How Reason Helps You Stay Sane During Political Brainworms Season

Turns out subjecting presidential aspirants to libertarian-flavored scrutiny is good for journalism! And sanity.

Money is easily countable and comprehensible, sure, but some of the better byproducts of Reason's annual Webathon—in which we ask regular consumers of our editorial content to make an end-o'-year, tax-deductible donation to keep us rockin' through 2024 and beyond—are the comments submitted alongside the gifts. Like this one:

You guys are the best. Thank you for the work you do for liberty and for being a model of intellectual consistency in a sea of tribalist mental gymnastics.

Emphasis added, because American politics right now is moving into a land of both shadow and substance otherwise known as … (involuntary shuddering) … the 2024 presidential campaign. (Long scream.) Reason is an essential part of your toolkit in surviving the next 12 months with your wits intact.

OH NO LET'S NOT GO CRAZY! DONATE TO REASON TODAY!

Aspiring to a model of intellectual consistency requires subjecting politicians and parties to critiques rooted in both fact and philosophy. Part of avoiding tribalist mental gymnastics is declining to join a tribe. Libertarianism is inherently skeptical of the accumulation and exercise of state power, and so Reason submits every politician and government official, including the libertarian-adjacent, to healthy levels of skepticism, including criticism when appropriate.

Previous presidential cycles have generated some valuable such exercises with major-party candidates: 2020's "The Case Against Biden," "The Case Against Trump," and "Kamala Harris Is a Cop Who Wants To Be President"; 2016's "Bernie's Bad Ideas," "Trump vs. the Constitution," and "Hail to the Censor!"; 2012's "Consultant in Chief," and "The Ron Paul Moment," 2008's "Be Afraid of President McCain," and "The Cult of the Presidency," and on and on. Want more articles like that?

DONATE TO REASON TODAY.

The approach of keeping our heads while others lose theirs has served us well in the 12 months since our last Webathon. Some examples:

• "Kamala Harris Is a Flop," by Elizabeth Nolan Brown
• "Biden Administration Illegally Pressured Social Media Platforms, 5th Circuit Affirms," by Jacob Sullum
• "President Trump Freed Drug Offenders. Candidate Trump Wants To Kill Them." By Jacob Sullum
• "Nikki Haley's Crazy Plan to Require Verification on Social Media," by Robby Soave
• "Ron DeSantis Confirms (Again) That His Attack on Disney Was Political Retribution," by Eric Boehm
• "Vivek Ramaswamy Is Wrong About the National Debt," by Nick Gillespie
• "Did California Gov. Gavin Newsom's Luck Finally Run Out?" By Steven Greenhut
• "Why Are So Many Libertarians Suddenly Fond of RFK Jr.?" By Liz Wolfe
• "Mitt Romney, Like So Many NeverTrumpers, Was Hobbled by His Own Grubby Political Ambitions," by Matt Welch
• "Elizabeth Warren Wants the Government To Investigate America's 'Sandwich Shop Monopoly,'," by Christian Britschgi

This coming presidential season, with its two ancient and profoundly unpopular major-party front-runners, plus all kinds of wild cards in the third party/independent lane, is guaranteed to go cuckoo-bananas long before the Democratic Party holds its national convention in, uh, Chicago. You need a journalistic outlet to help keep you sane, to scrutinize through a libertarian lens, and maybe even to laugh a little at the horror show. You need Reason! And we need you.

WON'T YOU PLEASE DONATE TO REASON AT THIS VERY MOMENT?

Comments

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

And who decides this -- you, or voters?

Three people who shouldn't be president.

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

Duh. Voters can be so icky.

[TwilaMiller]

I'm making $90 an hour working from home. I never imagined that it was honest to goodness yet my closest companion is earning 16,000 US dollars a month by working on the connection, that was truly astounding for me, she prescribed for me to attempt it simply. Everybody must try this job now by just using this website... http://www.Payathome9.com

[Gaear Grimsrud]

Voters are a threat to democracy.

