Trump, Harris Ads Make Clear They Won't Be Cutting Government
Both candidates are making a final big government, populist pitch to undecided voters.

The 2024 presidential election campaign is mercifully in its final weeks, and the two major party candidates are busy making their closing arguments to voters. Judging by the messaging that their aligned PACs are prioritizing, neither former President Donald Trump nor Vice President Kamala Harris has any interest in winning over small government supporters.
Yesterday, Axios reporter Alex Thompson posted a helpful thread of eight ads that pro-Trump and Harris PACs have spent the most money on in the last three weeks.
A ???? on the most aired ads in the past 3 weeks as the campaigns make their closing arguments.
The ad w/ the most money behind it comes from the pro-Harris Super PAC Future Forward.
"I work hard. I scrape to get by. Donald Trump wants to give tax breaks to billionaires but… pic.twitter.com/CUCmBdVB1S
— Alex Thompson (@AlexThomp) October 22, 2024
The pro-Harris ads all contrast a clip of Trump telling a room of donors that "you're rich as hell" and "we're gonna give you tax cuts" with everyday people saying they're not rich as hell and are therefore voting for Harris' agenda of price controls, continued entitlement spending, and upper-class tax increases.
The pro-Trump ads meanwhile tar Harris as a radical leftist who secured sex change operations for incarcerated murderers, opened the border to illegal immigration, and cackled along to ruinously inflationary Bidenomics while the globe descended into chaos.
If you can't tell from that description, the pro-Harris ads are more upbeat, more targeted at moderate voters, and lighter on substance. The pro-Trump ads are much darker in tone, more aggressive in messaging, and more specific in their attacks on Harris.
None break new ground or include any surprise themes. Both sides are attempting to make what is essentially a big government populist case against the other.
The pro-Harris side paints Trump as corrupt. The pro-Trump side paints Harris as dangerous. But both are still explicitly presenting an every day "us" versus an evil "them."
"Donald Trump wants to give tax breaks to billionaires but Kamala Harris has plans to help us," says a Florida woman in a pro-Harris ad.
"Kamala's agenda is they/them, not you," says the narrator in a pro-Trump ad while images of trans inmates flash across the screen.
Both sets of ads do call for tax cuts, but at no point is that connected to the idea of the government spending less or doing less. Rather, tax cuts are presented as a benefit that each candidate will bestow on working and middle-class people. (The pro-Harris ads also call for tax increases on the rich.)
Plausibly small government populist messages—say about getting Washington off your back, out of your bedroom, or out of your way as you start a business—are nowhere to be found.
The ideas of "freedom" or "liberty" don't get a mention, save for one negative use in a pro-Trump ad about how Harris let "killers go free."
It may well make practical and political sense for both campaigns to abandon any pitch to voters who care about such parochial issues as shrinking the leviathan state. Certainly, neither candidate can credibly claim to be a champion of that cause at this point.
But if the big money behind the Harris and Trump campaigns doesn't care about winning over libertarian-leaning voters, libertarian-leaning voters can't be blamed for not being all that invested in who wins the White House come November.
Rent Free is a weekly newsletter from Christian Britschgi on urbanism and the fight for less regulation, more housing, more property rights, and more freedom in America's cities.
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
So the woman who wears a ~$10,000 watch, received $50,000,000 from Bill Gates and has 99% of Silicon Valley Tech executives behind her is going on about billionaires?
Wow, early 2000s much?
Wow, even in the early 2000s SOME people would POST A FUCKING LINK to at least attempt to back up their claims!!!
3,572% of right-wing wrong-nuts post made-up bullshit claims!
The link to her $10,000 watch is in a previous reason article, and if it's the Bill Gates claim you're skeptical of, fine... I guess. This isn't something like proving that the FBI stealth changed their crime statistics. This is kind of like, front page, below the fold shit.
"...has 99% of Silicon Valley Tech executives behind her is going on about billionaires?"
How about THAT one? Ya got ANYTHING about THAT one?
Oh, so we're doing the Jacob Sullum thing where we're going to enter into a lawyerly debate about what the definition of "skyrocketing" is, are we?
Ttt..thtat's not 99%! That's only almost all of them!
Oh, and by the by, if you still are sitting in your mom’s basement refusing to believe she wears a $10,000 watch, fine as well, and you don’t believe my eyeball research and extensive knowledge of the wristwatch game, here’s an “authoritative source”.
The article makes 1 mistake however, and is less informed than I am. They describe her gold and steel two tone watch, but then in their provided picture, show the full gold version and provide a link to that watch– the link they provide is $26,000. Harris is NOT wearing that model linked or pictured, even though their own description indicates the two-tone model which will be considerably cheaper than a full gold model.
If there’s anything else you would like to know about wrist watches, and would like to ask me for tips, advice, preferences, what to stay away from, what’s great, what’s affordable, I’m your guy.
If we are going to compare the "two teams" for ostentatious wealth (AKA "conspicuous consumption"), then how about Trump v/s Biden? Pussy-grabber v/s hair-sniffer? Has Biden EVER been busted (I'm disgusted, He-Trump can't be trusted!) for SLEEPING WITH HIGH-DOLLAR HOOKERS LIKE SPERMY DANIELS, fer Chrissakes?!?!
