Tim Walz Doesn't Get Libertarians

Libertarians probably aren't buying what Liz Cheney is selling.

Does Tim Walz know what a libertarian is? The Minnesota governor and Democratic vice presidential candidate referenced the libertarian philosophy during a recent appearance on Jon Stewart's The Daily Show. For some reason, Walz is possessed of the notion that former Rep. Liz Cheney (R–Wyo.)—of all people—is going to sell libertarians on voting for Vice President Kamala Harris.

Stewart, to his credit, is deeply suspicious of the Cheneys. As a principled voice of opposition to the Iraq War and the foreign policy mistakes of the Bush administration, Stewart has relentlessly criticized the Cheney family's influence over the Republican Party. The Cheneys are no longer welcome in GOP circles, however, and have seemingly integrated themselves into the Democratic Party. Having broken with Trump over the former president's (admittedly loathsome) attempts to remain in power following his 2020 election loss, Liz Cheney is now firmly in support of Harris—and is even appearing on the campaign trail with her. There are rumors that Cheney could join the Cabinet of a President Harris.

During his conversation with Walz, Stewart asked the veep candidate why the campaign thought it was such a good idea to lean on Cheney to make an affirmative case for Harris. After all, Democrats have spent much of the last two decades describing the Cheneys as avatars of evil.

Walz's response was eyebrow-raising.

"There is still a core group of folks out there, the Don't Tread on Me, the Reagan piece of this, the libertarian piece, the constitutional piece, there are a lot of people out there," he said. "I think Liz Cheney and Dick Cheney give permission to those people who want to find a reason to do the right thing."

Tim Walz just defended embracing Dick and Liz Cheney's endorsements, claiming they 'give permission' to libertarians, constitutionalists, and 'don't tread on me' folks to cross over.

This is beyond parody. We've always despised the Cheneys. pic.twitter.com/NlMLELZ8Hu

— Dustin Grage (@GrageDustin) October 22, 2024

Walz seems confused. Libertarians, constitutionalists, Don't Tread on Me folks—these are all people who fundamentally dislike the Cheneys to an equal or even greater degree than the standard Republican voter. Most libertarian-leaning Tea Party types regard the Cheneys as big government authoritarians. Dick Cheney's tenure as vice president was marked by a massive expansion of federal power, including the Patriot Act and the war on terror. Liberty-inclined Republicans like Rep. Thomas Massie (R–Ky.) and Sen. Rand Paul (R–Ky.) are famous, in part, because they clashed with the Cheneys. For instance, Paul slammed Cheney and George W. Bush in 2014 for emboldening terrorism worldwide by launching regime-change wars that destabilized the Middle East. He said that Cheney-esque policies had turned Iraq and Libya into "jihadist wonderlands."

If Paul vouched for Harris, it might theoretically persuade some libertarians to vote for her. For his part, Paul has maintained that he prefers Trump to Harris, but is unenthusiastic about the former president given Trump's broken promises on reining in spending. (Paul also slammed Trump's tariffs in a recent piece for The Wall Street Journal.) Liz Cheney's support for Harris, on the other hand, is essentially a negative endorsement.

 

This Week on Free Media

I am joined by Amber Duke to discuss Trump's visit to McDonald's, Elon Musk's million-dollar giveaway, Morning Joe's Trump Derangement Syndrome, and Tim Walz pitching Liz Cheney to libertarians.

I'll be on vacation next week, so no Free Media videos or newsletters. We will be back the following week for special election coverage!

 

Worth Watching

While I'm on vacation, I'll be playing The Legend of Zelda: Echoes of Wisdom, which I haven't started yet. I've heard good things, though.

Comments

[Mother's Lament]

Obama wanted a VP dumber than him, so he picked Joe Biden, Biden wanted a VP dumber than him, so he picked Kamala Harris, Harris wanted a VP dumber than her, so she picked Tampon Tim,

[sarcasmic]

So if Waltz runs for president he'll pick you. Got it.

