RFK Jr. Spread Some Libertarian Ideas, Then Sold Out to Trump
The independent candidate deserves credit for promoting some liberty-friendly causes.

Independent candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has suspended his campaign for the presidency in 10 swing states, where he will seek to remove his name from the ballot. He said on Friday that he did not want to play a spoiler role and prevent former President Donald Trump from winning the election. RFK Jr. cited his agreement with Trump on the fundamental issues of censorship and foreign policy as the reason for his tacit support.
Earlier in the week, RFK Jr.'s running mate, entrepreneur Nicole Shanahan, suggested that they wished to avoid a victory by Vice President Kamala Harris at all costs; even though RFK Jr. was formerly a Democrat—and has a recognizably Democratic last name—recent polling suggested that his candidacy was hurting Trump slightly more than Harris. RFK Jr.'s main appeal was to disaffected, contrarian voters who lost faith in the elite consensus, especially with respect to the federal government's heavy-handed COVID-19 policies; these voters are more likely to pick Trump as their second choice than Harris.
Unfortunately, the U.S.'s winner-take-all system tends to create elections that are competitive for just the two major parties. Independent and third-party candidates struggle to gain traction and end up accomplishing very little. This is a structural problem; by contrast, in a European parliamentary system, a candidate who receives just 5 percent of the national vote might expect to receive 5 percent of the representation in the government. Major parties must then work with smaller parties to form governing coalitions. In the U.S., only the winner matters.
This means that tacitly supporting one of the two major candidates in exchange for influence is actually one of the only ways for an independent to transmogrify their support base into actual power. It's not surprising, then, that RFK Jr. has chosen this path. Seeking higher office outside the two-party system is extremely difficult and Republicans and Democrats work tirelessly to make it even tougher. Democratic activists, for example, filed legal challenges to keep RFK Jr. off the ballot in New York state. While insisting that the health of democracy itself is the fundamental issue in this election, the Democratic Party hired operatives to counter third-party and independent candidates such as RFK Jr.
Often derided by the mainstream media as a conspiracy theorist for his views on vaccines, RFK Jr. attracted some libertarian support. His strident opposition to COVID-19 mandates, censorship of dissenting voices on social media, and U.S. military support for Ukraine drew positive attention from the Libertarian Party (L.P.); L.P. Chair Angela McArdle expressed optimism that his ideology was trending in a libertarian direction. Still, he continued to hold progressive views on a range of economic issues, affirmative action, and climate change.
RFK Jr. deserves credit, however, for being willing to listen to libertarians. He attended libertarian events including FreedomFest and the Libertarian National Convention; he sat for interviews with Reason's Nick Gillespie and Zach Weissmueller and appeared on my show, Rising. He also helped bring much-needed attention to the federal government's vigorous attempts at suppression of constitutionally protected speech on social media.
It's a shame that RFK Jr. was denied a spot in the first presidential debate, even though his poll numbers arguably merited inclusion. Unfortunately, both Trump and then–presumptive Democratic candidate Joe Biden agreed to exclude him, and major media organizations were perfectly willing to heed this demand.
Indeed, RFK Jr. has often been at odds with the mainstream media, federal health bureaucrats, and the leaders of both the Democratic and Republican parties (though he's friendly enough with Trump to make somewhat of an endorsement). Given such a roster of adversaries, it's no wonder many libertarians felt at least somewhat positively toward him.
However you feel about RFK, he has shined a light on a major structural problem plaguing our politics: Suppression of competition.
The two parties will keep forcing worse and worse candidates down our throats until we break this, and I applaud RFK for making the attempt. https://t.co/XmdgrL9cwk
— Zach Weissmueller (@TheAbridgedZach) August 22, 2024
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
my god. "sold out" the major candidate who is lightyears more libertarian than the Cackler. amazing take.
Robby is a pathetic parasite, and he is your enemy.
The finest kind of Democrat-adjacent liberaltarian.
Sold out.
Or took the least bad viable option.
You are walk into a voting booth and pick the option that is going to hurt you the least. Not what you dream about.
Why Reason can't process this is a mystery.
Exactly. When they were running the corpse of Sleepy Joe wasn't one of the talking points that we were not voting for the man (with obvious dementia) but the administration? I say hell yeah. I embrace your ideas!
“The Ukraine war,” he continued, “began in 2014 when US agencies
overthrew the democratically elected government of Ukraine and installed
a hand-picked pro-Western government that launched a deadly civil war
against ethnic Russians in Ukraine. “
RFK August 23
So, are you a neo Nazi, or an Islamist?
Expected value theorem. Doesn't exist here.
"...Why Reason can’t process this is a mystery..."
Ditto with TDS-addled shit-piles like Welsh, Sandra, brandyshit, dicksalad, Eric, and on and on.
It is axiomatic in libertarian theory that "utopia is not an option"; we never have the option of perfection. Which, BTW, is what make the Libertarian Party a non-libertarian shit-show: 'I'm pure - give me perfection or expect nothing but whining...'.
You think the bloggers (leave aside the commenters for now) are TDS-addled? I think they're Koch-addled. It's been evident for years to me that they're no longer following their own judgement.
Uh, well, please explain what that means.
He was dumbfounded by a central planning utilitarian on Rising- Californias minimum wage fast food. If only one percent of the population of California has to suffer, doesn’t matter. That was this guys argument, similar to eminent domain utilitarian arguments.
This guy was the embodiment of Robert Nozicks Utility Monster and Robbie just sat there like oh okay statist, its only less than one percent of the population that lost everything they had worked their entire lives to build due to state interference.
Robbie is a commie fag
Don’t insult fags like that!
Or commies
He’s so bitchy about RFK Jr.that I wonder if he broke a nail while writing this article.
You don't listen well, he didn't sell out the Democrats forced him out with all the ways they used to make him pay for court costs because they filed charges against him. He spent a fortune to become a legitimate candidate and then Dems were bleeding him dry with the legal charges. He said he would not spend donations to him on the court filings. If both parties had not worked together to create these unfair rules for someone that wants to run for office then he would/ could have continued. That is why America does not have a 3rd party - the Dems & GOP have too much control and it is illegal in a nation that has free speech, etc. Anyone should be able to run for office w/out spending millions and having a workforce to get signatures.
On the 10th of May 1940, Chamberlain resigned as PM and joined Winston Churchill as an important member of his war cabinet as Lord President of the Council, in order to better oppose Hitler.
Chamberlain “Sold Out”.
The phrase “the most important election in our lifetimes” has been misused for decades, but this time it probably really is.
You’ve got a party run by oligarchs that is actually fighting against free speech and freedom of association, figureheaded by an idiot communist who slept her way there and was installed in a coup.
That said, voting harder won't actually help because they've probably already got the whole thing rigged as fuck.
ML, four years in the future:
The phrase “the most important election in our lifetimes” has been misused for decades, but this time it probably really is.
ML, eight years in the future:
The phrase “the most important election in our lifetimes” has been misused for decades, but this time it probably really is.
This is not "the most important election in our lifetimes". None of them are. This is just a tactic that both Team Red and Team Blue uses to try to scare people into voting for their team out of fear. Don't fall for the deceptive tactic. If they had policies and principles worth affirmatively supporting on their own merits, they wouldn't need to resort to such lowbrow fearmongering. But they don't, so here we are. Every single fucking time.
Shall we make a wager on your predictions? Loser deletes his account forever.
Sounds good to me.
Hey Lying Jeffy, you evil fat fuck, are you game?
Jeffy will never honor the bet when he loses. He’s an honorless, lying piece of shit.
It remains amusing that lefty shits, totally supporting D lefty programs, select handles claiming that they, somehow, have thinking abilities beyond the propaganda they swallow and regurgitate.
Hey, drunken boring follower, please change your handle in the interest of honesty.