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

Right?

[VULGAR MADMAN]

Speech is a threat to democracy as well.

[Chumby]

Select Reason editors decide, reluctantly.

[Mother's Lament]

Not Nikki! Haley though.
Charles Koch thinks she's presidential, which means so does Reason.

[R Mac]

Another election cycle, another example of Reason supporting the warmonger. It’s the libertarian way!

[Zeb]

Nobody who would ever choose to run for president should be president. Unfortunately, the reality is that someone is going to be.

[JesseAz]

to scrutinize through a libertarian lens,

Interesting... reluctantly I may have to think on this.

[Fist of Etiquette]

Why does Reason hate America?

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

Why does America hate Reason?

[Chumby]

There once was a Liz that wolfed Reason,
Progressives there charged her with treason,
She kicked their fat ass,
With her wit and her crass,
Libertarian trending this season.

[sarcasmic]

Will you look at that. A list of articles that don't exist. Because then the narrative about Reason never being critical of Democrats would be a lie. Look Away. Just pretend they're not there. The narrative is more important than the truth.

[Don't look at me!]

Get a new act.

[JesseAz]

It is sad at this point.

[Mother's Lament]

Sarc's back to speaking power to truth.

[VULGAR MADMAN]

He’s back to the bottle.

[JesseAz]

Starting to see where you, jeff, and Mike get your bullshit from. Count up the numbers against each of them, are the equal or is it massively slanted. If you were able to comprehend what people write, you would understand this is the issue.

If a magazine puts out 100 articles attacking one party but has 1 article attacking their own party, is that site neutral? Who did they reluctantly vote for? How many impeachment articles even before impeachment were written about Trump versus Biden? How many Trump Russia articles were written? Now how many Hunter or Biden articles? Even this morning an article of an obscure Florida republican and FOIA while the DoJ and White Hiuse continue to broadly ignore and redact FOIA and claim privilege during legal depositions, not a single article.

You call people cultists and forever trumpers despite them criticizing him more than you've ever criticized the current president. Yet you claim neutrality and condemn those you hate.

This false neutrality doesn’t trick intelligent people, which is why I see you were tricked.

[JesseAz]

Let me put this more simply for you sarc, to see if you can comprehend.

I can find criticism of democrats on NYT. WaPo, DailyBeasy, Huffpo, DailyKos, etc.

Nobody but Jeff and shrike believes those sites are neutral. Wake the fuck up.

Just look at the tenor between the articles critical of dems here. Always couched under good intentions. Praise of people like Polis, derision against Massie and others. Meanwhile they randomly bring up Trump in articles not even about Trump.

You can't be this dumb.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

This whole thing is just full of twaddle, but I just want to point out one thing here, which is illustrative of your whole mindset Jesse:

Who did they reluctantly vote for?

This line gets continually repeated around here as an indictment of Boehm, but this is what he actually said in that 2020 article of who they were going to all vote for:

https://reason.com/2020/10/12/how-will-reason-staffers-vote-in-2020/

ERIC BOEHM
Reporter

Who do you plan to vote for this year? I am currently not registered to vote in Virginia, where I live. If I change that before the election, I will vote for Jo Jorgensen—unless I believe there is a chance that Joe Biden will somehow fail to win Virginia, in which case I will vote strategically and reluctantly for Biden.

So as of the writing of that article, Boehm wasn't even registered to vote and if he were, he was planning on voting for JoJo. But in your little mind, and because you and your pals have repeated that meme so often, his words were twisted into "Boehm strategically and reluctantly voted for Biden" when that was not the case.

And that's the problem with you and your whole tribe nowadays. You live in an alternate reality. Because you reject mainstream news sources, you are informed by sites like The Federalist which you regard to be a *news* site and not what it actually is, an opinion site. Your entire world consists of right-wing narratives which bear only a passing resemblance to reality.