[InsaneTrollLogic (Factio Democratica delenda est 5/30/24)]

Narrator:
“Sarc was talking to the image in the mirror when he said that.”

[Pepin the short]

You can just see how angry the drunk weasel is.

[Don't look at me!]

Funny.

[Fire up the Woodchippers! (5-30 Banana Republic Day)]

Or to Pedo Jeffy. Then Sarc can be Jeffy’s VP.

[Ersatz]

Not because she's dumber... but because you've hit bedrock dumb. Cant get any dumber than wanting a non-citizen Canadian for your vp.

Every (D)emocrat knows if you want a non-citizen VP you look to Mexican illegal aliens - not Canadians!

[Chumby]

No way José. He’s not the Juan they want.

[Don't look at me!]

He’s not willing to do Manuel labor.

[Kungpowderfinger]

Nacho man for the job, holmes.

[R Mac]

Sarc never starts shit. He’s always the victim.

Poor sarc.

[Fire up the Woodchippers! (5-30 Banana Republic Day)]

He’s the guy at the bar, who is loud, drunk, and obnoxious, flicks peanuts at people, then cries victim when you get up to beat his ass.

He’s a bitch punk. Probably gets passed around when he ends up in jail.

[Mother's Lament]

"So if Waltz runs for president he’ll pick you. Got it."

"NO U!!!"

Genius, Sarckles. Such effervescent wit. How did you become so clever?

[sarcasmic]

Certainly not by paying attention to you.

[Don't look at me!]

Ideas™ !, never people.

[Mother's Lament]

Certainly not indeed.

[Fire up the Woodchippers! (5-30 Banana Republic Day)]

You just did, you drunk bitch.

[Fire up the Woodchippers! (5-30 Banana Republic Day)]

Hey ML, if I hunt Sarc down, gag/hogtie and ship him up to Canada, will make sure he gets some socialized euthanasia? It would be the best money you guys ever spent.

[Don't look at me!]

Ideas ™ !

[DesigNate]

Not sure why you felt the need to make this comment after ML’s accurate description of the last several Democrat administrations/nominees….

[NM Dave]

You're the master of throwing baseless and childish insults, contributing nothing to the discourse. Insulting people is really your only skill. I hope you can understand most of those words, if not I'll define them for you.

[Minadin]

And so the spiral down the drain continues apace.

[Fetterman's Hump]

Kudos, ML. That is a pretty good description of Democrat lineage!

[Homer Thompson]

not only does dick cheney support kamala harris for president so does jussie smollett

[Gaear Grimsrud]

Jussie has his work cut out for him. Chicago is Trump Country.

[gnome]

Jussie is also on record as being in favor of fweedom.

[Use the Schwartz]

Times like these remind us that you can be stupid AND a lying sack of shit. They are not mutually exclusive.

[sarcasmic]

That is proven in these comments every day.

[InsaneTrollLogic (Factio Democratica delenda est 5/30/24)]

You, Jeffy, M4e, misconstrueman, and Pluggo should know. Being stupid and lying sacks of shit is your modus operandi.

[Pepin the short]

Seething in real time. Got that travelers club vodka handle for comfort.

[Mother's Lament]

And unlike Jeffy, Sarckles does it for free.

[Fire up the Woodchippers! (5-30 Banana Republic Day)]

He does get those head pats from, Jeffy.

[Don't look at me!]

Ideas ™ , not people.

[Fire up the Woodchippers! (5-30 Banana Republic Day)]

Yes, and you succeed at that multiple times a day. You do understand that you’re widely viewed as stupid and buffoonish, right?

[Mother's Lament]

Here's Tim Walz saying Americans don’t have a Constitutional right to free speech for “misinformation”

And who determines what is “misinformation”?

Well Tim Walz of course!