Aftetlr admitting to strawman arguments in the roundup Jeff continues his factory line of strawman arguments.
How embarrassing has it been for you today jeff?
Oh yeah, you’re probably even more pissy about RFK Jr. backing Trump than Robby.
Seethe hard you fat bitch.
If Trump is the next Hitler and Project 2025 will institute a Christian Theocracy where women will be treated as sow cows and gays will be thrown off of rooftops, both of which will completely destroy democracy (Trump and 2025 to be clear) this would, by definition, be the most important election ever.
But you’re saying it’s not, so I guess all the rhetoric and bluster about him being an existential threat to the country has just been pablum and bullshit.
(This of course ignores the fact he is running against a no shit fascist who thinks she can dictate prices and stifle free speech, among other things. I won’t hold it against anyone who votes for Chase instead of the other two, but this is the first time in the 20 years I’ve been able to vote for president that the outcome legit feels like “the most important election ever”.)
She's a communist.
Fascists actually like the home population.
There has never been an election in our history where one of the major party candidates has literally proposed society ending, communist style price controls.
Society ending?? Doesn't that seem a bit hyperbolic? Also, there is a thing called Congress. Good luck getting any price control bill through the Senate.
Yeah, that’s the ultimate end of price controls. Remember those stocked full shelves in Soviet grocery stores? Neither do I. And that there may be a Congress to oppose this clown is no reason to put this pseudo communist clown in power in the first place. And if this joke won, there probably would be a democrat Congress. Oh what fun that would be. Price controls, confiscatory tax rates, including taxes on unrealized gain. Open borders. Yeah not really an important election.
From the party of "freedom": Either submit to the collective or get on the train.
And then others will feel joy.
That takes me back to this scene from ‘Moscow on the Hudson’. Where Robin Williams is visiting NYC from the Soviet Union, and goes to get coffee from a typical American supermarket. This causes a bit of culture shock.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHIcmoY3_lE
Bernie Sanders: Don't Need 23 Choices of Deodorant, 18 Choices of Sneakers When Kids Are Going Hungry
SANDERS: "It's funny, sometimes American journalists talk about how bad our country is, that people are lining up for food. That's a good thing. In other countries people don't line up for food. The rich get the food and the poor starve to death."
And many of those countries are run by people like him.
Really? Have you paid attention to congress? Despite the rapidly approaching fiscal cliff, we continue to spend money like drunken sailors and send it around the world. It a team effort of stupidity and appealing to the dumbest, least informed voters. How many Republican in the legislature will cave to price controls because their dumbest constituents want it?
There will not be a proce control bill. There will be a price control regulation executed through some federal agency.
Sure, there will be litigation, but by the time it gets overturned by SCOTUS, it'll be too late and the damage will be done.
Then there must be civil disobedience. Although the likelihood is that if Harris is ‘elected’ it will be through obvious election fraud. And this time the public would be smart to rise up and force the democrats out.
So if there’s a chance of her winning, this is the most important congressional election….
Oh, goody windycityasshole shows up again!
You are right; if the R's retain legislative power, slimy lefty shits like you and Cackels would be thwarted.
She doesn’t think that she needs Congress. Rather she intends to use the FTC and EOs.
She? Thinks?
Too much credit given.
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/address-the-nation-announcing-price-control-measures
Nixon did not run on doing that.
Them doing something moronic after-the-fact is too sadly the norm, but he did not run on price controls.
Do you think Nixon's price controls were "society ending"?
Do you think it is a little bit hyperbolic to claim that Kamamalama's plans are "society ending"?
Do you think it's possible, even somewhat, to argue honestly about what the other side believes and argue against that, instead of investing hysterical hyperbolic strawmen about "society ending" policies?
Is Trump society ending?
It would be convenient if she actually talked to the press, but of course you can’t have her accidentally admitting to what she has planned for us.
Do you think Nixon’s price controls were “society ending”?
Kinda, yeah. It was definitely a start to what Kamala is finishing.
I never thought I’d encounter a Democrat praising an authoritarian Nixon and slagging a Kennedy at the same time, but 2024 is weird.
If it helps, Nixon was also anti-gun.
I’m not praising Nixon and I’m not praising Kamalamama either. I’m objecting to your team’s hyperbolic characterizations of everything that they do.
Why can’t you just stop at “it’s bad”? Why do you have to go all the way to “IT’S COMMUNISM” or “IT’S SOCIETY ENDING”?
But I have more of an idea why. It’s because you’re one of the “counter-revolutionaries” who views Democrats as not opponents, but wartime enemies who must be stopped by any means necessary. Just like in any war, a patriot wouldn’t stop merely at “the other side is bad”, they would go all the way to “the other side is EVIL and must be bombed into submission!” That is where you are coming from, right? So NOTHING that Democrats do will ever be labeled as merely “bad”. It will ALWAYS be labeled as America-destroying pure evil. Because the real goal here isn’t to outvote them in the marketplace of ideas, the real goal is to totally obliterate the enemy and destroy them once and for all. Do I have it about right here?
Furthermore, the reason why you and your fellow "counter-revolutionaries" perpetually give Republicans the benefit of the doubt is because they are your allies, however unsteady, in your war against the Democrats. Allies don't publicly undercut each other in time of war, they must be united in singular purpose to destroy the enemy. So Republicans (well, the ones who are sympathetic to the "counter-revolutionaries") will be granted the benefit of the doubt, their perfidy will be explained away, as a necessary public fiction in order to maintain the wartime cohesion needed to defeat the enemy which is pure evil. Am I close here? I think I'm close.
Where did you get your new retarded talking points?
Your literature.
So I'm gonna assume I'm right here, because I think I am.
So if that's the case, then I am not a Democrat and I am not a Republican either. If we must use the wartime metaphor, I am more like the Swiss. I'm not going to join either tribe. It doesn't mean I dislike both tribes *equally*, because I don't - I'm pretty sure the during the Cold War, the Swiss didn't really like the Soviets, even if they never would join NATO - but it does mean I'm not going to join in your wartime metaphors and I'm going to pursue a different path, not one based on one side totally annihilating the other, but one that is based on universal concepts of individual liberty.
Since it is undeniably true that I dislike Team Red more than I dislike Team Blue, and because I will not join you in your counter-revolutionary narrative, that is why you label me as belonging to Team Blue. It's not true, and I am not responsible that you swallowed the red pill or black pill or whatever pill it is, but the reality pill says that we are not really at war and you should knock it off with this type of bullshit.
You ARE Team Blue.
It took years to recover from those mistakes. 13% mortgage rates. Stagflation. Gas lines. Perhaps not totally collapsing but painful enough that we certainly should fucking remember the pain and try to not inflict it upon ourselves again.
I can recognize hyperbole when I see it.
Which side is more likely to:
Stack the Supreme Court to allow unlimited executive orders?
End the filibuster to implement state only health care?
Continue to provide just enough aid to Ukraine to keep them fighting but unable to win?
Ban fracking?
Implement "hate speech laws"?
Continue and expand the insane energy subsidies?
Support Iran enough to begin a Shia-Sunni war that will engulf the entire Middle East?
There will not be a viable true free market, free minds candidate in our lifetimes. All we can do is stall off the totalitarians until the culture changes enough to allow such a candidate.
"Do you think Nixon’s price controls were “society ending”?"
Were the 1970's the "good old days" economically? I seem to remember the decade being a bit of a shithole economically. And the first step over a line won't kill much. The CONTINUED stepping over it does.
Nixon making an idiotic decision does not, somehow, justify Kamala.
"Do you think it is a little bit hyperbolic to claim that Kamamalama’s plans are “society ending”?"
No more so than the incessant claims that Trump wants to "end democracy". But, you got to dance to the music being played. C'est la vie.
