How Are Reason Staffers Voting in 2024?
A survey of electoral hopes and regrets.

This year, Reason celebrates 20 years of disclosing our votes. Since 2004, we have been asking—though not requiring—Reason staffers to explain who they're voting for and why in presidential election years. Believe me when I tell you we don't do this for our own health. We typically take a beating from every direction for the balance of our votes, or lack thereof. But we think it's important for the people who read, watch, and listen to Reason to know where our writers, editors, and producers are coming from. Who we vote for is a highly imperfect measure of our biases, but it's one we're happy to share in the spirit of transparency. This election—and every election—we urge other publications to follow our lead.
Traditionally, this survey yields a high percentage of Libertarian Party (L.P.) voters and nonvoters, and that remains true in 2024. This year we have 12 Chase Oliver voters (many of whom have horribly mean things to say about the L.P.), six nonvoters, three Kamala Harris voters (many of whom have horribly mean things to say about Harris), one Nikki Haley write-in, one Kennedy write-in (the Fox News host, not RFK Jr.), and two undecideds (one 50/50 Trump/Oliver and one 50/50 Trump/nobody). In general, the tone of the forum is bleak and discouraged, in keeping with the mood of the American public.
Reason is published by a 501(c)(3) nonprofit and therefore doesn't endorse particular candidates. But we also don't think one party or person ever fully embodies the things that are important to us, including individual liberty, free markets, and the rule of law. We know there is life outside of politics, and we look forward to returning to it once the election is over.
Now for some legalese: Nothing in what follows should be construed as an official endorsement of any candidate or cause. These are the personal views of individual participants and not the institutional views of Reason or Reason Foundation. But then, you knew that. —Katherine Mangu-Ward
Check out our past voting surveys from 2004, 2006, 2008, 2012, 2016, and 2020.
César Báez
Producer
Who will get your vote in the 2024 presidential election? If I were eligible to vote, I wouldn't choose any major-party candidate. Donald Trump's refusal to accept the 2020 election result is a huge red flag for me, as I fled Venezuela in part because the dictator, Nicolás Maduro, refused to acknowledge the election results and transfer power. But I also couldn't support Kamala Harris. Her stance on price controls mirrors the disastrous policies that led to food shortages and starvation in Venezuela. Plus, the harshest crackdown on asylum rights occurred when she was vice president. Despite granting Temporary Protected Status to Venezuelans, deportation flights resumed, sending dissidents back to jail in Venezuela. I've never had the right to vote in free elections, but even here, I wouldn't cast a vote supporting the "lesser evil."
What past vote do you most regret? This was not a vote, but in 2016, I believed Donald Trump was the best option, mainly because of what I thought was his foreign policy approach: less nonsense intervention worldwide but maximum pressure against autocratic regimes. At the end of his presidency, he praised autocrats like Kim Jong Un, Vladimir Putin, and Nicolás Maduro.
Apart from the presidency, what is the most important race or ballot initiative being decided this fall? Arizona's Proposition 314 criminalizes undocumented immigrants, equating drug traffickers with refugees. It is likely to pass due to anti-immigrant sentiment. Still, this proposition redundantly bans crimes covered by federal law and risks promoting racial profiling against Latinos by state and local police.
Ronald Bailey
Science Correspondent
Who will get your vote in the 2024 presidential election? Back in 2008, I stated that "the Republicans must be punished and punished hard." They must be punished even harder in 2024! Given how the polls are running in Virginia, I will vote Libertarian: Chase Oliver/Mike ter Maat.
What past vote do you most regret? So many options! Certainly, George McGovern in 1972. Our country would have been in a much better place socially and economically had Mitt Romney won in 2012, so I feel some regret for my vote for Gary Johnson.
Apart from the presidency, what is the most important race or ballot initiative being decided this fall? Party primaries consistently throw up unhinged dimwits as candidates. So I am all in on ranked choice voting initiatives that are appearing in five states and D.C. Our city is also considering the adoption of ranked choice voting.
Billy Binion
Reporter
Who will get your vote in the 2024 presidential election? Whether or not I'll be eligible to vote is unclear, as I'm a new D.C. resident without an immediate path to establishing residency. (The last time I registered to vote I was living in Los Angeles, and there is a 0 percent chance I will be going through the hoopla to vote absentee.) But if the stars align, I'll vote for Chase Oliver. Despite having some policy differences with him, I cannot bring myself to vote for Donald Trump or Kamala Harris, neither of whom comes close to representing my values. D.C. also sways heavily Democratic, so the least I can do—the only thing I can do?—with my vote is to send a message that someone here would appreciate more choices.
What past vote do you most regret? Unless the unthinkable happened and my one singular vote swayed the course of history, I feel it unwise to spend emotional energy over past ballots I've cast. If I had to pick one, I suppose it would be the first election I voted in, which happened in my early college days when I was still sometimes regurgitating my parents' beliefs as my own. (I don't even remember who was on that ballot, so, again, I am spending approximately no emotional energy on this.)
Apart from the presidency, what is the most important race or ballot initiative being decided this fall? I'll be interested to see how ranked choice voting fares in D.C. Viva ranked choice voting.
Eric Boehm
Reporter
Who will get your vote in the 2024 presidential election? If I vote, it will be for Chase Oliver. Donald Trump is utterly unfit for the office. Kamala Harris is unprepared and unprincipled. Oliver at least has the right values, and he represents the best of what the Libertarian Party could be.
What past vote do you most regret? No single vote is worth enough to be regretted.
Apart from the presidency, what is the most important race or ballot initiative being decided this fall? I'll be closely watching the ballot initiatives in several Western states (Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, and Nevada) that would do away with partisan primaries in some future elections in favor of top-four or top-five systems. That's an imperfect reform, but it would limit the power of the lunatic fringe in both parties and allow for more robust political competition.
Christian Britschgi
Reporter
Who will get your vote in the 2024 presidential election? No one. Donald Trump and Kamala Harris offer slightly different flavors of the same big-government, big-spending, protectionist, interventionist agenda that's anathema to the libertarian direction I'd like to see the country go. Additionally, Trump's call for deporting millions of people and Harris' limitless support for abortion demonstrate a fundamental, disqualifying lack of respect for individual dignity and freedom. Chase Oliver is running for president on the Libertarian Party ticket, much to the chagrin of the Libertarian Party. I wish him well but feel no particular obligation to vote for him. If there were a gun to my head, I'd cast a ballot for Harris given that Trump attempted to steal the last election. That's really something that can't (or at least shouldn't) be tolerated. But, since this is America, there is no gun to my head forcing me to vote, and therefore I won't.
What past vote do you most regret? I've voted twice in my life. Once for a random assortment of Boise City Council candidates in 2011 and once for Gary Johnson in 2012. Of those, I don't regret my vote for Gary.
Apart from the presidency, what is the most important race or ballot initiative being decided this fall? Proposition 33 in California would repeal state-level limitations on local rent control laws. Local governments are already drafting ruinous rent control policies to take effect if it passes—something recent polling suggests is within the realm of possibility.
In recent years, California has made halting progress toward liberalizing a restrictive land use regime that's responsible for making the Golden State the epicenter of America's housing cost and homelessness crises.
Giving local governments carte blanche to regulate rents would destroy that progress and then some. Rent control has been a disaster everywhere it's been tried. It reduces the supply and quality of rental housing and makes cities more expensive and hostile to newcomers.
California has the largest population and largest economy of any state in the country. Despite itself, it continues to produce and sustain innovative, dynamic industries that are building our bright, techno-optimist future.
Regardless of where in the country you live, you should want to see a California that's growing, prosperous, and relatively free. A victory for Proposition 33 would be a huge step back for the state, and therefore, the country.
Elizabeth Nolan Brown
Senior Editor
Who will get your vote in the 2024 presidential election? Chase Oliver. The Libertarian Party may be a hot mess, but it's still the hot mess closest to my heart. And I was happy to see Oliver get the party's nomination. It's a lovely rebuke to the folks who think libertarians are or should be largely culturally conservative.
What past vote do you most regret? I've only voted in two past presidential elections—in 2008 (for Barack Obama) and in 2020 (for Jo Jorgensen)—and I don't really regret either. There are plenty of things to criticize about the Obama presidency, but I still think it was preferable to a John McCain presidency. Also, to quote Eric Boehm from last election cycle: "I can't imagine thinking a single vote is valuable enough to spend time regretting."
Apart from the presidency, what is the most important race or ballot initiative being decided this fall? I'll be closely watching the abortion initiatives on state ballots. Since the Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade, state ballot initiatives concerning abortion have been big—and, so far, the pro-choice position has come out on top in every state where they have been tried, including in places like Kansas and Ohio. It will be interesting to see if this persists this year, especially in states like Florida, Missouri, and South Dakota.
Emma Camp
Assistant Editor
Who will get your vote in the 2024 presidential election? Chase Oliver. I had originally planned not to vote for anyone. But I was pleasantly surprised when Oliver won the Libertarian Party nomination despite the state of the current L.P. leadership, which seems attached less to advancing liberty than to owning the libs.
I live in profoundly blue D.C., which frees me from any feeble notion that my vote could impact the presidential election, and therefore from any feeling of obligation to vote for anyone other than the candidate who best aligns with my values. Of the options, Oliver comes closest to meeting my small-l libertarian priorities.
If I lived in a swing state, I would cast an extremely unenthusiastic vote for Kamala Harris. While I have successfully resisted becoming coconut-pilled, I do sincerely hope Harris wins because Donald Trump is an aspiring authoritarian maniac.
What past vote do you most regret? I thankfully haven't cast enough ballots in tight enough races to think any of my votes are worth regretting.
Apart from the presidency, what is the most important race or ballot initiative being decided this fall? I'll be closely watching the ranked choice voting ballot measures in Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, and Oregon, and voting in favor of it in D.C. Surprise, surprise, a third-party voter likes ranked choice voting.
C.J. Ciaramella
Criminal Justice Reporter
Who will get your vote in the 2024 presidential election? In 2020 I broke my 16-year streak of not voting in presidential elections because I thought Donald Trump was actually unfit for office by whatever standard you wanted to use: mentally, emotionally, ethically. It turns out I was 100 percent correct, because then he tried to steal the election and ginned up a mob of his fans to storm the Capitol building.
I would prefer to return to not voting, but Republicans insisted on rewarding Trump for his behavior by nominating him again. I will once more vote for the candidate with the best chance of beating him, Kamala Harris, because Trump doesn't deserve to hold office and I find him personally detestable.
What past vote do you most regret? Because of my long streak of not voting, I'm unburdened by what has been.
Apart from the presidency, what is the most important race or ballot initiative being decided this fall? The most important elections are for your local sheriff and prosecutor offices, whose policies are far more likely to directly impact your community than whoever is sitting in the Oval Office.
Bekah Congdon
Deputy Managing Editor
Who will get your vote in the 2024 presidential election?
Despite the best efforts of the Libertarian Party's loathsome leadership—embracing bigotry, antisemitism, and very-onlineism—the delegates managed to nominate a smart, well-rounded, empathetic candidate in Chase Oliver. He has earned my vote. There was a remote chance I might have voted Democrat for the first time this year, but Kamala Harris has made no meaningful shift in her rhetoric or plans regarding Israel's ongoing genocide in Gaza. She has failed to earn my vote.
What past vote do you most regret? I've learned not to hold shame for decisions I made when I was young and indoctrinated. That said, my first eligible vote was in 2008, and I knew as soon as I left the polling place that I regretted voting for John McCain. (By 2012, I was writing in Ron Paul.)
Apart from the presidency, what is the most important race or ballot initiative being decided this fall? Unfortunately, no one but the president can meaningfully affect foreign policy, but we need more people at every level of government who oppose American-funded genocide and endless war, and who do not believe that civilians in one country are more worthy of life than civilians in another country.
Natalie Dowzicky
Managing Editor, video and podcast
Who will get your vote in the 2024 presidential election? Even though Pennsylvania has offered me as many mail-in ballots as my heart desires, this is my first presidential election as a registered voter in Virginia. I guess it's exciting that my vote matters even less than it did before? With that in mind, I'm choosing to vote for the least worst option: Kamala Harris. We agree on very little, but I'm fairly certain that America can't withstand another four years of Donald Trump. (And there's no telling what he would do in 2028.) I hope you know that this vote brings me absolutely no joy.
What past vote do you most regret? I don't regret any of my previous votes. I try to live with "no ragrets" as the cool kids say these days.
Apart from the presidency, what is the most important race or ballot initiative being decided this fall? The 10 ballot measures in various states having to do with abortion are what I'm keeping my eyes on. Voters in Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Maryland, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New York, Nevada, and South Dakota will decide whether or not their respective states should enshrine a right to abortion in their constitutions. Personally, I don't want the state making any decisions about my body, but we'll see what happens.
Nick Gillespie
Editor at Large
Who will get your vote in the 2024 presidential election? I will write in a vote for Chase Oliver, the Libertarian Party nominee (he is not on the official ballot in New York, where I live). He is not simply the best candidate running in 2024—and the only one talking at all about reducing the size, spending, and scope of the federal government—but he is one of the most consistent and thoughtful people the L.P. has ever run. He always explains and defends his positions from the starting point that individuals should have more control over the most important decisions in their lives. Critics who accuse him of being pro–COVID lockdown, pro–vaccine mandate, or pro–gender reassignment surgery for minors are either wholly ignorant of or willfully misreading his clearly stated positions on these issues. He has laid out rationales for sunsetting old-age entitlements, reining in the military-industrial complex, and maximizing expression and lifestyle freedom that are philosophically sound, pragmatic, and persuasive. It's a damn shame that he is not receiving full support from not only his own party but from many people who insist that, no really, they are libertarian. Except when it comes to voting for someone in favor of free trade, increasing legal immigration, halving defense spending, defending the Second Amendment, and legalizing drugs.
What past vote do you most regret? Walter Mondale in 1984. It was the first presidential election in which I could vote and I was drawn to his explicit promise to reduce the deficit and, I guess, his legendary "Norwegian charisma" that led him to lose 49 states out of 50. I don't regret that he lost so badly (and deservedly, really). But there was a perfectly good L.P. candidate, David Bergland, I could have thrown away my vote on.
