against their whole worldview.

    1. Good. Let them promise to force every female of breeding age to spread ’em for insertion of Army of God jurisdiction into their girl parts. And while they’re at it, the GOP needs to revive its traditional Reagan-Biden demands for the death sentence to them marijuana shovers that turn our kids into dowp attics. That’ll bring them voters at a gallop! The LP could again get 3.28% of the vote simply by keeping anarchists and rapists off the ticket and not promising to import Saracen terrorists wholesale.

  12. The Constitution Party is small potatoes. The Libertarian Party already has 50 state ballot access, but is still small enough to be taken over easily. They might even welcome it with a few mea culpas for past transgressions (see Bob Barr, 2000) .

    1. Unlike the GOP, the LP has to be taken over from this inside. Delegates are chosen before public state primaries even occur. So there’s no way for a charismatic candidate to send tons of delegates to the convention.

      Meaning it can only happen at the county level. Gotta join the party and be active to get chosen as a delegate. Just like GOP. But unlike GOP the LP doesn’t care about the state government run primaries and is not bound by who non-party members voted for. Party member == someone who pays dues.

      Barr and other mainstreamoids had to actively court libertarians based on libertarian principles. And even then it depends on whether the party is in purist mode of pragmatist mode.

      Trump can’t win without a dedicated effort over at least two years to nudge the actual libertarians aside so his people can nominate him.

      1. Brandybuck is correct. E.g., Barr came to LP state conventions and talked to whoever he could one-on-one in addition to speechifying in person.

      2. It couldn’t be done at the last minute, but it could be done, and it wouldn’t take all that many people in most states.

      3. We did it with Howard A. Stern, against considerable resistance.

        1. Not only that, but in a matter of days via his radio show, Stern found a running mate who was way better than the LPNY usually put up. Basically the problem had been that not enough people with political sense, let alone experience, had previously paid attention to the LP. Stan Dworkin had experience in elected office as a reformer, and brought up issues that most in LP hadn’t even considered, yet were reasonably achievable.

          1. Stern bailed on the LPNY when it became apparent to him that he would have to disclose financial information per state ethics laws that he was not willing to release. Who does that remind you of?

      4. Unlike the GOP, the LP has to be taken over from this inside.

        And the problem is that Donald Trump is not a libertarian.

        1. No he is not. But then again neither are most of the authors here.

          The only real difference is he doesn’t pretend to be one.

          1. His catamites and lap dogs all pretend to be libertarian.

    2. The populist wing of the GOP is not going to migrate to the Libertarians. Open borders is a non-starter for them, and they are late 19th century Republican/mid-20th century Democrat on trade policies.

      I don’t expect a “Patriot Party” to gain much, if any, traction either. It’s far more likely that such an effort goes the way of Trump’s attempt to hijack the Reform Party after Ross Perot crashed and burned. Just because Trump’s voters turned out for him enthusiastically, doesn’t mean they’ll follow him out of the party–unlike the Democrats, who tend to run the same people over and over and over again until they finally take over a seat, once a Republican loses office, they’re typically gone for good. They’re a lot more likely to primary establishment Republicans with more populist, Tea Party-style candidates for the next few years.

      1. Yup. The LP is a poor fit for populists any way you look at it. That many of these populists came from the LP is irrelevant. Good riddance.

        Also, populist parties never last. Because the ire of the populist changes focus constantly. I mean, how many people even remember the Free Silver Party? Populism is loosely defined as “we the people” versus “the elite”. And the “elite” is an ever changing target.

        Occupy Wall Street was populist. So was Tea Party. The former devolved into socialists who spawned off Antifa. The latter eventually claimed that spending didn’t matter so long as spending was directed against the eebil immigrant. There’s no substantive difference between “soak the rich” and “deport the immigrants”. And a helluva lot of populists conflate the two. The eebil rich are funding the immigrant border crossings. We’ve seen that claim here in the comment section on a daily basis.

        The crazy thing is that an old populist party, the No Nothing Party, were railing against the current populists whose great grandparents were the hated immigrants of the time.

        The 2030s will move on and then it will be the banks or something to drive the populist hatred instead. Who knows.

        1. Populist parties never last, but populist sentiments eventually get absorbed into the mainstream parties and become platform planks. Those sentiments don’t emerge in the first place without substantial numbers of the population becoming quite angry with how the establishment is operating, and directing that energy into trying to change the mainstream parties.

          Both the Tea Party and Occupy kicked off over real, actual anger over the bank bailout. The failure by the Bush and Obama administrations to actually punish those perpetrators for committing securities fraud, followed by the co-opting of those movements by corporatist Republicans and the Wokesters, respectively, laid the foundation for those wings to have significant pull over the direction the parties are going to go for the next 40 years.

          Conservative and liberal labels are going to go by the wayside soon. Those are post-WW2 labels that don’t have much applicability to the emerging political landscape.

          1. Is there a difference between populist and popular? In the long run in a democracy, aren’t all sentiments that get enacted popular? And doesn’t “populist” mean “favoring the popular”?

    3. The Tea Party, the Constitution Party… the common denominator is religious fanatics bent on forcing women to reproduce at gunpoint–painted over with a thin coating of insincere lip-service to fiscal restraint and “Used Cars” promises to someday lower taxes. They simply threaten to draw off spoiler votes if the GOP disgorges its Army of God infiltrators. I’m hoping the Army of God leads them to defeat after defeat the way the Prohibitionist and Fascist factions did as of 1932. Those creeps are vote repellent as effective as anarchist communist infiltrators.