If you go back to that original article, here is how the votes tallied up:
11 for JoJo
7 for Nobody
4 for Biden
1 for Trump
1 was undecided

FFS there were more votes for "nobody" than there were for Biden, yet you and your tribe believe in this narrative that Reason is full of far left Biden supporters.

Reason is NOT neutral. Any site that would have a majority of its staff vote for the 1% Libertarian candidate can hardly be said to be 'neutral'. But it's not the left-wing hellhole that you imagine it to be either.

[Don't look at me!]

Are you trying to pick up where Mike left off?

[JesseAz]

They all have the same NPC script. Not capable of thought. Just repeat rhetoric they were told to repeat.

Why arguments with them feel like Groundhogs Day.

[VULGAR MADMAN]

They’re not capable of thought, but they can learn. I’ve noticed sarcasmic pick up arguments used against him, and then use them inappropriately.

Monkey see, monkeys do.

[Chumby]

There are four times as many votes for a career politician that had a many decades long non-libertarian track record on drugs, crime, military adventurism, and crony socialism than orange man bad who’s criticism by some editors here seemed to focus on mean tweets.

[A Thinking Mind]

I have no issue with people who thought both candidates sucked, or who thought that protest votes (or aspirational votes, I prefer to think of them) for the libertarian candidate were better than supporting either major candidate. It's not an issue.

What's problematic to me are people who thought their votes worth using and had to choose the worst candidate from a libertarian perspective, and their instinct was that Biden was less bad. This is a man who, while running, said he was signing a Day One Executive Order mandating masks for all. It's the most blatant flaunting of power.

What are the biggest libertarian problems with Trump? Well, too much spending and borrowing, protectionist trade policies, divisive rhetoric and mud-slinging, his corporatist sentiments (despite rolling back regulations, his instincts lean more toward big corporations than small business, which we saw with the deals made with Pfizer and Moderna), and authoritarian intrusions to liberty as a response to political pressures-such as the COVID response or the Vegas shooter.

But in basically every measure, you'd expect Biden, and indeed, 90% of Democrats, to be just as bad if not worse in every measure on these. Plus there's a whole host of different ways in which he's very much not libertarian, with approval of censorship, whole hosts of government-pushed ESG measures, declaring climate change crises to force more authoritarianism, and mandating vaccinations.

The problem doesn't come for me when you say you utterly dislike both candidates to a extreme that you can't give support to them. But when you're doing the political calculus and saying that holding your nose to vote for Biden is Trump, you're showing that your instincts aren't libertarian, they're driven by something else. Maybe it's progressivism, maybe it's sympathy for a liberal elite that is driven by emotional hatreds of Trump.

In which policy measure can you find Democratic policies under Biden to be an improvement over Trump? Immigration, perhaps, except that we've reached such a crisis point for immigration that many Democratic voters are becoming enraged at Democratic politicians to the point they're at risk of losing them specifically on the immigration issue. Biden is now trying to continue construction on the border wall and re-instating the Stay In Mexico policy. If you like a lot more people being supported by the government while they wait here for years for an asylum hearing, then I suppose Biden has been better, but it's not exactly a libertarian victory.

This is why I call out Boehm. He can't cite a policy reason he supported Biden. Look at the Case Against Trump article: There's nothing in there that uniquely makes him worse than any bog-standard democrat. There's reasons a libertarian would dislike him, and there's reasons you can find his personality grating and his lack of a coherent political ideology problematic, but it's really weird to prefer the author of the 1994 Crime Bill over the guy who signed the First Step Act.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

divisive rhetoric and mud-slinging

Minor point of order, divisive rhetoric and mud-slinging are not ipso facto un-libertarian. They may be unpresidential (whatever that means, maaan) but they're not unlibertarian.

Other than that, I think I largely agree with your sentiment.