Then there's the two "first ladies" and the high-dollar v/s low-dollar dresses, lemme see what I can find... I have read about it...
So... from this comment I can conclude you're not interested in talking watches.
Shame.
88% Oliver
80% Trump
36% Harris
Suck it Reason writers. Looks like the isidewith question format is either a stealth MAGA project, or choosing "Harris" as your "most libertarian-ish candidate that you can strategically and reluctantly vote for just took a nose dive.
AI “Perplexity” bears me out about the dresses. I can’t copy-paste from there, sad to say. But here are 2 links… https://www.thedailybeast.com/jill-biden-likes-fashion-but-dont-bother-asking-her-about-it/ . . .and . . . https://www.townandcountrymag.com/style/fashion-trends/g35292215/jill-biden-first-lady-style-photos/
V/S wealth-show-off Trump… https://www.scmp.com/magazines/style/celebrity/article/3121726/how-do-melania-trump-and-jill-bidens-flotus-styles
I can't help but wonder if one of the two candidates isn't constantly claiming to be going after "billionaires"?
This is one of the many reasons why I firmly plan to vote for Chase Oliver.
*angry comment*
Kamala is for they/them.
Their, uh, something. If it will prevent her collapse. If not, she's for something else. (giggle)
This is as tone-deaf as it is when all you clowns told us who you were planning on voting for. The overwhelming majority was LGBT Pedo Baby Killer Chase Oliver.
YET...
How many articles has Reason written advocating for the election of Chase Oliver? How many have they written explaining his platform and offering reasons to vote for him? How many interviews did they secure with Chase Oliver to appeal to libertarian voters (did they even try)? How many articles did they write trying to convince conservative or classical liberal voters of his merit? For that matter, why not pander to his demographic of LGBT pedos and abortion fans?
I don't believe any writer here who says they're voting for Chase Oliver. Because they have put ZERO effort into getting him elected over Orange Clown and Kamalamadingdong. What they did instead is print a bunch of hit pieces on the former, and offered a lot of sissified socialist rationalizations of the gibbering retard latter.
How many times was Chase Oliver mentioned in this article about why Trump and Dingdong are poor choices?
What's that about, Christian? Losertarian.
Zach and decent Liz did an interview with Mr. Oliver and posted it here on Reason. There was also at least one story after he received the LP nomination. Though that was prior to Cackles’ coup and Biden was still the Team D candidate.
Chase is occasionally discussed by the commentariat calling into question his libertarianism. I believe Juliana nailed when she quipped, “Openly gay. Closet progressive.” The editors here get beat up enough; trying to push Chase will open them up to more ridicule.
“Openly gay. Closet progressive.”
Reason's new Masthead.
But to present the Reason triumvirate you need to add "Anti borders. Except my gated community." and "Stoners rule. But Manhattans are sooo much more sophisticated."
Openly pedo, openly Marxist is reasons new motto
Don't give a shit about where he puts his dick, do care about "progressive". And the fact that he has zero effect on the election, which is why the L party no longer got any money once that became clear.
Why was I donating to a party fund to dufesses who had no effect on policy at all?
“Openly gay. Closet progressive.”
So let's see, Chase's platform calls for:
- A balanced budget amendment
- Ending tariffs
- Eliminating the IRS
- Phasing out Social Security completely
- Phasing out all public education
- Ending federal backing of student loans
- Promoting nuclear power
- Oppose all new gun restrictions and apply DC vs. Heller to all states
- Legalizing marijuana
- Restricting the money supply to reduce inflation
- Repealing the Patriot Act and the FISA Act
- Closing foreign military bases
Yeah, that totally sounds like a progressive wish list right there.
Oh wait, I know: it's because he waved a Pride flag, wore a mask voluntarily during the pandemic, and once voted for Obama before he even knew what libertarianism was. That's why nothing else matters, right?
Gay plus Obama means he really supports the Democrat gay agenda no matter what he actually says. So no need to trot out his “policies”. Everyone knows what he really supports. It's whatever those who hate gay Democrats want to argue against.
Is this where I show you where he agrees with child chemical castration or agrees to special protections for favored groups again?
For not being a Democrat, you sure do push identitatian bullshit enough.
Let's try this. Let's make two lists: one in which we list all of Chase's policies that are not purist libertarian, and one in which we list all of Trump's policies that are not purist libertarian.
Which list do you think will be longer? Hmm? We both know the answer to that.
And then, of course, if we actually were to make that list, you'd just move on to the next shallow pathetic attack, anything to defend Trump and to make excuses for him.
Chase libertarian in office or in the real world leading people: (page intentionally left blank to fact check as truthful)
Oh look here, Chase has zero track record doing anything. A 8-year old can make a website too. It doesn’t transform them into being qualified to do anything. If that same 8-year old was the proprietor of a lemonade stand, they are arguably more qualified to be potus.
I don’t give a rat’s ass about what his pLaTfOrM says. He has done nothing of note (unqualified to lead the most indebted nation on the planet). He was an Obama organizer (a hopey-changey libertarian?). He bent the knee to face diapers (lack of critical thinking skills). He then virtue signaled his bending the knee by actively displaying it to the world (this guy does not seem serious). Hardcore identity politics on display (if someone doesn’t vote for him, they must be a homophobe). Show me, don’t tell me. And the little showing he has done is not worthy of a libertarian casting a potus vote for him.