      1. are you a vagina that doesnt want to pass a baby through??
        Why is every single thought of yours apparently have to run thru the filter of womens vaginas? Do you identify so much with them thats all you care about? Are you a woman with a male name here? Whats your deal? were you assaulted by a newborn once? Your fixation is unhealthy.

        1. If you imagine him as the unreliable narrator of a Gilbert Shelton cartoon he will make more sense.

          1. Two sockpuppets whose only thought is how to forcibly ram looter jurisprudence into women voters have a problem–but it is the 19th Amendment they struggle to evade.

  13. Anyone who thinks that an outsider will ever be allowed to win an election again hasn’t been paying attention for the past few months.

    1. Winning to NSDAP collectivists is getting their S.O.B. a hand in the till. Winning to Libertarians is using spoiler vote clout to cause looters to back away from death-threat legislation. By voting with integrity and expanding voter alternatives, Libertarians cause the worst looters to lose. It is the reverse of the process whereby the Socialists got their 1920 platform into law as pointed out by Milton Friedman. The last thing looters want is for you to understand the leveraged law-changing clout in every “wasted” spoiler vote.

  14. Perot created a third party powerful enough to change the outcome of an election. All at once, out of thin air.

    1. How many congressional seats did it win?

    2. Based upon populism and a willful ignorance of economics. Hmmm, seems oddly familiar.

      1. That giant sucking sound was coming from sarcasmic. That explains a lot.

        1. sarcasmic to me, while discussing economics

          “you’re more well read than I am” – sarcasmic

          make of that what you will

          1. I’m gonna go with sarcasm.

      2. You read one fucking book WK aren’t you tired of getting clowned on economics?

      3. Yeah, it turns out the giant sucking sound was going in the direction of China, not Mexico.

        1. The sucking sound was them sucking up green paper while they give us stuff we can use.

          1. That breaks after about a year, so you have to give them more green paper to replace the cheap shit so you can be a consooooooooooomer.

      4. Economic ignorance like “when you’re in the hole, stop digging?”

        What was the national debt back then, 4 trillion dollars? Now it’s 28. Too bad he didn’t win.

    3. In an era before many of the anti-third party laws had been erected. And no way he could have done it without his billions. So Trump could do it, but a much harder row to hoe than Perot had.

      1. He couldn’t have done it without numerous state election officials waiving the rules for him because he looked like a useful spoiler, either. I was still an LP activist at the time, and, MAN, were we pissed about having to run that expensive, exhausting ballot access drive, and he just waltzes onto the ballot without following the rules.

    4. Yes, but Perot did it by dumping a ton of his own money into the effort. It seems unlikely that Trump would do anything similar.

      1. Uh…Trump spent around $66 Million on his 2016 campaign…

  15. Trump could, and should, easily take over the GOP if he chose to. He received more votes than any Republican Presidential candidate in history, in spite of a relentless 5-year barrage of negative propaganda.

    He received more primary votes than the ever-beloved Obama, in a race where he was effectively the only candidate. Trump-endorsed candidates could easily beat Republican incumbents in primaries, changing the shape of the party. He could also force Democrats to channel resources into supposedly ‘safe’ races by bringing a spotlight onto them.

    1. He received more votes than any Republican Presidential candidate in history

      In a year that he was the unchallenged Republican candidate for president when a vote split by an independent bid would have insured a Democrat win. That is not as impressive an accomplishment as you would imply.

      1. There was effectively nobody else on the ballot. Trump didn’t have a primary challenger, so a vote for him in the primary was pretty much purely symbolic.

        And record numbers of voters for an incumbent turned out to do it anyways.

        1. A record number of voters also showed up for Biden. 2020 was an outlier with the highest vote turnout in a very long time.

          1. The Democrats had a contested primary, though, incentivizing turnout. Trump got people to show up solely as a symbolic expression of support for him. The point stands that the GOP is Trump’s if he wants it, unless McConnell and Senate Republicans want to kill it outright by convicting him.

            1. True believers – the ones who are done playing = ?? million.

              I am curious about what actual support for Republicans remains. They are welcome to try offering a rational alternative to Democrats, who eventually will overreach. Gerrymandering may have been perfected by Republicans but it made both parties more radical.

            2. I’m convinced a HUUUGE number of Trump voters in the primary showed up out of fear that Trump would lose to the eebil Democrats. Sounds crazy, but I have family who were quite concerned that I went to the polls and voted Trump in the primary. Why, unless they thought he would lose.

              1. They thought a Democrat would beat him for the Republican nomination?

        2. Trump did have a primary challenger — Bill Weld. He got 9% in some states.

  16. Trump– or someone like Trump– running as a third party under a “Patriot Party” might be able to garner 20 – 30% of the vote in a Presidential election. Granted, Republicans would fight to keep him off the ballot and Democrats would rediscover their love of 3rd party candidates, so those percentages could be lower or higher, depending.

    Funnily enough, a Trump party would garner far more support than any libertarian candidate would, and likely would attract more libertarians than the actual libertarian candidate, which makes me wonder why (Reason) libertarians seem to be so opposed to Trump.

    1. Could have something to do with him being an authoritarian wannabe dictator.

      1. “strong>  The White Knight<"







        1. fuck off tulpa or bereft-the-cock or whatever the sock you are calling yourself these days.

