'The Problem Is Spending': Libertarian Presidential Nominee Chase Oliver's Vision for the Future
The candidate supports gun rights, wants to privatize government programs, and would radically reduce the number of federal employees.

Now it's former President Donald Trump versus Vice President Kamala Harris.
But there will be another choice on your ballot: Chase Oliver.
Both Trump and former Democrat-turned-independent Robert F. Kennedy Jr. addressed the Libertarian Party convention, asking for their nomination, but Oliver won their votes.
He's a 38-year-old political activist and businessman. Rolling Stone called him "the most influential libertarian" because he forced a runoff in Georgia's last U.S. Senate race.
Oliver has interesting ideas that we don't hear from the major-party candidates. He also explains them better than they usually do.
As I moderated RFK Jr.'s alternative debate a few weeks ago, I kept wishing that Trump, President Joe Biden, and Kennedy spoke as clearly. And intelligently.
Oliver says, "Your body is your body, your business your business, your property your property."
That lays out libertarian philosophy pretty well.
Oliver supports gun rights.
"As a gay man," he says, "I can better protect myself from being bashed if I'm armed….I have great appreciation for our right to defend ourselves."
Oliver also wants to privatize government programs. "Why take tax money out of somebody's pocket to fund a program through government? Just about every program could be better done through the private marketplace."
Right. The U.S. Post Office couldn't deliver mail overnight. UPS and FedEx made it happen. Private companies try harder because they have to compete.
Oliver believes even welfare would be better off in private hands.
"Take money out of the government coffers, put it back in our pockets, and we can better allocate helping our neighbors and our communities ourselves without government programs."
By contrast, government poverty programs perpetuate poverty. They encourage people to be dependent.
The poverty bureaucrats want to help people. But they also want to keep their jobs in the poverty bureaucracy.
So government just grows.
Oliver pledges, "I'll be challenging Congress to get to a neutral budget so we're not adding to the debt and deficit."
I push back. "They'll say, 'Sure, we'll balance it. We'll raise taxes.'"
"That won't happen under me," replies Oliver, saying he'd veto any tax increase.
"Cutting spending is what's important," he says "We're not going to tax our way out of this problem. We could tax everybody to 100 percent—all the millionaires and billionaires that are 'not paying their fair share'—and that would fund the government for just a few weeks. The problem is spending, not taxing."
True.
Trump promised to cut government and "drain the swamp." He didn't. He hired more people and spent more money.
Oliver says: "I would like to drain the swamp by actually removing the size and the scope of the federal work force by finding programs and departments that are inefficient and redundant….Remove departments wholeheartedly."
Like the Department of Education.
"I would eliminate it," he says. "Education should be at the most local level possible. It should be up to parents to determine the school their kids go to."
He'd also "get government out of the business of higher education."
If students borrowed from private lenders, banks would assign tuition loans "on the basis of how valuable that degree is. They'll be much more apt to loan an engineer than someone who's getting a degree that won't make as much money. This will encourage colleges to actually lower the cost of these programs in accordance with what the marketplace is, as opposed to getting all this government free money."
Free government money wrecks a lot of things.
I wish Republicans and Democrats were as sensible as the Libertarian candidate.
COPYRIGHT 2024 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I don't expect him to win because he's not funded by any professional grift machines, but has my vote.
Why mince words? libertarians greatest value is profit. We’ve seen this before. Fortunately mostly in fiction. Although some satanist cults practice it.
In the fiction Star Trek, “Ferengi culture, especially as portrayed on Deep Space Nine, is depicted as hyper-capitalistic, focused on the acquisition of profit as the highest goal. Deep Space Nine writers have described how they saw the Ferengi as a satirical presentation of 20th century humans.”
Unfortunately for libertarians, real life isn’t fiction and acquisition isn’t an ethic.
What, too close to home?
Greed is an uncivilized, unintelligent reaction to fear. Ironically, the fear that someone else will be greedier.
The greedy cult can only exist as a minority or unrecognized in secret. In a closed system as earth is, like a mars colony, greed results in total breakdown of civilization. The mad max storyline.
This is the irony of libertarianism, that wants to become mainstream. Hahaha
Yeah Misek, it’s all about the Joooooosssssss. So are you a neo Nazi, KKK, or are you an Islamist? You’ve got to be one of the three. So which is it?
I hadn’t mentioned Jews. Although the connection is obvious. Greed, lying, coercion, genocide in Gaza.
Surely you must have more bogeymen to fear and justify your atrocities.
Everything with you goes back to your hatred of Jews. Now answer the question. Are you a Nazi, KKK, or Islamist?
He's an asshole. What flavor of asshole is irrelevant.
No, I think we need to know.
You don't privatize 'government functions'. You eliminate them.
If they are necessary in a society, someone will make them happen.
More likely, they are unnecessary.
Only the rational application of force against those who initiate violence or fraud should be the function of a government.
Would be good to know what exactly he means by "privatize".
But also it's unreasonable to expect a libertarian president to make pure libertarianism happen overnight (or within one term). You have to start with what you can actually get done.
I'm a lot less shiny on privatizing government functions than I was 15 years ago. It doesn't seem to eliminate any of the corruption, it doesn't add any element of choice, and if history is my guide, doesn't make things cheaper and more efficient.
If "privatization" means giving government money to private groups to do government functions, then yeah. I could imagine it also meaning just leaving former government functions completely to the private sector.
“ If they are necessary in a society, someone will make them happen.”
Like making government?
It doesn’t seem to eliminate any of the corruption, it doesn’t add any element of choice, and if history is my guide, doesn’t make things cheaper and more efficient.
I'm in public construction and have seen a fair number of "public-private partnerships," or PPPs.
They don't eliminate corruption and they don't add an element of choice (and often, actually, the government agency supposedly in charge itself has less control).
"Cheaper and more efficient" are hard things to quantify as in my experience just as much money gets spent, but the final product tends to be of higher quality and there's more schedule accountability.