So, yeah - identity and virtue-signaling are more important to you than actual policy. Got it. So I guess all that time when your pals here accused me and others of "TDS" when we say we won't vote for Trump regardless of his policies, they were wrong and you agree with me now. Right?
He was an Obama organizer (a hopey-changey libertarian?)
He voted for Obama in 2008 because in that election, he was the only anti-war candidate running. When it turned out Obama wasn't terribly anti-war after all, do you know what Chase did? He stuck to his principles and found a new party that was more principled anti-war than he thought the Democrats were. So you condemn him for sticking to his principles. Got it.
He bent the knee to face diapers (lack of critical thinking skills)
Or - get this - he isn't a narcissistic asshole and he tries to be respectful of those around him. Wait, respect for others? That must be totally disqualifying for a libertarian, right? Everyone knows libertarians MUST MUST MUST be self-absorbed jerks!
Hardcore identity politics on display (if someone doesn’t vote for him, they must be a homophobe).
When has Chase EVER said that? This sounds like a lie that your team makes up to slander him.
Show me, don’t tell me.
Well, let's see. Chase once voted for Obama, wore a mask and waved a Pride flag. All true!
Trump, on the other hand:
- blew up the national debt to then unimaginable levels
- deliberately separated children from families at the border *for purposes of deterrence*, and then didn't keep track of the children, thereby creating orphans
- scapegoats and demonizes immigrants - yes, including legal immigrants - by accusing them of eating pets, comparing them to cannibals, comparing them to rapists and murderers, claiming that they are 'poisoning the blood of the nation'
- hired a bunch of grifters and incompetent morons to run his administration
- started a trade war with China which not only ended up costing all Americans in higher prices, but also was a corrupt vote-buying scheme as he deliberately funneled the proceeds of the tariffs to his base voters in red states
- created new restrictions on guns
- and, last but not least, refused to acknowledge that he lost the election, conducted a months-long campaign to undermine the results and spread lies and misinformation about the results, which culminated with a riot at the Capitol where his supporters tried to stop the peaceful transfer of power
Yeah, Chase waving a Pride flag is so totally worse. Let's go with the corrupt big spending egomaniac instead.
>>Or – get this – he isn’t a narcissistic asshole
running for president w/zero chance of winning is poster-boy material for narcissistic asshole
This rule will RULE OUT ALL except for the narcissistic assholes like Trump! ONLY Trump and Kamalalamaladingdong have ANY chance of winning; ergo, all else who DARE to run, MUST be narcissistic assholes!!!
Geez-um, twat could POSSIBLY go wrong with this kind of thinking?
Go right ahead and STEAL our votes, third parties!!! I (and my vote) do SNOT belong to the REAL narcissistic assholes like Dear Leader TrumpfenFarter-Fuhrer and Kamalalamaladingdong!!!
You seem to have omitted the section "Biden/Kamala, on the other hand:"
Which one of Reason's staff writers are you, jeff?
Because I am comparing Chase to Chumby’s preferred candidate.
Chumby thinks that Chase is disqualified because of Chase's thin resume. Well. Trump's resume is not thin at all, but it is full of awful. I'll take the guy with the thin resume and the superior policies, over the corrupt egomaniac.
Chase’s resume includes being gay, supporting Obama, and being homosexual.
You want a gay homosexual who supports Obama as president?
Is a gay homosexual a double negative?
And Kamala's?
Well, we know Kamala sucks. Or is it blows?
Show me on Chase’s CV where he has done anything? It is nearly blank. He ostensibly worked in the food industry. Perhaps. And possibly there or elsewhere was in human resources. Maybe. Karen from HR is the libertarian candidate! When has he served in office anywhere to point to a continued track record of legislating as libertarian? He has a website. Yeay. Point on the
dollresumé where Chase has lived his policies and they impacted others that substantiates executive authority much less the arguably most power executive position on the planet.If say he had owned a bakery, then he has a track record there. And he could articulate his battles with local/state regulators and tax collectors as well as how to fight food truck folks parking in front of his business that he is forced to pay the city taxes for. Meeting payroll. Leading people. Doing serious things beyond having a website. And perhaps at that bakery a Team Blue Pluggo type wanted him to bake a cake showing a blackface Pluggo clubbing a Senator Tim Scott. And he refused to bake that cake. Something like that would get my attention as an example.
GayJay was a contractor and then a governor. His track record wasn’t Tony “perfect fallacy” libertarian perfect but it was decent. I didn’t need to go to some website listing things that he or may not do. He had done them for the world to see and make a decision based on that. GayJay had a track record. GayChase doesn’t beyond the aforementioned Obama support, identity politics, poor critical thinking regarding face diapers, and virtue signaling.
Oh, so here we get to the crux of the matter:
If say he had owned a bakery, then he has a track record there. And he could articulate his battles with local/state regulators and tax collectors as well as how to fight food truck folks parking in front of his business that he is forced to pay the city taxes for. Meeting payroll. Leading people. Doing serious things beyond having a website. And perhaps at that bakery a Team Blue Pluggo type wanted him to bake a cake showing a blackface Pluggo clubbing a Senator Tim Scott. And he refused to bake that cake. Something like that would get my attention as an example.