    2. > which makes me wonder why (Reason) libertarians seem to be so opposed to Trump.

      Maybe because not even in one’s most fevered metrics would anyone mistake Trump for a libertarian.

      That some “libertarians” would jump ship is obvious. We saw it right here in the Reason comment section. Libertarians who were not libertarian, but contrarians. Automatically gainsaying the status quo is not libertarian. The status quo is most always wrong, but libertarians do not oppose the status quo with authoritarian policies.

    3. Hould, would, would, could, might, maybe, would would. Stunning argument from Revelation.

  17. Trump has talked in recent days with associates about forming a new political party

    We just finished off 4 years of watching this guy under a microscope. The idea that he is going to do anything is ludicrous. Our bullshit detectors should tell us that he is actually dropping suggestions that other people (the best people) do this so that he can step forward and take credit for it if it is ultimately successful.

    When it fails to get off the ground, which it inevitably will without his money, it will not be his party that failed. It will be the fault of the Republicans. They should know this, and may well impeach him to prevent him from tainting them further.

  18. Americans are third-partiers in the streets, duopolists in the sheets

    Pro-Liberty Third Party, would.
    DemopublicanRepublicrat Duopoly, wouldn’t, and would go 100% Monk.

  19. No, this is a bad idea. Y’all not happy enough, helping Biden get elected just to get rid of bad orange man and his mean tweets?

    I’d like to see all the staff at Reason that voted for Biden, admit just how stupid they were for doing that and apologize to every American for being so stupid.

    Not going to happen, if only the cocktail party invites keep coming, it’s all good, right? See you dummies in the gulags, sorry, there won’t be any cocktail parties.

    1. Man, if only section 230 were repealed so I didn’t have to see idiocy on this level.

      1. you could always do the libertarian thign and fuck off

    2. If it was just mean tweets no one would give a shit. The problem is he did more than just tweet his every bowel movement.

      1. “If it was just mean tweets no one would give a shit.”





      2. What exactly does that mean? Show us on the doll where the bad orange man touched you?

        1. Well, there is plenty for a libertarian not to like about Trump besides obnoxious tweeting. I suspect that’s what he means. But I’d still rather have the nasty orange man than what we’re getting now.

          1. I would rather have neither. But pretending that Trump is godlike because Biden is a devil is just stupid.

            1. There were two choices fuckwit. Your fantasy notwithstanding

              1. There are never only two choices, unless you are a sheep.

        2. Trump is gone, let it go. And stop bitching about Reason all the time.

    3. If you wanted to have your gulags instead of my gulags, you should have had a plan to win your little revolution. You have to actually kill the queen, not just jerk off to the idea. Bad things happen to failed revolutions. And far more of them fail than succeed.

      1. “…I know of no reason the Capitol treason should ever be forgot.”

        1. “Except the 24 hour news cycle.”

  20. As long as we’re wildly speculating, what about taking over the Constitution Party, focusing on winning House seats in a lot of small states, then running Trump for Pres as 3rd party candidate with a goal of taking enough states to throw the election into the House. Then negotiate.

  21. Ron Paul already warned us just how stupid of a political move this would be. He was right. I’m sure the dems would love it. The lefties were smart enough to take over an existing big tent party and now they’re working on one party rule, forever. A 3rd party that takes more than 5% of the vote from republicans would be their slam dunk final victory.

    1. Which is why Dem strategists should be telling Shumer to knock off the impeachment trial that, if successful, would remove Trump from running for office again. No, the Dems should prefer to leave him out there mucking up GOP primaries and such.

  22. Who says he would want to win? Could just as well be happy pissing off the Republicans who he says deserted him. Not to mention grifting yet more money off his idiot supporters to flow to his own pockets.

    1. This would be the only reason that this would happen. He has discovered a new grift: fleecing his political cult. And he will not let that cash cow go to pasture without wringing out those tits.

      1. Yep. Gotta keep the cash flowing in, since he will be on the hook for almost half a billion soon – money he doesn’t have.

  23. This is a good way to get Trump convicted in the senate. I want to know two things. Who, if anyone, can replace Trump as the far right’s golden calf. Does it have to be a Trump? The idea of Don Jr. leg-humping and beer ponging his way around fascism sounds like something I’d really enjoy watching. He’ll never have his dad’s pristine anti-charisma, though.

    Two, what’s the proportion of Trumpers who are throwing in the towel now that his role as savior of the children was revealed to be a Trump University-like fraud?

    Republicans relied on hatred of Democrats for their support, but surely they’re aware that you can’t make your base so stupid they forget how elections work. It’s one thing for leftists to ditch practical considerations for their Nader and Bernie unicorns and lollipops, but rightwingers by definition don’t have any principles. They’re not doing anything but trying to secure power over others. You have to know how elections work to do that. Also looking forward to Republicans like Ted Cruz play-acting as revolutionaries now trying to explain to the base why they have to stick with the establishment.

    1. HAAHAHA OMFG i am so looking forward to watching you spend this time belching up Joe’s dusty effluvium ahahhahaahahahah

    2. This is top-tier analysis.

      But I don’t think right-wingers are unprincipled by definition. They currently are, but that is from going through (and accepting) the whiplash pace of Trump policy changes. There are right-wing principles, even you don’t recognize or agree with them.

      Look at Jesse’s arguments today about conservative book deals, etc.. He has absolutely no principle to point to in support of his arguments. Or look at Ken talking about how Big election Lies are morally justified, but only because Biden is a secret communist. Where is the principle in that argument? The ends justify the means?