"Do you think it’s possible, even somewhat, to argue honestly about what the other side believes and argue against that, instead of investing hysterical hyperbolic strawmen about “society ending” policies?"
Going after groceries for price gouging (that excessive 2% profit margin is just too much) will allow the government to fuck up the food system in a significant and possibly unfixable way.
You may approve it. I will not.
“I’m not praising Nixon and I’m not praising Kamalamama either. I’m objecting to your team’s hyperbolic characterizations of everything that they do.”
If you agree that a policy is bad, then why does hyperbole from the opposition matter? Yes, there are some lines that can’t crossed. PETA likening caged chickens to Jews in concentration camps is distasteful. But calling something like the migrant surge or a massive wave of locusts as an “invasion” is perfectly apt, it does not matter that they’re not actually an armed force.
This is what you do when you’re at an disadvantage on a discourse. You know you can’t possibly defend price control, but you also can’t stand that Kamala’s bad ideas provide a moral edge to the pro Trump side. So you try to gain an upper hand by by making partisanship an issue, like deflecting to the fact Nixon started it (despite no republican supporting that measure now) and to “hyperbole”.
No, price controls won’t LITERALLY “end society” like the volcanic explosion did to Pompeii. But it will utterly destabilize society. We’ve seen its aftermath, so it’s not some baseless fearmongering. If it’s a part of a broader socialist agenda, it may every well end a prosperous society.
You’re resorting to silly semantics and pedantry that has no place in a serious discussion. If someone said “Kamala will be crucified at the polls for this” you know who will object to invoking the bloody image of the cross? Only you, apparently. I didn’t see you actively objecting to the left calling Trump Hitler, so your non partisanship act is disingenuous. It always was.
Since I'm not a Republican hack, I can say without reservation that was one of the stupidest things a politician has ever actually done. It ignored economics in the same way Harris is trying to ignore economics. Just because Nixon did a stupid thing 50 years ago doesn't mean we should allow Harris to do a stupid thing today.
Literally?
RFK, Jr. - I'm a valid Presidential candidate in good standing. Give me Secret Security protection.
Biden/Harris Administration - No.
[attempted assassination of Donald Trump]
Trump - You really need to give RFK, Jr. Secret Service protection too.
Biden/Harris Administration - OK.
But, for someone like Robby, fruit sushi is an adventure so the idea of saying somebody sold out too someone who nearly got killed and got them protection out of the whole deal wouldn't even be a consideration, let alone realized as a phenomenally immoral insult.
Fuckin' Eloi man.
"man"
", man."
Either way.
That’s a bold claim. I’m not aware Mad is a biologist.
Former presidents who left office because they lost an election don't have any authority and can't order up Secret Service protection for unrelated politicians. Trump's opinion is to RFK;s SS protection as a rooster crowing is to sunrise.
The person who "convinced" them to give RFK protection was the shooter. Just like millions of Americans every day take off their shoes at the airport because of what Richard Reid decided to do.
Mike, do you ever think to do research before commenting?
By law, the Secret Service is authorized to protect:
The president, the vice president, (or other individuals next in order of succession to the Office of the President), the president-elect and vice president-elect
The immediate families of the above individuals
Former presidents, their spouses, except when the spouse re-marries
Children of former presidents until age 16
Visiting heads of foreign states or governments and their spouses traveling with them, other distinguished foreign visitors to the United States, and official representatives of the United States performing special missions abroad
Major presidential and vice presidential candidates, and their spouses within 120 days of a general presidential election
https://www.secretservice.gov/about/faq/general
That was 50 days ago. Trump was shot less than that.
Biden entire motivation was to not make RFK seem like a real candidate. When that didn't work the DNC sued to get him off ballots.
Here is the actual law.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3056
The Secret Service is *AUTHORIZED* to protect those individuals, and the authority comes from the Secretary of Homeland Security. Not from former presidents named Trump.
For the record I would have been fine with the SS protecting all the presidential candidates if they ask for it, as long as they are at least theoretically eligible to win.
Nardz/Jesse, I thought you were marginally more intelligent than mad.casual, who delusionally believes Trump gave orders to the Secret Service to protect RFK.
Apparently not. You look up a law we were all very well aware of, we understand better than you do, and always will understand better than you do. Then you post it without understanding.
That's a list of people the SS is authorized to protect. Not a list of who can order other people protected. Can you comprehend that difference? Trump has no authority to order RFK protected, and the more you double down on this stupid claim the more you're going to embarrass yourself.
No no no. You see, Jesse believes:
– Biden is a communist authoritarian dictator who deliberately ordered the Secret Service NOT to protect Trump or RFK or anyone else challenging him or Kamalama because he wants to see the opposition murdered by assassins; and
– Biden is so weak and inept that he allowed HIS Secret Service to be bullied by Trump, who has no formal power whatsoever, to provide protection to his enemies even when he didn’t want it.
They are both true! Swearsies!
It’s hilarious to watch your morbidly obese, retarded ass tell us ‘what Jesse thinks’ when you’re far too stupid to grasp what any of us none pinkos think about anything.
You’re just increasingly angry and shrill because things aren’t going the democrat way. It hurts you. Which is certainly joyous to watch.
Now why don’t you and your pinko faggot friends go away, fuck each other, and leave real Americans in peace.
dicksalad, I knew you were not marginally more intelligent than a random hand-full of mud.
FOAD, asshole.
Mad.casual did no such thing.
Go back and read his little play again. Nowhere does it say he ordered the SS to do a goddamn thing. You know how you can tell? Because Trump says “You really need”. That’s not an order, it’s a suggestion. At least to people not being disingenuous twats.
You do know that you’re addressing a gaggle of disingenuous twats, right?
Yeah, the point wasn't Trump *ordering* SS protection, it was that Trump endorsed it for his *opponent*m (at the time), while Biden admin denied it.
Soave never in that article accuses RFK Jr of selling out. This is solely a fiction told in the Headline, which was likely written by KMW. As usual, she loves creating click-bait by making anti-trump statements.
If I were Soave, I would be pissed at such a shoddy lead into his otherwise decent story.
(My complaints below notwithstanding)
The headline is hyperbolic compared to what Soave wrote, but it is still within the same sentiment. Robby plays the both sides game while still playing up that the Trump side is worse. I don't see him really digging into why the move makes sense for RFK
Again, as far as I'm concerned, Robby sold out with Christine Blasey Ford.
As far as the bunk headline goes, I don't know how much the gig at The Hill pays but I struggle to see why he* would switch if it didn't get you "Fuck you (Reason)" money.
Even at that, the whole "I wrote the article, but someone else wrote the headline." as practice or policy, at a magazine full of Editors, certainly doesn't help the notion that the entire magazine is a dumpster fire for Koch to throw money into.
*Robby anyway, I know why *I* would switch to working with Duke and Burbank.
She was credible!
When anyone says that seriously to my face, I laugh as contemptuously as possible. Before correcting them derisively.
As far as I’m concerned, Robby's softball interview with Fauci topped that in the selling out biz.
It wasn’t Christine Blasey Ford, it was Julie Swetnik. The “Let’s hear out this wacky story of gangrape parties thrown by high school juniors attended by college students before we judge it,” article.
In some fairness, his generation is trained to more or less treat any accusation of that type as honest. To his credit, he realized that was dumb faster than most of the rest of the media.
I like Robby, at least by comparison to other writers around here, and I think he's actually getting better instead of worse as he gets older.
Doesn't stop him from writing some face palm articles, but at the end of the day he's still a journalism major so that should be expected.
This sums up how I feel too.
He was on Wilkow’s XM show recently. He sounded much more reasonable in that interview. It makes me wonder if Robby is more or less genuinely libertarian outside of Reason, which is basically a leftist rag with hipster faux libertarian pretensions.