This is for actually building things. I've also seen a lot of farming out of government services to be handled by consulting firms, which is a super common thing especially in construction funded by public bonds (and if you want to know where the "real" corruption is, keep your eye on those consultants).
In those cases the advantage is that the consultants usually know better what they're doing than the bureaucrats (super low bar), can be more dynamic in hiring and firing (again, super low bar), and tend to offer better more efficient services at first. They longer they stay under contract the more they themselves start acting like bloated, inefficient government agencies, and they're often not above maintaining their position by greasing some local palms. The upside is that they can be fired.
My view on this sort of 'privatizing' of government services is that it can work okay, but the firms needs to be fired every 3-5 years. Unfortunately, the inertia of the average public servant means firms stay in place 10-20 years or more.
The best kind of privatizing is the kind Zeb mentions - i.e. "you want something? Find a private company that does that."
Spot on.
It’s the one way ratchet and Longtobefree is right.
The whole point of the EV/Green Energy push is to essentially subsidize the scaling and capture consumers… make everyone an offer they can’t refuse. The very idea, supposedly, is to eventually hand it back to private consumers once it’s become indispensable/the only option.
It’s part and parcel to the libertarian notion that taking taxpayer dollars to invest in something that pays off doesn’t legitimize the original taking (assuming the funds get returned to whomever they were taken from).
Privatizing is better than not, but it’s not better than never having commanded the market in the first place. We can't eliminate Social Security tomorrow, we can privatize parts of it and step down payouts until it's eventually gone.
My definition is give them all pink slips and tell them to go do something private.
Yes: Navy, Air Force, immigration, police, courts
No: education, agriculture, energy, commerce, finance
...or the EPA.
Environmental issues are state and local problems.
No. That's one thing that the government *must* do. I lived though the "burning Cuyahoga river" era.
It cannot be done locally, because local gov't will protect local industry by looking the other way.
Sometimes you need that cold heart that is the federal government. Not much, but sometimes.
He doesn't seem too bad. If I was going to vote I'd probably vote for him.
But he's gay, Zeb. GAY!
You are literally the only one on this board who cares.
Jeffy can’t counter any real criticism of Oliver, so this is all he’s got.
Well, Jeff, Sarc and Chase Oliver are the only three that care, but yeah. The three of them are always the first in the thread to remind us.
Oh please. All of the criticism of him that I’ve seen is directly related to him being gay. He’s gay and that means he must be a leftist since all gays are leftist. He’s gay and that means he must be a pedophile because all gays are pedophiles. He’s gay and that means he supports transition surgery for children because all gays support transition surgery for children. He’s gay and that means he wants children to watch drag shows because all gays want children to watch drag shows. He’s gay and that means he must … because all gays ... But you don’t care that he’s gay. Really you don’t. Suuuuure. Whatever you say.
There are none so blind as those who wll not see. Put yer blind eye to that telescope, matey!
Where is your criticism of his stated policies that aren't attacks on him for being gay? Give one example.
I have, several times. But you put your blind eye to the screen and refused to see them.
Tell you what: You promise you will write a simple comment ——
if I show you one single prior comment where I listed what I didn't like. If you promise that -- no prevarications, no quibbles -- by midnight ET, I will find one of those comments and post a link here before the mourning lynx.
Of course I'll bookmark it and troll you forever, but that's the price you pay for lying.
I have, several times. But you put your blind eye to the screen and refused to see them.
Right. If I don't read every fucking thread on every fucking article then I'm refusing to see something. Sorry bud, but I'm not a loser like you who combs through every word in the comments.
Of course I’ll bookmark it and troll you forever
I’ve already got Jesse and ML. You'll just be another piece of garbage stalker following me around, quoting comments out of context, claiming I'm the liar for saying there was context, claiming sentences mean things they obviously don't mean, and otherwise being stalker garbage.
Sadly I'm used to it.
but that’s the price you pay for lying.
Me not seeing things you've never said or things you said in conversations in which I was not involved does not constitute lying.
Now it does. Read it. You haven't got the guts to apologize.
Damn this is funny. You are a loser, a liar, a ... a... a sarspasstick!
Oh what a waste. The very first comment of mine on the very first article I search shows what a liar you are.
https://reason.com/2024/06/26/i-dont-support-mandates-from-government-john-stossel-interviews-libertarian-presidential-nominee-chase-oliver/?comments=true#comment-10617649
But the absolute best part of this is that YOU RESPONDED. YOU READ IT.
You are a fucking liar by your very own words.
I haven’t seen anything from him that supports your accusations. What I read from you is just the standard “He’s gay and this is what gay people believe so this is what he believes” bigoted bullshit.
Find a quote from him where he says those things.
Your claim that “Everyone knows it’s true because he’s gay” only furthers my point.
Quote the words where I objected to him being gay.
You can't. They aren't there.
You are the laziest liar I have met in ages.
You are proving my point, and too dumb to see it.
Sure you don’t say the words “I hate him because he’s gay.”
You just argue against things you think gays support, without any words from him to support these things, and assume your arguments are solid because he’s gay.
Show me some quotes from him, in the last year, where he's said states should put parents in jail for refusing to give transition surgery to minors.
You're talking the meanest and nastiest things you can imagine from some imaginary gay agenda, and attributing those things to him.
But you don't hate him because he's gay. No. Really you don't. Wink wink. Nod nod.
Two misquotes in one comment, and your next comment admits I didn't say them.
Laziest liar since LBJ.
Yeah. You don’t hate him because he’s gay. You just hate all the gay policies that he supports because he’s gay. You don’t care what he says about anything. You already know his politics because he’s gay. So you accuse him of supporting gay causes, ignore what he actually says, and bristle when someone points out what you’re doing. You really are a piece of shit. Just admit that you hate gays. You view them like illegal immigrants. Doomed to leftist politics by birth. Something in the blood, or the culture. Blacks are different, because Clarence Thomas. But those other races, and those gays. All leftist.