Apart from the presidency, what is the most important race or ballot initiative being decided this fall? In Arizona, voters will get to choose between Proposition 140 (the Single Primary for All Candidates and Possible RCV General Election Initiative) and Proposition 133 (the Require Partisan Primaries and Prohibit Primaries Where Candidates Compete Regardless of Party Affiliation Amendment). The former would prohibit partisan primaries and mandate that the top finishers move on to the general election. The latter would require partisan primaries and prohibit open ballots where the top few move on to the general election. I strongly support the latter; parties play a powerful function by vetting candidates, refining their platforms, and providing clear alternatives to voters. As can be seen from California's experience with a system in which the top two vote-getters in a so-called jungle primary move on to the general election, such a system effectively freezes out third parties and merely consolidates or deepens the status quo. The L.P., the party that comes closest to consistently reflecting my political positions, is in dreary shape at the national level and in most states, but it and other minor parties have no real role to play in a single-primary system in which only the top two or three candidates move on to a general election.
Fiona Harrigan
Associate Editor
Who will get your vote in the 2024 presidential election? No one. I'm not interested in regretting my vote, and the best way to ensure that is not to vote.
What past vote do you most regret? I've only voted in one election cycle. I don't especially regret the choices I made then, but I regret thinking they were so important.
Apart from the presidency, what is the most important race or ballot initiative being decided this fall? Arizona Proposition 314—which, among other things, would make it a state crime for noncitizens to enter Arizona outside an official port of entry and allow state and local law enforcement to arrest people for unlawful border crossings. Beyond casting a punitive eye on undocumented communities and individuals, the measure would raise taxpayer costs and broaden police powers, shielding law enforcement from civil lawsuits should they violate someone's rights. Those are concerning things—and if the measure passes, Arizona will join a growing list of states that accept those things for questionable payoff.
Joe Lancaster
Assistant Editor
Who will get your vote in the 2024 presidential election?
Neither major party's candidate gets me particularly excited, and I expect each would pursue policies that I will oppose. But since I find myself once again in a swing state, I feel compelled to choose one or the other. Wrongheaded and potentially unconstitutional policymaking can be prevented by Congress and the judiciary; on the other hand, the mechanism for dealing with a candidate who spreads racist lies about immigrants and minority groups is the ballot box. As such, I will vote for Kamala Harris.
What past vote do you most regret? In my first election, a couple of local incumbents ran unopposed for reelection—people I had met in person and found too slick and politician-y for my taste. Perhaps foreshadowing my future career path, I regret that I voted for them anyway and didn't either leave those spots blank or just write in "Batman" and "Robin."
Apart from the presidency, what is the most important race or ballot initiative being decided this fall? Voters in four states and Washington, D.C., will decide whether to adopt ranked choice voting for future elections. Instead of the traditional system, in which the winner is whoever has the most votes (in some cases, even without a majority), ranked choice would allow voters to rank the entire list of candidates in order of preference. With so much partisan rancor and little chance of third parties finding a foothold in a winner-take-all system, ranked choice could potentially shake up our stodgy political institutions and offer palatable alternatives.
Katherine Mangu-Ward
Editor in Chief
Who will get your vote in the 2024 presidential election? I never vote, for all the reasons outlined in this classic Reason cover story.
What past vote do you most regret? I remain foggy on whether I voted in 1998, the first year I was eligible. I definitely registered, because I still have a tattered paper card indicating my polling place. If I voted, I regret it.
Apart from the presidency, what is the most important race or ballot initiative being decided this fall? It looks like 16 cities in Oregon are considering bans on psilocybin mushrooms, which were legalized statewide in 2020 by Measure 109. I'd hate to see legal psychedelics lose ground, especially as part of a drug recriminalization backlash largely unrelated to innocent fungi.
Robert W. Poole Jr.
Former Reason Editor in Chief; Director of Transportation Policy, Reason Foundation
Who will get your vote in the 2024 presidential election? Because Florida is not a swing state this year, I am spared the horrible choice between two unsuitable candidates—both protectionists, both with loony tax ideas, and both ignoring out-of-control peacetime federal spending and the looming national debt disaster. In a number of previous presidential elections, I've voted for the Libertarian candidate. Not this time: I cannot vote for a defense-policy isolationist who mimics Neville Chamberlain's response to Hitler's invasion of other countries. I will write in a qualified candidate, Nikki Haley.
What past vote do you most regret? I most regret having voted to reelect Trump in 2020 as the lesser evil. The invasion of the Capitol building showed me how wrong that vote was.
Apart from the presidency, what is the most important race or ballot initiative being decided this fall? The most important ballot measures this year concern abortion. Because the GOP in recent years has gone overboard in support of abortion bans, the opportunity for pro-choice voters to overturn extreme bans may shift some candidate races in favor of left-wing Democrats.
Jason Russell
Managing Editor, Reason magazine
Who will get your vote in the 2024 presidential election? Chase Oliver. The odds of my lone vote being the decisive vote in my state, and Virginia being the decisive state in the presidential election, are infinitesimally small. Even if I lived in Pennsylvania or some other swing state, I'd feel the same way about my single vote. Regardless of my preference between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump, I have no qualms whatsoever about voting for the candidate whom I am closest to ideologically.
What past vote do you most regret? In 2012, I left the presidential portion of my ballot blank. I was a college student in New York but registered to vote in my home state of Michigan. I would have voted for Gary Johnson, but Michigan was one of two states to not list him on the ballot (though I now see Michigan would have accepted a write-in vote for him). Even though I felt more ideologically aligned with Mitt Romney and was strongly rooting for him over President Barack Obama, I decided I was too worried about Romney possibly invading Iran. Come 2016, with Trump getting the Republican nomination, I regretted holding Romney to such a high standard and wished I had cast my first presidential vote for my home state's native son.
Apart from the presidency, what is the most important race or ballot initiative being decided this fall? I'm keeping an eye on Amendment 2 in Kentucky, which would allow the state Legislature to distribute education tax dollars outside the traditional K-12 system. The state constitution's version of the Blaine Amendment is so strict that a 2022 law funding public charter schools was deemed unconstitutional—so Kentucky remains one of the few states without charter schools, which are increasingly shown to be a great option for students. Amendment 2 would allow the Legislature to fund students "outside the system of common schools," so education savings accounts and other kinds of educational freedom would be on the table as well.
Robby Soave
Senior Editor
Who will get your vote in the 2024 presidential election?
The best thing one can say about Kamala Harris is that she has renounced several of the bad policy ideas of…Kamala Harris, circa 2019. Even so, that's not much of an endorsement. Moreover, her selection of Tim Walz—a big government liberal and COVID-19 tyrant—is disqualifying for the entire ticket.
Donald Trump is an improvement over Joe Biden on some issues—Trump doesn't want to ban TikTok, at least for the moment—but many of the current administration's worst economic ideas (i.e., tariffs) would be continued or even expanded under Trump. It's also hard to take seriously the idea that Trump will somehow succeed in reducing the vast federal bureaucracy during his second term after he manifestly failed to do so during his first. Never forget that Trump gave Anthony Fauci a presidential commendation. Thus, the choice is clear: I will be voting for Chase Oliver.
What past vote do you most regret? I regret nothing. I voted for Jo Jorgensen and Gary Johnson in previous election cycles and would do so again.
Apart from the presidency, what is the most important race or ballot initiative being decided this fall? While I expect the presidential election to be extremely close, my hunch is that Harris will ultimately win. Given that outcome, it becomes vital that Republicans either retain control of the House of Representatives or recapture the Senate. The House map is dicey, but there are several hotly contested Senate races—in Montana, West Virginia, Ohio, Wisconsin, and Michigan—where Republicans could prevail. I hope they do. Divided government is liberty's best friend.
Peter Suderman
Features Editor
Who will get your vote in the 2024 presidential election? No one.
What past vote do you most regret? I've only voted once, for George W. Bush in 2004. Look how that turned out!
Apart from the presidency, what is the most important race or ballot initiative being decided this fall? Florida's Amendment 3, which has flaws, but would legalize recreational pot in the Sunshine State.
Jacob Sullum
Senior Editor
Who will get your vote in the 2024 presidential election? Chase Oliver. Despite his inability to distinguish between "genocide" and a defensive war with disturbingly high civilian casualties (also a terrible thing that kills innocent people, but qualitatively different in terms of motive and intent), he represents a refreshing contrast to the muddled thinking and authoritarian tendencies of all the other candidates.
What past vote do you most regret? In grade school, I voted for myself in the nail-bitingly close election of a class president. I had previously agreed with my friend Larry that I would vote for him and he would vote for me, because we somehow had the impression that voting for yourself was unseemly. After our teacher told all of us that such squeamishness was inappropriate, I signaled to Larry that we should abandon our arrangement and vote for ourselves. But he did not understand my gesture and voted for me as originally planned. I was elected by one vote, our teacher said that was fine despite the misunderstanding, and I still feel bad about it.
Apart from the presidency, what do you think is the most important race or ballot initiative being decided this fall? I'm not sure it gets top billing, but it will be interesting to see what happens with the marijuana legalization initiative in Florida, which Donald Trump has endorsed and Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) vigorously opposes. As a constitutional amendment, the measure needs support from at least 60 percent of voters to pass, and polls suggest the outcome will be close. If voters in a previously purple but increasingly red state like Florida favor toleration of recreational use by the requisite margin, it will be a sign that the conservative backlash against legalization is fizzling, reinforcing the significance of a presidential race featuring two major-party candidates who have both turned against pot prohibition.
J.D. Tuccille
Contributing Editor
Who will get your vote in the 2024 presidential election? In 2020, Donald Trump was a thuggish agent of chaos and Joe Biden promised—bullshit though it was—to be a moderate uniter. Trump is still a thin-skinned narcissist heading a cult of personality. But Democrats met Republican authoritarianism with "hold my beer" totalitarian intolerance for dissent. I'm torn between a principled vote for Chase Oliver, who is a better candidate than the moldering corpse of the L.P. deserves, or joining my wife who fears the left's antisemitism in voting for Trump. Oliver is a capable advocate for liberty representing a collapsing organization, while Trump, scumbag though he is, could be less bad than the empty vessel for the control freaks around her that is Kamala Harris.
What past vote do you most regret? I regret no vote so much as I already regret this year's vote.
Apart from the presidency, what is the most important race or ballot initiative being decided this fall? Arizona has a true libertarian, Clint Bolick, on its state Supreme Court. Bolick is up for a retention election this year, which will decide whether he holds his seat. I'm enthusiastically voting for him.
Jesse Walker
Books Editor
Who will get your vote in the 2024 presidential election? Chase Oliver.
What past vote do you most regret? I have a double regret from the year I became eligible to vote. I started 1988 as a leftist, albeit with increasingly strong libertarian inclinations; I ended it as a libertarian, though with some vestigial left-wing sympathies. If I had voted for the guy I was rooting for in the primaries and for the candidate I liked best in November—Jesse Jackson and Ron Paul, respectively—that would have summed up the journey pretty well. Instead I skipped the primaries and then cast a lesser-evil vote for…Dukakis? Well, at least it wasn't Bush.
Apart from the presidency, what is the most important race or ballot initiative being decided this fall? They say the most important races are the ones in your backyard, and those are certainly the only ones where your ballot might make a difference. So for me I guess it's one of these: I'm voting to impose term limits on the planning board, to give the county an independent inspector general, to expand the size of the county council so as to shrink the size of the members' districts, and, as usual, to reject all the bond questions and to eject all the sitting judges.
Zach Weissmueller
Senior Producer
Who will get your vote in the 2024 presidential election?
For the first time since I was eligible, I will not be voting in the presidential election. They finally broke me. The isidewith.com quiz tells me that I am aligned on policy five times more closely with Trump than with Harris. I desperately want him to follow through on freeing Ross Ulbricht. And yet, I can't vote for somebody who leveraged unproven voter fraud claims to attempt a self-coup, suggested the "termination" of aspects of the Constitution, and picked a vice president who's suggested ignoring court rulings. Rule of law is a nonnegotiable principle. Harris announcing as one of her first policies price controls to tackle inflation is a deal-killer. I cannot vote this kind of economic illiteracy into the White House, nor support the Democrats' agenda to pack—er, "reform"—the Supreme Court. I like Chase Oliver and especially appreciate his commitment to ending foreign aid and slashing the debt, two areas where Ds and Rs are severely lacking. But the Libertarian Party doesn't even want me to vote for him. My nonvote conveys a rejection of the broken process and party machinery that led to a third Trump nomination, a last-minute Harris switcheroo, and increasingly marginal Libertarian Party presidential candidates.
What past vote do you most regret? In 2020, I wrote that "I just hope I don't regret my first lesser-of-two-evils vote this year" after voting Biden. Surprise: I do regret it. In light of Biden's unconstitutional OSHA workplace vaccine mandate and the inflationary spending, I wish I had abstained.
Apart from the presidency, what do you think is the most important race or ballot initiative being decided this fall? There are six statewide ranked choice voting ballot initiatives—four to enact, one to repeal, and one to prohibit—as well as one in D.C. and numerous similar local ballot initiatives. If ranked choice voting could pick up momentum this election cycle, it could initiate a serious and much-needed structural change in U.S. elections. Multicandidate elections with runoffs tend toward more moderate and centrist candidates, but in some cases can also open up possibilities for libertarians, as recently happened in Argentina. This kind of fundamental change in how we vote may be the only way, long term, that our increasingly unhinged national politics might course-correct.
Matt Welch
Editor at Large
Who will get your vote in the 2024 presidential election?
Almost certainly Kennedy. Not Robert F., but our beloved Fox broadcaster pal and Reason contributor, Lisa Kennedy Montgomery. Very nice lady. There are only two names on my ballot, because the state of New York is so brutally effective at suppressing political competition, so I will have to write in somebody. Though there is a wee small chance I may yet throw a futile bone at Libertarian Party candidate Chase Oliver, who I certainly like more than the rest of his 2024 competitors (and some L.P. nominees of elections past). Party leaders at both the state and national levels have been working actively to alienate voters like me, so it feels almost unsporting to not give them the W. New York hasn't cracked 41 percent for a Republican since "Kokomo" hit No. 1, so my vote will not affect the desultory major-party race. I genuinely, if not quite equally, disdain not just Donald Trump and Kamala Harris, but their dishonest running mates as well. Great country; lousy politics.
What past vote do you most regret? I explained my Michael Dukakis regret last time around, so let's add a second: In 2008, having just moved to the District of Columbia, I neglected to get my voter registration sorted in time, thus depriving Dave Chappelle or Bob Barr or whoever of my crucial write-in vote. More importantly, it robbed me of one of my greatest civic pleasures: sending Katherine Mangu-Ward a selfie of me with an "I voted" sticker.