I'm going to give Robbie the benefit of the doubt and assume he didn't write the headline. But can whoever did write it explain exactly what RFK sold here? It's rumored that Trump is offering him a cabinet post something that I wholeheartedly support. He will be far more productive in that role than as a soon to be forgotten 3rd party wanna be. Trump offered to put a Libertarian in his cabinet but they chose to insult him at their clownshow convention. Now they're stuck with Chase Oliver, the quintessential soon to be forgotten 3rd party wannabe. RFK has the potential to do a lot of libertarian shit around censorship and the CDC NIH health cabal. Just like Nancy DeVos did at DOE. The Libertarians will accomplish exactly nothing no matter who wins on Nov. 5th.
I'd rather he offered it to the brain worm.
"Sold out" apparently means "didn't run to endorse the party that tried, successfully, to keep him off the ballot."
Robby seems to think He should have gone quietly into the night, never said a word about the ass-fucking procedural rape the D's gave him, or better, embraced his oppressors.
Saying, in effect, "I don't agree with much of what Trump says, but I agree with him more than I agree with those folks over there who just fucked me." doesn't feel like "selling out" to me.
Yes, amazing take. We libertarians talk of finding common ground; it's surprising that Mr. Soave does not believe one can find common ground with Trump. RFK mentioned several shared policies and then there is the common despicable treatment by the DNC. Does the author think RFK should have walked away from the potential power he has to do damage to the common enemy? To influence a man who probably never thought about addressing obesity and childhood health? To help reign in the out-of-control 3 (4) letter bureaucrats? Please don't tell me Mr Soave has contracted TDS.
A lot of the people that shit on the commenters don’t think you can find common ground with Republicans but can with Democrats.
I’m not convinced.
Given that Reason and it's writers have sold their souls to the marxists of the DNC I can understand Robby's disappointment.
This
Hey, what about future MSM job aspirations and DC cocktail parties?
"RFK Jr. deserves credit, however, for being willing to listen to libertarians. He attended libertarian events including FreedomFest and the Libertarian National Convention; he sat for interviews with Reason's Nick Gillespie and Zach Weissmueller and appeared on my show, Rising. He also helped bring much-needed attention to the federal government's vigorous attempts at suppression of constitutionally protected speech on social media."
So...pretty much all the same things Donald Trump did. And it makes one of them libertarian adjacent but not the other. Weird.
RFK Jr. holds a number of bad policy positions, but at least he’s intelligent and has some ethics. Listen to any part of his press conference from Friday, and then co par wit to any five minutes of Harris’s speaking. I would be shocked if she could score higher than 90 on an IQ test. And she’s certainly a very uneducated fool. It wouldn’t surprise me for a kk ent to found out she cheated and fucked her way through college and law school. We already k ow that there were strings pulled to push her though.
on every single major issue important to libertarians, Trump is better than Kamala ,and it's not even close.
Cutting dicks off kids, government funded anytime abortions, favored treatment for favored groups are the most important things.
You left out the food trucks and Nexican ass sex, though they seem to interpret that one as anal raping of Americans.
I'm told that sometimes the illegal immigrants only jack off onto the gang-rape victims while someone else is "actually" raping her, so that's not as bad.
Ah, so Central Park 5 style
on every single major issue important to libertarians, Chase is better than both Trump and Kamala, and it's not even close.
but that's not what we're comparing here are we? Try to keep up.
Well, RFK could have chosen to endorse Chase, or to not endorse anyone. And yet he chose to endorse the less libertarian candidate. Huh.
RFK never declared himself a libertarian dumdum. He wanted to run as a Democrat. Try to keep up.
RFK never declared himself a libertarian
YOU’RE RIGHT! So everyone should probably keep this in mind before gushing over who he endorsed.
I know I'm right. You are ignorant as usual. Why did you skip the discussion from the roundup about statistical normalization or did you finally respond with more stupidity?
It boggles my mind as to how you can still try to hold the pretense of not being a Democrat. Must be because you have no sense of shame.
I’m not sure why he bothers anymore. No one believes he’s the least bit libertarian.
The result is that he endorsed the major party candidate that was more libertarian, regardless if that factored into his calculus. Where you favor the least libertarian major party candidate.
Would you rather he endorsed the least libertarian candidate (3rd of 3) or the less libertarian candidate (2nd of 3)?
Or endorse nobody and admit his campaign was a waste of time and money because he doesn't care who wins? That's what non-endorsement would mean.
I frankly wished he would not endorse anyone and just leave already. His paranoid craziness can just go away.
In other words, *you* want RFK to tell the world that RFK was never serious and it was all a big joke. That's mighty brave of you. Why don't you follow your own advice, stop commenting, and admit you have never been serious about all your vitriol and claims to stand on principle?
In other words, I would have advised RFK not to base a presidential campaign on paranoid nuttery, save his money, read a book or two, and then if he decides he wants to pursue change, do so in a manner that is informed by solid science, facts, data, logic and reason, instead of conspiracy theories.
Except it wasn’t paranoid nuttery. You’re just parroting the DNC’s favorite smear about people who contradict the party’s narrative.
You know who turned out to be lying about Covid's origin and having actual studies behind their claims? Fauci and the WHO.
Go on. Call me a liar and demand a cite.
“ . . . if he decides he wants to pursue change, do so in a manner that is informed by solid science, facts, data, logic and reason, instead of conspiracy theories.”
Better yet, RFK should WRITE a book or two that “is informed by solid science, facts, data, logic and reason, instead of conspiracy theories.”
Oh wait, he already did. Have you read either of his recent books?
If you haven't read "Unsettled", you are not qualified to post regarding "climate change", and I'm guessing you haven't.
Sevo, what are you talking about? Kennedy's two recent books are about Covid, not climate change. I'm not a fan of climate hysteria or Kennedy's views on that topic.
It’s almost like even RFK Jr., for all his “nuttery” and “paranoia”, saw what a dumpster fire this administration was, and that Biden was not fit to serve a second term months before the media, the DNC (and you apparently) did. Which is the whole reason he decided to try and primary Biden.
But the DNC, being the shitty oligarchs they are, couldn’t abide that and proceeded to fuck around with a legitimate Democrat primary opponent.
Kennedy is about as fucked in the head as Trump, but by all reports a much nicer person.
Cmon man. Jeff is serious. He is just very stupid and a malicious shit weasel.
I'm new here. Explain how your face is not buried in Harris' ass?
You see, chemjeff is the true libertarian around here, and the rest of us are wrong because we're racist, homophonic, transphobic, etc. If you are saying, "that sounds just like how the woke left smears opponents," you're wrong, because chemjeff is truly Libertarian. He just uses the left's arguments and rhetoric and comes to the defense of Dems constantly. Or if the article or subject is about Dem malfeasance, he'll be sure to get a "boaf sides" in there to lessen the blow to the left.
So you're wrong about chemjeff being a sycophant for Kamala or the Dems, obviously.
He's also the only one who gets to call Chase Oliver a "fag".
I should have said 'only one who calls him a fag'. Never seen anyone else here use the term for Oliver, but many who complained about it being used. There's not a dispensation for him to use it.
Of course you think that. He’s a threat to democrat hegemony, and you’re a far left neo Marxist Democrat.
Wrong. Chase supports identotarian politics.
He also has no depth, much like your arguments, and instead is an empty suit of bumper stickers. He is a wolf in sheep's clothing like yourself.
No, he supports anti-discrimination laws. There is a difference.
And Chase is not a libertarian purist. That is correct. But he is still light years more libertarian than both KamKam and Inmate No. P01135809.
He also has no depth
As opposed to the reality TV star or the slut who has no firm principles?
Her principles started sagging long before middle age.
I mean the Obama canvasser who only became libertarian after dems started losing in his district and ran on a platform of spoiler for Republicans to media fanfare and has considered himself libertarian for roughly 7 years but has yet to actually formulate any detailed policy is probably the type of libertarian you claim to be.