And there you go, admitting you lied before. First you claim the only complaints are he is gay, now you say it's not.
Laziest liar in history.
It’s not that he IS gay. It’s that he has to bring it up constantly. This has been explained to you multiple times Drunky.
But we get it. You’re a stupid drunk.
That's because stupid Republicans *cannot believe* that a gay person can, for example, support gun rights.
No, Oliver is doing this to virtue signal. It’s weak. And people aren’t buying a lot of what he says because he was a fervent Obama supporter. Not because he gets his ass pounded.
Yeah, you are full of shit. Even Dave Smith in his podcast - which I think you linked to - admitted that he basically agrees on Chase Oliver on most policy matters, but he still won't vote for Chase because of his cultural identity. "He's gay" is a stand-in for "He identifies with left-wingers sympathetically".
Endlessly refuted. Find a new tune you fat bitch.
Not so. Sarspasstic cares.
I know! I didn't even believe it, but he said it, in the podcast! This changes literally everything.
The only reason I know he is gay is because people like you are yelling at people claiming they won’t vote for him because he is gay.
Well, that, and he's constantly talking about how he's a gay man and wearing pride-themed stuff and has the pride flag all of his twitter page and bio and goes to pride events. But if you'd only heard the name and never paid attention to him, you might not know.
^THIS right here is what makes him concerning. It's not just that he might like other men's poopy-buttholes but he plays politics with it.
It would be no different if all the straight married ganged up together and took their 'status' as a gov-gun special entitlement.
There's no reason for these 'identity' politics. It has never been against the law to like mens poop.
Agree. I don't agree on all his positions, but at least I can understand how he is arriving at those positions (i.e., by minimizing state intervention/coercion).
No no, that can't be right. I've been told that the biggest reason to vote for Chase Oliver is that he's gay. Not that he will do libertarian things. No no, it's totally about the gayness.
No, you’re supposed to vote against him because he’s gay. Well, not because he’s gay. Because gays, like immigrants, are genetically and culturally leftist. That means anything he says that isn’t leftist is a lie. Don’t listen to him. Listen to what people say about gays. Because he’s gay. But don’t hate him because he’s gay. That’s bigoted. Hate him because he’s a leftist, like all the other gays.
Ah yes, the sarcjeff circle jerk.
Why don't you share why you hate Chase. Everyone knows you do.
We don’t hate him. We just don’t trust him based on a variety of statements he’s made and his political history. But to be perfectly clear, we do hate you and Jeffy. In part for shitting up discussion threads with bullshit like this.
Now crawl back into to your garbage can Drunky.
We just don’t trust him based on a variety of statements he’s made and his political history.
He’s grown as a person, while you and your buddies haven’t matured since middle school. And you find it hard to trust what you don’t understand. I get it. He’s beyond your comprehension and that’s scary. So you don’t trust him. Makes total sense.
Eh? No personal attacks? You knew them in middle school? You lump them all together?
I thought only your enemies did that.
Oh .... wait, yes, you ARE your own worst enemies.
These guys, you included, are very hostile towards anyone who changes their mind, especially if they come around to your point of view. The logical conclusion is that y’all don’t change your minds, and can’t understand anyone who does. This is a good faith observation assuming that you're not a bunch of lying sacks of shit.
Then why are "we" so hostile to you and jeffy? Show us how you've ever changed your mind.
Twitter files are a great example. You and your buddies were convinced of the conspiracy sans evidence. I can’t speak for jeff but I was skeptical. Then when the facts came out I along with others, including the Reason staff, came on board with what you guys were saying.
Everyone who changed their mind were called liars for having not being believers the entire time. You guys launched attack after attack after attack. Why? The only thing that makes sense to me is that you are incapable of changing your mind, or you view it as some kind of weakness, so those who do are beneath you and subject to attack and ridicule for allowing themselves to be persuaded by actual facts and stuff.
Or you're a bunch of dishonest sacks of shit. But I'm trying to argue in good faith here.
No Drunky. WE are beyond your comprehension. Everyone here but your morbidly obese friend and the other pedophile are far more intelligent than you. You’re too stupid to understand much of anything, so you flagellate and shitpost mindlessly here.
I'll share something. Well, everybody already knows, but here it is: sarcasmic and jeffy sitting in a tree, J E R K I N G, first comes non-sequitur, then comes ad hom, then sarc passes out in a ditch while jeffy stuffs its face.
They’re polishing their halos. It’s really pathetic.
Here you go, sarspasstick:
https://reason.com/2024/07/24/the-problem-is-spending-libertarian-presidential-nominee-chase-olivers-vision-for-the-future/?comments=true#comment-10657696
Both Trump and former Democrat-turned-independent Robert F. Kennedy Jr. addressed the Libertarian Party convention, asking for their nomination, but Oliver won their votes.
No, he didn’t.
He was anointed in a back room deal that left the real winner flat footed. The same thing was done to let the leftists ‘defeat’ LePen.
Despicable.
This is essentially true. Rectenwald was ahead on every single vote until the final one (essentially).
The fundamental problem with 3rd parties in the US: it's all about boosting the members self-esteem and ignoring what should be the more important issue of advancing the party's policies.
Winning isn't about being #1 in the most rounds of voting. It's about getting 50+%. If you don't get 50+% you don't win and there's a run off. Chase Oliver was, in fact, the real winner.
Rectenwald was ahead on every single vote until the final one (essentially).
The final one being the one after he couldn't stay sober long enough to make a speech?
#LibertariansAgainstPrimaryVoters.
So are you saying the libertarian party is like the democrat party, nomination-wise?
Even in the picture, he looks a lot like Bill Weld.
So, Mr. Oliver.
What is your stance on removing "disinformation" on the internet?
"As a gay man," he says,
Wait, what? When did this become a thing?
I thought only his detractors cared about that.
According to Sarc and Jeffy anyway.
Identity defined people cannot help themselves.
Two questions for Mr. Oliver:
Was Roy Cohn right in getting people fired from government jobs for being closeted homosexuals, yes or no?