You want a performance. You want someone who grabbed national headlines because he caused a stir. Well he didn't. He worked in the food industry, and he was a corporate executive before he decided to become a Libertarian Party activist. I think corporate executives do lead people from time to time. But he doesn't have a podcast where he engages in performative outrage every day, or sit around and tweet all day, like your team's preferred libertarian candidate. He had a boring corporate job and then he worked for the benefit of the Libertarian Party. But because he didn't sing and dance for you, that makes him unacceptable. Too bad for you. It's just sad that you reject him for such shallow reasons.
Who said anything about national headlines? Who said anything about performance? Who said anything about a podcast? Your reading comprehension skills are lacking. Whoosh. Tag in your paymaster.
I want someone to show who they are when it matters. This is for potus, How has he been libertarian in a leadership role? The record is absent of this. Engaging in identity politics, following the narrative, signaling he followed the narrative, and supporting a collectivist are all things he’s done and shared. Not libertarian.
Who said anything about national headlines?
You just want someone who will 'fight' and 'go to battle'.
How has he been libertarian in a leadership role? The record is absent of this.
He has been working as an activist in the Libertarian Party. He has helped libertarians get ballot access and he has run for office himself as a Libertarian. Do those not count as leadership roles? Evidently not, because there was no performative 'fighting' or 'battling'. It's not like he refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple. Oh no. He just put in hours and hours of sweat equity working on behalf of libertarians. What a chump he was. All he had to do was to go tell a gay couple to go fuck themselves, make sure it was caught on camera, and then spread it on social media so he'd be a celebrity and a star "on behalf of liberty", and shallow dupes like Chumby here would claim "that shows true leadership!"
He has been working as an activist in the Libertarian Party. He has helped libertarians get ballot access and he has run for office himself as a Libertarian. Do those not count as leadership roles?
No. Duh. That you seem to think they do says more about you. Not that there's anything possibly good to say about you.
“You just want someone who will ‘fight’ and ‘go to battle’.”
Considering how liberty is in short supply these days, you’re goddamn right the Libertarian candidate should be able to show he has done more than run for office a couple of times.
No. You’re a fucking retard. Bring in someone better.
So community organizer stuff like Obama, they guy he previously stumped for? He’s done nothing in office to show he’s libertarian or effective because he has never been there and nothing in the real world to show how he is a libertarian or that he should be/could be potus. His claim to fame is coming in third in a three-way race causing a runoff where the people voted how they would had it had just been a D vs R election and he ended up with less support than than the 2020 Georgia senate election (Chase 81,365 in 2022 vs Hazel 115,039 in 2020).
The blank CV is his Achilles heel and may cause LP votes to go elsewhere.
Oh and by the way. You called Chase a "closet progressive". In what universe is Chase any type of progressive at all? Does his platform scream "progressive"? Let me guess, you think that voluntarily wearing a mask at all during the pandemic means he's a "progressive", right?
Identity politics, following the narrative, actively communicating that virtue signaling, opposite sex hormones for children. Do those dovetail into conservative? Do those dovetail into libertarian? Something else that isn’t progressive?
The first three don't describe any specific political ideology at all. They describe possible traits of people who could be in any group. Team Red plays identity politics too. You don't think this is identity politics?
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/story/donald-trump-suggests-anointed-by-god
You don't think right-wingers have their own set of narratives that they are expected to follow? You don't think right-wingers virtue-signal their tribal loyalty? What do you think this is?
https://s7d2.scene7.com/is/image/TWCNews/trump-supporter-11-2jpg?wid=1250&hei=703&$wide-bg$
So EVEN IF Chase is guilty of those things - which I absolutely do not concede - it wouldn't make him 'progressive'. It would make him just another human being.
As to the 'hormones for kids' thing, there is a libertarian case for it, resting on parental rights. You may not agree with it, but that doesn't make it 'progressive'.
Seems as though you just define 'progressive' to mean 'things you don't like'.
Can parents rent their kids to johns in exchange for money? When they turn 18, they or some other non-govt entity can pay for it if they want it.
Virtue signaling a progressive narrative that libertarians here called bullshit on early and often.
Bending the knee to the broken statist narrative.
I haven’t seen a libertarian candidate play the identity card as loudly or as often as Chase. I can’t recall any of them ever playing it. The only in that category I can recall have been progressive. And interestingly, it has been progressives here that have challenged my contempt for it. So much so that it has become a meme. Not “bears in trunks” level but it has been a welcome addition.
Stop wasting effort on a non entity in this election.
Or – get this – he isn’t a narcissistic asshole
Ladies, periodic reminder that you are not voting for prom king.
You complaining about anyone choosing style over substance is ridiculously hilarious. (Unless it was someone else in 2020 that was saying Biden would be preferable for essentially the same reason.)