And favored laws for favored groups is identitarian politics dumbass.
Imagine thinking forced freedom from association is libertarian lol.
Did you come up with that narrative all on your own, or did you steal it from some Mises Caucus site?
Chase got his start in politics by opposing Bush's war in Iraq. Like most everyone, he thought that the way to stop Team Red was to join Team Blue, and so he did. But then he discovered, as did the rest of us, that Team Blue was just using the anti-war movement to get elected, and didn't really care about stopping endless wars. That is when he remained true to his own convictions, bailed on Team Blue and became a libertarian, where the real anti-war people are.
And favored laws for favored groups is identitarian politics dumbass.
That isn't what he supports. He supports anti-discrimination laws, which does not favor any specific group.
and yes I realize that it isn't purist libertarian. But he is still light years more libertarian than either Kamamalama or Inmate No. P01135809. That is the point.
You are basically concern trolling Chase's lack of strict libertarian purity. You're doing this not because you really give a damn, you just want to tear him down by any means possible in favor of your guy Trump.
Anti-discrimination laws are inherently anti-freedom of association.
Expanding those to cover more groups is a giant red mark for me.
He extends his anti-discrimination to include child mutilators. Why not extend anti-discrimination to murderers and rapists?
that is not even true. where do you get this bullshit?
The Biden/Harris Administration illegally included transgendered in its expansion of anti-discrimination enforcement. Slapped down by the Supreme Court, 5-4 last week.
Nice of you to admit you are a communist. Only the communists care about the outcome of their show trials.
It amuses me that you think mocking Trump for that sham of a trial/conviction is some kind of win.
But to each their own I guess.
He is a wolf in sheep’s clothing like yourself.
Wolves are too dynamic and aggressive and sheepskin too opaque.
He's a spineless jellyfish in a threadbare rainbow hedgehog t-shirt.
Fair.
He is a wolf in sheep’s clothing
What "wolf-like" things do you think Chase would do if he were to win, and what is your evidence for these things?
I truly don't understand why you all think that Chase is going to be some hard-left socialist if he were to be elected. Where has he ever said anything remotely like that?
Wasted argument. Chase cannot and will not win.
Maybe because he has a better chance of influencing Libertarian ideas with one candidate over the other dipshit. From the surface it seems one candidate is engaging in an open dialogue while the other is openly advocating against it.
Lol. Did Mike ter Maat sell out to Chase Oliver?
RFK has been clear on what democrats did to his campaign. Kicked him off ballots. Spied on his campaign. Etc.
Jill Stein has said the same.
Which is the more libertarian story Robby?
After Trump nearly got assassinated and came away pressing the Biden/Harris Administration for RFK Jr. to get the protection he'd been requesting too, Robby’s “sold out” narrative really gives the impression of “I’d rather have a Nazi Division in front of me than Robby Soave at my back.”
Holy Fuck.
Sold out is not how I view it. He chose between a Marxist ( the government cures all wounds) and the polar opposite of that. Look Trump is no Ron Paul by any stretch of the imagination, but Harris is the biggest nanny statist I've ever seen. I am going to love to see her wriggle around when confronted with real policy questions.
"Sold out"???
Let's see, choices, choices ...
* Stay in, spend a pile of money, get not a single electoral vote, and have some unknown effect on the other candidates.
* Drop out and do nothing. Just pretend you weren't serious and were just wasting everybody's time.
* Drop out and endorse the candidate you hate the most who you think will do the most damage to the country.
* Drop out and endorse the candidate you hate the least who you think will do the least damage to the country.
Gee, Robby, why don't you try #1 and not sell out and live high and mighty on your principles in a cardboard box?
RFKs running mate also said Trump wanted him as part of his administration. Kamala has not and has been actively seeking to boot him off state ballots.
Rumor is trump is going to offer him the head of CIA role which would be genuinely delicious. deep state heads exploding all over the place right now.
Don't see that happening.
Head of HHS though is a possibility.
More likely but CIA would be pretty awesome.
AGREED^
A man can dream...
He says the CIA killed his uncle. It's kinda personal.
I read today that he would take it but doesnt think he'd pass senate ratification because the security committees are captured by the deep state (basically)
The communists are consistent. They try to remove all unapproved candidates from ballots.
As I note above, there really is nothing in the article that supports the "Sell Out" narrative. This is the editor being a click-bait driving asshole.
If robby gets shamed enough maybe he starts pushing back on headline choices.
“RFK Jr. sold out to Trump” – Robby “Superficially credible accusation” Soave
RFK quit to benefit HARRIS.
Do not be mistaken in this.
A lifelong leftist Democrat is a lifelong leftist Democrat.
He left because the polls WE do not see showed that he was taking away any chance Harris had..
The Democrats, not the lifelong leftist type, are not thrilled by the unelected candidate and were trending towards RFK.
Possibly, but all anecdotal evidence points to him drawing more voters from Trump.
He gave squish "centrists" (like Rogan) who dislike Trump but recognize the disaster of Dems a ready made, ego soothing alternative to voting Trump.
Now they have to either sit out, or follow the guy they were enthusiastic about in supporting Trump.
Plus, he could have aligned with Harris to draw those centrists to the Dark Side.
Wait, what? He notably pulled his name from the ten battleground state polls, but not the others. Previous polls have indicated that he was actually pulling support from Trump, not Harris.
It's a calculated move because his own campaign was getting litigated into oblivion by Democrat activists and politicians.
The funny thing is the dems probably could have prevented this if they had simply treated RFK2 with a minimum of grace.
Take a meeting or two, pay lip service to working with him in the administration, grant him a secret service detail.
Instead they were haughty, as usual.
^
"Haughty"? How about a bunch of self-important, socialist-loving, big police state-promoting, DEI-infatuated, superiority complex cunts?
Yes, in other words: haughty
This^
Exactly. Trump took his calls, then met with him. Harris refused. And tried to keep him off the ballot through expensive litigation in critical states.
And this way, he gets a position of influence in the next administration should Trump prevail. Something Harris was obviously unwilling to offer. If it’s even up to her retarded ass.
Major parties must then work with smaller parties to form governing coalitions.
Which is exactly how Mussolini and Hitler got into power.
They never had to convince voters to support them, only the smaller parties.
Mussolini and Hitler got into power because psychotic communists were ruining everybody's lives, and they fought communists.
Mussolini, in his writings, said he was saving socialism from the communists. He had the exact same goals as communists, but used a different tool box.
The same as saying Pelosi fought The Squad.
Hitler also supported socialism. The communists merely didn't like the nationalistic aspects of his party.
Indeed. The major difference between the Nazis and the communists was who would be in charge, and if Germany would be nationalistic or bend a knee to the Soviet Union.
Behind that, there wasn’t much difference in how things would be run.
He was put into power to fight communists, and narcissistic boomer post WW2 mythology has been an absolute disaster for humanity.
No. He was put in to achieve the same goals as communists but to not allow Stalin to be the face/leader of the movement.
His essays and writings are public. You can read them.
You equate autocratic nationalism with communism and you've already lost.
Politicians use whatever labels work.
FDR didn't call himself a socialist, and switched from "progressive" to "liberal" to distance from prohibition, but he sure as hell was one.
Mussolini called himself a socialist because that was his background and it worked.
He was not the same as a communist, and he was also inconsistent with his socialism.
There are 2 key differences between communism and fascism, and they have nothing to do with private property (which basically no governments on earth have respected for over half a century):
1. Communism preaches egalitarianism, everybody on the same level regardless of talent, ability, performance. Mediocrity is the nominal goal.
Fascism preaches achievement, every man better tomorrow than he was yesterday. It's hyper competitive. Being the best is the goal.