      Eisenhower had principles. HW Bush had principles. Ben Sasse is currently showing his principled side. None of them are perfect, but they have actual beliefs other than “power for me is good”.

      1. It’s not a top-tier analysis. The same “who’s going to lead these people?” questions came up for the Democrats after Hillary lost. The Gen-X/Millenial wing of the party, like AOC, has complained quite loudly that the Boomer fossils need to step out of the way so younger people can take up the baton. Biden was literally the Dems throwing in the towel on that issue because their lead choice, Harris, as thoroughly a Hillary creature as their ever was, had her campaign turned into a smoking crater by Tulsi. So they had to get her in through the backdoor via the VP slot.

        The same question came up for the Republicans after Romney got squashed. “Who’s going to lead these people?” Assuming a major political party is going to be rudderless after their presidential candidate gets beaten is nothing more than an exercise in mental masturbation. It only gets thrown out there now because the press practically anointed Obama as President with the MASSIVE hype they gave him prior to his 2004 convention speech, just as they tried to do with John Edwards and his “two Americas” speech. These people LOVE being king-makers, and it leaves them in a state of high anxiety when they can’t manipulate public opinion in the direction they want it to go.

        1. I like your take on AOC and Harris. I also agree on the media being in the bag for Obama and their perceived rightful place as kingmakers.

          Regarding Romney and the GOP, I think that it is different this time. I think this is the first time I’ve seen a major political party fail to even make a party platform. That is really quite a departure, and points to a lack of, or losing of principles.

          1. “seen a major political party fail to even make a party platform.”

            To be clear, they did not fail to make a a party platform. They elected to adopt the same one as 2016. And by and large, the reason this happened had nothing to do with Trump. It had to do with the platform committee meeting being canceled at the last minute (if you recall, the actual details of who could attend the convention and how many was changing up until the last minute). And it had to do with the fact that Social Conservatives and the hacks being unable to agree on what to do about gender identity stuff. This caused the SoCons to essentially walk out.

            1. Well, no, what it had to do with Trump is that, if they’d made a new platform, Trump would have had input into it. And the party establishment didn’t want that.

              The rest were just excuses, the platform committee could have met by Zoom, or something.

      2. Yes, and I would distinguish conservatism from far right-wing politics. The anxiety that feeds totalitarianism can come from anywhere and latch onto any ideology.

        Terms and institutions have people confused. There are conservatives, meaning people who favor less radical change to the status quo and maintaining institutional power and capital, but they are currently caucusing with the Democrats alongside progressives, and throw in a Mitt Romney or two.

        Trumpers quite evidently don’t even think the US system of government should remain intact if they don’t get their way.

        1. gotcha.

        2. …by which I mean I understand. Not doing well on communicating clearly at the moment.

          1. Perhaps the republicans are just making up their principles as they go along, according to their selfish self-interest. What’s wrong with that?

    3. rightwingers by definition don’t have any principles

      Actually, it’s the Marxists who by definition don’t have principles. “You stole that” is their whole schtick. Anyone and anything can and will be sacrificed in the struggle to free the proletariat from the oppressors.

      Unless you are trying to confuse the issue by referring to the original definition of ‘right wing’ which was the Royalists in France, in which case, fuck those guys.

      1. That is completely absurd. Marxism is all principle. It’s exhausting. It’s so specific in its demands on people the it never really got off the ground in any coherent way.

        I’m referring to any old far-right cause. There’s a reason the same words and practices can apply to Nazis and cops. Their role is to have and hold power. Any principles or goals are lies in service of that. A reich, save the pizza children, it really doesn’t matter.

        1. Actually, Marxists, fascists, communists, and even libertarians fall into the same camp – they are all conflict theorists. All are philosophies based on some ideology that see politics as a war between classes. They just differ in their descriptions of what those classes are. Contrast this with non-ideological mistake theorists, who see bad government policies as mistakes that can be fixed with improved policies.

          1. What? The foundation of libertarian though it individualism, not class theories. And there is a long tradition of practical libertarianism, which is solidly in what you call “mistake theory”.

            1. Libertarianism just doesn’t state its class theory out loud. No need to worry our pretty little heads over it, just say freedom.

  24. Re: “We will be back in some form.”

    If karma is really a thing, I predict he’s likely to come back as Ophiocordyceps unilateralis, “head-bursting fungus.” He’s already infected and destroyed the brains of millions of his followers; he’ll be well equipped for his fungal reincarnation.

  25. I have to wonder how many Republican office holders would really walk out. Voting to not impeach or to question ballots is a lot easier than leaving the shelter of the party. And if you can not get a large group to leave, it will not happen. Few people would walk out on their own. Particularly with a guy that will leave them high and dry in an instant.

    Trump’s third party just a glee in the eye.

    1. “Particularly with a guy that will leave them high and dry in an instant.”

      We have seen several examples of Republicans who seem to have a blind spot about that.

      1. Trump is like a ponzi scheme. You can get rich, you just have to get out early enough. Poor Pence had mere days and he could have been free. Alas, Trump sent a lynch mob after him.