I'm still working out a coherent 2000 word comment on this subject, but if one were to have been an environmentally minded left-of-center voter in say, the 1980s or even 1990s, and concerned with Climate Change and affordable healthcare and restrictive immigration, and you'd have stood up and said, "I will accept nothing less than a total ban on internal combustion engines, create a federal industrial policy around climate change mitigation that will transform the economic and employment landscape, and extend healthcare and welfare benefits to anyone in the world that can show up at the help desk and say, "I need free healthcare and housing", you might have been quietly told "Let's not sacrifice good for the perfect" by your political allies.

Those things are now realities, and so when I suggest that we need to considerably roll back the welfare state if our borders are going to be wide open and I shrug when the administration enacts tariffs on foreign-built solar panels to encourage they at least be built and manufactured domestically, I'm told I shouldn't be sacrificing the good for the perfect, and we should be able to buy our mandated solar panels for cheap, and the labor costs to buy my mandated electric car should be minimized by not giving in to union largesse, and if I push back against the wild, unfettered expansion of government to cover the increased social welfare costs of unchecked immigration I'm told "I just hate brown people", I have to admit I'm a little stunned at the outcomes on these minor byzantine political issues we agreed to disagree on.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

you can find his personality grating and his lack of a coherent political ideology problematic,

On this particular issue I think I commented on this back before the 2020 election when, after not voting for Trump in 2016, I had decided to *checks notes* reluctantly vote for him in 2020.

Trump’s policies are a pretty mixed bag– and possibly and even less mixed-bag from a pure libertarian perspective. But over the last decade or so I have come to the conclusion that the essence of libertarianism is almost inherently American. And with no America, there’s no real libertarianism in the world. You know, what with all of our first, second, fourth and fifth amendments and all.

Ultimately, I was voting for Trumps political instincts which I find to be relatively good. Trump’s instinct is he wants to have an America, whereas the modern Democratic party implicitly, and in some cases explicitly doesn’t want an America.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

ut it’s really weird to prefer the author of the 1994 Crime Bill over the guy who signed the First Step Act.

Hey now, Reason gives full-throated support to the Communications Decency act, now. Talk about intellectual consistency!

[Sevo]

"...What are the biggest libertarian problems with Trump? Well, too much spending and borrowing, protectionist trade policies,…”
OK, except the spending was directed by Congress, and we did get a tax cut.

“…divisive rhetoric and mud-slinging,…”
Gee, he’s so icky, right?

“…his corporatist sentiments (despite rolling back regulations, his instincts lean more toward big corporations than small business, which we saw with the deals made with Pfizer and Moderna),..”
As opposed contracting with the meth lab in Compton?

“…and authoritarian intrusions to liberty as a response to political pressures-such as the COVID response or the Vegas shooter.” Gonna need some cites here.
Again, Trump is an obnoxious loose cannon. And the most libertarian POTUS we’ve had in the last 100 years.
As a voter, I’m not in the business of being an amateur theater critic, and I’m not looking for a daddy-figure. I want the asshole who does his best to:
Leave.
Me.
Alone.
That’s Trump.

[Roberta]

I think "authoritarian intrusions" in response to "the Vegas shooter" refers to the bump stock ban.

[Sevo]

OK, there's one. My bad.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

There’s reasons a libertarian would dislike him, and there’s reasons you can find his personality grating and his lack of a coherent political ideology problematic, but it’s really weird to prefer the author of the 1994 Crime Bill over the guy who signed the First Step Act.

I think you are largely right that the reasons to oppose Trump are not mainly based on policy. They are based on his character.

In this country we do not vote for an abstract set of policy positions. We vote for individual people, and when those people win, they are invested with a great deal of power. We the voters ought to have some sort of reassurance that they will use that power with some measure of prudence and good judgment. Because for any president, for any leader, some issue will arise that is completely unanticipated by the election campaign, that he will have to use his judgment to deal with, and we the voters will not have the benefit of a policy statement during the election campaign to know how he will handle it ahead of time. So we have to trust him. And Trump has profoundly demonstrated that he cannot be trusted with that level of power. He lacks the good judgment and the character to make wise prudential decisions.