2. Communists hate their kin. They're xenophobic and oikophobic. The volk are the lowest men, the worst of the nation. Workers of the world unite.
Fascists are chauvinistic, oikophilic and xenophobic. The volk are the best of the nation, the fittest and smartest who are to ve emulated.
Fascism also comes in a variety of forms, and nazi Germany was by no means typical.
In my opinion, fascism boils down to hierarchical autocratic nationalism. This is inherently bad. You could call China, Singapore, El Salvador current examples of fascism.
It's used as a boogeyman because it is by far the most effective ideology to stop communism (rule by resentful, dysgenic theater kids).
Liberalism is a fine ideal, but in practice has proven to have no defense against communist totalitarianism.
And democracy? LOL. Can't have democracy and universal suffrage because eventually the parasites (government and its clients) achieve permanent majority and becomes de facto kleptocracy governed by anarcho-tyranny.
Socialism is basically a meaningless term. All governments are socialist. And I'm curious: do you think Mussolini's or Franco's fascist government were more socialist than FDR's and the current anglosphere's democratic governments?
"You equate autocratic nationalism with communism and you’ve already lost.
Politicians use whatever labels work..."
You truly are a fucking unlettered ignoramus. Tell us about the jooze again nardz.
Daily reminder that Nardz is worried about minorities watering down our 'pure' Roman bloodlines.
He's a fucking psychopath.
You're a pathetic blank slatist who probably lusts for black/brown cock.
You have nothing substantive to say, just faggy progressive "muh rAcIsM" whinging.
Here you are again bitching about objections to demographic replacement, replacement that has previously only happened after war and conquest.
Make your case that it's good that white people be wiped out.
Show some integrity for the first time in your malevolent, parasitic life.
You mean corrupting our precious bodily fluids?
"He was put into power to fight communists, and narcissistic boomer post WW2 mythology has been an absolute disaster for humanity."
You truly are a fucking unlettered ignoramus. Tell us about the jooze again nardz.
The earliest fascists were even using Marxist logic to justify their nationalism. Italy couldn’t have a revolution of the proletariat until they advanced into a more advanced industrialized state. Really they were originally fighting Bolshevism as a false socialist heterodoxy. Plus they’d seen what a shit show it was economically by ‘21 or ‘22.
Mussolini also realized that he could not get Italian people riled up over class differences. But he could get mobs activated to support the nation.
Which makes it rather interesting that he jailed Gramsci, because they both recognized the importance of controlling the culture to controlling society.
"Mussolini and Hitler got into power because psychotic communists were ruining everybody’s lives, and they fought communists..."
You truly are a fucking unlettered ignoramus. Tell us about the jooze again nardz.
Our own country’s most objectively divisive leader was a third party candidate.
The closest our country has come to a cult-of-personality, democracy-destroying, *but stable* dictator-for-life after him was from a two-party system.
The idea that two-party is the critical key to libertopia one way or the other seems more and more like a foil or structured opposition set up by the majority party to get people who actually value principles of individual liberty to sign on to third parties where majority-sympathetic factions lead and the über-party can stamp out anyway.
At the very least it seems like an exceedingly “quick fix” by people who, apparently, don’t want the burden of having to defend and carry individual liberty themselves or forward to pass it on to their children.
Jeezus Robbie, Trump is 1000x more Libertarian than RFKJr.
He wanted to jail “climate deniers”
RFK had a Road to Damascus change of heart on that in 2020.
A lot of people hold radically different views now to the ones they held ten years ago.
Living through what the democrats did in 2920, and what the administration has done since the beginning of 2021 should terrify everyone.
Anyone supporting a Harris regime is the enemy, and should be shown no mercy.
"...by contrast, in a European parliamentary system, a candidate who receives just 5 percent of the national vote might expect to receive 5 percent of the representation in the government..."
Well, my goodness!
That would be a party, not a candidate. To have proportional representation, there has to be a party apparatus. It also makes absolutely no sense for a singular office.
Do you expect people that can't define woman to grasp the complexity of differentiating singular from plural?
We just had an election in France that showed even parliamentary vote shares can be corrupted to allow the globalists far more seats. Same with the UK.
Yeah, it's such a dumb reading of how such things actually work.
He's actually talking about a proportional voting system which has nothing to do with a parliamentary system per se. The UK has a parliamentary system and does not use proportionality which is why the new Labour government governs despite only having 35% of the vote, so it's a plurality there that wins.
The US system of plurality wins, or first past the post, has many advantages most notably stable government. Coalition systems are notoriously unstable and often result in tail wags dog. A party (not a candidate as stated) that has a very low vote % can effectively decide who becomes government among two parties who received very large vote percentages.
No doubt Soave is also a fan of getting rid of the electoral college under the mistaken impression that the US is a democracy and not a republic.
^+1
One item of note is that the structure of EU Parliament, which elects the EU President, the Parlaiment is similar to the electoral college.
Each country in the EU gets 6 MEPs. Additional MEPs are allocated from the remaining total of 750 MEPs based on population of the respective countries.
-------------------------
EU law allows for a maximum of 750 MEPs, plus the President. The number of seats per country is decided before each European election.
The distribution of seats takes into account the size of the population of member states as well as the need for a minimum level of representation for European citizens from smaller countries. This principle of “degressive proportionality”, which is enshrined in the Treaty on the European Union, means that while smaller countries have fewer MEPs than bigger countries, MEPs from larger countries represent more people than their counterparts from smaller countries.
The minimum number of seats per country is six and the maximum is 96.
Don't worry Robbie. Depending on where you live you might still be able to vote for Kennedy. If not then Oliver.
You would never vote for nanny-state socio-fascist anti-liberty Harris, right? Not even reluctantly?
Pretty sure he lives in Arlington. He's a DC swamp rat.
But maybe strategically?
Soave forgets to note that much of the damage against RFK Jr was started right here at this magazine. Within days of him announcing his candidacy, there were new articles deriding his stance on vaccines- a stance that Soave credits to him AND libertarians. They accused him of being a persecuting liberal who was happy to hammer people he disagrees with, based on years-old quotes.
It is interesting how the Reason narrative softened from "Don't trust this crazy asshole," to the pitying if cautious tongue bath that Soave gives above....
I have no real love of RFK because I see him as the Soviet Union in WWII- someone with the same immediate problems we have, but a very different agenda for the long term. That said, RFK Jr has a redeeming quality over Trump, and that is his temperate demeanor and thick skin.
I could never see Trump sitting down in a productive interview with any of the Reason folks, if he ever bothered to read any of the vitriol they send his way. But RFK likely read the Reason coverage before sitting down with Reason and he came anyway. I think that is why Reason has shifted from treating him like a dangerous loon, to a misguided but good guy whose campaign's failure is a sad loss.
This goes to show any 3rd party candidates how important access is to journalists in getting positive coverage. A GOP rep will never get the benefit of the doubt because of their letters. But a 3rd party can sway independent journalists like Soave just by humanizing themselves in front of them.
This should also be a lesson to Soave. He spends so much time reacting to blue-bubble, trending X-threads that he often forgets the humanity of people he reports on. It takes him sitting down with these people before he treats them as anything other than a caricature.
RFK said mean things about the Koch Bros. That's a bridge too far buddy.
So probably a little extra in the brown envelope for this article in exchange for Robby going hard on RFK2.
Robbie has no place writing for a libertarian magazine, I guess this means that Reason is not so libertarian these days!
Hard to imagine the kind of person who thinks Trump is worse for liberty than the democrats
He is sadly one of the better ones here.
The vibe of reluctance and strategic is in the winds this week.
RFK Jr. Spread Some Libertarian Ideas, Then Sold Out to Trump
He didn't sell out, he bought in. Chase Oliver will never get a 4.0 in damage.
Bards always have the worst damage.