What’s even funnier is pretending that there’s more than two scenarios that would play out if Chase somehow won: 1) he gets rolled by the machine faster than a joint at a Reason staff meeting, or 2) he folds like a deck chair on the Titanic the second the machine does 1/10th of what they threw at Trump 4 years ago. Either way, he’s ending up doing whatever they tell him he’s going to do
I never supported Biden in 2020. You have me confused with someone else.
1) he gets rolled by the machine faster than a joint at a Reason staff meeting, or 2) he folds like a deck chair on the Titanic the second the machine does 1/10th of what they threw at Trump 4 years ago.
Why would this necessarily happen?
"I never supported Biden in 2020. You have me confused with someone else."
That's legit possible, I feel like I've lived three lives since then. Apologies.
"Why would this necessarily happen?"
Based on the list of his policy positions, he's going to have the full bore of the MIC bearing down on him. And as we saw with Trump, if they can't intimidate him, they'll manufacture as much outrage as they deem necessary so he's so mired in the bullshit he can't effectively accomplish much.
And to top that all off, the only support he'd have in the Congress would be those icky conservatives in the Freedom Caucus.
Actions >>>>> words
My general sense is Reason... the collection of writers just isn't that enthusiastic about Oliver. Who... for the record isn't a terrible candidate. If we lived in a different world, I could see myself voting for him, but alas, just like 2020, we don't live in that world right now.
But as for the Reason collective, as I read the temperature, it is lukewarm at best. Even those voting for him didn't seem that enthusiastic about it... hell, even ENB's justification for voting for him read much liker her "Vegan Meatloaf" Mastodon article-- her heart just wasn't in it.
Apparently even sarcasmic can't bring himself to register so he can vote for him. This is despite condemning others as homophobes who don't support him.
Reason Foundation is a 501(c)(3) and they are not allowed to directly advocate for the election of a particular candidate.
You didn't think that response out, did you.
Hilarious.
Chase is an empty suit who crashes anytime he has to speak more than simple bumper stickers. There isn't anything to write about him or his sophomoric sloganeering.
But it will be enjoyable seeing sarcjeff attempt to do so. Grab some popcorn.
I will take the so-called 'empty suit' with the correct policies, over the guy who incited a riot at the Capitol because his ego couldn't admit that he lost the election.
Ray Epps is not on the ballot.
Point to times when he was in office or in the real world where he has exemplified those policies. Not saying but doing.
THIS
oh you’re worried about spending?
can you live with the loss of free speech, guns, freedom from illegal searches, freedom from illegal arrest, freedom of legal representation, freedom from cruel & unusual punishment and freedom to live in each state by its own laws?
^^ all that shit went on 2021 – now, bro. keep whining.
When the government is running psyops against its people, and remains unaccountable, that government is a tyranny. When it turns out that government has been running psyops against its people since at least November 1963, well, FFS that government needs to go.
When an outsider comes along who is a threat to that tyranny, and is as viciously and relentlessly attacked, such as Donald Trump has been for nine years, then that tyranny has fully exposed the scope of its corruption for all to see.
When the government has fully exposed itself as a tyranny, there should be no question at all that ANYONE and EVERYONE who claims to be against tyranny should vote for the strongest opponent of that tyranny, especially if it is the the outsider who has drawn it into the open and has made the strongest commitment to FIGHT it.
People learn things constantly, especially when the stakes are high. I certainly hope to find out what Donald Trump has learned in the past nine years by having him serve the next four. May his victory be a landslide. The bigger the landslide the bigger the message to the elitist pigs who think they are entitled to rule over us all. Fuck them all.
Oh there we go. The histrionic over-the-top analysis that you can only find in comic books. It's GOOD VS EVIL, people, and you have to choose GOOD in order to defeat EVIL! This type of reductionist black-white thinking is conspiratorial garbage, and moreover, demands that we ignore every flaw in "Team Good" in order to support their battle against "Team Evil". It is just rhetorical misdirection - don't focus on Trump's authoritarian tendencies, don't focus on his vile treatment of migrants, don't focus on Trump's gigantic ego and his absurd narcissism, we must all be on the same team to defeat Team Evil!
It is a deliberate strategy to try to shut people up who dare question the Dear Orange Leader. Try thinking about issues critically instead.
I only point out the obvious; I can hardly help it if the Globalist Fascist Pigs who are running this show get THEIR ideas from comic books, and useful idiots like you are okay with their planetary authoritarian tendencies, their vile treatment of natives and their dead-end materialist narcissism. Wow.
Try thinking critically yourself sometime. You'll see it requires a very simple bullshit detector.
We should all know by now, Lying Jeffy never thinks for himself. He doesn't have a bullshit detector as he's the jackass spreading the bullshit in the first place here.
Dear Orange Leader
You criticize Juliana Frink for making the race (in your words, not hers) about Good vs. Evil, but then, in your screed, liken Trump to the harsh dictator of North Korea (Dear Leader).
If Orange Doofus wins in 2024, what do you predict America will look like in 2028?
Post your answers below.
empirical evidence exists.
Lower inflation, no new wars, fewer flights of stairs attacking the potus, fewer illegals illegally crossing the borders.
fewer flights of stairs attacking the potus
True, but probably more gunmen doing so.
so far the stairs are in the lead.
They are a step ahead.
Their popularity is rising.
Don’t tread on me
People still not thrilled with the economy but maybe have grown numb to higher prices.