That is why we shouldn't vote for Trump. Even if he had the policy resume of Milton Friedman himself, we shouldn't vote for Trump.

And ironically you demonstrate it yourself when you bring up the First Step Act. Yes, Trump signed it into law. But Trump's position now is that he thinks drug dealers should be executed. So what is his real position on criminal justice reform? What is his real position on *anything*? He can't be trusted.

[A Thinking Mind]

Right. You don’t what policies are being offered, you just can’t vote for certain people because of their icky behavior. You made a comment about how Trump could have the policies of Murray Rothbard and you wouldn’t vote for him.

Maybe that’s a thing that some libertarians feel, but I prefer to have a more rational basis. And I certainly don’t see a reason to view Trump as particularly less trustworthy than anyone else who has been President in the past century, nor the majority of other candidates.

Like, is there anything about Biden that makes him more trustworthy than Trump? He had a lengthy career of public office so he had an established of dealing with every type of issue imaginable, as well as being hip-deep in the corrupt Capitol Hill muck. The only reason I can imagine finding him more trustworthy is that you’re an institutionalist and respect people based on an inherent connection to authority, and Trump is fishy as an outsider. But that seems like the opposite, again, of a libertarian instinct.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

It is not mere 'icky behavior'. It is poor moral character and poor judgment which makes him unfit to lead. Extreme example: would you vote for Jeffrey Dahmer if he had the policy positions of Milton Friedman? Answer: no. Because he's a FUCKING CANNIBAL. That's why. His poor moral judgment made him unfit to lead.

Once again, policy positions do not wield power, individual people do. And it's in individual people with power whom we must trust when the unforeseen crises occur.

[Roberta]

If Dahmer had the actual record in office of Trump, damn right I’d vote for him. This is why Trump said he could stand in the street and shoot somebody and still get elected: Because he knows we're rational.

[Chumby]

I still think Dahmer should have claimed self defense.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

Then you are a fool. When the unforeseen occurs, we all have to rely upon the judgment and character of those with power to make wise and prudent decisions. And there are certain people who lack good judgment and lack good character and they cannot be relied upon to make wise and prudent decisions.

[VULGAR MADMAN]

Ok, Biden supporter.

[Roberta]

I'm not looking for wise, just good. There's a reason the Mafia employs criminals: They know they can trust them to do the job.

[A Thinking Mind]

No, I wouldn't vote for a literal serial murderer, because murder is obviously against the NAP. Fortunately, I'm not often presented with this dilemma. Trump has moral failings that do not rise to the level of storing human skulls in his freezer. Almost any candidate for president has significant moral failings and I fail to see any way in which Trump significantly stands out, aside from not giving a shit about business-as-usual in Washington.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

Almost any candidate for president has significant moral failings and I fail to see any way in which Trump significantly stands out, aside from not giving a shit about business-as-usual in Washington.

And I disagree. I could list a host of reasons, including his shameless demagoguery of foreigners, his bigotry and xenophobia, his craven need for attention, his complete lack of any principled belief in anything except "his brand", his adultery and paying off of a porn star, etc..

But the point here is that how harshly one judges Trump's lack of moral character and his lack of sound judgment is a personal preference that lies beyond libertarian policy positions. That is a value judgment that says nothing about one's commitment to liberty.

[VULGAR MADMAN]

Thanks for your non partisan opinion.

[A Thinking Mind]

You disagree, but it's always good to have some basis for this idea that he's full of bigotry and xenophobia. Because banning asylum seekers from countries considered to be state sponsors of terrorism-keeping in mind that this list of countries pre-existed his election-is just a policy decision. Just the decision itself has little reflection on his character because 1) he didn't label those countries as state-sponsors of terrorism, his predecessor did, and 2) there remains a reasonable policy purpose in banning asylum seekers from those countries, whether you agree with it or not. Simply doing it doesn't make you racist.