We might never know what Trump offered RFK in exchange for dropping out and endorsing him, because Trump doesn’t honor promises and RFK makes wacky claims. It is possible he did it for free just because of what the Democrats did to him on ballot access.
OTOH we’ve got a pretty good idea what was offered to Angela McArdle and her cohort of traitors at the LNC. Some vague promise of an unspecified cabinet position for an unspecified “libertarian” in return for having no LP candidate on the ballot, or at least not in swing states.
When the convention plan failed, she (incredibly) signed a joint fundraising agreement with RFK in which RFK used our federal fundraising limit and we got something like 10% of the take. Never heard of one party agreeing to fundraise with their opponents. It didn’t make sense until later (see below).
She also tried to partially fulfill her promise to Trump by personally filing a ballot access complaint to get our own candidate kicked off the ballot. The Colorado SoS laughed her off.
Now that RFK has thrown his support to Trump, the joint fundraising makes sense. She was really doing that for Trump, too.
Of course she’s not just a traitor, she’s a pathetic sucker as well. Trump won’t honor the promise or even remember her name, if he so much as mentions libertarians ever again it will be to dismiss them as failing to take his “generous offer” of nothing at all, and that’s if he even manages to win in November.
Gonna cry?
Lol.
OTOH we’ve got a pretty good idea what was offered to Angela McArdle and her cohort of traitors at the LNC.
Hahaha hahaha. You earned a bookmark on this name Mike.
Hahahahahaha
Seethe harder bitch.
Good. He can pass along some libertarian ideas to Trump, then. Whatever it takes to ensure Never Kamala.
https://x.com/kunley_drukpa/status/1826917618738925754?t=XEU5WnAOobFgE7VfyOarnQ&s=19
“Multiculturalism can only succeed when people are willing to self-sacrifice and give up what is important to them”
“Are you going to give up mass immigration?”
“No”
Some may have to sacrifice more than others but that is a sacrifice I am willing to make
[Link]
https://x.com/disclosetv/status/1827089012886040970?t=7BkQWbkQxkDTsIpTFalTkA&s=19
JUST IN - Mass stabbing in Solingen, Germany. Multiple people reportedly killed and injured. Arab-looking perpetrator is on the run — BILD
Honestly don't see Europe even existing in 10 years. As a continent yes but as a civilization no.
Like the Romans, they allowed their own conquerors to settle there, and then gave it all up without a fight.
Demographically, Europe is in better shape than the US...
Only as a matter of degree. London might as well be New Islamabad at this point.
London is completely lost.
It's like 30% Anglo.
But overall England and the rest of Europe are still 80%+ native/white at a national level.
Whereas the US has gone from ~80% white 30 years ago to ~60% white today.
Crazy thing is the only time you see the drastic demographic changes Europe+Anglosphere are currently experiencing previously in history is after being invaded and/or losing a major war...
I’ll bet if I published a RPG based on the real world called ‘Muslims & Marxists’, it would develop a large following.
If they are better off demographicly, it’s because of the higher fertility of their Muzzie invaders. Which makes it even worse. We can assimilate most of our new immigrants, because they are Hispanic, and thus share much more of our culture, and don’t follow a Prophet who preached conversion by any means, up to, and including lethal violence.
When I say better off demographically I'm referring to the native/white population share.
See my post above for the numbers.
Where they're worse off is exactly as you say- Hispanics are a much more comfortable invasive population than the Muzzies, who will also receive some level of support/direction from their original nations.
Bit 3rd world Hispanics aren't exactly a boon since they, like every demo except whites, vote tribally and for leftists.
At a "festival of diversity" huh. So how's that diversity thing working out for ya?
Seeking higher office outside the two-party system is extremely difficult and Republicans and Democrats work tirelessly to make it even tougher.
At the Prez level, we have a two-party system. Congress two-party could be broken but obviously only from the bottom up. At the local level, we mostly have a one-party system. The other doesn’t seriously compete. It’s just a proforma way to kill an emerging second party rather than allow an alternative governance option.
Agree here. Smaller parties need to focus on smaller office and build to better offices. Libertarians should be looking at House and state legislature seats not the Presidency.
At the local level, we mostly have a one-party system.
This is too true. And frankly it is an avenue for a third party to break out and make some noise.
None of what you guys say is true. There's a good amount of competitive races happening in local areas.
I really liked RFK Jr. I didn't buy everything he was selling, but he was honest about a lot of things the Puppet Masters would rather not have you dwell on.
He did not "sell out". He knows where his major opposition came from and it wasn't the republicans. The democrats have launched the most undemocratic campaign in history and they've used all the tools at their power against RFK, as they have Trump. Endorsing Trump is a fitting "screw you" to a very dishonest group of socialists.
I hope this sinks Kamala like the tramp steamer she is.
RFK Jr. Spread Some Libertarian Ideas
By the way, I like RFK, was considering voting for him, and thought his speech at Porcfest was pretty good. However, do remember, Corporate Beltway Libertarians: RFK said we should "jail climate change deniers". So, the lesson here is, if you can find a libertarian nugget with a guy who said we should "jail climate change deniers" I think you can find a libertarian nugget in the guy who's literally worse than Hitler.
Oh sure there is a libertarian “nugget” in RFK Jr’s ramblings, just like there are in Trump’s ramblings. There are very few people who are exactly 100% anti-libertarian. Even AOC will defend your right to own *some* private property.
But why settle for people who only deliver nuggets, when there is a candidate running who has a cornucopia of libertarian ideas?
But why settle for people who only deliver nuggets, when there is a candidate running who has a cornucopia of libertarian ideas?
Yeah, but Jared Polis isn't running for President.
I don't think Jeff can be more obvious that he is just here to try to pull votes away from his enemies.
Notice he never gives specifics, details, or analysis of chase. Always pablum. Chase level bumper stickers.
Oh I absolutely want to pull votes away from Kamalamadingdong and Inmate No. P011345089. I want both Team Red and Team Blue to lose.
Notice he never gives specifics, details, or analysis of chase.
Here ya go, champ:
https://votechaseoliver.com/
Is that not good enough? Then let me direct you to two Reason interviews with Chase AND a Soho debate featuring Chase:
https://reason.com/2024/07/24/the-problem-is-spending-libertarian-presidential-nominee-chase-olivers-vision-for-the-future/
https://reason.com/podcast/2024/08/07/chase-oliver-qa-with-the-controversial-libertarian-party-candidate/
https://reason.com/podcast/2024/08/16/is-donald-trump-the-best-choice/
Pulling votes away from opponents is the whole idea of an election campaign.
Kind of silly for you to suggest it’s some kind of nefarious secret plan you've just exposed.
I know, right? "Drat! My secret plan is foiled again! I don't want people to vote for either the slut or the felon!"
Yes. Rush to the defense of your fake libertarian ally. You didnt embarass yourself defending him this morning? With his complete ignorance to normalized statistical data. Lol.
Or after you called any libertarian who doesn’t blindly support chase a traitor just above.
Mike, we already know you’re on team Jeff. Jeff is here to help democrats win. Just like you are.
You both know chase has zero chance. And when you’ve both talked about him before you praised his claim to spoiling a race for thr GOP. Lol.
Fucking clowns.
Oh I don't think Chase is going to win. That isn't why I'm voting for him. I realized long ago that no one gets a special head pat for voting for the "winning team". Did you realize that? Maybe you should.
I'm voting for Chase because (1) I agree with him on most issues, and (2) I am sick of the two party system and that is the only way that I can officially register my disgust.
So I don't care if he has "zero chance". I'm voting my conscience. I'm not sure that you understand what that means, though, because it would require you to have a conscience.
If you want to insult people, you should pick stuff they’d actually be ashamed to own up to.