Apart from the presidency, what is the most important race or ballot initiative being decided this fall? Question 3 in Massachusetts is the latest blue-state attempt to saddle the innovative 21st century gig economy with hoary 20th century labor models, in this case allowing ride-share drivers to unionize, instead of retaining their current status as independent contractors. As Reason Foundation's Marc Scribner and Baruch Feigenbaum conclude, "Due to driver voting eligibility requirements, the part-time nature of the work for the vast majority of gig workers, and high driver turnover, one practical implication is that a minority of drivers may be able to force the majority of drivers into work arrangements they may not favor." Not great, Bob!
Liz Wolfe
Associate Editor
Who will get your vote in the 2024 presidential election?
I am currently a legitimately undecided voter. I may do the dirtiest deed and vote for Donald Trump. It brings me no pleasure to report this, and I imagine the screenshots of this answer will be circulated by the online ne'er-do-wells to (rightly?) shame me for years to come. Stolen election claims and a refusal to put the kibosh on the democracy-subverting activities of January 6 disturb me, as do tariffs, but I am more optimistic about the economic conditions that will arise as a result of a Trump administration and I was pleased with his Supreme Court picks during his first term. Price controls, court packing, and massive amounts of government spending, which I expect to accompany a Harris presidency, will simply not work for me. I do not think the Libertarian candidate has done a very good job of putting himself out there, nor do I believe the Libertarian Party is a viable force in American politics. I am angry that my choices are between a descent into populism ushered in by the right or a descent into populism ushered in by the left. If I do not vote for Trump, I will simply not vote and instead do a cold plunge in the ocean, which will cleanse me of my disgust and calm my weary soul.
What past vote do you most regret? If I pull the lever for my compatriot from Queens, this will probably be the vote I regret the most. Conveniently, I live in New York, so it doesn't matter. I will sleep soundly regardless, lulled to dreamland by an ever-increasing sense of nihilism.
Apart from the presidency, what is the most important race or ballot initiative being decided this fall? Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Maryland, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New York, and South Dakota are all voting on measures that would expand or protect abortion access. Quite a few of these measures don't just protect abortion early in a pregnancy, but until viability (around 24 weeks) or even later in cases where a doctor deems the health of the mother to be at risk. Other measures—such as Colorado's—would force private insurers to cover the procedure. It's likely that voters will move in the direction of expanding and protecting abortion access—as they frequently have when offered the choice after Dobbs—but for consistent life ethic types like myself, that's not cause for celebration.
Justin Zuckerman
Producer
Who will get your vote in the 2024 presidential election? I plan to write in Chase Oliver. His platform is the closest to representing my views. And I'm registered in D.C. so it doesn't matter anyway.
What past vote do you most regret? I don't think I've ever voted in the majority, so no regrets here!
Apart from the presidency, what is the most important race or ballot initiative being decided this fall? I'll be watching Question 5 in Massachusetts, which asks voters to phase out the "tip credit" for restaurant servers. I'm currently finishing a documentary for Reason on the effects of tip credit elimination here in Washington, D.C., which has so far led to reduced restaurant employment and increased food prices.
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
HA HA. LOL
Pretty unsurprising. Bunch of leftists who pretend to be libertarian like it’s some hipster fashion accessory.
Dafuq are you talking about, Shlomo? Like half of them said that it's not a genocide (it is) and I'm paretty sure that's your problem with it. At least Oliver is correct. Anyway you're a Ziofascist so I don't know what you're even doing at a Libertarian magazine/website.
Parody?
RE: Genocide? Definitely not.
https://www.unz.com/pescobar/the-gaza-genocide-as-explicit-policy-michael-hudson-names-all-names/
RE: The rest? Partly.
That unz piece fails to define genocide and fails to prove that Israel is committing it vs. using tactics to legitimately kill it's theocratic Hamas enemy with civilians deliberately put in the crossfire by Hamas.
Pretty sure this is a Misek sock.
The only people who still visit Unz are the far-left and antisemitic 4channers, so maybe both.
Reason got copies of their early missing issues from Unz. I believe both Jesse Walker and Brian Doherty have cited stuff from Ron's archive with hyperlinks. Unz is just what it claims to be A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
I find the Jewish proprietor's trolling of the ADL to be quite amusing.
Yep. 100%. 0 Trump means you don't really mean it.
César Báez - Fled Venezuela, and equate Trump to Maduro ... right...Glad you can't vote, butthead.
However, there are 12, throwaway spite votes. Better than nothing.
It's what you get when you allow children to vote.
The children know better than the corrupted adults.
"...Glad you can’t vote, butthead..."
Spelled "asswipe".
Sorry to crib but;
Harris – 3 (12%)
Trump – 2 (8%)? Tuccille and Wolfe?
Oliver – 12 (48%)
NOTA/Abstain – 6 (24%)
Nikki Haley – 1 (4%)
Lisa Kennedy Montgomery – 1 (4%)
For reference from 2020:
Biden – 4 (17%)
Trump – 2 (8%)
Jorgensen – 11 (46%)
NOTA/Abstain – 7 (29%)
For reference from 2016:
Clinton – 2 (6%)
Trump – 2 (6%) Thomas Massie and Jeff A. Taylor (Phbbt!)
Johnson – 20 (60%)
NOTA/Abstain – 8 (24%)
Jill Stein – 1 (3%)? Bill Kauffman
Edit: Agreed with 'Fire up the Woodchippers!' assessment. Still the same magazine that has to crib votes from people who've written one article in order to come close to strategically and reluctantly appearing libertarian *and* non-partisan adjacent.
Some of you may note that the percentages in the 2016 reference do not add up to one hundred because the math was done by a woman. For the other two years, the math was done by a man.
Good catch!
[Clears throat] For representatives there can be no such common ratio, or divisor which ... will divide them exactly without a remainder or fraction. I answer then ... that representatives [must be divided] as nearly as the nearest ratio will admit; and the fractions must be neglected. - Thomas Jefferson, delineating what would become The Apportionment Act to George Washington in 1792.
Just kidding, this is a Modern Western Democracy, we don't hire women.
Sig figs. These are rounded.
No scientists or engineers amongst you all?
Significant Figure.
AND that joke was written by a woman?
Yes. Chase sent it to me.
Yup, straight to the comments. And well worth the click.
Fiona won't vote for anyone unless they're running FROM ICE.
What a bunch of f-ing cowards.
Oliver! A dodge, not a choice.
Pick one: Harris or Trump?
Show some backbone. Or you are a bunch of sniveling cowards who are afraid to miss those cocktail parties and upset your families?
Why? Why not vote Libertarian?
Voting libertarian (NOT Jesus Caucus) means voting for Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. That disqualifies looters right there.
Everything the TDS-addled say Trump is, Xiden, Kamala, and the Democrats are 1000 times worse.
He said he might want to suspend the Constitution. They say they want to alter and abolish it entirely, no hedging. No more 1A or 2A, weakened as they've been. Probably no 4A either although that one is already on its last legs. Hell she would probably try to make people house the illegal welfare leech swine claiming they're not "soldiers" under the 3A.
And the Democrats sent two mobs into the Capitol over Supreme Court nominations and those yahoos got WAY CLOSER to the Senators than the Trumplings ever did.
Maybe there will be uprisings all over the country, NANCY (Pelosi)? You wanted them so much. Hopefully they’ll be targeted dirctly against any of your braindead brownshirts with a Harris/Walz sign in their yard. And if they are, I will no longer give a flying you-know-what at a rolling doughnut about the “rule of law,” for I no longer respect the corrupt, tainted courts of totalitarian globalists that purport to enforce such a thing!
I wonder how many of these “Oliver voters”, particularly those in swing states, will be voting Trump? I bet that number is a non-zero number.
Eric Boehm
Reporter
What past vote do you most regret? No single vote is worth enough to be regretted.
Not a single strategic or reluctant regret! Suck on it libertarians!
When a lot of people jerk off on the corpse, not all of them will feel bad about it.
I’m borrowing that one.
especially not the Catholics
The Jews will enjoy it the most, though. Since the corpse was about 10 minutes ago begging for medical help and Schlomo saw a gentile in need.
those Samaritans were dicks.
So were the original Sicarios.
Sounds like you.
I'll be smiling about that one for a while.
Exactly. What a total shitsack.
As a freedom loving libertarian since 1978, I'll be voting for Trump, who was the most libertarian President since Calvin Coolidge a century ago.
Those of us in Western PA are sitting on enough natural gas to electrify and heat every home and business in North America and Europe for the next century, but Kamala Harris has been trying to ban fracking and gas pipelines (along with excessively taxing and regulating gas, oil and other carbons) for several decades, which will (if continued) destroy the economy of Western PA (even worse than the collapse of the steel industry in the 1970s and 80s).
Meanwhile, these absurd and extremist carbon banning policies have enabled, enriched and emboldened Russia, Iran, China, Venezuela and other American foes.
Trump isn't a libertarian. Trump isn't even close to being a libertarian. Trump was still the most libertarian president since Silent Cal.
Trump is also more libertarian than Oliver, Jorgensen, Johnson and Weld.
Really kind of pathetic and sad, huh?
Freedom to chemically castrate kids is the most important freedom. And special rights for favored identities.
Comrade Jesse, do you not understand? Your only freedoms are achieved through the great chains of socialism.
And the freedom to be forced to bake the cake.
That’s part of the Great Chain of Socialism, as practiced by the democrat party.
If he’s not even close to a libertarian, how come he’s in 78% agreement by the isidewith.com with this libertarian, namely me? Chase Oliver comes out 91%, but is unelectable. The next closest candidates are at 39% (Sonski) and 38% (RFK), respectively, so it’s not like a close or random choice for me. Trump sticks out as enormously more libertarian than almost the entire rest of the field; how do people not see that?
Maybe I should try Project Vote Smart or standwith.org and see if things come out any different.
Well, perhaps the biggest reason is that he doesn't seem to have much interest in reducing the size and scope of the federal government. Maybe he's more libertarian now than he was. Maybe we'll get to find out.
"He DoeSN't HavE MuCH inTereST"
Or he understands the reality of the current situation, and will attempt to reduce it as much as realistically possible instead of demanding pie in the sky solutions.
OK, so he's a libertarian but doesn't intend to do any libertarian things. I don't find that very meaningful.
I don't see any reason to believe he has any particularly libertarian principles either. I still think he is the better choice by a long shot. But don't piss on me and tell me its raining. He's not a libertarian, he's never claimed to be one and there's no reason to expect him to act like one, even if a few of his policies align with libertarian goals.
Hardly any candidates do claim to be a libertarian. LP has a near-monopoly on those, and you see it's gotten them excluded from serious consideration in elections. Meanwhile with Trump "a few of his policies align", which in politics is just what you need, and makes him the only one in position to achieve them.
Fine, that's great. I hope he can move some things in the right direction. I think he has much better people advising him this time around. But he still seems like a narcissist who wants to do big yuge important things. I'm not going to call him a libertarian because that means something fairly specific to me.
Remember. Year 3 he put in a rule to make it easier to fire federal employees. Due to required delays on rule making Biden was able to remove the rule as one of his first actions.
Trump wants to drain the swamp.
The most libertarian comment by any candidate since Reagan.
100% correct.
Politico has stories of fed workers fearing for their jobs. He tried cutting in 2016 but couldn’t due to appropriation language and The Resistance working against him, distracted by an FBI investigation over… a firing.
This time he has the people around him to actually do these things.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Yeah, seems like he has learned some lessons from his first term and is picking better advisers.
He’s recently said he’ll bring on Musk to help fire as many federal workers as possible. I'd say that’s a reduction.
And Vivek has a detailed plan starting with appropriation language at OPM.
Great. I'll reassess if something real happens.
Ah, so you're a fantasist or at least demanding perfection to the detriment of the good. Keep wishcasting for society to completely remake itself overnight to your taste, just don't accept any incremental improvements along the way because that's just not good enough.
I hardly think Zeb is demanding perfection. He stated his preference, not his threshold of acceptance. He said he doesn't think Trump is a libertarian. And he said Trump is by far better choice of the 2. It sounds like someone that can accept Trump without needing to get delusional about how great he is.
I feel compelled to defend his opinion because I feel the exact same way.
That’s mine. I don’t like Trump. I find him quite contemptible.
But the other side is insane, and the "Libertarian" is just an untrustworthy double-masking, child-mutilating, open-borders Democrat globalist cosplaying as a libertarian, so. I take no pleasure in voting Trump. Trump *is* the biggest protest vote possible against the system and the hell on earth it wishes to unleash upon us, and THAT is where his support comes from.
(I voted LP for president every time except 1996 when I was too young to know what a RINO was, and 2008 because Bob Barr was a million steps down from Harry Browne. Even voted Gary twice. But I have my limits.)
Oh FFS.... What do you call a De-Regulation committee? Did any administration have one of those in the last half-century?
This UN-justified bigoted hate towards Trump is baffling.
What are you all angry at Trump for? Questioning the most lawless election in history (COVID-excuses) with unexplainable results or is it that he "Hollowed out our public institutions" but no one can admit to being a communist at heart?
Heck the best complaint against Trump is Dobbs, Cares Act, Bump Stock bans, and forcing GM to make medical equipment. Yet those who do the hating don't even base their hate on acts of dictation; they base them on things Trump has done that made complete sense.
He didn’t start enough wars.
He engineered 3 ME peace treaties.
He kept out lovable immigrants.
He reduced corp taxes.
No Commie can tolerate such!
Trump isn’t a libertarian.
Neither was Coolidge.
Gary Johnson, Bill Weld, Jo Jorgenson, Chase Oliver... those are libertarians.
You've convinced me. Now I'm going to go bake that cake.
What if you bake the cake but also add icing skid marks on top of the rainbows?
"...Trump isn’t a libertarian. Trump isn’t even close to being a libertarian. Trump was still the most libertarian president since Silent Cal..."
Which tells you clearly that those not voting for him do not give a shit about actually achieving libertarian policies; they care about signaling.
Fuck every one of the lying piles of shit with a barb-wire-wrapped broomstick.
Well put
I can only imagine how some of their votes might change if any of them lived in a swing state. Or any part of flyover country, for that matter.
I have already voted for Oliver although I have reservations about his policies regarding the "management of disinformation."
I like Trump, but he needs to address the issue of out-of-control spending and what he would do if and when there is an economic collapse of the US ala the old Soviet Union or Weimer Germany.
Anyone who would vote for Comrade Kamala is full of shit and needs to be put in an insane asylum.
Noted by a TDS-addled slimy pile of shit.