        1. Your breath smells like a mausoleum full of piss.

          1. White ice mint apparently, though I don’t know what white or ice smell like.

            1. I told you already dumbfuck.

              1. Who do you think says to himself, “I wish Tulpa would show up on this board and annoy everyone”?

  26. >>if GOP senators vote to convict Trump of impeachment, “it’ll destroy the party

    don’t cry for me GOPina


    “Carolyn Maloney, the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, is asking the FBI to conduct a “robust examination” of the role social media site Parler played in the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, specifically whether the platform was a “potential facilitator” of planning or inciting the violence.”


    God I love watching you prog retards immolate yourselves.

    1. You seem to be under the impression that anyone, anywhere believes that terrorist communications channels are outside the purview of the federal government. You have the right to believe and say whatever you want with no interference from Congress. You don’t have a right to kill Congress. They would never allow that.

      Kind of dumb to attack the legislative body and miss huh?


        1. “Punish my enemies without mercy” is just sitting there on my bucket list, waiting to get crossed off.

          1. But instead you send an ineffectual bureaucrat after them who is going to get slapped down by the very law you hid behind


            1. I’m sure I’ll be fine. Sadly the same can’t be said about your mom’s vagina.

      2. >>You seem to be under the impression that anyone, anywhere believes that terrorist communications channels are outside the purview of the federal government

        Parler didn’t make the threats and 230 protects them

        1. Tony is too stupid to understand that but he makes up for it by being easy to mock.

        2. The same Section 230 that Parler wanted to get rid of? Maybe it should worry about protecting itself from its own stupidity first.

          1. Got any sourcing on Parler opposing section 230? Pretty sure one of Parker’s head honchos Dan Bongino already said gutting section 230 isn’t a good idea. Don’t confuse the owners of the platform with it’s users.

  28. So what are the GOPs choices anyway? Become democrat lite-support abortion and gun control in some case and maybe a few parts of the GND, or keep the Trumptards happy?

    1. Offering to coerce all women under 40 is idiotic. Even Germany’s Christian National Socialists ganged up on 2-3% of the population. Women have the vote and have learned to use it. I personally hope the GOP continues to threaten them and blacks and hippies at gunpoint until Gee-Oh-Pee dupes are as scarce as Nationalsocialists after the Nuremberg trials.

    2. Here’s a thought why not go back and find what the Republican party is and what it stood for before it sold out to old white men. The Republican party was basically a business oriented party, libertarian, and conservative leaning. These ideas would and have appealed to a broad groups in the US. But when you put up a sign that says women, young people, and minorities are not welcome you are signing a death warrant for your party. It may take years but it will get there.

      The Republicans do not need to become Democrat lite, they need to become real Republicans.

      1. for several decades, the Republican party has been an uneasy alliance of businessmen hoping to free themselves of business regulation, fused with social Conservatives who are Not Happy that the world has changed since 1956 (1856 for some of them). the one group strongly favors deregulation, while the other group would like to gain political power in order to stop people from enjoying any social change that has happened in the last three-quarters of a century or so. They want being gay or black or any religion that isn’t fundamentalist Christianity to be illegal.
        Because there are more Democrats in the large cities of the United States, they’ve collected any number of splinter subsets of people who are Not Democrats (with a capital N) who have little in common except for being Not Democrats. This has caused the identity of the Republican party to largely become “We’re Not Democrats!” the main problem with that is that the Democrats are not particularly uniform in their policies, either, so being Not one covers a lot of ground.
        The Donald got a lot of people to support him, but got an even bigger number of people to oppose him, handing control of Congress and the White House to the Democrats, along with a fairly large number of problems to solve. Mitch will do his best to drag his feet in letting them actually DO anything, but he’s going to lose a lot of 51-50 votes.

        Meanwhile, Donnie has exactly the job he really wants. all day free to watch cable TV news programs and cheat at golf, and nobody actually expecting him to successfully solve any problems. As long as the suckers keep buying his merch, that’s as close to politics as he’s likely to come. If he can scam enough bucks out of the suckers to meet the interest call on his outstanding loans, and maybe retire some of the indebtedness, the fact that he isn’t Presidentially immune from having private lawsuits served on him won’t bother him. On the other hand, if the holders of his loans start foreclosing and levying on his assets to get the loans repaid, look out.

  29. These questions prompted much speculative chatter Tuesday, after The Wall Street Journal published a short, anonymously sourced article stating that “Trump has talked in recent days with associates about forming a new political party,” to be named the Patriot Party.

    If serious (always a critical “if” with Trump), the former president’s trial balloon has the potential to disrupt America’s two-party balance in the most significant way since the Kansas-Nebraska Act split the Whigs in 1854, helping give rise to the Republican Party.


    You people will never learn. For the eleventy-billionth time, he’s trolling the GOP (who is in the process of trying him for impeachment) because anyone with half a brain knows what will happen if Trump forms a Patriot Party. He might not win, but the GOP would be RUINED. The “Patriot Party” is not an idea that Trump invented, it’s something that has been floated around online by pissed off Trump supporters. He is now playing around with the idea, for the benefit of the Trump-starved press, because he wants the GOP scared.

    1. That sounds like the most likely scenario.

      1. For any Repubs thinking of convicting him, he can raise the threat of sponsoring a 3rd party presidential bid by one of his children (I checked – Ivanka and Donald Jr. are natural-born citizens).

        1. Did they produce Hawaiian birth certificates to support this assertion?

    2. The GOP is already ruined.

      1. At the moment, the GOP is looking better than the Democrats who are desperately hoping that no one notices that the only insurrectionists around are the fringe of their own party.

        But the GOP is full of weak-willed morons, so we’ll see.