[Minadin]

That's OK, Kamala Harris says that abortion is a fundamental right, but not so much for freedom of religious expression:

"Notice that Harris describes abortion BUT NOT the free exercise of religion as "a fundamental freedom.""

https://twitter.com/baseballcrank/status/1848878940049576335

"You're at the wrong rally" - Kamala Harris, 2024

[Social Justice is neither]

Is there really any difference in the progressive leftist mind? Just look at ENB.

[R Mac]

Free speech isn’t that important.

— 4 Reason staff

[Red Rocks White Privilege]

This is actually one of the biggest issues on the current Democratic party to be worried about, because they've gone all-in and are being quite open about their desire to squash and censor any sort of criticism of global leftism in the west. It's always been a core of the New Left's philosophy dating to Marcuse's "liberating tolerance," and these dinosaurs see this as their best chance to get it implemented now that they control the EU and FVEY nations.

It started in force with the information control and suppression during COVID, stretched into the 2020 elections, and continued with the bullshit Frances Haugen "whistleblowing," the Disinformation Board briefly run by Censorship Mary Poppins, and continues with Hillary herself going all-in to promote a US version of the EU's Digital Services Act and promoting the jailing of anyone who doesn't parrot her side's political bullshit, the full-on thoughtcrime crackdowns going on in the UK, arrest of Pavel Durov, that shithead vermin Thierry Breton threatening Elon Musk, and the UK police commissioner threatening to extradite Americans.

These people are fucking deranged and desperate to implement full intolerance against anyone resisting them, both in deed and in word, and to enforce their stupid marxist political theology at the point of a gun. That's why these assholes are probably going to set off a civil war regardless of whether Trump wins or not, because they're fanatics who give themselves all the plausible deniability they need to execute political violence without consequence. And "Reagan conservatives" like the Cheneys and the Dispatch crowd are happy to help them.

[soldiermedic76]

No, it started with Wilson in 1917.

[soldiermedic76]

Or possibly John Adams and Alexander Hamilton (note this is their newest favorite founding father).

[Social Justice is neither]

They are not deranged, they are maliciously evil.

[shadydave]

People have talked about the 7 swing states. I looked it up and the next closest state outside of those 7 (and weirdness like Nebraska and Maine) is actually Minnesota with Harris having only a 4 point lead.

It seems like maybe even Minnesotans aren't overly thrilled with Tim Walz.

[soldiermedic76]

Outside the twin cities (and a few other odd areas like Duluth and Rochester and the reservations) Minnesota is fairly red.

[Incunabulum]

But, like Arizona, no one outside the two largest cities actually matter.

[Chumby]

Tampon Tim is not super libertarian?

[InsaneTrollLogic (Factio Democratica delenda est 5/30/24)]

He’s a super something.

[Chumby]

During a recent interview with Reason, the closet progressive LP candidate quipped:

Broadly speaking, I don't think much of the Democratic portfolio is super libertarian right now

https://reason.com/2024/10/10/chase-oliver-wants-your-vote/

[Don't look at me!]

I heard he was gay. Does it matter?

[Mother's Lament]

Let's ask Jeff and Sarc. Apparently they've made rules around supporting homosexual candidates.

[Chumby]

I have voted for gay candidates before and one of them won. Do I now have to report somewhere?

[Homer Thompson]

he's an ethnic studies enthusiast

[Rick James]

Walz is possessed of the notion that former Rep. Liz Cheney (R–Wyo.)—of all people—is going to sell libertarians on voting for Vice President Kamala Harris.

Moderate, center-right, neo-liberal anti-trump Republican. To be fair, there's a lot of "libertarianism" going around these days that smells a lot like that.

[Zeb]

Does ""libertarianism"" mean not-libertarianism?

[Rick James]

Strategic and reluctant libertarianism, that wears a mask so it doesn't look like a Republican and thinks Christian Nationalism is the biggest threat to the fabric of Our Democracy.

[Roberta]

Took them years not to identify LaRouche that way.