If the only way to get both parties to come together and concertedly reduce the federal workforce by any reasonable number was by making sure a majority of or all homosexuals were fired, is that something you would still support, yes or no?
Why does Chase Oliver believe that his sexual preferences have any bearing on anything. I don't give a crap what his sexual preferences are as long as they are legal and don't violate the rights of someone else.
I have a problem with his positions to allow permanent harm to a minor. A minor does not have the capacity to make the decision and parents and judges should not have the right to make the decision for them. Let them wear clothes that are more often associated with a different gender, it's not permanent. The point is that any action that is permanent should wait until the child is no longer a minor and can make the decision themselves.
Otherwise Chase hold some woke liberal ideals, but aligns for the most part on other issues. He is not an ideal candidate and comes with some pretty hefty negatives. I have not decided is I can vote for him or if I will vote for RFK jr. Neither Chase nor RFK jr will win and in my state the Authoritarian Defender of Democracy candidate will likely win like normal.
I have a problem with his positions to allow permanent harm to a minor.
From what I've gathered his position is that medical decisions should be between the doctor, parent, and child. Seems libertarian to me.
The alternative is government involvement in medical decisions.
To me anyway, that stinks of authoritarianism, even if it comes from good intentions.
Reasonably people can disagree that castrating healthy children is a "medical decision". Is it authoritarian to stand between a doctor and a patient? Sure. Is it authoritarian to stand between a child abuser and a child? No.
The people who are against this stuff are generally not doing so for disingenuous reasons. There are legitimate concerns.
Would somebody, anybody, on the "letting families and their physicians make these decisions is child abuse!" side of this care to tell us how many trans child castrations are taking place per year? There are barely 1,000 kids per year on puberty blockers, so it appears to be a zero or near zero number.
There, sarspasstick, your very own words, you respond to, and quote, a criticism which didn't involve him being gay.
Liar, and lazy to boot. Too much booze on the brain?
Why does Chase Oliver believe that his sexual preferences have any bearing on anything.
Because there are a lot of angry, dissatisfied Democrats floating around who might be tempted away, and playing into identity politics a bit opens a door for them.
He does lean into it a bit heavily for my taste. I greatly prefer "my personal life doesn't have anything to do with my politics" over "as a gay man . . . ."
I have a problem with his positions to allow permanent harm to a minor.
I think the jury is still out on whether puberty blockers always and everywhere cause permanent harm and are never anywhere a benefit, which I personally think places us still in the "this really should be between parents, children, and their doctors" phase, but trending towards "these really don't seem like a good idea."
That said, I think supporting access to them, like waving the rainbow flags, is mainly a play to not alienate potential supporters defecting from the Democrats. He's making very deliberate gestures to distinguish himself from "Christian Nationalists," since you're not prying those voters away from Trump anyway, but the number of Democrats who are fed up with Biden/Harris is very high.
I think the jury is still out on whether puberty blockers always and everywhere cause permanent harm and are never anywhere a benefit
Go fuck yourself you disingenuous asshat. This is the exact sort of dishonest, hedging bullshit that Chase Oliver and even Robbie “To be sure” Soave engender against the LP, liberty, reason, and human decency.
Children legitimately suffer endocrine disorders and have since time immemorial. Puberty blockers were developed for specifically this purpose and, since their invention, the trade offs even for pathological bodies have been known. No one is contesting their use in such situations, you cravenly dishonest and fundamentally evil piece of shit. You fuckers should swing from goddamned lampposts for, in 2024, perpetuating this "How do we know masks and 6 ft. of separation *don't* work? Just asking questions." mendacious dumbassery.
You stupid fucksticks are the same shit stains that would spit in Tara Reade’s and Juanita Broderick’s faces, and laugh about it, and then turn around and fret about how people aren’t taking Jussie Smollett, Jackie Coakley, Christine Blasey Ford, or E. Jean Caroll’s allegations seriously enough. Fall into a woodchipper, straight or gayly, I don't care.
Go fuck yourself you disingenuous asshat.
Thank you for you ever valuable contributions, oh guy whose main criticism of Oliver is that he doesn't look manly enough holding a gun.
No one is contesting their use in such situations
So you agree that they shouldn't be banned? That's an awful lot of sputtering insults to say that what I said was accurate.
Thank you for you ever valuable contributions, oh guy whose main criticism of Oliver is that he doesn’t look manly enough holding a gun.
Pathologically dishonest morons like yourself have, for quite some time, had considerable trouble conflating criticism of a weapon and criticism of the person holding the weapon. To the point that it’s pretty obvious, even among the nominal disaffected Democrats you presume or espouse to be attracting, that your dishonesty may not be merely accidental stupidity.
So you agree that they shouldn’t be banned? That’s an awful lot of sputtering insults to say that what I said was accurate.
Why don’t you just say, “I’m trying to attract the most pathologically stupid people, people who can’t distinguish using a drug or a gun for a legitimate medical or self defense purpose from people who do make such distinctions in order to specifically corrode the legitimacy in favor of mob rule and patients running the asylum.”? More critically, why do you presume others can’t answer this question themselves?
Because, again, nobody’s calling for a ban of puberty blockers for legitimate endocrine disorders, they’re calling for a ban on puberty blockers on behalf of a specific accommodation of mental disorders that dishonest asshats like yourself advance on the disinformed useful idiots you can attract to your literally retarded villainy. Because, again, even fairly low-IQ individuals can plainly see the truth and consequences of your actions and what you would be faced with if it were admitted and discussed openly, honestly, and in general or reciprocal good faith.
Believe me when I say that everyone who has come within shouting distance of you understands that you consider yourself a very high-IQ person, but pro tip - the more often and more loudly you scream it the less convincing it is.
Pathologically dishonest morons like yourself have, for quite some time, had considerable trouble conflating criticism of a weapon and criticism of the person holding the weapon.