        1. The GOP has never really stood for anything, defining itself only as opposing whatever democrats do. If you give people enough free shit and assign them to an identity group so they feel special, why would they vote against you?

          1. Part of the problem is as you say the Republicans no longer have a vision. Trump was about grievance not the future. He could not even, when asked by Sean Hannity articulate what he would do in a second 4 year term. This likely was a significant reason why he was not given a second term.

  30. Sad to see the LP bragging about shilling for the State, “We were out very quickly and very strongly denouncing what those people were doing at the Capitol.”
    What were “those people” doing in their Capitol? They were unarmed and there for redress of grievances. The Capitol is an open public building where many of us have lobbied our so-called “representations.” What really happened was a false-flag event where the members of Congress abandoned their posts and the people reclaimed their Capitol.
    What would have happened if Rand Paul and others had refused to be railroaded into a pre-planned over-reaction?
    It is very sad that the LP thinks the installation (not “inauguration”) of a new head of regime surrounded by 25,000 regime troops, against the will of the legitimate voters, is something to cheer. Murray Rothbard would be very sad indeed. The LP ought to be reaching out to the Right; we know how Antifa will treat LPers no matter what.
    The author repeats the canard that there was no proof of election fraud. A large minority, or possibly majority, of Americans disagree. I suggest reading the 2018 Perez case where Chief Justice Roberts said that electoral fraud can be proven from statistical evidence without needing to show who or how, and that the high court can consider such evidence even if not considered by the courts below. Why SCOTUS rejected all efforts at redress, and why Congress and the oath-breaking Joint Chiefs allowed the stolen election and a foreign power take-over are matters for historians to ascertain.
    The image of the people ejected from the peoples’ Capitol, now off-limits and surrounded by barbed wire and troops, will remain the image of betrayal of the Constitution by deep state operatives.
    The patriot heroes of 6 January 2021 will not be forgotten. Remember Ashlie Babbitt.
    Biden to the White House — Xi to power.

    1. Some of them were armed with guns and bombs, they were there to kill people, they killed one police officer.

      These things are all true, no matter how much you want to live in an alternative reality.

      1. Yeah, a portion of the crowd were armed and there for trouble.

        At absurdly low numbers. It was the world’s first homeopathic riot.

          1. Sure. There was lots of people there pretending to be something they weren’t.

  31. I predict:

    – 8 of the 10 neocons and never Trumper RINOs in the House who voted for Trump’s impeachment will lose their next primary,

    – Liz Cheney will be voted out of her GOP House leadership spot,

    – Trump will remain the GOP King Maker for at least the next two years

    1. I’ve also been predicting for two weeks that the US Senate will NOT hold an Impeachment Trial of Trump, as Schumer doesn’t want to lose yet another impeachment vote.

      Just like the two weeks of deceitful predictions of violence at the Capitol during Biden’s inauguration, all the news hype claiming that a Senate trial of Trump will occur is just another conspiracy / collusion by Democrats and their left wing media propagandists to divide and conquer the GOP.

      1. Sure, Schumer doesn’t want to lose another impeachment vote, but he would just LOVE to see a bunch of RINO Senators lose their next primary, creating competitive Senate elections in states that are already somewhat purple.

      2. The intention is to break the GOP- and it will probably work.
        Schumer could care less about losing the vote.
        Can’t you see that?

  32. Are you frustrated with the status quo of politics? Join the Nation’s #1 LARGEST Constitutionally Conservative Political Party in existence!
    We’re growing across the country and want you to join us! Go here and see what we’re doing

  33. Ironically; If Trump was to-be aligned with any 3rd party it would be the Libertarian party………. UNTIL Reason writers got themselves a bad case of the TDS pitched by lefty-mainstream rags and ended up running away from their very own platform principles and decided to vote Biden instead. Ye of Sheeple Minds.

    The ‘patriots’ existed BEFORE Trump and they will exist after Trump the only party in this echo-chamber that no longer exists is Libertarians against BIG GOV.

  34. When the Dems were not doing as well as they’re doing now, they bemoaned their own tendency to form “circular firing squads.”

    Now that it’s the Repubs’ turn to be doing badly, there’s the same circular firing squads forming.

    They don’t have to put themselves under Trump’s leadership, but they can at least not piss upon Trump’s supporters. They can quietly support alternate leadership so long as they don’t drop the issues which helped Trump with the voters, and so long as they don’t otherwise convey contempt for those who sincerely thought Trump (regardless of motive) was the only one acting on their concerns.

    1. Watch the party fracture when the GOP senators get under hot lights during the trial. Trump’s put them in an impossible position.
      They either admit there is no Santa Claus or look fools

      1. Relying on Abbott v Perez, the 2018 SCOTUS decision written by the now-compromised Chief Justice, which requires courts to consider public-record voting statistics to determine voting fraud cases (even without evidence of who or how) Trump ought to present all the real-time statistical evidence of the election being stolen to the Senate and make a public record showing that the military-installed regime is illegitimate. He should dare them to “convict” him! [BTW, as I have done for 40 years, I voted Libertarian.]

        1. ” Trump ought to present all the real-time statistical evidence of the election being stolen to the Senate”

          Presenting an empty defense would save everybody involved some time.

  35. A group of cannabis growers have taken advantage of the now-empty financial district .When life hands you lemons, make lemonade. And when life hands you a pandemic…grow some weed?