And if you want to cite a whole bunch of things Trump has said...well you can find very comparable remarks from multiple previous presidents. Also, our current president, if you look back 20-30 years, said some things that easily rise to the level of Trump's racism. Ultimately it just comes out worse because Trump can be crass about how he expresses certain ideas, and because he's crass he gets labeled sexist, homophobic, etc. I don't perceive it that way.

And that's part of the problem. There's a completely provable element you can point to with Trump, which is his record, his policies, and his platform, and then there's a completely subjective standard, where someone makes assessments about what kind of person he is. I'm not persuaded by this subjective projection, so I'm really looking for more objective criteria than the assessments from random strangers about each candidate's "character."

By the way, this is coming from someone voted against Trump in the 2016 primary, voted against him in the general election, voted against him in 2020, and has zero intention of voting for him next year. I have no difficulty finding significant issues with Trump as a candidate and as a president. But saying "he's of poor character" just isn't on my list.

[R Mac]

It’s very noteworthy that Lying Jeffy never responded to this comment by ATM.

[DesigNate]

Dahmer is a horrible example.

[Ersatz]

ok, how about Hitler? 'cause - you know... Trump is worse than Hitler, right?

[Social Justice is neither]

He has to find one worse than his choice, a corrupt kiddie diddler whose family call Pedo Pete.

[R Mac]

“unless I believe there is a chance that Joe Biden will somehow fail to win Virginia, in which case I will vote strategically and reluctantly for Biden.”

Lying Jeffy somehow imagines this refutes the “strategically and reluctantly” criticism of Boehm.

[Zeb]

I don't think they are leftists. Certainly not far left. But Boehm is pretty well saying he wants Biden to win. I just don't see the strategic (or any other) advantage to a person who is at all libertarian there. I just don't understand the all-costs never-Trump position. What about Biden is not worse than Trump?

[Minadin]

What makes me sane is ignoring or completely disregarding the 'political brainworms' and doing something productive, like making a very large stock pot of clarified beef consomme. Garden fresh herbs and free-range grass fed beef. (and the egg whites)

Sarcasmic, you want any? I'm making a few gallons and sealing it in quart-sized mason jars for shipping.

[A Thinking Mind]

What makes me sane is ignoring or completely disregarding the ‘political brainworms’ and doing something productive, like making a very large stock pot of clarified beef consomme.

Correct, and I don't need Reason for that. If I don't want political bullshit for a while, I step away don't engage. But obviously if I'm here, I'm usually interested in stories or discussions that some degree of political implication.

[Elmer Fudd the CHUD 2: Steampunk Boogaloo]

Fuck off you drunken pussy. Adults are trying to have a conversation here.

Crawl back into your bottle.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

So, here are actual Nazis.

https://www.rawstory.com/texas-gop-2666422898/

Two months after a prominent conservative activist and fundraiser was caught hosting white supremacist Nick Fuentes, leaders of the Republican Party of Texas voted against barring the party from associating with Nazi sympathizers and Holocaust deniers.

In a 32-29 vote on Saturday, members of the Texas GOP’s executive committee stripped a pro-Israel resolution of a clause that would have included the ban— delivering a major blow to a faction that has called for the party to confront its ties to groups that have recently employed, elevated or associated with outspoken white supremacists or antisemitic figures.

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

Let us know when the Texas GOP pushes for National Socialism.

[JesseAz]

Christian Nationalists!!! Worse than hamas or the KKK per democrats.

[Ersatz]

should have embedded a like to James Carville

[Don't look at me!]

Why should Texas politicians be “pro” any country? They are supposed to be responsive to people in Texas, not other countries.

[NOYB2]

called for the party to confront its ties to groups that have recently employed, elevated or associated with outspoken white supremacists or antisemitic figures.

They had to remove that language. Such a ban would have make legislative sessions with Democrats rather difficult.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

Yeah, I got a little cross-eyed at "anti-Semitic figures". So, the GOP can't associate with Democrats now?