A thousand pardons - Oliver's taste in guns is unmanly. Important distinction.
nobody’s calling for a ban of puberty blockers for legitimate endocrine disorders
No, just for a bunch of know-nothing politicians to decide right fucking now on everyone's behalf what are and aren't legitimate endocrine disorders. Because liberty. And because you're one of the super smart people if anything you say seems facially to make no sense that's just because other people are super stupid and not at all because you have the language skills and emotional maturity of an arrogant teenager.
dishonest asshats like yourself advance on the disinformed useful idiots you can attract to your literally retarded villainy
Is there any content at all behind this sputtering silliness? Do you have any coherent point to make whatsoever?
you consider yourself a very high-IQ person
Pretty much the premise of everything I write is that I’m of fairly middling IQ and that the vast majority of the population is capable of recognizing the same facts and patterns of reasoning on their own. But do go on about the results of the telepathic IQ test you’ve conducted on me over the internet sarcasmic.
A thousand pardons – Oliver’s taste in guns is unmanly. Important distinction.
You keep saying ‘unmanly’ or ‘not manly enough’. It’s an anachronistic standard issue police revolver. The issue isn’t that it’s unmanly, it’s like a Jew carrying a standard issue Luger P.08 as opposition to modern fascism or Palestinian advocacy. Plenty of men carried both the S&W and the Luger.
Again, I don’t consider myself in any way exceptionally intelligent in making this recognition or assessment. My writings on the topic are relatively straightforward. My kids, all between HS and grade school, would understand it. Why do you assume I’m high-IQ for understanding it or that other people aren’t intelligent enough to see through your invocation of “manliness” to hide your dishonesty?
No, just for a bunch of know-nothing politicians to decide right fucking now on everyone’s behalf what are and aren’t legitimate endocrine disorders.
Are you going to bully a historic, first, black female Supreme Court nominee into answering “I’m not a biologist.” to the question “What is a woman?” next? How noble of you. Because, again, my teens and preteens can see through your ‘How is anyone really supposed to dsitinguish “I feel like my testicles need to be removed because I’m a girl.” from “These serum FSH levels are too low.”‘ retardation?
Do you have any coherent point to make whatsoever?
Yes. To get you to reiterate and even double-down on your dishonesty for everyone to see. If I can see it and my 11 yr. old can see it and understand it, you’re doing everyone, including Chase Oliver, the LP, the transgender community, the disaffected Democrats, *exactly* the (dis)favor they deserve.
Pretty much the premise of everything I write is that I’m of fairly middling IQ
Self-awareness - you lack it. You're easily one of the most arrogant commenters here.
Why do you assume I’m high-IQ
I think you rather seriously misunderstood what I said.
it’s like a Jew carrying a standard issue Luger P.08 as opposition to modern fascism or Palestinian advocacy
Yes. It's exactly like that. And this is a really substantive criticism. Thanks for the clarification.
I don’t consider myself in any way exceptionally intelligent in making this recognition or assessment
Nor do I.
Are you going to bully a historic, first, black female Supreme Court nominee into answering “I’m not a biologist.” to the question “What is a woman?” next? How noble of you.
lol wut?
Because, again, my teens and preteens can see through your ‘How is anyone really supposed to dsitinguish “I feel like my testicles need to be removed because I’m a girl.” from “These serum FSH levels are too low.”‘ retardation?
Always telling when someone has to reframe an argument in order to refute it. Which politicians do you trust to craft the language that is going to make your ban on obvious distinctions possible without unintended consequences? Is every case the most extreme binary you can conceive of, or have you met reality before?
Yes. To get you to reiterate and even double-down on your dishonesty for everyone to see.
Yeah. I'm gonna take that as a "no." But thanks for playing. Maybe there's someone else you can go wish violent death on for the crime of not seeing things in such stark terms as you do.
Yeah. I’m gonna take that as a “no.” But thanks for playing. Maybe there’s someone else you can go wish violent death on for the crime of not seeing things in such stark terms as you do.
Once again, I type things plainly and clearly and you whimsically insert your own definitions or even just patently invert what I said without explanation and then insist that I’m the arrogant one.
Would you feel better if I wished that you mostly peacefully fell into a woodchipper? With the best of intentions? If not, why not?
Once again, I type things plainly and clearly and you whimsically insert your own definitions or even just patently invert what I said without explanation
lol - this coming from the guy who thinks I said something about Ketanji Brown Jackson and responded to my original post with "You stupid fucksticks are the same shit stains that would spit in Tara Reade’s and Juanita Broderick’s faces, and laugh about it, and then turn around and fret about how people aren’t taking Jussie Smollett, Jackie Coakley, Christine Blasey Ford, or E. Jean Caroll’s allegations seriously enough?"
As if I said anything about these topics?
I'm curious what positions of yours you feel I'm misrepresenting, because I haven't yet identified any positions amidst the insults and violent fantasies, other than the assertion that I'm being dishonest about some unspecified thing.
Maybe you can lay some of your trademark clarity on me.
and then insist that I’m the arrogant one
I don't say you're arrogant because of the nonsense that you post so much as your smug declarations that anyone who sees things differently from a 'middling-IQ' fellow like yourself must either be an idiot or part of some hostile conspiracy, or both, who either way deserves to die violently.
If you actually thought you had a middling IQ rather than that just being some rhetorical bullshit you would show some humility, at least occasionally.
Would you feel better if I wished that you mostly peacefully fell into a woodchipper? With the best of intentions? If not, why not?
You can do what you want, but if you're asking whether I'd still think you're an arrogant asshole, the answer would be "yes."
this coming from the guy who thinks I said something about Ketanji Brown
I didn’t say you said something about KBJ. I asked if you were going to because, objectively, this is where the middling “What if we accept a little subjectivity in place of a little objectivity?” on this very topic has already led. Again, you and Oliver, sound like every last passive progressive, Bill Nye/NDGT/”There is no scientific principle or objective truth I won’t sacrifice on this religious alter.” hack that’s come down the line in the last 8 yrs.