I don’t necessarily agree with Jeff on everything but he totally owned you yesterday on those stats, and on every other thing that came up today. No problem being called his “ally” on these particular issues.
Help Democrats? Spoiling? The Democrats suck; however, I do confess that seeing some of Trump’s supporters here wailing and gnashing their teeth over a loss would be somewhat entertaining. But what would be almost too much pleasure to bear would be your wailing and gnashing if Chase Oliver’s votes covered the spread in that last state you needed to get over the line.
Spoiling is good. I never tire of quoting Nick Sarwark: “Your tears are delicious and your parties will die.”
"If you want to insult people, you should pick stuff they’d actually be ashamed to own up to..."
In your case, just pick random bullshit; no need for specifics.
How did he own him on the stats? Because the claim was that they use welfare at a higher rate, not that the total dollars spent are more.
Pedo Jeffy has decreed Chase Oliver to be The One True Libertarian. So it must be so.
After all, Pedo Jeffy would never lie here, right?
I wasn't referring to Jared Polis.
I was referring to the other gay guy. Maybe you've heard of him.
More libertarian than Jared Polis? I'll believe it when Nick Gillespie tells me.
And Polis is so dreamy!
You really don’t get humor/sarcasm?
Polis, the libertarian who helped turn Colorado into a shitlib state, on the CA/OR/WA mode. Draconian, idiotic, COVID-19 restrictions (he had CDOT plow in the turnouts on Loveland Pass to prevent backcountry skiing, where the next party is typically a half mile or more away, etc). Requiring that shoppers buy their plastic bags. Etc. Native there, and when I visited a month ago, I noticed that the Western independence I grew up with and savored, and still find in abundance here in MT, had seemingly died. As it has in CA, OR, and WA.
I grew up in South New Jersey, have lived in the Colorado Rockies for .5~ of my adult life and I’m here to tell you that (South) New Jersey has more common sense than these trustifarian morons who now run Colorado and the west coast. Polis, Bennett, Johnston. They’ve never really had to live in the real world. It sucks, it’s like living in the fucking twilight zone.
" Even AOC will defend your right to own *some* private property."
Cite?
If we accept the reality that Chase Oliver cannot possibly win this election I would think that between Harris and Trump that Trump would be the better choice for libertarians.
Although I realize that back in 2020 my libertarian colleagues seemed to be split between liking Trump and hating him.
There is no rule that says you must vote for a major party candidate.
I believe the choice was a strategic and reluctant one.
I guess we're pissed that RFK didn't strategically and reluctantly sell out to Harris?
Seems like Harris was not interested. Which means they don't see his endorsing Trump as a big problem.
Harris’s handlers just thought a cabinet position was too large a request. It's probable that Trump thinks so too and intends to renege on his promise.
Which is probably given a good thing, unless he appoints RFK to something that needs destroying anyway. Department of Ed, maybe.
I think more likely HHS or maybe CIA. The HHS figureheads in charge of the COVID-19 mess have mostly retired, but the next layer down remain. They were all taking large payoffs from the pharma companies that they are supposed to be regulating, through “royalties”. Royalties for work they did while receiving generous federal paychecks.
The dept. of Ed. has been the worst idea since the creation of the FBI.
"Major parties (in Europe) must then work with smaller parties to form governing coalitions."
No system is perfect. The parliamentary system allows smaller parties to share power, but it can also make it difficult to form a government. This problem is frequently seen in Israel. They have had more than 5 elections in the last few years.
https://x.com/Gimblin/status/1827152793674592565?t=AKrYWqpUgWtYUF-H1PZlTA&s=19
Trillions of dollars "spent"
No results
"Sustainability" is a long con and the middle class and the working poor are the marks
[Link]
Mayor of... London.
https://x.com/MayorofLondon/status/1826917493383868792?t=0aPZ9LxuNhYj6ObBV1ONXw&s=19
I’m pleased to announce The Wake by Khaleb Brooks as the new Memorial to Victims of Transatlantic Slavery.
Khaleb’s work is a stark reminder of the pain and suffering caused by transatlantic slavery and the role the UK and London played.
[Link]
https://x.com/JDunlap1974/status/1827140534109933660?t=SbJU1Pt9qHAlMXmoHW2CcA&s=19
BREAKING : - Kamala Harris and Tim Walz have failed to get over 100 people to her rally in North Carolina.
Shouldn't this be on the front page of every newspaper?
I don't' see anyone at the podium. Did the poster stay for the rally or just take this photo an hour before? Got an official count from anyone? BTW - Harris Waltz creeping up on Trump in NC. May not win, but they will make the old man work for his victory there.
Did the S.S. look for any snipers on nearby roof tops?
Nice headline, kids. 'Sold out' is a cheap shot, a mandatory libertarian virtue signal I guess, that besmirches Reason and does a disservice to Robby's instant analysis of what will probably be a historic event. I could be wrong though. I only wrote about 10,000 headlines for newspapers in LA and Pittsburgh.
I do think that it was a historic event. It marks the end of the Dem Party as the populist party. They have long been the party of elites, allied with the working class. In the past, it was the millionaires, now it is the billionaires, who buy the cooperation of the Dem leaders. Notice the fortunes bestowed on the Clintons and Obamas. But the working class has moved to the Republican Party, and, in particular, Trump. They have been replaced by crazy cat ladies, beta male soi boys, radicalized college grads with worthless degrees, and an army of government workers, government dependents, and hanger ons.
It’s epic because Bobby, Jr is the true legacy holder of Camelot, esp after his cousin died by blowing up his plane freebasing cocaine. None of the rest of them come close, and most don’t even try.
Robbie -- This is not a description of a candidate who "sold out".
While I continue to hold my breath waiting for Harris to give me some solid reason to trust or vote for her, whatever feeble "vibe" or "suggestion" she is aiming at right now is totally missing the mark for me --- largely because of the authoritarian censorship and democracy-shutdown imposed by the Democratic Party in her name -- in collusion with the corporate media -- which locked RFK Jr. out of the race.
In addition, RFK Jr.'s skepticism of intelligence agencies, contrived foreign wars, and health regulation captured by industry are ample reasons for me to consider Trump.
The false allegations that he is an anti-vaxxer, lost his brain to a worm, and has a creepy fondness for road kill all reinforce my negative impression of Democrats and Harris. They appear not to know when to shut up and build bridges, relying instead on the power of censorship and overkill.
Maybe it's because RFK jr. knows what Kamaltoe and Tampon Tim are really about: communism, and sees the danger for America if they are elected or selected, whichever happens first.
RFK jr. may be exercising a bit of pragmatism here, hopefully
to prevent America becoming another Marxist state.
And that's what we will live under if Harris and Walz take power.
What's really bad about Reason's TDS is it is largely feigned. They fucking know that self-identified small "l" libertarians and Republicans with actual "libertarian leanings" are almost all voting for Trump. It's just not acceptable to them to oppose heavily subsidized illegal immigration or support merit based, no public charges allowed, legal immigration.
RFK Jr. has identified the greater threat, PR department of the "deep state', (Military, Intelligence, Industrial, Media complex).
Even some lifelong Democrats see that (Brett Weinstein, for example).
I can't vote for Trump, but we do have a significant problem in government.
I think of it more as RFK, Jr. strategtically and reluctantly endorsing Trump.
I will probably vote for RFK Jr even though he has suspended his race. Even if his name is remove from the ballot. Chase Oliver is not a option that I'm comfortable with for a variety of reasons and even though I don't agree with RFK Jr on all issues he is close enough and is less annoying than Chase Oliver.
I understand that neither will become president and it will be either former president Donald Trump or vice president Kamala Harris. Of course orange-man Donald Trump is less of a threat to my personal liberties and freedoms than wannabe authoritarian Kamala Harris is simple because of the corporate media propaganda machine will question and stymie him, where they will be sycophantic defenders of her.