FOAD, asshole.
Our dear Scato is very hard to please!
You’re a Harris drone, so fuck off.
Hell, Yeah!
In 2015 Jeb! sold me on Trump when he called the celebrity hotelier/real estate developer "the Chaos Candidate".
With Trump comfortably ahead in the polls I voted for the Constitution Party candidate, Mike Castle in 2016, so my record of never having voted for a winning presidential candidate since my first vote in 1980 at age 18. I hope to break that streak in November MAGA.
"Meanwhile, these absurd and extremist carbon banning policies have enabled, enriched and emboldened Russia, Iran, China, Venezuela and other American foes."
You mean like blowing up undersea pipelines full of LNG? Or how about genociding a bunch of people in Gaza so that the US, British and Israelis could partner up to develop the Leviathan fields to sell "cheap" gas to Europe? You mean like sanctioning the shit out of Venezuela and Iran so they have to sell their petroleum products on the black market?
American "foes" - LOL you sound like a 10 year old watching Bugs Bunny cartoons and being subjected to daily rants from your daddy about why there isn't more fracking going on in PA.
"...Or how about genociding a bunch of people in Gaza..."
Eat shit and die, slimy pile of antisemitic Nazi shit.
"Or how about genociding a bunch of people in Gaza so that..."
Israel is not genociding anyone. Hamas is genociding it's own people by using them as shields. You know that for a fact, whether you admit it or not.
"...so that the US, British and Israelis could partner up to develop the Leviathan fields to sell “cheap” gas to Europe?"
Those fields are offshore. Also plenty in Israeli territory. They don't need to go into Gaza.
It's pretty obvious that Hamas provoked the situation by deliberately attacking civilians in Israel. They deserve to lose the gas fields for attacking Israel.
Hamas could always turn themselves in. That would end the war today.
Trump has my vote too. If only he does not yield to the temptation of growing the federal government (I dream), then it will be a vote well spent.
When Trump was President I remember paying $1.18/gal for gasoline.
Now I consider paying $3.11/gal. a bargain. I never let the gas tank to run down past the 50% mark, especially if I want to eat that week.
Thank you Joe
Harris will make it much, much worse.
Harris and Walz are both communists.
Chase Oliver.....LMFAO. The epitome of 'unserious'. The LP is a shadow of what it once was.
For a bunch of nominal libertarians, you sure are energized for the candidate who supports censorship and confiscation (taxes on unrealized gains). Very weird.
You could see the dripping hatred for the MC in those answers.
https://www.maciverinstitute.com/2024/05/the-libertarian-party-stays-woke/
So what's up with MacIver lately? Their primary funder, the Bradley Foundation only turned away from the MIC and warmongering in 2018.
https://www.milwaukeemag.com/bradley-foundation-ceo-richard-graber-talks-education-reform-foundations-new-strategic-plan/
A little surprising (or a major lie?) considering that Graber is a long-time proto neocon, on the board of Honeywell's "international relations" group.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Graber
"Limited government" except for the MIC, that is.
Oh! OH! Look! Nazi pile of antisemitic shit links Wiki!
FOAD, asshole
I posted that for the collage of the progressive twink’s social messaging. What a butt nazi.
Like I said above, the LP is just a fashion accessory for hipster leftists. Which unfortunately, is most of the Reason staff.
I never thought I’d find Cosmo social signaling so oddly fascinating. Disgusting of course, but absolutely not what I expected.
They say people will tell you what they think if you let them. This unfiltered glimpse into the minds of Reason writers is staggering, to say the least.
Good luck on the next webathon.
MC hatred and TDS infected almost every answer here. Wolfe had the best answer even though I fully disagree with her views on the 2020 election. Robby was half decent.
As expected, they all basically are despaired because they can't fake enthusiasm for the democrat candidate. Harris somehow comes across as less likeable or mentally fit than Biden. I suppose it's an improvement that they are coming close to a line where they see how bad the democrats are.
Oh boy, this will be a productive comment section. *popcorn*
Seeing a lot of calls for Chase Oliver. Thank goodness. For a second, I thought we had a bunch of homophobes running Reason!
I'm not a homophobe just because I don't understand why anyone would want to poke and play with another mans poopy butt-hole and might question their mental stability in having such a disgusting fetish.
Live and let live; but that doesn't mean I need to pedestal the disgusting fetish.
Who is the fucking retard writing in Nikki Haley? If that person is intent on writing in a female Tulsi is far better than rino haley.
Someone who is intent to suck Koch… I mean, suck up to Koch.
No joke. In what way is Haley "qualified"?
Also, the sheer volume of "OMG! TRUMP DID AN INSURRECTION!" from people I once thought were intelligent is a disappointment.
That was probably my biggest takeaway. Very disappointing.
And the "GENOSIDE!!!!" claims of the Nazi S/S on staff is equally disturbing.
Those virtues don’t signal themselves to the potential future beltway employers. Do you think the entire staff sees themselves as lifers at Reason? I’m sure they all want to be at WaPo, NYT, etc..
Who is the fucking retard writing in Nikki Haley?
That's Bob Poole. He's most notable in my mind for championing the idea that, with the adoption of autonomous vehicles, society will be able to build fewer parking lots despite the fact that automated cars literally consume the exact same footprint as manual cars.
He also had a similar idea that building more 'oases' over interstate highways was more cost effective and efficient than building off/on ramps despite the fact that virtually no oases support interchanges, many *still* have their own on/off ramps, and there are, by oases standards, unprecedentedly massive, open markets just off of any given interchange operating at a profit on dirt cheap land rather than infrastructure that... someone... has to maintain.
So, yeah, not so abjectly retarded as to build a railroad to nowhere, but still kinda actually retarded and, at this point, potentially progressing along the Joe Biden way.
He was one of the Trump votes last time, wasn't he?
He was. He now regrets voting Trump because of what Trump did AT THE END OF TRUMP's TERM.
A quick scan indicates the Reason staffers who mention him at all generally believe Trump's administration began and ended on January 6th, 2021.
>>because of what Trump did AT THE END OF TRUMP’s TERM
Reason totally missed the actual peaceful transfer of power lol.
I distinctly remember video of the armed clash with Senate staffers inside the White House showing Trump yelling "Fight fight fight" and then pulling a machine gun from his golf bag and firing like crazy and yelling "Pence, in the name of Her Majesty and the Continental Congress come here and feed me this belt, boy!"
Was that before or after he grabbed the limo's steering wheel?
Bob Poole is most notable in my mind for calling for the nationalization of truck stops as a public/private partnership monopoly. IIRC, Poole wanted a redesign of Interstate exit and entrance ramps to prevent choosing the current free market options.
Nikki Haley is more pro-war than Kamala Harris
Reason hasn’t really been very anti-war in awhile.
GayJay was pro-war. I believe "Bug Chase" Oliver is anti-war but he'll conscript you to bake a cake.
Haley??!! Good lord!
Last time I voted, I wrote in Ron Paul's name. Have a clear conscience.
They can say whatever they want, but everyone knows who they're really voting for.
Well, you had mentioned registering, and voting for trump if the dems put forth a hated "cop" kamala.
How's that going by the way?
Luckily he lives in an RCV state so he can hide his Kamala vote behind chase.
It's always discouraging to see Reason staffers going through bizarre mental gymnastics to justify anti-libertarian votes (e.g. Harris or Trump or, in one particularly weird case this year, Haley).
You don't HAVE to vote, and if you DO vote you have a better chance of winning Powerball than you do of casting the deciding vote in the presidential election. So why not just refrain from voting or vote for the best candidate instead of voting against freedom and America?
People who vote Libertarian have no illusions of the candidate winning. The reason to vote for the Libertarian is to ensure ballot access, and to possibly get a Libertarian onto a future debate stage (if they can stop moving the goalposts).
As I've said --- maybe the LP should stop seeking the Presidency and aim at, you know, more local races where they might have the chance to have some semblance of an impact.
Supposedly that's what McArdle was going to start doing. I don't know how it's going other than to say that they seem to have pulled out of CA entirely.
Yeah, that's absolutely what they should do. Or at least stop putting so much energy into it. Their presidential runs are pointless.
This 100%. I don't see any reason to vote for federal office this year. It won't make any difference and voting for them really does only send a message to encourage them. Even L's are only encouraging the distraction of voting for federal office on the basis of ideologyand wasting effort on ballot access rather than making a real difference at the local level.
The local ballot stuff is useful in Colorado. 14 freaking ballot initiatives though. That has now become counter-productive and a bit cowardly imo.
That's what I'm doing (not voting). I can still acknowledge that Trump is a much preferable option to Harris.
True.
But then again, a box of rocks would be a more suitable option than Comrade Kamala.
I'll be voting Oliver from CA. I would like to pretend that some data cruncher somewhere will look at the number of Libertarian votes some day and think that maybe there is a possibility of harvesting some of those votes by being...you know...more libertarian.
I do think a Trump presidency will be more beneficial to me. Other than the nut-punch that was the SALT Deduction Cap, Trump's policies generally helped my family. Meanwhile, under Biden, trans nuttery has invaded my kids schools, and inflation has given me my first real pay cut since joining the work force.
Also, having watched JD Vance for years, having read his book and his writings before, I think there is a 30% chance his demagoguery is an act that he has taken on knowing that populism is the way of the world. If this is true, once Trump has been sent off to his gold tower after 4 years, Vance will begin tacking back towards the more (not completely) agreeable policies of his younger years.
That would require an adult consideration of the alternatives; severely lacking here.
Got about halfway through.
A lot of desiring cultural left issues or emotions. No policy descriptors. A shit ton of narratives, many ignorant and false.
Explains chase support. A lot of empty suit reasons to support an empty suit.
Chase I can understand. It's a protest vote.
Harris just is baffling. She's the official candidate of the MIC and IC now. Trump's no small government guy, but at least he doesn't want to start WW3.
Yeah I was surprised to see so many Harris votes. I thought it would be a clean sweep for Oliver. Lots of "one vote doesn't matter but I must vote against Orange man".
>>Yeah I was surprised to see so many Harris votes.
have you seen the show?
Because most of the Reason writers are not libertarian. They affect it as a pose to let others know that they're contrarian but are still cool with the way that drugs and sex are used by the upper middle class elite.
They'll talk about upper middle class issues like food trucks, and zoning, and hookers and abortion and ass sex and weed and porn in the classrooms and racial justice, but when it comes to the important stuff like civil rights and free speech they do not give a shit.
Fire KMW. Get the magazine offices out of government power centers and away from their corrupting influences. Hire a diversity of libertarian thought. Right now it's all establishment bien pensants. Hire far left libertarians like Jimmy Dore and Greenwald. Hire a Mises caucus writer (amazing that one of the largest libertarian branches is not represented here). Keep an establishment corporatist mouthpiece like Sullum. Just don't make them all establishment corporatist mouthpieces like Sullum.
How do you define libertarian?
Right up there in the "important stuff" Sarckles.
If the writers at a libertarian magazine are not libertarian, and Trump is more libertarian than any Libertarians who have run for president, how the heck do you define it?
Seems like whatever definition you use is quite different from that used by anyone who calls themselves libertarian (which you have said you do not).
So what is it?
You’re not smart enough to copy us, Sarckles. But since there will be guaranteed laughs I’ll play along.
Libertarians advocate for the expansion of individual autonomy and political freedom, emphasizing the principles of equality before the law and the protection of civil rights, including the rights to freedom of association, freedom of speech, freedom of thought and freedom of choice.
That is my definition. Did you note it didn’t include trying to politically prosecute or assassinate your opponent, or hand out billions in taxpayer goodies to foreign colonizers? Shocking, I know.
Just curious so see if you could give a straight answer without being an arrogant cunt, and if your answer at all matched up with what you say about libertarians.
You can't, and it didn't.
No you weren’t. You were trying to find a way to call me racist.
And zero surprises that you don't think what I described was libertarian, you little goosestepping fascist.
So emotional. How many maple whine enemas have you given yourself today?
Talk about a non-sequitur, Drunky. Didn't even make sense.
But back on topic why don't you tell us all how my answer didn't "match up with libertarianism".
Here it is again so that you don't have to scroll all the way up three posts:
Libertarians advocate for the expansion of individual autonomy and political freedom, emphasizing the principles of equality before the law and the protection of civil rights, including the rights to freedom of association, freedom of speech, freedom of thought and freedom of choice.
I didn’t say your answer doesn’t match up with libertarianism. I said it doesn’t match up with what you say about libertarians.
Because whenever actual libertarians promote those things you say define libertarians, you call them leftists and fascists.
By the way you conspicuously omitted "free minds and free markets." I wonder why.
By the way you conspicuously omitted “free minds and free markets.” I wonder why.
Because it’s a retarded magazine tagline that is already covered by individual autonomy and political freedom, equality before the law, and civil rights like freedom of association, freedom of speech, freedom of thought and freedom of choice.
Did you actually think the slogan was a fundamental principal in and of itself?
Because whenever actual libertarians promote those things you say define libertarians, you call them leftists and fascists.
This is a stinky little lie. When you're not crowing over political prosecutions, your demanding that the states hand out welfare to illegal colonizers. What a joke.
No, actually. Free minds and free markets are not covered in your definition.
Which is no surprise considering you defend tariffs and other market interventions with accusations of fascism and leftism.
If someone says personal autonomy should include choosing where one lives and being legally allowed to get a job and support themselves, you attack with accusations of fascism and leftism.
If someone says medical decisions should be between doctors and patients instead of being made by government, you attack with accusations of fascism and leftism.
If someone says employers should be free to require vaccinations or not require vaccinations, you attack with accusations of fascism and leftism.
Maybe you should reevaluate your definition bub, because when anyone actually promotes it, you attack with accusations of fascism and leftism.
This is a stinky little lie. When you’re not crowing over political prosecutions, your demanding that the states hand out welfare to illegal colonizers. What a joke.
You call me a liar, and then proceed to lie about what I say. Yes, you are indeed a joke.
Sarc:
ML's list of libertarian traits:
Try to read, sarc, and something besides the label on the booze you found.
Way to miss the point, Stupid.
ML routinely attacks people who promote personal autonomy and freedom of association. He says they're leftists and fascists.
Does that mean he considers libertarians to be leftist and fascists because personal autonomy and freedom of association are leftist and fascist values?
Way to not respond to the comment.
It's not even what he says about libertarians. It's what Wikipedia says about libertarianism.
Lmao, sarc got mad that ML didn’t use a magazine tagline to explain libertarianism. Fucking moron.