And for all my supposed arrogance, I’m here telling you I can’t tell a difference. I wouldn’t expect anyone else to either. And for the sake of science, law, politics, reason, English, etc., etc. the overwhelming majority of us would simply be better off if you fell in a woodchipper.
You can do what you want, but if you’re asking whether I’d still think you’re an arrogant asshole, the answer would be “yes.”
Once again, how noble of you to deign grant me the ability to do what I please despite my actual query asking your opinion on whether “mostly peaceful” makes my assertion any better, not your permission to do so. So, the unerring questions your averred answer leaves begging for anyone to choose to answer, or not, for themselves: Are you stupid, deceitful, or both? Why, except to act as the very politicians you despise, would you make that a/the cornerstone, highlight, or jumping off point of your public policy?
I asked if you were going to because, objectively, this is where the middling “What if we accept a little subjectivity in place of a little objectivity?” on this very topic has already led. Again, you and Oliver, sound like every last passive progressive, Bill Nye/NDGT/”There is no scientific principle or objective truth I won’t sacrifice on this religious alter.” hack that’s come down the line in the last 8 yrs.
I see. So what you're saying is although I didn't say any of these things you know I'm about to because someone else that you don't like once said something similar.
And, for the record, you totally hate it when people other than you "whimsically insert [their] own definitions."
Got it. Loud and clear.
Once again, how noble of you to deign grant me the ability to do what I please despite my actual query asking your opinion on whether “mostly peaceful” makes my assertion any better, not your permission to do so.
Oh - that was a serious question rather than more disingenuous bullshit? The answer is "no," but I'm unclear on why you care so much what I think.
So, the unerring questions your averred answer leaves begging for anyone to choose to answer, or not, for themselves
Was that supposed to be a demonstration of your language skills? Because you're only using about half of those words properly.
Are you stupid, deceitful, or both?
Maybe I'm just someone with a higher-than-middling IQ saying something obvious to most but not to you?
So what you’re saying is although I didn’t say any of these things you know I’m about to because someone else that you don’t like once said something similar.
No, I'm asking. Where's the line? It's already been crossed multiple times by multiple people who espouse more morals or objective beliefs or adherence to scientific principles or honesty than you or Chase many, many times over. Where is the line and why should anyone believe you or Chase any more than Biden, Trump, or Harris?
Maybe I’m just someone with a higher-than-middling IQ saying something obvious to most but not to you?
And maybe I'm just someone with a middling-IQ who isn't really arrogant but knows that it doesn't take a genius-level IQ to recognize when someone's pushing lies and deception in order to, through a series of deliberate steps and overt policy *decisions*, misdiagnose and mutilate children.
No, I’m asking. Where’s the line?
You're doing no such thing.
Your initial response to my comment called me a "cravenly dishonest and fundamentally evil piece of shit" and opined that "You fuckers should swing from goddamned lampposts"
Go fuck yourself. Seriously.
know-nothing politicians to decide right fucking now on everyone’s behalf what are and aren’t legitimate endocrine disorders
This is swinging pretty solidly into Elizabeth Nolan Brown's "Sonograms detect electrical currents." and "See? No bodies in the placental sack means no one died." (just like there were no bodies in the delousing chambers at Auschwitz) territory.
Yeah - this is a pretty good example of one of these rhetorical flourishes that you think makes some really clever point in a really clear and devastating way but that actually doesn't make any sense and doesn't refer to anything that you're responding to.
Delusions that involve being trapped in the wrong body are in no way legitimate endocrine disorders. So don’t even go there.
Dude,using about being trapped in the wrong body are in no way legitimate endocrine disorders.
Not saying they are. I'm saying keep politicians out of making that decision, because they are going to do a bad job and cause more harm than good. Because that's what politicians do.
Do you think people can’t see that you’re effectively equating diabetic amputations (an empirical result of an empirical endocrine condition) with body integrity dysmorphia (a subjective condition with no objective endocrine-related cause or treatment)? Do you think they can’t see objectively that the conflation is a disservice to both diabetics and dysmorphics?
After someone else brings is up, why would you presume it’s just me being arrogant?
More critically, as indicated, why would you assert other politicians are pettifogging liars and then make that, pettifogging of objective truth and subjective accommodation, the touchstone of (your defense of) a political campaign?
Do you think people can’t see that you’re effectively equating diabetic amputations (an empirical result of an empirical endocrine condition) with body integrity dysmorphia (a subjective condition with no objective endocrine-related cause or treatment)?
Do you think people can't see that I said nothing of the kind?
On a related topic, don't you just hate people who just make up their own whimsical definitions for what other people say?
What part of "politicians are not qualified to write these laws" are you not understanding? Seriously.
After someone else brings is up, why would you presume it’s just me being arrogant?
Because FUTWC is not being an arrogant dick for no reason. It really is that simple. I really touched a nerve with that one, though, didn't I?
Do you think people can’t see that I said nothing of the kind?
I think they can not only see that you said something specifically “of the kind”, they can see that you specifically said something “of the kind” and then said that you didn’t. That’s why I quoted you.
On a related topic, don’t you just hate people who just make up their own whimsical definitions for what other people say?
My definition is not whimsical. Diabetes is an endocrine disorder. Body dysmorphia is not. Dictionary. Textbook. Second opinion from a primary care physician. Third opinion from an endocrinologist. Mix in with psychological professional of your choice. Because I didn’t just whimsically make up a definition.
Even without all of the above, an “of the kind” conflation is objectively pretty fucking evil for diabetics or people suffering from mental conditions.
Because FUTWC is not being an arrogant dick for no reason.
I am being a dick and it’s not for no reason. It’s because you advocate the rather open experimentation on children based on the loose hope that it might produce some not overwhelmingly destructive and cripplingly oppressive outcome. Not based on evidence of results in adults or some well-established medical or psychoactive mechanism (something the insulin-shock therapy actually had going for it), but because you think it’s completely OK to medically mutilate children on a hunch and that no one could or could ever possibly find anything morally or legally wrong with that.