[Nobartium]

Nick Fuentes is still not white.

[VULGAR MADMAN]

Anyone who isn’t left is white.

[Zeb]

Looks pretty white to me.

But who cares? He's just some shithead internet personality that everyone should ignore.

[Mother's Lament]

"white supremacist Nick Fuentes"

What did Nick Fuentes say and do that was actually white supremacist, Jeff? You don't even have to give a citation, just an example in your own words.
The guy's definitely an idiot, but what has he said that makes him worse than say Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar, Al Sharpton, Louis Farrakhan or a host of other Democrats?

Speaking of Nazi's, Misek has been posting a lot of actually antisemitic hate in many comments threads that I know that you've also been posting in. And everytime Misek calls for the destruction of Jews I see dozens and dozens of posters telling him to go fuck himself. But you're never one of them.

Nor have I seen you condemn the progressive protesters breaking the windows of Jewish owned shops in New York, attacking and killing Jews and shouting "From the river to the sea!"

No, you only seem to fret about racism and antisemitism when some no-name GOP fundraiser hosts a shithead dinner guest.

Almost like you don't actually care about racism and antisemitism and just employ the words as smears when you think it's to the advantage of your narrative.

But would a guy who's widely known as Lying Jeffy actually be that dishonest and cynical?

[JesseAz]

Notice jeff never answers these questions.

[Sevo]

That's because the lying pile of lefty shit is lying.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

I'm done trying to have any sort of "discussion" with ML. He is a bad-faith asshole. It honestly doesn't matter how I answer any of his questions. He will just use whatever answer I give to call me a Nazi. That is all he wants to do.

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

Oh, are you for National Socialism?

[chemjeff radical individualist]

No.

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

Is the Texas GOP?

[chemjeff radical individualist]

You'll have to ask them.
Why did they vote against barring the party from associating with Nazi sympathizers and Holocaust deniers?

[VULGAR MADMAN]

Nobody hates Jews more than democrats.

Pay attention fool.

[Zeb]

Well, what I heard (from NPR no less) is that they rejected it because just what "associate with" means is too vague and open ended. Which I think is reasonable.

[Mother's Lament]

"He is a bad-faith asshole."

You're a deliberately dishonest weasel who can't come up with rebuttals when you're caught lying, so you evade by pretending to be a victim of bullying instead. But you're not actually fooling anyone.

"He will just use whatever answer I give to call me a Nazi."

Stop saying and advocating Nazi things here and I wouldn't be able to call you one.

[Elmer Fudd the CHUD 2: Steampunk Boogaloo]

Wait…. is Jeff great big fat person?

[Chumby]

Have the lambs stopped screaming?

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

And what do you have to say, or have you said, about actual, self-proclaimed Marxists in academia, BLM, Antifa, and the Democrat party?

Now tell us how many civilians were murdered by socialists, last century and continuing today, include the National Socialists who were indeed socialists as evidenced by their actual practices.

[DesigNate]

That’s (D)ifferent.

[R Mac]

Another simple question ignored by Lying Jeffy. I’m starting to notice a pattern…

[A Thinking Mind]

Story doesn't link to the bill so I can't see what language they removed. I also think it's problematic for the government to pass a bill saying they can't associate with anyone with Nazi sympathies or Holocaust deniers because those people still have rights. I'd need to see what exactly they passed in order to judge if it's a victory for liberty, or merely neutral for liberty.

[Sevo]

The lying pile of lefty shit Jeff is not going to give you the information you need to see that the lying pile of lefty shit Jeff is lying.

[DesigNate]

I don’t think it was a bill, just some internecine party shit.

[VULGAR MADMAN]

You aren’t talking about the squad, fat Jeff?

[Social Justice is neither]

He couldn't possibly find the times the national Democrats changed bilks or resolutions expressly to shield their actually anti-semitic members but he can cast aspersions at the GOP.