[Gaear Grimsrud]

Reason: McCains good. Cheneys bad.

[Commenter_XY]

There is no universe where a libertarian gets on the ideological bus with Kamala and Tim; the beliefs and policy positions of Kamala are simply incompatible with libertarianism, and more specifically, the LP. Examples include: price controls, taxes on unrealized capital gains.

I don't really have much to say about the Cheney's. I don't live in WY.

The cardinal rule of a VP is not to hurt the boss. Tampon Timmy has failed here. Kamala's campaign spent a lot of time explaining and clarifying Timmy-isms in July and August.

[sarcasmic]

I'm listening to The Political Orphanage right now. In this episode some people are pitching Harris to Heaton.

According to one of the guys who said he read all 80 pages of her platform, she supports increasing the housing supply, reducing occupational licensing, and waiving environmental impact studies for geothermal among other things. So there is a tiny bit of overlap with libertarianism. Teeny tiny bit.

There's another episode where people pitch Trump to Andrew. Haven't listened to it yet.

[Zeb]

Was it robc's laws of libertarianism that included:
Everyone agrees with libertarians on something.
No two libertarians agree about anything.

[sarcasmic]

nice

[Red Rocks White Privilege]

I don’t really have much to say about the Cheney’s. I don’t live in WY.

To be fair, the Cheneys really don’t, either. Dick lives in Teton County, which is a glorified tax haven for California shitlibs like Harrison Ford and various champagne marxist millionaires, and Liz has lived most of her adult life in northern Virginia. She didn’t get a place near daddy’s in Wyoming until she decided to run for Congress.

[Gaear Grimsrud]

"Having broken with Trump over the former president's (admittedly loathsome) attempts to remain in power following his 2020 election loss"
Libertarians are probably not buying what Robby Soave is selling.

[AT]

Tim Walz doesn't get heterosexuality.

[JFree]

Stewart, to his credit, is deeply suspicious of the Cheneys. As a principled voice of opposition to the Iraq War and the foreign policy mistakes of the Bush administration, Stewart has relentlessly criticized the Cheney family’s influence over the Republican Party.

To his credit, Stewart retains some basic libertarian foreign policy notions – unlike the pro-genocide shitrags here at Reason or the commentariat or the current R's.

[Use the Schwartz]

Oh hey now, I didn't have you pegged as an anti-semite until now. My bad, I guess I should have paid more attention to your posts.

Anywho, buh-bye!

[Don't look at me!]

He’s one of the worst.

[JFree]

“Every time America tells the world that there’s something we won’t allow, Israel seems to say ‘challenge accepted’. Are they willfully trying to provoke us? Or perhaps they’re just reading our principles from right to left.”... “The subtext of all this is America knows this is wrong,” he added. “But apparently, it doesn’t seem to have the courage to say it in a straightforward manner.”

Jon Stewart - writing in the Guardian (of course it wasn't going to be a US paper) in Apr

[Mother's Lament]

"JOOOOOZZZZ!!!"

[Don't look at me!]

Fuck Jon Stewart.

[Fire up the Woodchippers! (5-30 Banana Republic Day)]

Why don’t you take your act down the way to Stormfront. You can take Misek too.

[Chipper Chunked Chile Con Congress (ex NCW)]

JFree is quite fond of getting pegged by other anti-semites.

[damikesc]

How dare those evil Jews not just die, amirite?

[Roberta]

I forgot — which side is the geno-cide in that?

[JFree]

The one where actual mass deaths are occurring in far larger numbers than are being made public and that are being covered up by the media. The one where one side is 'escalating' and diverting attention to Lebanon/Iran - for the purpose of committing one more wave of genocide in north Gaza as this is posted.

[Mother's Lament]

There's no "genocide" in Gaza, you Nazi shitweasel.