US still responsible for defending countries on the other side of the planet.
More leftist insanity in education (eliminating advanced math in the name of equity, pushing gender ideology in elementary school) as "radical individualists" insist Chris Rufo is the real problem.
Maybe a somewhat serious attempt to enforce a national border.
"People still not thrilled with the economy but maybe have grown numb to higher prices."
But TDS addled shits like sandy should still FOAD, asshole.
The president falling a lot after many incidents of popping noises.
If Kamalamadingdong wins in 2024, what do you predict America will look like in 2028?
Post your answers below.
See above answer, but change last line to "No attempt whatsoever to enforce a border, then Harris runs for reelection promising to fix 'our broken immigration system.'"
But TDS addled slimy shits like sandy should still FOAD, asshole.
Probably a lot like it looked between 2020 and 2024.
Take a look at Cuba or Bangladesh.
That's what the US would look like after a few years of the female version of Biden.
If (somehow) Chase Oliver wins in 2024, what do you predict America will look like in 2028?
Post your answers below.
Republicans and Democrats uniting against a common enemy. Big time election shenanigans to dismiss Libertarians. Increased standards for ballot access. Increased standards for debate access.
Movies and shows would start having libertarian bad guys. Instead of selling drugs or promoting terrorism, the bad guys plan to take over government and then leave everyone alone, leading to an anarchic dystopia, rule by corporations, or some such nonsense. The saviors being government killers who aren't bothered by rules. Like Miami Vice, but the bad guys are nerds.
Stop pretending you or Jeff are remotely libertarian. Pro political lawfare, pro state murder, pro taxes, pro immigrant welfare, ignore regulation costs, etc etc.
How much do you enjoy your collaboration with Chumby and when did you two become besties?
Do you think your responses are good?
Probably a lot like it looked between 2020 and 2024. But with 10% more Jones Act.
10% more inflation.
If you can answer the isidewith quiz with a result that places Chase Oliver first and Kamala Harris second, I would be very surprised. Every libertarian I've seen post their results had Oliver first, a gap to Trump in second, another gap to RFK Jr, and then the rest of the assorted commies and Harris at the bottom.
This magazines dogged insistence that there's "no difference" between the two from a libertarian perspective is infuriating and a seemingly transparent attempt to help Harris.
My taking if that quiz did not rank Chase at all. I recall reading another commenter had the same phenomenon. Weird.
Huh. Weird. It's almost as if you're a Republican cosplaying here as a libertarian.
There is a gaslighting acronym for that which White Mike coined.
That online test ranked me as 90% Libertarian. Above the Republican ranking.
Not sure how. You make libertarian noises but attack anyone who promotes libertarian principles. Oh sure you might say there should be no department of this, but you shut down debate by demonizing ideas for improvement as not pure enough. Don’t like someone, attack. Squash their ideas. Attack. Call them leftists. Soon the cavalry will arrive.
Principals not principles. The CUCLLs may disagree with that observation.
Collectivist Undercover Cosplaying Liberal Libertine. CUCLL. I coined that.
And you took a test!
Yeah. Have another drink.
I’ll have some more water later. Thanks.
I just took the quiz and didn't have Chase Oliver show at all. 89% with Trump, 87% with Constitution Party candidate, and 67% with RFK, Jr. Definitely odd since under party it had me 91% with the Constitution Party and 90% with the Libertarian Party.
Either something is fishy, or isidewith.com doesn't consider Chase to be even remotely Libertarian (maybe because Mises is in charge of the party atm, and Chase is a Reason/Cato type?)
You have to scroll down to see all of the candidates.
I did. It ended with Kamala Harris at 9% Jill Stein, et al. were all in the low teens.
Kamala was below Jill Stein and the rest for me as well. That said, I think it can be difficult to distinguish between the things the Democrats actually say with what they're going to do.
After all there's going to be limits as to how much they're willing to piss off people like Goldman Sachs and Disney. The corpos will get their bag.
To hijack my own comment, I'm in Colorado. There was some back and forth a while back on whether Chase would be on our ballots (initially no, then yes). Maybe isidewith.com just doesn't have up-to-date information. The website definitely knows I'm in colorado, as all the down ballot races from previous cycles that I looked at were pertaining to Colorado.
Oh shit, I didn't consider that. Maybe people who don't get Oliver ranked live in a state where he's not on the ballot. That would make sense.
Chase is on the ballot here. Perhaps it differentiates between libertarian and Libertarian. That makes three of us with no Chase ranking.
A no ranking seems like it *thinks* there's no Chase. There's no way anyone would be 0% on any candidate. I still don't know who the fuck Peter Sonski is.
Maybe your gaydar doesn't work as well as mine.
Perhaps. I had zero idea that Chase was gay until sarc told me.
Chase is gay?
Ask sarc. He’s the one that has his finger on the pulse of that.
Interesting. I live in a state with Chase on the ballot too, although I took it anonymously so not sure if they assume that based on ip address.
I got:
Parties: 91% Libertarian
President: 69% Trump; no Chase on the list.
Well Chace is a Marxist pedofile... Not a libritarian
I just took the quiz and it ranked me 88% with Chase Oliver and 80% with Trump, which seems completely reasonable, since most of the questions on there would align that way if you answered heavily libertarian.