[R Mac]

“voted against barring the party from associating with…”

Wow.

[Zeb]

Political parties are open to anyone to join, so I'm not sure how the Texas Republicans were supposed to avoid associating with anyone.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

So let's see, listed in the examples, are 10 stories that each feature:
Harris, Biden, Trump, DeSantis, Ramaswamy, Haley, Newsom, RFK Jr., Warren, Romney.
So according to our 'libertarian' colleagues:
- Criticizing Haley and Romney are totally okay because they are fake Republicans and nobody really likes them.
- Criticizing Biden and Harris and anyone on the left is fine, as long as that criticism pulls no punches and lays the blame squarely at their feet for everything that is wrong. Oh and no both-sidesism. It's all totally their fault.
- Criticizing MAGA and MAGA-adjacent Republicans like Trump and DeSantis is only okay if you give them the benefit of the doubt. They mean well. They have good intentions. They are just following the rules of the Left. They had no choice. Plus point out how the Left is worse.

That is how it's done!

Make excuses for MAGA Republicans
Condemn the neocons
Give no quarter to the treasonous Left

[Don't look at me!]

Ok, sarc.

[Mother's Lament]

Well that's some serious cope and hypocrisy from a guy who's literally paid by Media Matters to shill for the Democrats here.

[Elmer Fudd the CHUD 2: Steampunk Boogaloo]

There’s not one iota of honest libertarianism in his morbidly obese body.

[Chumby]

Fat chance there ever will be.

[R Mac]

Wtf is even going on here? Have you had a stroke poor lad?

[NOYB2]

Turns out subjecting presidential aspirants to libertarian-flavored(*) scrutiny is good for journalism! And sanity.

(*) Contains artificial flavors. Some ingredients are suspected human carcinogens.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

Real libertarians like their food the way Anthony Fauci likes his viruses: Grown in a lab.

[mad.casual]

+1 LOL!

[Chumby]

A sea of tribalist mental gymnastics would include people that backed non-libertarian Biden (D) under some sort of libertarian criteria. I made this comment reluctantly.

[JesseAz]

An "I was wrong" article from those staff members that did would go a long way.

[Chumby]

About maybe a year ago, didn’t MSM do a mea culpa saying they got it wrong and Reason wrote an article slamming MSM for getting it wrong without apologizing for the editors here pushing the same false narrative? I want to say it was either vax efficacy or masks.

[Sevo]

By record of actions, we had the most libertarian POTUS in a century in Donald Trump, but the TDS-addled shit-piles writing for Reason just couldn't stand mean tweets.
Which is why Reason now gets a $1.00 annual donation, so they know I didn't just forget, I understand their juvenile focus on personality.
'He's so icky, doncha know?'

[JeremyR]

Yes, where would I be without the daily articles about how there should be open borders and the US flooded with all the immigrants of the world.

[Elmer Fudd the CHUD 2: Steampunk Boogaloo]

And a new generation of ‘libertarian’ writers making their way in. Like little Emma Camp, self described leftist.

[Chumby]

I’m also not in Emma’s camp.

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

You left out articles about free weed and ass sex.

[JesseAz]

Or the dozen articles about dont say gay.

And their most consistent covid criticism was attacking governors for not allowing government and business to force masks or vaccines.

[VULGAR MADMAN]

But Trump wouldn’t forbid states from enforcing mandates!

These people are shameless.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

Media Matters is investing in this idea.

[Mother's Lament]

They must have one of those aimed at Biden every speech he gives.

[VULGAR MADMAN]

Sheila Jackson Lee just put out a video telling her supporters the wrong day to vote.

How long before the FBI arrest her for interfering with her own election campaign?

[Social Justice is neither]

If you're looking to avoid brainworms Reason needs to do a bit of housekeeping and fire half the staff before they can offer that service. The TDS is anywhere from moderate to terminal here. But easier to quote WaPo, Media Matters or the SPLC as neutral gospel.