[B G]

The UN has defined-down "genocide" in order to make it apply to what's happening in Israel. Of course, by that definition, the "genocide" has been ongoing continuously since the 2006 unilateral withdrawal of IDF patrols from Gaza and the turnover of local "government" to Hamas (who hasn't allowed another election in the territory since they were voted into power 18 years ago).

Under the modern version of "genocide", as the ICJ is considering it, a string of 10-12 home burglaries could almost meet the definition of "genocide" if all of the victims happened to share some kind of inborn trait or "ethnic/national identity".

That standard apparently even applies when that identity is attached to a "nation" which has never once existed in recorded human history and whose "members" aren't any different ethnically from the Arabs who make up the majorities in Jordan, Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Quatar, Yemen, Bahrain, Kuwait, Lebanon, and who make up large portions of the modern population of Egypt, and who instigated the "ethnic cleansing" against African Muslims in South Sudan/Darfur.

What's a little bit complicated to isolate is what the factor is which makes the "widespread killing" of Arab Muslims when it's done by Jews in Israel so much more objectionable than the eve larger scale killing of Paki Muslims by Indians in Kashmir, or the open and relentless ethnic cleansing of African Muslims at the hands of Arab Muslims in South Sudan/Darfur. It's possible that it's simply antipathy toward Jews ("antisemitism" would technically not lead to taking sides in the Israel/"Palestine" conflict since Arabs and Jews are both "semitic" peoples), or if it's rooted in the kind of Arab Nationalism that's hardly uncommon in the middle east, some combination of both could also be the case. The only thing that's clear about it is that the actual issue has very little to do with any moral objection the killing of people in large numbers or the pearl-clutching around Israeli activity would have been matched with activism around other places where similar levels of brutality are happening daily.

[gnome]

They could try releasing the hostages (as any civilized person would) and the genocides might miraculously stop.

[B G]

The whole point of taking the hostages was to try to exchange them for a "cease fire" from the inevitable retribution (plus the release of 10-30x their number of Arab terrorists held by Israeli law enforcement).

If they just released them, then they'd have to go take more in order to make excessive demands; not that they won't do it, if left to re-establish their capabilities again after this, but they'd have to try sooner than they'll be ready to go at it again.

[Fire up the Woodchippers! (5-30 Banana Republic Day)]

Yeah….. “escalating”. By being attacked by Iran and Hezbollah.

You’re subhuman trash.

[Incunabulum]

I don't think anyone at Reason supports Hamas and Palestinian attempts at murdering Jews.

[Social Justice is neither]

Support them, no. Support enabling them, there are more than a few.

[Uncle Jay]

"Tim Walz Doesn't Get Libertarians."

Tampon Tim doesn't get the concept of reality.

[Kungpowderfinger]

The fucking Democrats could’ve saved themselves a lot of trouble by not ignoring Biden’s warning signs of dementia when he was VP.

Looks like they’re making the same mistake with “Coach Walz”.

[Fire up the Woodchippers! (5-30 Banana Republic Day)]

Walz is a stupid (self admitted), Marxist, sociopathic scumbag, and a major weirdo. There isn’t anything authentic about him.

[EscherEnigma]

"Tim Walz Doesn't Get Libertarians"
Based on the Reason comment section, neither do you.

[sarcasmic]

Only if a bunch of Trump defenders who defend mercantilism, defend protectionism, defend hostility to free trade, defend rounding up political scapegoats by the millions, defend restricting immigration just because, defend using alphabet agencies against political enemies, defend combining tax cuts with increased spending, all the while saying that being evil ok because Democrats did it first, are the true libertarians.

I’m not buying it.

[Don't look at me!]

Ideas ™ !

[damikesc]

Funny, we've had four years of rounding up political opponents by the thousands.

You, mind you, applauded it.

[sarcasmic]

First off I ever applauded hunting down J6 yahoos. That’s a lie spread by the usual liars.

Second, a million is a thousand thousands. So even if I defended rounding up the J6 idiots, which I never did, the Republican demagogue’s plan to arrest thirteen thousand thousand political scapegoats is much closer to fascism than any strawman you can make up about me.