"No, actually. Free minds and free markets are not covered in your definition."
Are you being deliberately retarded? "individual autonomy, political freedom, freedom of association, freedom of speech, freedom of thought and freedom of choice".
Fucking moron.
"You call me a liar, and then proceed to lie about what I say,
Would you like quotes where you have defended the handouts, you stinky little liar?
"ML routinely attacks people who promote personal autonomy and freedom of association. He says they’re leftists and fascists."
Give a single example of when I have ever done this, you malicious little drunk. In fact you're the one that wanted to railroad J6er's because orangemanbad.
"It’s not even what he says about libertarians. It’s what Wikipedia says about libertarianism."
It's THE description of libertarianism, retard. That's why Wikipedia uses it. You know what they don't use? "Free Minds and Free Markets".
"Lmao, sarc got mad that ML didn’t use a magazine tagline to explain libertarianism. Fucking moron."
He really is a stupid piece of shit. The tagline doesn't even cover a quarter of what libertarianism is about but he thought it was the description.
Sarc, give up, you’re not good at this. You’re just too drunk and stupid to engage. Just STFU and focus on accelerating your liver failure.
Nice job sarcasmic. You got all the LINO mean girls/sockos to gang up on you again. You hurt their feels with the truth.
Lots of you statements there.
……….. and Sarc turns it into a personal attack. He has to. He’s too drunk and stupid to have a real discussion about topics he doesn’t understand, that would involve using words he doesn’t understand (binary, strawman, gaslight, etc.).
lol you copy-pasted that from Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism
I thought Wikipedia was leftist propaganda?
And I'll just point out:
freedom of association
in the context of immigration, protecting "freedom of association" means looser immigration restrictions, not stricter ones. And yet how exactly do you describe people who advocate for free migration of peaceful people across borders? I don't think the word "libertarian" comes to mind.
lol you copy-pasted that from Wikipedia
What a maroon. I asked him how he defines libertarianism and he copy-pastes.
So that means Harris is out of the running for you?
No. She actually published it in a book under her name so that is (D)ifferent.
See immediately below you fucking retard. Zero surprises you two clowns didn't know this though.
lol you copy-pasted that from Wikipedia
It’s THE description of libertarianism, retard. That’s why Wikipedia uses it. You know what they don’t use? “Free Minds and Free Markets”.
Encyclopedia Brittanica uses it too.
As does A History of Libertarian Ideas and Movements
How did you become so stupid? Sarc can blame fetal-alcohol syndrome, but what is your excuse?
For sarc, libertarian means whatever libertarian writers, who call themselves libertarian, at a libertarian magazine, write.
No circularity to this whatsoever.
Assumes facts not in evidence, to wit: "libertarian magazine".
Could be a CUCLL moment.
Collectivist Undercover Cosplaying Leftist Libertine. I coined this.
White Mike bites his lip in envy.
Bailey would be retained as the Science! editor?
No, I'm afraid it's the other way around: The writers are libertarian, but affect not being so in a way that's sort of trivial but "counts". That is, secretly they'll vote for Trump or maybe Oliver but are pretending to be anti-Trump and pro-Harris to please the boss.
Part of me thought the “JD Vance is wrong” deluge of articles was the editors way of rebelling against unpleasant direction. But when you read the articles, you can see single issue or limited issue libertarianism.
I’d guess their readership is edgy progressives wanting to be the outsider that still gets invited to the cocktail party to the libertine spectrum.
I’d guess more Chase to Kamala switches than Chase to Trump.
Been getting the magazine since the early '70s (found Liberty and Skeptical Inquiry about the same time - good reading!)
Dunno who was the major funder at that time, but (reading the output) I'm skeptical of your analysis; there are entirely too many TDS-addled scribes to be faking it.
Reason should never have left Santa Barbara; for pete's sake, some of Reagan might have rubbed off.
I read Reason since the 1970s too, but this change did not occur until long after they moved from Santa Barbara. Inquiry was definitely doing the bit of bending over backwards to not appear tendentious, but Reason was not — then. They seemed to have gotten that way this century. But what they've been doing the past decade is far beyond that, and since some of their staff is the same, I can't believe they changed but rather that this is dictated from on high, especially since David I. Koch's demise.
Yeah that's my bottom line. Oliver is irrelevant. And a Kamala presidency guarantees endless war almost certainly becoming WW3 on multiple fronts, the collapse of the dollar and a censorship regime that would make Biden blush. The US will not win the wars that are coming. We are broke. Trump is not just the lesser of evils. The empire is on the verge of collapse. Kamala is poised to hasten that.
Oliver is irrelevant. However, unless you’re in a swing state with a real chance of influencing the vote, if you want the Libertarian Party to have a chance in the future you should give them your vote. They need it to keep ballot access. And the more people who support them, the greater a chance they have of being allowed to appear on the debate stage. No one actually thinks he’s got a shot of getting elected, or even getting a single electoral vote. But that's not the point.
Maine splits their electoral votes. You're in a swing state. You just hate Trump more than you claim to have principles.
Sarc’s southern Maine (aka northern Mass) is voting deep blue. CD2 will give Trump one electoral college vote. The two “at large” electoral college votes are trending Kamala. Maybe because of her neighbors’ lawns growing up and she can write books efficiently.
I thought he was in CD1. But he may have moved again.
I did. Not in Androscoggin County anymore.
CD2 (most of the state land mass) will go Trump and CD1 (southern woke) will go Kamala. CD2 does go into northern Mass a bit and I think includes even Lewiston.
For Sarc, you can put ‘principle’ in the same pile of words as…..
Binary
Gaslight
Strawman
I’m missing a few. Everyone feel free to add to the list of words Sarc (mis)uses , but obviously doesn’t understand.
Tu Quoque
As in the lad would like tu rum and quoque.
And zero sum from this morning.
Really? Which article? I’ve got to check that out. In any event, there should be a database of words Sarc learns here, but misuses repetitively.
Round up.
Hilarious. I wonder if he will start accusing us of trying to oaky zero sum games with him.
Fallacy
Those objectives are deeply flawed. I don't know which states are the best/worst at ballot access but I don't see why someone voting in a state with ok ballot access should be wasting effort trying to encourage the LP to open up ballot access in a state with crappy access. Those are simply corrupt states and voting will have no effect on eliminating that corruption. Pushing that rock up a hill is just affirming that parties should be playing that game. Stop it.
What good is ballot access if you're not seriously part of the election process? If you're not serious about affecting elections in a good way, then you don't need ballot access, just the right to write names in, which almost all states provide.
Without ballot access it's hard to get enough votes to be considered viable enough to participate in the debates.
So, by your previously stated reasoning, I count 13 homophobes on the Reason staff. Why haven’t you and jeff denounced them as such?
Chase is the pro-pedo and child mutilation vote and otherwise protest against sense. They're all in on the "bake the cake bigot!" Style left libertarianism that is indistinguishable from the worst of the left.
The MIC, the IC, the far left marxists, the establishment totalitarians, and importantly has suggested amazingly stupid and unconstitutional ideas like taxing unrealized gains, and was part of an admin that mandated injecting a new experimental medicine as a requirement for employment...
I get the protest vote. I get the no vote. I get a potential Trump vote. Harris is a non-starter if you have a single libertarian bone in your body.
Can’t understand it either since Harris is anti-libertarian in so many areas – guns, war, inflation, taxes, spending, political prosecution. And whereas Trump is a liar or bullshitter about many or most of the anti-libertarian things he supports, Harris and the Democrats are dead serious about their anti-libertarianism. Far better for a libertarian to vote for Chase, or even Donald, than to vote for anti-libertarian Kamala. Even on abortion, Trump himself is not particularly anti-abortion.
I still think Chase is voting for Kamala.
JD Vance is wrong about Chase Oliver.
Maybe Vance thinks Chase will come in the bottom but instead he will pull out on top.
JD Vance is wrong about boxers or briefs.
Real men run commando.
JD Vance is wrong about the movie ‘Commando’.
Finished politicians seem to get gigs with the media, like the Newt-ster at Fox and countless fucking democrats at the networks.
Perhaps Chase Oliver can look forward to a spot at Reason in a similar, half-assed manner.
They’re almost all hipster democrats. Except for Liz, and maybe Robby.
Robby is definitely a leftie hipster. The difference is that he does poke a few holes in their dogma. Liz is pretty good, but needs to get out of NY and away from the culture of this magazine. Tbh, she gives off edgy tradcon vibes with her personal sensibilities and priorities.
C.J. Ciaramella
Criminal Justice Reporter
*Puts on clown nose* It turns out I was 100 percent correct, because then he tried to steal the election and ginned up a mob of his fans to storm the Capitol building.
I would prefer to return to not voting, but Republicans insisted on rewarding Trump for his behavior by nominating him again. I will once more vote for the candidate with the best chance of beating him, Kamala Harris, because Trump doesn't deserve to hold office and I find him personally detestable.
When it comes down to overt fascism and blatant totalitarianism vs hurt feelings and mean tweets, KKKiaramella has his principles.
Sure, they're imprisoning political opponents, forcing experimental injections, censoring free speech, ignoring the courts, illegally spying on journalists and political campaigns but Trump offends his sensibilities.
Hands up if you think that Ciaramella is probably evil.
I'm not going to say evil. But it's a ridiculous take. Sure Trump has a lot of issues. But it's not like there is an option that is normal and sane and competent (or even more so relative to Trump). Even if you are worried about Trump being unstable and potentially dangerous (which I think is pretty silly given that he's already been in office for 4 years and nothing particularly horrible happened until the covid madness which, although he handled badly mostly wasn't his fault), look at the alternative.
Done smoked himself stupid.
CJ is sounds a lot like an Actblue donator in that screed.
So…. a far right conservative?
Yeah, the kind to wait in the bushes for hours with a gun just for a chance to see Trump.
I don't think Ciarmella is evil, just consumed by TDS. She is voting for Harris because, to quote her, Harris has "the best chance of beating [Trump]." Ciarmella doesn't care what Harris will do once in office, only that she is not Trump.
Ciarmella is a bearded dude, but he does think like an Affluent White Female Urban Liberal (AWFUL), so I understand the confusion.
Thanks for the correction. His wording, as you said, made me think it was that of a single White female Leftist.
Perhaps he identifies as one.
Perhaps he's simply a steaming pile of ignorant TDS-addled shit. My best guess.
I'm going to buck the trend and go with evil on this one.
This just reads like democracy is too sacred to let the wrong outcomes happen, aka more of that whole "liberalisms inevitable triumph" historic determinism.
All bullshit.
‘Raises hand’
Nobody who’s not his boss is going to believe Mr. Ciaramella is sincere about that priority. I think he wants the rest of us to see thru that as ridiculous and understand he’s pro-Trump but not allowed to say it here. Because we're all smarter than the boss.
Hands up if you think that Ciaramella is probably evil.
He’s a journalist isn’t he?
[Looks around] Am I really the only for whom “I was only following orders.”/”I worked for the Nazis but when it came time to vote for Hitler I abstained/voted 3rd party.” doesn’t exactly cut it for ‘not evil’?
I get maybe Liz, Zach, or Tuccille’s ability to say “Yeah, I worked for the Nazis but, if you look, I frequently disagreed with them and was generally considered a black sheep, even insubordinate.”
Fuck the rest of them. How do you not put a hand up for “Red Wedding” Welch too? A half dozen other hands up for remaining quiet during lockdowns, even openly calling for more social intervention and less bodily autonomy [glares at Ron Bailey and Elizabeth “See! No bodies in the gas chambers means no one was murdered!” Nolan Brown] and even getting defensive well after it was plainly apparent that free speech was being pretty openly abrogated?
"We know there is life outside of politics, and we look forward to returning to it once the election is over."
Bad news; the life after the election will be controlled by the outcome of the election.
Not a single vote to reverse the fascism of the current administration. Interesting.
Tucille and Liz were "maybe" on Trump.
Sort of a weird thing to say when you work for a political magazine.
Hey Dumbass. Trump Fascism is the one and only true fascism.
MAKE ARYANS GREAT AGAIN!
Tim Scott disapproves of your klan loyalty.
That’s Senater Tim Scott, to you.
That was a hilarious reply to the House N he was called. "That's Senator N"
Your pals Misek and JewFree are working hard on that right now, Kleagle Buttplug.
No, dimp, Mussolini's Fascism is the true fascism. And American progressives loved it. If we are using words by their actual definitions.
You're a Adam Schiff simp. You have literally less than zero credibility on any topic w politics.
Progressive LP Candidate Steals Kamala Votes
Very few of these people are grounded in reality. But this is just wishcasting:
The best thing one can say about Kamala Harris is that she has renounced several of the bad policy ideas of…Kamala Harris, circa 2019.
I have a bridge I'd love to sell that person.
I'll note, again, KAMALA has not renounced anything. Anonymous staffers have and when directly asked, Kamala just deflects.
Liz the lone wolfe again. Her not attending cocktail parties due to a lack of invites will allow her more time for hobbies. Perhaps she will pick up pickleball.
I can see a scenario where Liz is actually going to vote for Chase, or someone else not named Trump, but knows if she states that, she won’t get any more positive comments about her in the roundup's comments. We know she reads the comments, at least occasionally.
I’m probably overthinking it, and she means what she says, but I find it hard to believe anyone who’s informed, such as a political writer, would be “truly undecided” at this point.
*disclaimer (since disclaimers are all the rage now): Liz is better than most of the others, especially Boehm and Sullum, but that’s not saying much.
She's Reason's tallest midget. Huzzah.
I think she wrote her exact sentiments and I respect her for that. If she mentions pickleball, then you’ll know she reads the comments.
I think it is the opposite: She really does believe a vote for Trump is her best alternative, but she is intentionally feigning the "hard decision" reluctance because she knows she is going to catch shit from the crazy liberals and her colleagues.
"...I’m probably overthinking it, and she means what she says, but I find it hard to believe anyone who’s informed, such as a political writer, would be “truly undecided” at this point..."
It takes a lot of stupidity to get where Liz is; give her credit, the steaming pile of shit has done it!
Her twitter shows that she's most interested in her family. Lots of edgelord trolling behaviour too. She might be default left, but certainly is an outlier among her peers.
Pleasantly surprised by Weissmuller this year. At least he kinda noticed what has been happening.
What past vote do you most regret? In 2020, I wrote that "I just hope I don't regret my first lesser-of-two-evils vote this year" after voting Biden. Surprise: I do regret it. In light of Biden's unconstitutional OSHA workplace vaccine mandate and the inflationary spending, I wish I had abstained.