It really is that simple. I really touched a nerve with that one, though, didn’t I?
As long as you agree that FUTWC and I are in the right and that the conflation of endocrine and mental disorders is grotesquely dishonest and immoral on a number of levels, and that the only critical difference between he and I is that I’m an arrogant asshole; sure, you touched a nerve.
Again, you seem to suggest my invocation of ENB above was a spurious rhetorical flourish, but it wasn’t. There is no federal ban on transgender treatment and there are some very sound objective moral reasons why states would rightly want to regulate it. The exact same way that, if Christians were trying to electro-convulsively convert homosexuals straight, even with their parents’ consent, a State wouldn’t be wrong putting a stop to it. You and Chase (and ENB) want to blur all kinds of logical, legal, social, medical, and other lines in order to get your way or get your preferred TOP MAN into office. He’s not a distinct third option to the TPD, he’s an also ran. And you’re somebody who's willing to go along with the abuse of all of the above to advocate for it.
Congratulations - I don't think I've engaged with such a bad faith debater since the last time I talked to Tony.
Do I bother to respond?
If your "I'm just a good old boy with a middling IQ and a dollop of common sense" bullshit weren't facially dishonest you'd be willing to entertain the notion that you misunderstood what someone said rather than to attribute the worst motives you can think of and wish death on them.
I spoke imprecisely when I said "legitimate endocrine disorders," when I should have said "legitimate treatments for disorders."
Since you're just a middling-IQ regular guy you may be familiar with the concept that not everyone is an expert in everything, not even politicians. I mean, I get that you think you are, but not everybody is.
My personal understanding as someone without expertise in either endocrinology or gender dysmorphia is that puberty blockers were tried as treatment for the latter thing, but that recent studies have suggested that they may do no good, and therefore may not justify the side effects.
Now I'm sure you think there's some super obvious position that all right-thinking people should have on this, and you're so impatient with all the "good 'ol common sense" lackers that you need us all to die so you can pass your laws forbidding these treatments from ever being used anywhere at anyone's discretion, but honestly I don't really care.
If you were to go back and look at the comment that caused you to declare that I need to be strung up, you would find that I was opining on the political logic of why Chase Oliver might be trying not to alienate potential Democrat voters.
But you're so blinded by hateful partisanship that you can't tolerate even slight speculation that people who disagree with you may not be part of an evil international conspiracy against Righteousness.
As long as you agree that FUTWC and I are in the right and that the conflation of endocrine and mental disorders is grotesquely dishonest and immoral on a number of levels
That's not at all what FUTWC said. He said dissociative identity disorder is not an endocrine problem and went on to opine, in good faith and without malice, that puberty blockers should be outlawed, which he's perfectly free to think. He didn't call me names, he didn't accuse me of being part of an evil conspiracy, and he didn't make up things I said in order to refute them.
If you can't see the difference, maybe you should seek help. Seriously.
We can’t keep politicians out of it. Due to insane woke people, now we need laws to stop them. Or we could just get rid of the left. Then no such laws would be necessary.
Due to insane woke people, now we need laws to stop them.
This may well be the case, and I certainly understand why some people feel this way. My main point is really that I don't see Oliver as irredeemably evil for also not having yet come to agree that we need to involve the government rather than social pressure. I have a strong bias toward parents making decisions for children except in really clearly extreme cases, and unfortunately this whole discussion has gotten so partisan and weaponized that I'm highly skeptical of everything I hear from both sides.
He’s way too far in the tank for some of this woke stuff. Thats the problem.
I know the following is an antilibertarian thing to do - but L candidates for Prez should stop trying to preach libertarian ideas and just put forth the entire list of PEOPLE who they will want to appoint to get a 100 day agenda started.
Those people are the ones who will be charged with implementing ideas. Hell those people would make for a good electoral college so that people in a state can assess whether they are credible or not.
Hell put together a Libertarian Project 2025. Eliminate the biggest problem of any voter thinking about an L vote. Where an L 'president' can't work with anyone in Congress - does nothing but talk endlessly - and always with a suspicion that the people behind that prez candidate will strip off to their undies if they are ever on a public stage.
I suppose it depends on what you think the purpose of a Libertarian candidate for President is. But assuming that they are actually trying to be a serious option for the office, I think that's a pretty good approach. Explain what you can and will actually do as president to move things in a libertarian direction.
Yeah it does get to the core of whether the Libertarian Party is a real political party or not. After 50 years of nonseriousness about that, it does help explain the failure and explain the attraction of the LP to nonserious people.
Attorney General – Randy Barnett
State – Daniel Larison
Treasury – Veronique de Rugy
Defense – Tulsi Gabbard
Interior – Scott Bullock
Homeland Security – Radley Balko in charge of disbanding it.
Education – L. Skenazy in charge of disbanding it.
Labor – Elizabeth N. Brown, either to disband it or make them sorry it isn’t disbanded.
EPA Administrator – Charles Koch, same instructions as Brown.
That’s a list of names. Are they on-board with that?
And in particular re the goal of disbanding a department. That WAS the purported goal of Terrell Bell Reagan’s first Secy of Education. But that required legislation from Congress. He had been the Commissioner of Education (the predecessor to Secy of Education) but he clearly had no plan to revert anything back to a pre-cabinet function.
Instead – and much worse – he’s the guy who in the absence of an actual plan to disband anything legally, put together the Nation at Risk commission. That redefined our existing failures in education up to the level of a national security problem. Thus ensuring that a federal reform of education gets R support. Giving that cabinet dept a mission that Carter had never given it. Carter’s decision to elevate education to cabinet level was for the purposes of desegregation and civil rights. And the ‘proposed federal reform’ was exactly the sort of shit that libertarians love – privatizing school testing. Which was at the time being done in the interstate compact of education where it was being done by state level education bureaucrats. So Reagan obliterated that interstate compact, put the function in DC under federal rules, and the DoE now had completely bipartisan support and has only added functions. eg school choice is the same centralizing force to take authority away from school districts/boards.