[JFree]

It was never a surprise to me - but the first thing that Biden didn't do to prove he's a shitty little Prez - he failed to pardon the more run-of-the-mill J6 protestors.

Rounding them up isn't a problem imo. Putting them on trial for whatever the appropriate charge - vandalism, trespassing, sedition, assault, etc. No prob.

But there is such a big difference between how Biden handled this v say how Washington handled the Whiskey Rebellion (pardoning the two convicted of treason and sentenced to death)

Or how Hamilton, in Federalist 74, wrote about why the pardon powers of the Exec should be the way they are:
But the principal argument for reposing the power of pardoning in this case [specifically treason] to the Chief Magistrate is this: in seasons of insurrection or rebellion, there are often critical moments, when a welltimed offer of pardon to the insurgents or rebels may restore the tranquillity of the commonwealth; and which, if suffered to pass unimproved, it may never be possible afterwards to recall.

Biden is no Washington or Hamilton. Not a surprise there. But I have not read one single article, from anyone who purports to understand the constitution or originalism, making the case for why the pardon power of the Prez should have been used. Not one. So I guess we the people deserve the manure we elect now.

[sarcasmic]

Apples and oranges.

One group rebelled against a tax that harmed their livelihood. Very American of them.

The other tried to overturn a fucking presidential election. That’s not very American.

I see nothing in common between the two situations. Nothing at all. One was people responding to a tax that caused them real harm by prohibiting small-scale distilling which was how they'd preserve old grain and something they could use for trade, which is prohibited to this day. The other was a bunch of suckers believing lies from a crybaby who doesn’t want to give up power.

So I see no reason to compare reactions either.

[JFree]

Those that Washington pardoned were convicted of treason and sentenced to death. That is far more serious than any J6 conviction.

The federalist paper pardoning rationale is very similar to J6 imo. in seasons of insurrection or rebellion, there are often critical moments, when a welltimed offer of pardon to the insurgents or rebels may restore the tranquillity of the commonwealth; and which, if suffered to pass unimproved, it may never be possible afterwards to recall.

Well-timed pardon offers to the idiot group of J6 would have imo eliminated much of Trump’s continued election shitstirring. It would have created a notion that Biden was going to be the US Prez not the D Prez. The minute they themselves realized that they were suckers and did stupid stuff – a pardon works a fuckload better than a decade or six in prison - to restore the tranquillity of the commonwealth.

[sarcasmic]

I’m saying the two situations are uncomparable.

On the one hand the government is depriving people of income and they’re righteously angry, and on the other whiners are defending a crybaby who doesn’t want to give up power, and trying to overthrow the government while they're at it.

There is no comparison.

[ducksalad]

I think JFree’s got the better case here.

On one side, those Whiskey Rebellion guys didn’t get treason charges for refusing to pay the tax. They got the charges for an attack on a federal facility.

And on the other side, if you’re saying taxes are a better reason to attack, then the J6 guys could truthfully say they believed Biden was going to tax them more than Trump. Even I believed that.

If Biden had pardoned them, I don't think anyone would have interpreted it as vindication of what they did. It would clearly be seen as a let's-forgive-and-move-on gesture.

[JFree]

Biden could've chosen to see his role as Prez of the US - those who voted for him as well as those who didn't want him to be Prez. Instead he chose - poorly.

It's not unique to Biden. We've been electing partisan Prez' for a long time - who view other Americans as an 'enemy' - who view their side as the 'winners' who need to make the 'losers' really lose.

[sarcasmic]

And on the other side, if you’re saying taxes are a better reason to attack, then the J6 guys could truthfully say they believed Biden was going to tax them more than Trump. Even I believed that.

Oh come on. People routinely made alcohol from old grain and used it like currency. That tax destroyed commerce and preservation of old farm products. It was total dick.