Yeah, the only one to regret it. On the other hand, last cycle’s only Trump voter regretted that because INSURRECTION!!!
Zack and Liz have been doing some podcasts that look a lot like my youtube timeline. In a way, this was the least surprising of the vote choices.
They are 2 journalists who engage with people outside of their bubble. So, they have expanded their thinking on some issues. It's pretty sad that this is a rarity for the writers at Reason.
Note he didn't want to actually stop those things from happening. It is just upset he is attached to those things.
Tuccille is waking up too. You don't have to like Trump. He's annoying and pushy. But all the peoples of the free world have to stop what the Democrats and the Davos crowd are bringing.
Who will get your vote in the 2024 presidential election? In 2020, Donald Trump was a thuggish agent of chaos and Joe Biden promised—bullshit though it was—to be a moderate uniter. Trump is still a thin-skinned narcissist heading a cult of personality. But Democrats met Republican authoritarianism with "hold my beer" totalitarian intolerance for dissent. I'm torn between a principled vote for Chase Oliver, who is a better candidate than the moldering corpse of the L.P. deserves, or joining my wife who fears the left's antisemitism in voting for Trump. Oliver is a capable advocate for liberty representing a collapsing organization, while Trump, scumbag though he is, could be less bad than the empty vessel for the control freaks around her that is Kamala Harris.
Yeah, that Jew hating violence that is running rampant from democrats will come to a rapid halt of Trump prevails.
Donald Trump and Kamala Harris offer slightly different flavors of the same big-government, big-spending, protectionist, interventionist agenda that's anathema to the libertarian direction I'd like to see the country go.
Thank you. The Trump Cultists will all deny it but this is the only logical libertarian response.
And Chase, don't forget Mr. Jab
Homophobe!
That's why a vote for Kamala Harris is a protest vote!
turd lies. That's not a surprise to anyone who reads his constant stream of bullshit.
But it's becoming obvious that as Misek is too stupid to understand the concepts of "evidence" or "relevance", the concept of "honesty" is simply beyond turd's ken.
“Be卐ah Congdon
Deputy Managing Editor
There was a remote chance I might have voted Democrat for the first time this year, but Kamala Harris has made no meaningful shift in her rhetoric or plans regarding Israel’s ongoing genocide in Gaza. She has failed to earn my vote.”
ISRAEL’S ONGOING GENOCIDE! J6 WAS 9/11!
Thanks for pointing this out; missed in my skim-through.
Holy fuck, reason might as well just hire misek and be done with it.
Who?
So, Reason has at least one new hating Hamas/Iranian regime supporter on staff. I hope Tuccille is careful to keep his wife away from this guy so he doesn’t go all Jihad on her like so many other leftists.
I think I know who Jfree might be.....
I understand you pro-genocide ‘libertarians’ can’t even comprehend the opposition to US-funded genocide. But that is just evidence that you clowns are idiots and your 'philosophy' is morally bankrupt.
Give us your reasoning on how it is a genocide.
The wrong side is winning. - J(ew)Free
1. Israel has quite deliberately failed to distinguish targets. There is no recognition of what a civilian even is. Most of the time every identified adult male Gazan killed is overtly deemed ‘Hamas’. That reinforces the overtly genocidal intentions of Netanyahu et al who have not even bothered to call their targets ‘Hamas’ but instead call them Amalek (see 1 Samuel 15) – or who invoke starvation against everyone as a means of war. More people have died of starvation than of military violence.
2. The actual % damage to civilian infrastructure is massively higher than any damage to military assets (like tunnels, fighters, etc). That indicates civilians are not being targeted because they are ‘shielding’ military. Rather they are being targeted BECAUSE. They have unlimited bombs and AI that can generate/rationalize unlimited targets. That is how they are conducting ‘war’. Not against ‘Hamas’ (in self-defense) but simply against Gaza. And specifically as can be seen by Israeli soldiers posting on tiktok – the unarmed of Gaza.
3 You may not like the people making a legal case re genocide – but they ARE making a legal case based on evidence. You can read it if you want – eg Genocide in Gaza: Analysis of International Law and its Application to Israel’s Military Actions here by University Network for Human Rights – or ICJ – or individual historians of genocide like Omer Bartov.
Sigh. Another mizek.
Refuted
And just fucking obvious antisemitism. Nothing you said is factual at all.
Let me guess. You believed those magic bullet xrays in the NYT.
You’re back in gray like your friends motherfucker etc. Pointless wasting a nanosecond on any real response to you.
And you're a fucking antisemite Nazi.
FOAD, asshole.
Nazi JFree, JFree Nazi.
Shit-eating, Jew-hating, Nazi-loving cunt.
1. There is no proof that Israel has "deliberately failed to distinguish targets." Indeed the only "evidence" that JFear can muster up is the fact that the males killed were deemed Hamas. Think on that. If someone came up to you and said "Here is the proof Israel is killing indiscriminately- all the people they killed are Hamas." You would laugh them out of the room. It is only evidence against Israel if you are begging the question, and already believe they are liars.
But let's point out that Israel has attempted to discriminate and they have held trials and tribunals for staff who failed to do so. It is also noteworthy that International Law is very clear that when military combatants intentionally hide themselves among civilians, it is they who are guilty of indiscriminately endangering civilians...not the other side. Hamas is guilty of endangering its own populace by purposefully hiding inside their civilian population.
2) Again JFear provides no evidence. He just asserts. He has no actual numbers about % damage to civilian infrastructure because it is a bullshit datum pulled out of his ass. He has no ACTUAL data on how many tunnels were destroyed versus civilian structures. Because such data is just meaningless nonsense that sounded good in his head. If a command post is underneath a hospital and the hospital is damaged in its destruction, what will his data tell us? Israel is legitimately targeting a Hamas military structure, even though a greater "% of civilian infrastructure" was damaged. His numbers (even if they were real) don't prove dick.
3) Oh look, JFear found some lawyers willing to write an opinion. Strangely I suspect he will discount any other lawyers who argue the opposite. Because JFear is the epitome of lazy, confirmation bias. He makes up his opinion then goes and tries to find proof he is right.
It is terribly easy to go look at the Geneva Conventions. I wonder if JFear is even aware of them. They are clear that it is the responsibility of both sides of a conflict to try and minimize damage to civilians. Israel has courts and rules of law that intentionally try to do this. I actually disagree with several of their rules as being over the line (the old practice of destroying the homes of suicide bombers was, IMHO, collective punnishment), but unlike Hamas they have due process aimed at governing the striking of targets. They are following international law. Hamas is not.
In any actual court setting that was not run by zealot anti-semites, Hamas would be held accountable for these civilian deaths because they have intentionally carried out military operations using them as shields- to try and deny it is absurd and JFear should be ashamed of himself for trying to wave that away. They put tunnels under schools and hospitals. They cloak themselves in young children. This has been accepted fact by anyone in the international community for decades. The current attempts are to say that doesn't actually matter, because we shouldn't hold those smelly brown-skins to the same standards as enlightened Jewzzz.
JFucked is a pathetic pile of lying shit, ain't he?
"Israel has quite deliberately failed to distinguish targets."
Where's objective evidence for that?
"2. The actual % damage to civilian infrastructure is massively higher than any damage to military assets (like tunnels, fighters, etc). "
If a tunnel runs underneath buildings, all the buildings will be destroyed to destroy that one tunnel. Solution: don't put military tunnels underneath civilian infrastructure.
But, you know for a fact that Hamas placed the tunnels there to deliberately have civilians killed for propaganda purposes so they could blame Israel for the genocide they are trying to get Israel to commit for them.
Let's see, command centers in hospitals, schools and residential areas. Why that might lead to excessive civilian deaths, ya think? Hamas murders over 1000 in Israel. What should Israel's response have been? Bend over and take it and let Hamas take over the genocide like they have been doing for years (river to the sea)? This after at least 2 peace proposals have been made to create a Palestinian state. Hamas is getting what they wanted, good and hard. Perhaps it's time for Palestinians to stand up to Hamas and say this is enough. It's time for the U.S. and Muslim countries to quit sponsoring Hamas terror.
Libertarians against all war only goes so far. When they come for you are you going to say take me, I am a libertarian and I don't believe in war as they slit your throat? Somehow I think you will flash on the 2nd A instead.
What is hilarious is that this is quite possibly the least libertarian position offered among all the staff.
There is nothing libertarian about expecting Harris to meddle in the 70 year-long rehash of 800 years of tribal warfare happening in a region on the other side of the world. If you feel that Harris's job is to stop the "genocide" in Israel, then you need to go work for another magazine.
Well, I guess I was wrong about a straight Chase Oliver ticket. I was wrong about the write-in for Joe Biden. I guess I had forgotten that Oliver was disqualified from the NY Ballot. And, after reading who's voting for Harris, I'm totally unsurprised about that.
wrong about a straight Chase Oliver ticket
Homophobe!
What JD Vance got wrong about the Chase Oliver ticket.
Reason somehow omitted my vote choice:
I will be voting for Kamala Harris out of spite.
There. On the record.
#AlsoGridlock
Zero surprises there. You're not gonna get your old job back by writing in Epstein on your ballot.
Yup. Would guess that Kamala takes the NAMBLA demographic.
Look at who she picked to be her running mate. A weird-ass creep with an obviously fake wife who spends a little too much time prowling around playgrounds and middle school locker rooms.
Now that I think about it, he'd be a pretty natural fit for the Reason staff.
Look at for whom she was the running mate. A creepy old man that groped, kissed, sniffed, and sexualized children. His interactions with kids was often touching. Then of course showering with his daughter per her diary.
I’m sure he got daughter Ashley super clean in all her nooks and crannies.
And has more credible accusations of grooming his students than Balsey Ford had credibility.
>>>I will be voting for Kamala Harris out of spite ...
... that my true choice, lover of 11 year-old boys, is only the Vice Presidential name on the (D) ticket this time.
Since that’s on the record (to no one's surprise), can you also modify your sock to well adjusted harris guy?
So, a vote for Kamala out of spite is spite... what's a vote for Trump out of spite?
Nobody is shocked when a Democrat votes for a Democrat shrike.
turd lies. That's not a surprise to anyone who reads his constant stream of bullshit.
But it's becoming obvious that as Misek is too stupid to understand the concepts of "evidence" or "relevance", the concept of "honesty" is simply beyond turd's ken.
Anyone voting for Comrade Kamala has shit for brains.
I'd vote for Trump before an I'd vote for an illiterate turd like her.
Well, you're not doing a lot better, shit for brains.
>>In general, the tone of the forum is bleak and discouraged, in keeping with the mood of the American public.
which one of you wrote that nonsense? get the fuck out of New York City and touch some grass.
Care to divide up the territory? I'll go first:
And I suppose Maduro's would-be successor should've accepted his election result and acknowledged Maduro's re-election, huh? Regardless, Trump did transfer power. You wouldn't vote for him because he complained about the election??!
So you care more about whom he praised than how he governed??! You are like a caricature of journalists, giving more weight to what someone says publicly than actual orders given on the job, apparently because you think the commenter on the action is more important than the actors themselves.
Such redundancy is a commonplace, and you might as well then complain about other criminal laws, because they all promote racial profiling. But if being a refugee is only equated with drug trafficking, then it must not be bad, huh? Are you concern-trolling non-libertarians here?
lol seems Senor Baez chose unwisely when deciding where to flee.
Can we reject his application as a result of public stupidity? If it were illegal, the asshole would be in jail.
It seems he has no idea how to avoid war.
Calling bad people dicks is usually not the best way to minimize conflict.
>>I might have voted Democrat for the first time this year, but Kamala Harris has made no meaningful shift in her rhetoric or plans regarding Israel's ongoing genocide in Gaza.
this may be stupider than Carmela herself.
Suppose the Reason staff of 1996 (as they were then) were time-jumped to this year. Do you suppose their vote would not have been overwhelmingly for Trump with a scattering for Oliver (Chase, not Chas.), a few no-votes, and one for a non-candidate?
I don't remember was there mass-virtue-signaling in 1996?
Not at Reason. The only thing is, they bent over backwards to not appear partisan.
I called the Haley write in, where are my winnings?
They are inside the van with blacked out windows and spray painted with “FREE HUGS INSIDE.” Just crawl inside for your winnings.
I thought they were always plain white vans....
It's the logical next step after saving democracy from Trump to spreading democracy worldwide with bombs and bullets. What could possibly go wrong?
Good on you. That would have been somewhere below the last thing I'd have ever expected.
Yeah, the Haley vote surprised me too. The idea that a "libertarian" would vote for Nikki Haley is pretty amazing.
The scare quotes are entirely appropriate here.
...
Oh, yeah, because the previous 4 years of him as president were a horrorscape.
I can just see these staffers eye-blinking, "D-I-S-R-E-G-A-R-D...K-I-L-L-M-E-I-F-D-O-N-T-R-I-T-E-T-H-I-S-S-H-I-T"
Well, the last year of Trump was a bit of a horrorscape. But very little of that can be blamed on him (as much as I think he could have done better). The apocalyptic shit about Trump is just ridiculous. Even if you hate him personally and disagree with his policies, he's just another president, albeit a weird one. I've managed to survive presidents who I dislike and think are wrong for all of my politically aware life.
You left out that the worst gripe regarding Trump is that not long after he left office, it was almost like he hadn't been POTUS.
Name one other POTUS for the last hundred years where you could make that claim.
Bekah Congdon
Deputy Managing Editor
"There was a remote chance I might have voted Democrat for the first time this year, but Kamala Harris has made no meaningful shift in her rhetoric or plans regarding Israel's ongoing genocide in Gaza."
...
"Unfortunately, no one but the president can meaningfully affect foreign policy, but we need more people at every level of government who oppose American-funded genocide and endless war, and who do not believe that civilians in one country are more worthy of life than civilians in another country."
...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SwveuIRWxBo
I'm just flabbergasted that this "genocide" opinion is tolerated even at Reason. I couldn't imagine working next to someone, in the position of public intellectual no less, who could espouse this sort of drivel. Totally shocking to me.
I'd like to hear Matt Welch and his 5th Column mates respond to Bekah's "genocide" opinion. Or Douglas Murray.
At one time, Reason was a valuable source of information; a time long past.
I'd almost be sympathetic to the whole "Genocide" thing --- except for the reality that Hamas, as many seem to have forgotten, STARTED the shit.
Started *and antagonized*.