    That was apparently the idea behind a massive growhouse recently discovered by police in London’s financial district. The discovery, made on January 13, came on the heels of “reports of a strong smell of cannabis,” has been brought to a standstill as of late due to shutdown measures imposed by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

  36. “While Trump’s public approval has consistently been the lowest of any modern president—” is the last line I read in this article. It isn’t true at all. Trump left office with a higher approval rating than the incoming administration. (Gallup Poll). I would like to think you guys at would at least show SOME journalistic integrity. Let the reader form their own opinion. The reporter’s opinion is irrelevant. Just the 5 WW’s please.

    1. You’re talking about a single poll. The article is talking about his average approval across the entirely of his presidency.

      1. You can go back over past numbers. Political polarization has been rising over the course of the last few decades, and is now at the point where a President of one party can’t get past single digit levels of support in the other party. Not formerly the case! Used to be that popular Presidents had a significant amount of support in the opposing party, and unpopular Presidents were unpopular in their own parties.

        So all of Trump’s support had to come from half the electorate, of course it was lower than Presidents who were polling some support from people who were never going to vote for them anyway.

        It obviously didn’t have much impact on his prospects for reelection, about 40K votes in key states and he’d still be President.

  37. Trump isn’t going to run in 2024. He may be toying with the idea now, but he’s aging fast at this point, Melinia would gut him, and his prospects of winning the general election would be poor given another 4 years for the media to smear him.

    More likely he pays to have a pseudo-party created, to maintain the threat of going third party. All the work of that is easily transferable to executing a Republican party takeover, while keeping the GOPe scared. It will also focus the media’s hostility on him.

    Then he executes his takeover, and hands the nomination to somebody else, and the Democrats have to start smearing from scratch.

    1. Interesting idea, but Trump is too much like King Lear to ever hand over power to another. I think most Republicans know this. Some Republican will want to purge him quickly to start rebuilding. Some will want to keep his follower but dump Trump. A trickier strategy. No Republican wants him around in 2024.

      1. This Republican Does! I consider him the BEST President in the last Century and everyone I know agrees..

        1. I earn over $ 15,000 by doing simple work online at home in my spare time only. I am a full time student and, just doing this job 3 hours a day, I earned $ 17,568 from this job in the first month. Very good work and making money is great. Anyone can get this job and start making money just by following the information provided here Detail Of Work

        2. ” I consider him the BEST President in the last Century and everyone I know agrees.”

          He’s not even in the top 45.

      2. Trump knows how to delegate. He would probably love the roll of King Maker.

        1. Trump delegates the work, not the limelight. He will never give or even share the spotlight.

        2. “Trump knows how to delegate.”

          Put another way, Trump knows how to claim credit for other peoples’ work.

    2. “Then he executes his takeover, and hands the nomination to somebody else. . . . ”

      Yeah but who has Trump’s chutzpah, name recognition/national exposure, and resources to take over?

      Not even his sons or daughters can match that.

      1. The resources he can provide, the name recognition is what needs work. He has to identify a plausible candidate and start building them up behind the scenes. Put together all the organization so that the opposition is steamrollered.

        To be clear, what I’m describing is a scenario for something he could do, if he wants to have a serious impact. Would he do it? Like anybody who runs for high office, he has a very high opinion of himself, so he’s going to have a very hard time admitting that he’s never going to be President again.

        His wife can point out to him that a divorce on the day he announces wouldn’t help his prospects. And he said he’d be back “in some form”, why qualify it that way if he means to run for President again?

        I think he means to be a kingmaker, not a king.

        1. Oh c’mon.

          Kingmakers are behind the scenes guys, pulling strings, sitting on the sidelines silently smiling, influencing, laying infrastructure, etc.

          They have long-term goals and strategies.

          Trump is absolutely none of that.

          1. More trash talk.

            Besides, when you’re in your mid 70’s, long-term starts to have a slightly less impressive meaning.

          2. Agreed.

        2. ” He has to identify a plausible candidate and start building them up behind the scenes. Put together all the organization so that the opposition is steamrollered.”

          to do any of that, he’d have to be loyal to someone who isn’t himself. Can you point to any examples of him successfully doing this?

  38. Aside from having all sorts of MAGA-incompatible planks in the party platform,

    Gary Johnson received the Libertarian Party’s highest vote total/percentage despite running as a military-interventionist who opposed the legalization of any drugs other than marijuana.

  39. Political Washington puts inordinate taxpayer assets on the line when it is, itself, being protested. There are FBI billboards across the country, at who knows what cost, asking for information about those who went into the Capitol Building on Jan. 6. I do not remember our politicians sending in National Guard troops or spending millions on billboards when American cities, government buildings and people’s businesses were burning all across America last year. But when there is the slightest threat to them, there is no limit to the amount of your money they will not spend to protect themselves.

    Strange how none of the oh so libertarian authors here thought to note the obvious dichotomy.

    Well, not really strange at all, once you realize they are all statist bootlickers, so long as it’s the right statist boot being licked.

  40. If Trump is serious, he will support efforts to change the voting method to something like ranked choice voting. Let’s face it, first-past-the-post is the reason why the Libertarian Party was doomed from the beginning when party insiders decided to play their hand at getting Libertarians elected. If the intent is to conduct fusionism that would make more sense, but then reviving the Tea Parties to fight in the GOP would be a better strategy in my view.

  41. If Donald J. Trump forms a political party that would split and destroy the GOP, I expect democrats would do all they could to help him get his candidates on the ballot.