Equivocating that with complaining about taxes on the margins is just dumb.

It would clearly be seen as a let’s-forgive-and-move-on gesture.

Blind haters operating in bad faith wouldn’t accept it as such. You think Jesse or ML will ever accept anything I say? All judgement is based upon who, not what.

[ducksalad]

Blind haters operating in bad faith wouldn’t accept it as such. You think Jesse or ML will ever accept…

In the real world most people aren’t Jesse or ML. Not even Jesse and ML themselves. In the real world the way they engage here isn’t compatible with being married or having a job.

Anyway, the point would not be to get people to change their mind. It would be to make that particular grievance moot and force them to move on to some other issue.

[Fire up the Woodchippers! (5-30 Banana Republic Day)]

Sarc translated: “They supported Trump. So they gotta burn! Especially that fucking Jesse! Aaaaaaaarrggghhhhh!”

[EscherEnigma]

Yeah, I don't buy this.

Maybe if justice in the US didn't move at a snail's pace, but with what we currently have, we're almost four years out and there are still J6 trials going on.

If the DOJ had been able to round 'em up and try 'em in a few weeks, then sure. That strategy could maybe have worked. But not after months and in some cases years of working through the system, especially with the appeals and going to the SCOTUS on random details, etc. and so-on.

No, the justice system just doesn't work clean enough for that kind of tactic now.

[EscherEnigma]

Nah. I've been lurking and commenting here since Obama. Trump made y'all way more deranged, sure, but y'all have always been a pissy bunch.

[Red Rocks White Privilege]

Nah. Trump made your side so deranged you're talking about putting people in prison for "spreading misinformation." Your side never was able to conceptualize resistance to your historic determinism.

[B G]

It won't mean that trump is justified to treat the opposing party how he was treated by their operatives, but it is amusing to hear all the Blue-anon pols and chattering classes get so twisted around the idea that in doing so he'd somehow be introducing "fascism" into the governance of the country.

Sort of like how he "turned us into" a country where kids in cages was possible, and the immediate pivot to how it was irrelevant that the photo which motivated all the activists was taken in 2014 and suppressed by the media for three years "to avoid embarrassment" to the Obama administration.

I've never considered trump to be worthy of office, and still don't. I didn't vote for him in 2016, or 2020, and won't in 2024. Somehow, the simple-minded ideologues out there would still call me some kind of "apologist" for him just for attempting to put some attention onto the fact that what's been done in the name of stopping the "existential threat" to the republic has undeniably done far more actual damage than any one individual ever could manage with two terms as President (assuming there actually was an agenda to deconstruct the Republic), and that the damage being done in the fighting against trump is compounded by the fact that the "fourth estate" who are supposed to be holding the political class accountable have largely been active participants in the creeping Orwellianism.

[SIV]

Worth noting that the most successful Libertarian Party candidate in history, Gary Johnson, ran as pro-war and anti-drug legalization.

That's not a good sign.

[ducksalad]

Hard to tell these days whether commenters are being sarcastic or are gaslighting.

You do know that his two *central* campaign themes were legalization and drastically reducing involvement in foreign wars.

[SIV]

GayJay said he supported "humanitarian" wars not in the US' interest and opposed legalizing any prohibited drug other than marijuana.

Contrary to the LP platform which is what he was distancing himself from.

[ducksalad]

I don't recall any specific humanitarian war he favored. He was certainly against Libya and Syria.

But I was comparing him to one candidate who was point woman on Libya and a big fan of Iraq, and another candidate who was acting like he was a fan of John Bolton, Michael Flynn and an open-ended global war on Islam.

Same with drugs. Someone campaigning on legalizing marijuana versus a guy who was calling for extrajudicial killing of kingpins and a woman who kept falsely pushing the gateway theory as a reason to oppose legalization.

But I guess some people have a theory that if you can't have perfection, you've got to vote for its polar opposite.