Van der Lubbe is widely recognized to have started the Reichstag Fire. Ernst Torgler, head of the German Communist Party, surrendered to police the next day. The four people arrested with Van der Lubbe him were all acquitted. Could you imagine if Torgler and the communist party had said “Hell yeah we burned down parliament! Took hostages too! Russian Communists helped. Come and get ’em!”
Again, if on Oct. 8th, Hamas had said "Our bad. Here's the culprits and hostages we could find, do with them as you please." the whole region would've been awash in aid.
“At the end of his presidency, he praised autocrats like Kim Jong Un, Vladimir Putin, and Nicolás Maduro.” (César Báez)
This is a peeve of mine. Look, prioritize your issues any way you like, but what matters on any given issue is what a person (president or otherwise) does. Trump OK’ed arms sales to Ukraine when Obama had not. He pressured NATO members to spend more on their militaries and not to hook up with Nordstream 2. He also ordered airstrikes on the folks in Syria that Putin was backing. Topping that off, he took the handcuffs off of fracking companies here in the US, increasing the supply of natural gas on the market to compete with Russia. What Putin wants is generally what Gazprom wants, and that was a definite “do not want.”
You can think those actions are good, or bad, but if you’re using reason (as opposed to Reason) as a basis for your decisions, Trump pressuring the Germans to buy more tanks and less Russian gas should matter more than him spouting variations on “Vladimir sure is a real swell guy.”
What these idiots refuse to grasp is that Trump says nice things about world leaders as a negotiating technique. When he met with Kim NK became a whole lot less belligerent. Same with Putin. Keep your friends close but keep your enemies closer. Trump treats people with respect to promote peace. It's not rocket science.
It may as well be neurosurgery to these dopes!
Yours is the obvious conclusion to anyone who has even the most shallow knowledge of Trumps backstory.
And the obvious diagnoses of the steaming piles of lefty shit who claim otherwise.
I’ll admit I didn’t feel comfortable with it — I’m a tech person, I don’t have a salesman’s discipline to say nice things to someone I despise. But at the time, and now, I thought: why not try buttering him up a bit? What can it hurt? At that point we’d been grappling with the NK WMD problem over five very different previous presidencies, all the way back to the current Kim’s grandfather. We could threaten Kim personally — he cares about his own ego and comfort. But when it comes to North Korea’s material state, we have no leverage. There’s just not enough to have leverage against. If he managed to land a nuke on just one friendly city, not even a major one, we could glass his entire country in retaliation and it wouldn’t be an even exchange — NK has a GDP about the same as that of Modesto, Ann Arbor, or Savannah.
Diplomacy, as they say, is the art of saying “nice doggy” until you can find a rock.
"What these idiots refuse to grasp is that Trump says nice things about world leaders as a negotiating technique."
^^This exactly! It's the art of the deal. It's good cop - bad cop.
The people who criticize him are just looking for anything about him they can construe, even falsely, as negative.
>>Despite his inability to distinguish between "genocide" and a defensive war with disturbingly high civilian casualties ... he represents a refreshing contrast
lololol I definitely should not have scrolled this.
I think I'll write in Julie Kelly. At least she hasn't been fooled by the J6 Reichstag Fire 2.0.
Unlike the mockingbirds at Reason.
I guess it's time to repost this:
https://x.com/jeremykauffman/status/1839665795921539487
Jeremy Kauffman should be the top dog at Reason.
The surprising parts of these answers: two Maybe votes for Trump (adding up to a whole vote!), and a guy who’s ashamed of screwing over his friend in a school election.
I wonder what the commenters will say? I’ll check as soon as I post this.
“[Oliver] is not simply the best candidate running in 2024—and the only one talking at all about reducing the size, spending, and scope of the federal government”
No, there’s the Constitution Party. Whose candidate hasn't to my knowledge accused Israel of genocide.
Update: The usual good cheer from the commenters, I see.
The Constitution Party you say? Let's take a look at their platform:
https://constitutionparty.com/principles/platform/
I scanned through it, and they:
- Are 100% opposed to legal abortion
- Support the drug war
- Want to repeal the 17th amendment (which is dumb)
- Want to ban not just gay marriage, but homosexuality itself
- Want to ban pornography
- Are generally religious nutters:
We particularly support all the legislation which would remove from Federal appellate review jurisdiction matters involving acknowledgement of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.
So yeah, if you want theocracy, they are your team.
Again, I rebutted the claim that Oliver is "the only one talking at all about reducing the size, spending, and scope of the federal government." Check the Constitution Party's position on federalism.
Sounds a bit less nutty than blathering about price controls and felinophagy.
The major-party candidates are similar to each other on the issues of national debt and abortion.
Incurring, and continuing to incur, such an enormous peacetime debt is so incredibly dangerous that when you find a consensus for it between the major-party candidates, one begins to wonder about alternatives.
And while the debt bankrupts the country financially, abortion bankrupts it morally. Trump is at least less-bad than Harris, in that he would follow, not defy public opinion on abortion (for what that's worth with an increasingly pro-abortion public), while Harris would insist on abortion now, abortion tomorrow, abortion forever regardless of public opinion.
But if there's a party which is against both the national debt *and* abortion - two great political evils of our time - then I'm inclined to vote for them.
The best claim which can be made for Trump is that he would postpone disaster compared to a Democrat, but he and the Democrats are both travelling down the same highway, the Democrats going somewhat faster:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l482T0yNkeo
You.
Are.
Full.
Of.
Shit,
"...Check the Constitution Party’s position on federalism..."
Check one more loser hoping for, what? Some legitimacy for claiming "Constitution"?
Grow up.
Link timed out, but thanks. I collect looter platforms.
At the end of his presidency, he praised autocrats like Kim Jong Un, Vladimir Putin, and Nicolás Maduro.
Cut from the same cloth as Donnie. Plus Donnie admires their handling of their own elections.
"Sarah Palin's Buttplug - Jan 6 = 9/11 (same motive)"
turd, the ass-clown of the commentariat, lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a kiddie diddler, and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit.
Zach Weissmueller's answer is most revealing:
Senior Producer
See, that's the part that gets me. Thanks for reminding me of isidewith, I hadn't visited them in a while. I came out 91% Oliver, 78% Trump, and then about tied with half that Sonski and RFK, only 13% Harris. I have trouble imagining a libertarian coming out much different, no matter priorities. I'm not registered to vote, haven't since moving here 8 years ago (wanted a break from politics), but if I were I'd go for Trump, being he's so much more electable than Oliver, though in this state Harris is a foregone conclusion. So I could understand other libertarians being either for not voting, Oliver, or Trump.
But here Mr. Weissmueller's citing "rule of law" construes that concept much too narrowly and yet too broadly. Trump did not violate any such rules of law. He just talked in ways that would let you strain to believe he would have done so in this particular instance...and yet he didn't! Most of his colleagues and competition are much less scrupulous about such things, yet you, Mr. Weissmueller are weighting so heavily mere appearances. And then again you seem to boost Libertarian Party governance into so big of a deal as to make it somehow wrong for you to vote for Chase Oliver. Mr. Weissmueller, these considerations are not what democracy is about!
"...Trump did not violate any such rules of law..."
Reason's style-book says otherwise, and you'll notice the near unanimous party line-toeing of the group-think members here.
'Do you want to go back to earning a living, or get in line'?
Yeah, there is no universe in which Harris is more libertarian than Trump. Point of fact there hasn't been a more libertarian candidate than Trump since at least Reagan. That isn't to say Trump is particularly libertarian, but he sounds a hell of a lot more like one than Harris. I guess that's why we have to hear about "tariffs" seven times a week, to hide that fact.
Of course Trump is an asshole, but still so is Harris.
Here's my results:
90%
Libertarian
Chase Oliver
74%
Republican
Donald Trump
49%
American Solidarity
Peter Sonski
48%
Independent
Robert Kennedy Jr.
18%
Green
Jill Stein
18%
Independent
Cornel West
16%
Democrat
Marianne Williamson
14%
Democrat
Kamala Harris
I think it speaks volumes that Jill Stein beats out Kamala.
90% Trump
68% Sonski
47% RFK Jr.
7% Williamson
6% West
6% Stein
4% Harris
I’m not an “abortion is the only issue” person but I suspect my ranking of “rights people are owed” objectively and logically behind it puts me at odds with a lot of Chase’s oxymoronic retardation.
NB: If you think I’m an inveterate Trump or GOP voter, you’d be wrong.
87% Trump
80% Oliver
65% Sonski
55% RFK Jr.
12% Kamaltoe
10% Williamson
10% West
10% Stein
Chase Oliver has no experience in anything and would be rolled by his advisors [in appointment recommendations – not unlike how Trump was] and especially by the IC spooks and much more seasoned politicians that would use him until his husk could be discarded. This makes Trumps an easy choice.
I dont think people are pointing this out enough. There is no way Oliver would not be used and abused by people with waaaay more political savy and experience than he has. Even if you take his positions as solid he would not – could not – be an effective leader. In fact, I havent seen ‘leadership’ qualities in him at all.
Agreed and even if he didn't get rolled by his cabinet, there is no party in Congress to back him.
Justin Amash can cheer all of his legislation from his couch at home.
The bottom four:
Williamson: 12%
Stein: 10%
Kamala: 9%
West: 9%
That progressive LP candidate did not rank anywhere. Weird. The ideology it picked for me was at 12% so the answers submitted may have broken it.
Nothing about Oliver in my results, it gave me Trump 89%, but I think this was a serious overstatement. If they'd asked about the national debt and abortion they would have given me a lower Trump score.
But then, you're not real smart.
Here's mine:
Filters
74% Republican Donald Trump
58% American Solidarity Peter Sonski
54% Independent Robert Kennedy Jr.
24% Independent Cornel West
23% Green Jill Stein
17% Democrat Kamala Harris
15% Democrat Marianne Williamson
Oliver's not even on there, for whom I'm voting here in California which will certainly go to Harris. If Trump stood any chance in California, I'd consider voting for him. I don't like him, but calling him fascist and a threat to democracy is a bit over the top. But, the Democrats' political prosecutions, gun policy, mischaracterization of a (somewhat violent) political protest as insurrection, trying to stifle speech, refusal to negotiate an end to the Ukraine war (a war which puts us at risk of a shooting war with Russia), deficit spending and inflation, wanting to raise taxes, etc., etc. is genuinely scary.
Also, if Trump is such an authoritarian fascist, then why does he want to keep legal the types of weapons best suited for resisting fascism and authoritarianism?
That Reason employs 3 Harris voters (and a Nikki Haley voter!) but not a single Trump voter is an embarrassment.
Two maybes = a single Trump voter as I estimate it.
No.
That Reason employs ANYONE voting for a major-party candidate is the embarrassment.
Three votes for the Machine:
https://spectator.org/five-quick-things-shouldnt-this-election-be-a-referendum-on-the-legacy-corporate-media/
Oh, make that Four. Four Reasonistas announce their votes for fascism for all to see.
“…Donald Trump’s refusal to accept the 2020 election result is a huge red flag for me,…”
Your raging case of dishonest TDS is a huge red flag for me.
FOAD, asshole.
C.J. Ciaramella
"...In 2020 I broke my 16-year streak of not voting in presidential elections because I thought Donald Trump was actually unfit for office by whatever standard you wanted to use: mentally, emotionally, ethically. It turns out I was 100 percent correct, because then he tried to steal the election and ginned up a mob of his fans to storm the Capitol building..."
In 2024, I see C.J. Ciaramella is a steaming pile of lying, TDS-addled shit.
FOAD, asshole.
"...but I'm fairly certain that America can't withstand another four years of Donald Trump..."
TDS will do that to you, asshole.
FOAD.
I voted for Chase Oliver because neither Trump or Harris is facing THE most important issue today...the debt.
Neither Harris or Trump wants to address the elephant in the room, and it needs to address because if it isn't, and their possible solutions, then the US will go bankrupt.
Plus, neither are willing to end needless bureaucracies, address possible tax reforms, and government waste.
I recognize Oliver has his warts, but if he's a true libertarian as he says he is, then he will address the debt, tax reform and government waste.
So you're voting for someone who will have absolutely zero effect, rather than one who, for the first time in a century, left the office of POTUS with fewer regulatory burdens on the country?
Can we assume you're an imbecile as a result of gov't school 'education', or were you simply born brain-dead?
Chase Oliver isn't facing the debt either because he is never going to be elected.
And even if, by some miracle he were elected, absent further divine intervention he would lack both the political clout and intellect to face the debt seriously.
"I'm a libertarian who hasn't governed over anything, cut defense and welfare spending but keep abortion and trans therapy legal." isn't going to cut it.
This is the problem with any L-Party election. Governing is, like it or not, negotiated.
What's Chase gonna negotiate? Happy-face decals for gays?
"...Additionally, Trump's call for deporting millions of people..."
That's spelled "illegal aliens", TDS-addled shit.
I have zero regrets for not voting for a pro-war, anti-hard drug legalization dipshit like Gary "GayJay" Johnson and his RINO running mate Bill Weld.
I think you can vote for whomever you want. But I think given that one of Trump or Harris is going to win, I think it's fair to ask folks to stake out a position on that score. IE, which one of the two who might actually win do you prefer?
Saying Chase Oliver is a copout. Saying "I'm not going to vote" is a copout. I'm not saying voting for Oliver is wrong or not voting is wrong. Both are fine. But for this article, it's beside the point:
For every writer who took a stand and made it clear which of Harris or Trump they prefer, thank you. For the rest, try again. They aren't equal by any measure, so pick one.
I'm in South Dakota and can safely vote Libertarian, which I will do to help maintain their access to the ballot. (Write-in votes are not allowed in South Dakota.)
They say Oliver because their virtual signal they are Libertarians. They aren't. They have bad TDS but even beyond that, their writing shows.
Reason used to be great. Now, nope
That sums up my opinion pretty well. I voted Libertarian from Harry Browne through Johnson/Weld. I was pretty smug about it. Don't blame me, I voted somebody who couldn't possibly win. The shit got real when Trump started doing some libertarianish things that had a real and beneficial effect on me personally. Watching the insane meltdown in the elitist class including Reason libertarians convinced me that in the real world it was time to grow some balls and and support the far lesser but viable evil. Nothing that has happened since has changed my mind.
Cthulhu in '24! Why settle for the lesser evil?
This might be the most united I've ever seen the reason staff in terms of who they will be voting for!
And the most idiotic.
Left-wing "libertines" are NOT libertarian!