  42. “even though the theories behind their objections had been serially debunked, including by a number of Trump-appointed judges.”

    No, the theories weren’t debunked. The investigations were inadequate, the new voting procedures were highly suspect, and none of this would even be necessary if the uniparty could acknowledge it and support election reform before 2022.

    1. One possibility is that a truly massive conspiracy exists with the sole purpose of denying the Presidency to Donald Trump. another possibility is that he’s just so unpopular with voters that the other guy got more votes. apply Occam’s Razor.

  43. I would like to see the Trump Republicans to split off and either form another party or perhaps merge with a third party that has similar views.

    In general, I would like to see growth in third parties overall such as the Libertarian and even the Green party at the expense of the duopoly (Democrats and Republicans).

    I do not feel Trump’s views are very compatible with most libertarian views.

    1. Donald Trump’s hypothetical party, the Twit party, (named for the method of receiving their marching orders) isn’t likely to do anything besides provide full employment for late-night comedian talk-show hosts.

      1. Typical coming from an uneducated “Pollock” crawl back under your slimy rock commie filth

  44. And why would Trump even consider attempting a third party creation? He owns the Republican Party. The only way he gets ousted is the one chance right in front of them…conviction after the impeachment . And the only way that would happen is if Prince Mitch gives his approval. And he won’t, because he’s shown for the past 4 years he has no problem with Trump. Trump and his kids and any hack he ultimately gives his blessing to IS the Republican Party.

    1. Mitch has shown proclivity to do whatever’s best for, in order: Mitch, the Republican Party, and the United States of America.

  45. It’s 2024 imagine….”ladies and gentleman, your Libertarian nominee for US president is, drum roll…..Donald Trump.

    1. Go on to imagine, a little later in 2024: “Frankly, we won that election, by a lot, despite not even being on the” ballot in 47 states.

  46. Sounds just like something Trump would do as ‘it’s all about him’.

    I think he’ll be remembered as the president who gave the Democrats a lock on our government.

  47. I believe Trump’s soul is broken. I don’t figure he will do a lot of anything from now into the foreseeable future. We should trust he avoids the public eye to benefit the country. In any case, he’s become alive once again previously, so who knows. At the turn of the earlier century, we hosted a Socialist gathering with a stage. That stage became Democratic coalition creed and the law. Give individuals the danger to leave and GOP initiative should really hear them out.

  48. If there’s a way to screw it up, Donald Trump will find a way to screw it up, then find somebody who is not Donald Trump to blame the screwup on, and then screw it up again (most likely from not doing any homework.)

  49. If Trump was an African president he could have been worst than those African dictators like Paul Biya of Cameroon and the Old illiterate that just won the elections in Uganda. God bless America.

  50. In an election voting process that is incremental it is never appropriate for the count to decrement, yet that is clearly shown in the data. In fact, it is shown in sufficient magnitude to affect the outcome of the election. The courts never looked at the evidence.

    1. Threatening women voters with that harridan on the court while Ginsburg was still warm looked like a smart idea to Girl-bulliers with green teeth. Once they finish wrecking Allah’s Own Party the LP (minus communist anarchists) could move into the ecological niche. It’s a repeat of fanatics pushing prohibition and the Liberal Party handing out a repeal plank in 1932. FDR beat the German-American Republican Bund how many times?

  51. Beijing Biden opened his “presidency” with a 48% approval rating.

    President Obama had a 67% approval rating on his first day in office.

    President Trump had a 56% approval rating on his first day in office and that was already after weeks of deep state attacks from the liberal media and US intelligence community. MY JOB INFO

    1. “President Trump had a 56% approval rating on his first day in office”

      Where are you getting your information from? Trump claimed to have 90%+ approval ratings from everyone he ever talked to, whereas the people actually checking said he never topped 50% approval rating from American voters. His first day in office came a couple of months after he didn’t convince a majority of American voters willing to show up at the polling stations that he should have the job.

    2. President Trump never had a general approval rating over 45%.

  52. White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki on Friday was asked if Biden has a comment on the ongoing Antifa violence that erupted in Portland and Seattle on inauguration day.


    answer: “um, uh, um, ummm” MY JOB INFO

  53. God’s Own Prohibitionists lost a hand in the till and boodle and pelf for their backers–thanks to superstitious girl-bullying fanatics. Naturally the idea of threatening the looters with bleeding off spoiler votes–the same as the T-talitarian and Consta2shun nazis–comes to mind. If mystical whackos weren’t cyanide Cool-ade in the 21st Century, Mitt would have gotten the nomination. By ruining Trump’s changes, Ku-klux nazis clearly wore out their welcome–at least until the 19th Amendment is repealed.

  54. Very nice post i must say , i enjoyed every little bit of it

  55. Nice job of spineless yellow “journalism.” You freaks honestly believe that anyone other than fanatical commie loving self-centered perverts believes in your Kantian Utopian bullshit? The only good thing in all this is your demented offspring will suffer the consequences of your twisted globalist agenda

  56. Nice job of spineless yellow “journalism.” You freaks honestly believe that anyone other than fanatical commie loving self-centered perverts believes in your Kantian Utopian bullshit? The only goo

  57. So many Libtard low life’s here, but then again Newsless Week is a typical trach rag for yellow “journalism.” The only good thing arising from this is that your sewer rat progeny will suffer the consequences of your blithe ignorance and lack of patriotism

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.