I'm not sure if there was a set of answers you could give that would align you 88% with Chase Oliver and 80% with Harris, because I certainly can't think of a set of conditions that would produce that.
The contentious issues on immigration I (to the shock and dismay of my detractors) answered almost straight libertarian, except when it came to providing illegal immigrants with infinite, unending, open-ended welfare.
Oh, and by the way, I took the EXTENDED quiz, I expanded every category to answer all the possible questions.
In addition, there was a question or two that was like, whaaaaat?
"Should Citizens be allowed to secure their money in self-hosted digital wallets that government can monitor but not control?"
After ten minutes I finally checked "No". So does that 'no' mean I don't believe that citizens should be allowed to secure their money in self-hosted digital wallets? Does that mean that yes, they should be able to secure their money in self-hosted digital wallets but government CAN'T monitor OR control?
Anyhoo, regarding the test, I find it telling that MAGA-HAT, Trump-all-the-way, Sullum article eye-rolling me got 88% for Oliver and 80% for DT when basically answering "no" on damned near every question possible-- and so many of our Reason writers are choosing Harris.
My order of ranking (if anyone cares):
Oliver: 88%
Trump: 80%
RFK: 69%
Peter Sonksi (WHO?!!): 65%
Harris: 36%
West: 30%
Stein, the Silver Fox: 29%
to be honest, I'm completely unsurprised.
92 Chase
68 Trump
50 Sonski
46 RFKjr
26 Cornel
24 Stein
20 Marianne
20 Kamala
Candidates:
86 Chase
77 Trump
70 RFK Jr
60 Sonski
35 Harris
35 West
33 Stein
32 Williamson
Parties:
86 Libertarian
83 Constitution
78 R
25 Democrat
There were a couple in the "should the federal reserve set interest rates via AI" type questions where the libertarian answer is impossible to give.
Yeah, there were a few questions in there that really didn't have a clear "libertarian answer". And I answered fully non-libertarian on a few-- even aligning hard with Democrats on a few issues. Like increased funding for mental health, increased funding for Smart Transportation infra.
I skipped a few of those and expanded many of them.
In addition, there was a question or two that was like, whaaaaat?
“Should Citizens be allowed to secure their money in self-hosted digital wallets that government can monitor but not control?”
After ten minutes I finally checked “No”. So does that ‘no’ mean I don’t believe that citizens should be allowed to secure their money in self-hosted digital wallets? Does that mean that yes, they should be able to secure their money in self-hosted digital wallets but government CAN’T monitor OR control?
Yeah, LOL.
"Should the technology of our financial system transition to a decentralized protocol, that is not owned or controlled by any corporation, similar to the internet?"
Uh, this feature-poor question lacks both a "Are you sure the technology currently operates under a centralized protocol?" button and a "Define transition/What is a woman?" button.
I tried it two times. Ironically if you said no to teaching DEI, chase wouldn't show up. Only answer I changed.
I said 'no' to teaching all the DEI, critical race theory shit. Hard no on all of it, and I got 88% Oliver.
So most likely the test has a random number generator to choose chase it seems.
Wonder how jeffsarc is reacting to Trump and chase being in the same area of results.
Using expected value theorem...
Chase: 90% (generous) X 5% election probability (generous) = 4.5%
Trump 80% X 50% election probability = 40%
Math doesn't lie.
You are 50% racist!
Sarc would call you a liar.
I just did the isidewith quiz.
It had Chase Oliver on top at 88%, and then at #2 it indeed had Orange Doofus at 57%, and at the bottom was KamKam at 45%. So I view that as basically that if not for Chase, it's basically 50/50 for the other two. I didn't put a lot of effort into answering the "how strongly do you believe this" questions, maybe if I had it would have changed the results a bit.
It had Chase Oliver on top at 88%, and then at #2 it indeed had Orange Doofus at 57%, and at the bottom was KamKam at 45%. So I view that as basically that if not for Chase, it’s basically 50/50 for the other two.
Huh, the way I read it is if not for Chase, it would be 57/45 Trump/Harris, but that’s just me.
That’s funny.
Anyone who gets 45% Kamala is a fucking socialist.
Yes that's right, the guy who got an 88% rating for Chase Oliver is a "socialist". LOL
>> a seemingly transparent attempt to help Harris.
loudly. loudly transparent. JD Vance is wrong about transparency.
Not surprisingly, it gave me Democrats, Libertarians, Republicans. Was there a switch to have it have it by candidate instead of party? Regardless, that's how I'd rank my preference for them anyway.
That said, I've never claimed to be a libertarian or a Libertarian, just that there are some topics I'm sympathetic about (even if I find the philosophy in most regards to be naive and utopian).
Was there a switch to have it have it by candidate instead of party?
I don't even know how people are seeing 'party' alignment. I went to the site, clicked 'start quiz' and answered all the questions. And by all the questions, I mean all the questions. Gave me candidate rankings.
Tabs at the top, to switch between Elections, Parties, Ideologies and Answers.