With Koch in particular – there ain’t no way he wants to get rid of EPA. He simply wants to own it so it does his bidding. With ‘disbanding’ rhetoric in general – it’s all just rhetorical virtue signaling by a drunk sitting on a bar stool. Utter crap not an actual plan to get from here to there. Because that latter would require transparency of options and hence pushback.
That’s a joke, right?
Labor – Elizabeth N. Brown
Everyone is a sex worker, BECAUSE YOU'RE ALL FUCKED NOW!
Including the kids!
When asked "There's a gun to your head. You've got to vote for Biden or Trump. Republican or Democrat. Who do you choose?"
He said "The gun would go off."
Obviously he's a liar, because everyone says he's a closet leftist.
Or he's a liar because with an actual gun to one's head, pretty much everyone would make a choice. I mean, even if the candidates were literally Hitler and Stalin, I'd prefer not to die.
Then maybe he should have said "Put a gun to my head and see. But right now I can't choose because my life doesn't depend on it."
Doesn't necessarily make him a liar.
No. And it's not a real question either, but a fake, unrealistic scenario like those dumb "would you kill 1 person to save 10" scenarios.
Or he understands that either answer would instantly be spun as an endorsement, and requoted with all context stripped away.
The better answer would’ve been “stupid game, not playing.”
It may surprise you, but some people are actually willing to die for principals. You never really can tell though.
Between *Trump* and *Biden* he wouldn't lie at all and take a shot to the head, but between property rights and Trump and Biden and taking a shot to the arm and a hyped threat of dying he'd take a shot to the arm that passive-progressively or tactically ambiguously supports Biden and "prevents" his own death.
"As a gay man," he says, "I can better protect myself from being bashed if I'm armed….I have great appreciation for our right to defend ourselves."
Actually kinda does explain why getting bashed for being a feckless, two-bit, also-ran political hack seems to be working.
He makes a valid point there, but he really should find a better way to explain it than the "As a [insert identitarian box-checking credentials], I...." structure.
Leave that rhetorical nonsense structure so that the leftists can send up a flare indicating that whatever follows that build-up is most likely devoid of any signs of critical thinking. There's got to be a better way to point out that anyone who's potentially going to be targeted by a violent attacker for whatever reason would be better able to defend themself (or better yet, de-escalate the encounter by altering the balance of capability) if they've got better legal access to concealed carry permits, and training for how to safely and effectively use a weapon if it's needed for defense; and that those intent on criminality aren't waiting for permission from the law to do the same.
His opinion on any matter at all is worthless; he has no chance of being able to affect any issue at all.
He’s virtue signaling. And how is he going to strong arm Congress into doing anything he wants to do? Look at what Trump went through just trying to build a $5 billion border wall. If Oliver thinks he can just start vetoing everything and not get torn apart by the democrat media, he’s lying or delusional.
Plus, given this guy’s background, i just don't trust him.
If the goal is to eliminate the Dept of Education, the path to success is simple.
Institute a federal-level school choice directive on day one and require that any public school district receiving Federal funding has 150 days to produce a functional concept of a "voucher" system under which at least 90% of the district's per-student gross spending level be made available to parents to be used toward tuition at any private or charter school which their child can be enrolled at within a 35 mile radius of either the family's address or the school to which that student would be "assigned" within the public system. Then after review and certification of their plan as being workable, require that the plan be implemented by the beginning of classes for the 2024-2025 school year. Failure to submit a proposal on schedule resulting in a 10% reduction in Federal funding for that district, with an additional 5% penalty for each additional 120 day delay in submission, with a rejected plan resulting in a 5% penalty per attempt in which a non-workable plan is submitted.
You'll have nearly every state-level teachers' union and the national association calling for the elimination of the Department within three months, meaning that the entire Dem caucus in Congress and the Senate will have little choice but to support it unanimously.
2024-20252025-2026 school yearPresuming "day one" to be Jan. 20ish, 2025.
The problem is definitely spending. The federal budget was 4.1 trillion dollars as recently as 2018 (six years ago). If spending had been frozen at that level, the budget would be balanced already (2023 tax revenues were 4.4 trillion).
Instead, Congress increased spending to 6.1 trillion (a 49% increase, even though spending was already way too high at 4.1 trillion.)
I remember when career politicians found out that the problem was spending, and then leviathan invented "tax cuts" as a way to commute entitlements!
That was before being an asset to anyone else but themselves (i.e. working) became optional. Over half of US citizens now use gov-gun ‘armed-theft’ for their career choice. Welcome to the next case of a [Na]tional So[zi]alist h*llhole complete with identity politics and gang-wars … the whole enchilada on full display. Nope; It didn't work this time either.
The Worst Debtor
“Neither a borrower nor a lender be,
For loan oft loses both itself and friend,
And borrowing dulls the edge of husbandry.” -from Hamlet by William Shakespeare (1564-1616)
These United States went from the best creditor after World War Two to the worst debtor. The final stroke came in1980. Since then, it’s been all downhill if you include so-called off-budget items.
Two percent. What’s magic about 2%? Nothing! It’s still legalized theft by our insatiable government buying votes with out children’s money. Three percent is 50% worse. We give money to a bunch of parasites while our Navy falls into disrepair to the extent that we use Chinese shipyards to repair its vessels because we can’t do the job ourselves anymore. Talk about loss of husbandry.
As for Trump correcting the trend, forget it! During his first term, he was a profligate spender to be exceeded only by “crooked Joe Biden”. Chris Cuomo on News Nation is correct. The two-party political system is broken. Its replacement? Described in detail in the novel, Retribution Fever.
To MAGA-adjacent libertarians, this is Marxism.
When did Stossel grow the castaway beard? That's never a good sign. As for Oliver, was he the fat one or the skinny one? I can never remember.
Stossel has had the beard for several years now.