Surprising how many are basing their vote on personal attributes or things politicians have said, rather than analysing the real expected effect on the country of each choice.
isidewith does have a section on personal attributes and their importance to you in choosing a candidate.
^^Agreed. What a person is is far less important than what the person does. I only care about what a person is to the extent it tells me what the person will likely do. Though one could say that what a person is is determined by what the person does. What a person does affects me much more than what the person merely says.
Reason why would anyone donate to you? Are you bankrupt yet?
Trump is unfit but Biden a career liar is fit. Harris , one of the most liberal people in the US, can't talk, has no plans, and is a puppet is fit. Walz - socials, career liar,
But Trump is unfit. Got it.
Can't wait for you to go out of business
They have one of the vanishingly few good comment sections on news opinion sites on the internet largely because they allow the free-for-all you are exposed to here. Have you read comment sections at other sites?! They are pathetic team cheering talking point spouting, vacuous insult hurling wastes of time – even worse than the articles they follow. Here, at least, the insults can be funny, insiteful or just jarringly, brutally honest. The analysis is frequently better than the posted content being vetted.
Be careful what you wish for…
Spot on, by crackie!
It just may be the Reason commentariat that brings libertarianism back from ruin!
And again:
https://x.com/jeremykauffman/status/1839665795921539487
How can anybody consider Biden to be fit for office? Really? The man has one foot in the grave already and as bad as his dementia has become, I would be very surprised to see him still alive by next summer. Biden is dead man walking.
Lets face it – nobody does. If there were some they could easily be explained as people who would vote for a tub of icecream rather than vote for a Republican.
As to the vast majority of D voters – they understand (as I think most do) that it is the deep state that actually runs the presidency for all but the very few strong willed presidents [prob nixon, trump and all the presidents before the IMC metasticized – Eisenhower and those prior. hmmm maybe Kennedy too - there was a theory that he was about to end the fed, I think.. which led to him having to be offed. *consp theory, i know ... but still has explanitory power*]. This also explains the desperation for Trump not to win (the desperation amongst the elite and actual powerholders… you know, ‘stakeholders’).
Literally Anyone Else. The human, not the lament.
"...but Kamala Harris has made no meaningful shift in her rhetoric or plans regarding Israel's ongoing genocide in Gaza. She has failed to earn my vote..."
Man, Reason has some real brain-dead staffers. Harris is unfit, but your lying about "genocide' has nothing to do with it.
Your antisemitism stinks up the place, Nazi shit.
Israel has been committing genocide ever since that nasty zionist state was created.
The world has come to rue the day it was created.
Another J-O-O that lines up to fellate "Benny" Netanyahu. The wrong brother bought the farm at Entebbe back in '76.
You can be as principled as you want if you have no chance of winning. If Chase Oliver was trailing Trump or Kamala by 2 points, “I’ll cut medicare by 50% and let in Palestinian refugees” wouldn’t have been his centerpiece policy.
All I glean from this is out of touch intellectuals whose default position is being disaffected by both parties and fixating on immigration, drugs, and cops to the exclusion of all else. The rest of the (sane parts) world sees two wars going on, 2 assassination attempts, several foiled terror attempts by “migrants” who came in unvetted, a media that tried to gaslight the entire nation on a braindead president, people drowning and burning to death in Hawaii and NC, and I can just go on. There is ZERO rationale to vote for Harris. If the choice was between the allies, which included Jim Crow America and the Axis, SURPRISE! I choose the allies.
Do you know why Trump is making gains with immigrants? Because they don’t want to die in wars. Really, it’s that simple. No one outside the most partisan leftist hang J6 over two current wars and one possibly brewing in Korea. J6 was just regular people lashing out at real politically motivated persecution, like the Russian probe, covid lockdown and the impeachment. There were apparent allegations of impropriety at voting places, and a few turned out true. Even if most of were disproven, at the time, why would MAGA believe in what their government would say?
Did I say there are two wars going on? Yes. One of the bad guys is a nuclear superpower and the other is radical islam. NO ONE would be surprised if tomorrow, ISIS blew up a building in NY with Russian aid and 5,000 people died. NOT A SINGLE ONE. Then we might go to war. We’ll go to war for sure if Korea is invaded. That’s where we are now.
Would you have voted for Trump in 2020, if that meant thousands of Russians, Ukrainians, Jews and Palestinians would be alive today? Because he’s so scary that our enemies have to mind his wildness? “Oh no, because of immigrants and J6”. Every single one of you sound out of touch. That’s why no LP candidate will win presidency for the next millenia.
Well said.
"J6 was just regular people lashing out at real politically motivated persecution."
Spot on!
And anyone who can spew such utter horseshit about Trump trying to "steal" the election and ginning up "a mob of his fans to storm the Capitol" is obviously quite comfortable with this corrupt, tyrannical government, and their "politically motivated persecution."
The first step in sending this corrupt establishment government and their conniving Globalist/Fascist buddies packing would be to hand them four years of Donald Trump in a landslide.
^+>1.
These votes are from those NGO employees wealthy enough to ignore the fact that the US is now the major weapons supplier, for instance, the Euros faced with Putin invading Europe.
Trump made serious efforts to get NATO to put up or shut up; I hope he does it again and makes it stick.
Israel is can also buy the weapons it needs, and train its own operators; get all US military out of the area.
Bizarre that anybody at an ostensible libertarian publication plans on voting for Harris, the most anti-libertarian Presidential candidate in a long while.
Bizarre that anybody at an ostensible libertarian publication plans on voting for anyone other than Chase Oliver.
Bizarre that you assume a post from a steaming pile of lefty shit like you means anything.
FOAD, asshole.
"It brings me no pleasure to report this, and I imagine the screenshots of this answer will be circulated by the online ne'er-do-wells to shame me for years to come."
The fact that Liz Wolfe addresses her answer in this way really shows just how Gang-oriented ([WE] mobsters) the other side is.
Given that both primary political parties wanted to give us two octogenarians to choose from I find unfathomable that anybody would vote for any major party candidate for any office.
I can understand not supporting Trump (although I don't understand TDS--Trump is simply on the outside what every politician is on the inside. what do you all expect from your overlords, Howdy Doody?), but there is absolutely zero, zip, nada justification for anyone with half a brain voting for Kamala. WTF, you infants? I don't fear a Trump presidency, but the Demonbrats truly make me fear for the future of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
^+1
There are a large number of single-issue and shallow thinking people on the Reason staff. That is my conclusion.
Poole disappoints me in particular because as one of the few with any engineering training he should understand engineering tradeoffs and the tools used to make those tradeoffs are applicable to political choices.
Bloviators all.
It appears the cosmos have shed their reluctance.
Chase Oliver is the best candidate the LP has nominated since Michael Badnarik. I'm with him 100%, and I'm tickled pink the Mises Cranks hate his guts. Just one more nail in their eventual coffin.
Bizarre that you assume a post from a steaming pile of lefty shit like you means anything.
FOAD, shitpile.
Another obvious troll, who along with Chase Oliver is one of many nails in the LP coffin that will swiftly be pulled when actual libertarians start waking up to what's been done to them.
Again:
https://x.com/jeremykauffman/status/1839665795921539487
So, I just did the rough math on this.
The number of Reason Staff who are voting LGBT pedo Chase Kids compared to the number of articles in support of and/or offering good reasons to vote for LGBT pedo Chase Kids is..... way skewed. In contrast, the number of articles in favor of Kamalamadingdong (or Tapioca Joe, if you go back to before he was ousted/replaced, "for democracy...") and against Orange Man Bad way outweigh the number of Reason Staff allegedly not planning to vote for either of them in the first place.
Seems like a weird thing for a "libertarian" publication to do.
Zach, Liz - appreciate your honesty as always. Bob, good to see you. The rest of you, feel free to go piss up a rope.
Lets face reality.
Neither Trump nor Harris are a good choice and in fact are terrible choices. Neither are libertarian, but Trump is marginally better. Factor in the reaction/actions of the corporate media and Trump becomes even less dangerous compared to Harris. I'm tired of Trump, but not as much because of Trump himself, but more disgusted with the antics of the anti-Trump crowd, the corporate media, the corrupt partisans in our federal agencies and the complete farce of Harris being anointed as the candidate. Couple it with how terrible Harris is and it makes Trump come out like a shiny orange turd compared to the utter stench of the human debris that is opposed to him at all costs. Even though one of these yahoos will become the next president, there is no way that I can justify a vote for either of them and have a clear conscience .
Chase Oliver is closer to a good choice, but embodies the worst aspects of wokness. He leads with his personal preferences which have zero relevance and is a distraction. He is promoting too much too soon without looking at the the real ramifications of his positions. I really wanted to support him, but end the end he is far too repulsive and unrealistic.
Cornell West and Jill Stein have numerous anti-libertarian ideas, so they are not an option for me. Still a better option that the uni-party candidates considering that they have zero possibility of getting elected.
RFK Jr has his flaws and has suspended his campaign and endorsed Trump, but is rock solid on a few items. He also remains on my ballot, so I would not need to exert much effort to check the ballot. It is doubtful that my state will be a swing state, although I will once again be scolded by both R/D sides for helping the other side by voting third party. I decided to vote for RFK JR as the best choice. Not voting for either R or D, not voting for a L that is distracted from the real issues we face. Instead voting for a former candidate that is still on my ballot and not expending the effort to write in a cartoon character in what is a complete joke of an election. Also with RFK Jr, he is likely to garner some votes which in itself might become a story.
"Neither Trump nor Harris are a good choice and in fact are terrible choices>
Trump was the best POTUS we had for the last century. Stuff your TDS up your ass so your head has some company, and then FOAD, asshole.
...
Practically nobody is libertarian outside LP by your standards. But this is not a terrible choice. Radicals practically never get their choice, but they do get a meaningful choice.
Marginally?!! Sure, when you look from miles away, they seem to be standing in practically the same place. But if you get within the range that politics deals with, and look again from there, they present the starkest choice for president we've had in at least 40 years, maybe ever.
The great thing about voting for Oliver is you dont have to worry about winning. Oddly I align with Fiona the most though I suspect not for the same reasons. I dont vote in federal elections as I dont want to enable them. The less legitimacy people give to federal elections, the better.
Voting is for squares.
"If you vote, you have no right to complain." George Carlin
The thing that's most astonishing to me is all the pearl-clutching and panties-wadding over Jan 6 and "Trump trying to steal the election."
We all know the facts. The facts aren't in dispute. But that conclusion...what. the. fuck. That's not what happened at all.
He thought the election was stolen from HIM, and he was trying to prevent that.
I happen to disagree with him, but it's certainly indisputable that's what he thought, not that he was trying to "steal" anything.
The economy was certainly much better when Trump was in the White House compared with what Americans and the rest of the world are living with today.
Since the Biden /Obama regime took office:
Massive increases in the costs of living. putting home ownership out of the reach for far too many Americans while Illegal aliens get luxury suites, free cell phones and pricey debit cards. Veterans are kicked out of apartments so landlords can rake in the government cash in exchange for allowing illegal aliens in.
Food costs make even buying ground beef a luxury. Energy costs way up, driving the costs of everything else up. And The brain dead idiot Biden insists America is doing well.
All this since the Obiden administration took office. Inflation, the very real threat of WWIII and the government used as a weapon against Americans.
Twenty million illegal alien invaders brought in to displace American workers. International gangs, terrorists and young males of military age have drifted through and the government doesn't give a shit. How many more young women have to be raped and murdered by these animals before people have had enough?
They don't care!
They don't care about you!
At all! At all!!
The government hates us all!
I wish I could see if Welch convinces more than one person to vote for Kennedy, or if I convince more than one person to vote for my brother. That's an oddly satisfying contest which will never be resolved, but I will claim victory nonetheless barring any evidence indicative of a different outcome.
Looks like whoever get elected, and it will be either Harris or Trump, the Reason staff will be able to say they did not help elect the President.
Someone seems to have forgotten the magic trick of the Incredible Disappearing... Ear. The fact that republicans are lining up to take potshots at the former G-O-Pootus is, admittedly sketchy, but actuarial data nonetheless. JFK was regarded as a walk-away a year out from the 1964 election. When he and Jackie landed at Love Field in Dallas, a man in the crowd held up a sign saying STOP NIXON. Nixon was already in Dallas that day.
"What these idiots refuse to grasp is that Trump says nice things about world leaders as a negotiating technique."
^^This exactly! It's the art of the deal. It's good cop - bad cop.
The people who criticize him are just looking for anything about him they can construe, even falsely, as negative.
What this "poll" is saying is what should be OBVIOUS.
Most "media" staffers are inherently leftist and/or incapable of comprehending the effect of a candidate's mores. E.G. three vote for the very would-be dictator that'd jail or even KILL them for their purported "Libertarian" views (of which they've not the slightest idea, either), and a disgusting TWELVE that think a FAGGOT is suitable for public office.
There may be many faults of one Donald John Trump; but he stands the proverbial "head and shoulders" above any other candidate, viable or otherwise. That can either be complimentary of the 45th and soon-to-be 47th POTUS, or a expression of exasperation at the poor field of candidates offered this round.
Size matters. Bailey's mathematical competence is on display here. Set last election's vote total equal to the width of Colorado. Q. What is the relative length of a law-changing libertarian vote versus vomiting for the Kleptocracy? A. Your kleptocracy vote will move the pointer 3/16"... 3/8" if your pick a side and see what difference ou make there. Your libertarian vote moves the libertarian spoiler vote total six inches. Granted, this is no Long Dong Silverback display, but it takes a special kind of stupid not to see the clout difference between one centimeter and six inches!
Well, at least we are sure that we know why Reason has no love of Trump.
A sad bag of liberals pretending that voting for Oliver will make us think they are not left/liberals......
If they were libertarians they would have as much positive as negative to say about trump, but they only say bad about him.
He is a mixed bag, but to reason staff he is all bad, in spite of his earlier successful term.
Javier Milei or bust.
Well, it's not 36 righteous souls G-d once required to spare a town, but Liz Wolfe and half of one other guy (or his wife anyway) prove that you aren't all totally retarded.
Reading this post-election.
Can't say I'm all that surprised by the writer's choices. Reason is more liberaltarian than libertarian.
Papists, Mormons, rednecks.
I’m sorry if I was mean to you. It turns out I confused you with the Geiger Goldshit commenter who doesn’t appear to be commenting anymore. He was an unrepentant bigot.
You actually seem reasonable, so to be clear sorry if I was an ass to you or anything.
My comment point & case # 1(Grimsrud) & 2(KARtikeya).