87 Chase
75 Trump
61 RFKjr
50 Sonski
24 Stein
23 Cornel
23 Marianne
23 Kamala
I am honestly unsurprised that Trump is coming in second for most posters. Maybe it's confirmation bias, but this is what so many of us have been saying for 8 years now.
Clicked on the Ideology tab. Apparently I'm 89% "Libertarian Conservatism" and 84% "Libertarianism". I'll turn in my badge, gun, and decoder ring on my way out.
I see some.saying Chase Oliver wasn't even an option for them. I got him highest, followed closely by Trump- in fact, the difference between the two was smaller than my ENTIRE percentage for Harris (14%).
As I have said before, I can absolutely understand why someone would not vote for Trump. I cannot understand how someone espousing Libertarian principles could choose Kamala Harris over Trump or not voting at all.
The federal government agencies could be cut by three-quarters, and there still would be too much of it.
"libertarian-leaning voters can't be blamed for not being all that invested in who wins the White House come November."
Sure they can.
Sure, your pet issues aren't on the docket. There's plenty more real differences between the candidate. Whether you like it or not, (hell, whether you're an eligible American voter or not) you have a vested interest in what happens.
Pouting because your hobby horse is in the stable is just childish.
Sure, your pet issues aren’t on the docket. There’s plenty more real differences between the candidate.
Most awesome typo ever.
Why would Trump or Harris be talking about cutting government? They can read the room and see that the candidate who is actually talking about that will be lucky to receive 1/2 million votes.
'Trump, Harris Ads Make Clear They Won't Be Cutting Government
Both candidates are making a final big government, populist pitch to undecided voters.'
Holy fuck, Reason. Are you so strung out on long TDS (and under orders from Koch Central) that you refuse to recognize core differences between Harris and Trump? For fucks sake, only one of these has even used the words "cut government" while the other proposes one new federal program after another. Are you that stupid (or think we are)?
No reason to believe Trump given what happened to the deficit under his presidency even pre Covid.
In the last 100 days SleepyJoe put us $1 trillion deeper in the hole.
It wasnt him. He can barely read.
We are under the rule of a cabal of blue-haired millenial they/thems who have no accountability
Sullum: Not true. Fact check! Some have pink hair!
Probably. But that hardly addresses the issue of Trump's claims versus the reality.
FOAD, steaming pile of TDS-addled shit.
You mean when entitlements and debt spending was 70% of the spending growth? A lot of it due to intentional plans regarding ACA?
You're not bright shrike.
IT'S NOT TRUMP'S FAULT!!!!! IT'S NEVER TRUMP'S FAULT!!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccSLCGNkTYs&ab_channel=DocDetroit
If 70% of the spending growth was in entitlements and debt spending (thus mandatory), it would indeed not be Trumps fault.
Of course, that would also apply to Pudding Pop.
FOAD, assholic pile of TDS addled shit.
Draining the swamp and offering free condoms are basically the same thing.
whichever one wins, they will borrow gazillions.
That said, one is clearly better than the other, even with regard to that.
Yes, as the GOP themselves said, don't vote for the old senile guy - to which posters here would add, and sexual predator.
and sexual predator.
That guy's no longer on the ballot.
Wrong guy. But you know that.
Why bother to deny that Trump is? It won't put off anyone who was going to vote Trump anyway - certainly not anyone here - and we know that the election isn't about character, so just accept that you're comfortable voting for the old senile sexual predator guy who's on the ballot, because reasons, and sit back and sip on your Jack and Dew.
Not wrong guy, FOAD, asshole.
Given Trump’s history with women, credible accuser.
“You want to what? You want to watch me try on the underwear in the changing room? Well, I guess… how can I refuse? Did I mention I'm a childless cat lady?"
Eat shit and die, asshole.
SRG2 3 hours ago.
"Yes, as the GOP themselves said, don’t vote for the old senile guy – to which posters here would add, and sexual predator."
Yeah, well leakin' Joes' off the ballot, much as you'd (as a brain-dead piece of lefty shit) would prefer his candidacy.
You know that we know you are a Brit (slimy pile of shit) socialist who has enjoyed "free" healthcare as the US taxpayers provided defense for assholes like you. And we are tired of it.
Please FOAD, but don't tell us of your grave site; I don't want to stand in a long line to piss on it.
FAOD, steaming pile of TDS-addled shit.
https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10230050914114916&set=a.1592221843468
FOAD, asshole; make your dog happy.
I’d almost say 57 vs 45% better.
Of course, there was no question on the quiz that said "Do you support a president inciting a riot at the Capitol to prevent the peaceful transfer of power because that president refuses to admit he lost the election?" Maybe there should have been.
Poor Jeff.
Who did that?
"Judging by the messaging that their aligned PACs are prioritizing, neither former President Donald Trump nor Vice President Kamala Harris has any interest in winning over small government supporters."
You do know that PACs cannot coordinate with candidates, right?
How about an article on what the candidates them selves say about their policy proposals?
Perhaps involving price fixing? No increase in government spending there!
Reason….
"Trump De-Regulating and Cutting-Taxes =/= Cutting Government."
"Harris Subsidies and Tax-Hikes???"
"Well... Same, same….." /s
Reason has been in D.C. too long and is becoming nothing but echoing chambers of leftard self-projection tactics.