[Wizzle Bizzle]

What is Aleppo?

[B G]

That definitely wasn't a winning moment for him. Ironically, as President, he'd have departments of people whose job is literally to tell him what/where Aleppo is and what its significance was/is.

Hopefully he'd have picked someone other than the initial round of DNC/CNN/MSNBC "experts" who jumed in with several incorrect explanations of the stategic importance of Aleppo at that time in the Syrian Civil War. The credentialed "authorities" initially came forward to explain that the city which was actually the principal stronghold of Abbas was actually controlled by and used as a HQ for the ISIS-aligned rebel factions.

It didn't lead to any kind of vindication for Johnson. It's not as if the DNC-aligned (or GOP-aligned) media were going to acknowledge that considering the intelligence and research assets available to the President, that it could be an asset to "know what he doesn't know" and rely on advisors who are there for the purpose of (in theory, at least) making sure that the decision makers have as much information as possible to inform those decisions; a President who thought that Aleppo was held by the wrong faction and didn't think to ask for current information about it would hardly be making a good decision except maybe by accident.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

McDonalds might not still have 40 year old employment records, but shouldn't Social Security?

[sarcasmic]

The other day I was thinking they could just pull up her old taxes. It’s not like government ever throws information away.

[Red Rocks White Privilege]

Depends on whether they kept copies of the W2s or not. We all get that statement with our income history, but that just means some beancounter at the IRS put the numbers in the database.

[sarcasmic]

A database that more than likely contains the information that will settle this ridiculously stupid argument.

[ducksalad]

Why would anyone want to settle it?

It helps both of them solidify their bases. It's more or less exactly a replay of the birth certificate in 2008.

[B G]

IRS would be the agency that kept any W2s and archived 1040s on file. If records from 40 years ago were retained, they're in a cardboard box in a stack of cardboard boxes in a warehouse that looks something like the one at the end of Raiders of the Lost Ark, except with file boxes in place of wooden crates.

[SIV]

No one who matters believes Kamala Harris ever worked there.

AKA would have booted Kamala's 75% Caucasian ass out for that.

[B G]

Thinking that the question of whether or not she actually worked at a McDonalds is a reason to vote one way or the other should be grounds for ruling a person mentally ineligible to vote at all.

If there are enough people nationwide who care that much about the issue to fill the back seat of a Mini Cooper, I'd be amazed anyway.

[Don't look at me!]

Maybe that will be the October surprise.

[Kungpowderfinger]

McDonalds might not still have 40 year old employment records, but shouldn’t Social Security?

They’re state secrets, like the remaining sealed JFK assassination documents, and Obama’s college transcripts.

[EscherEnigma]

Do you guys argue about this everday?

[Red Rocks White Privilege]

No more than you make up nonsense questions to play dumb. Especially for someone who's supposedly been commenting here since Obama.

[B G]

Not if the franchise was in Montreal.

Even for US income, SS records might only indicate the gross wages for the year. Since there's no ongoing employer obligation beyond the current-year payroll tax, there's not much reason for SS to keep detailed records about which employer(s) paid the wages and taxes in question.

[markm23]

If she worked for "McDonalds", she probably actually worked for a franchisee. If the IRS or SSA still has the records, her W2 won't say the employer is McDonalds, it will be some obscure corporation that hasn't existed for decades, and it will only show how much she was paid, not whether she got around minimum wage or worked just a few hours a week at much higher pay for a job obtainable only with the influence of wealthy parents.

Normally I wouldn't question someone's word if they said their first job was at McDonald's about 50 years ago. Nearly all of us started in some menial job. It's just that she and Walz lied about nearly everything else...

When I first heard about this, I thought "Could I prove I worked the 6 PM to closing shift washing dishes for Shields' Restaurant on East Bay in Traverse City in the summer of 1973?" There's a web page remembering the place, but I think it's been out of business for decades, and the owners must be dead of old age long ago. I'm pretty sure the W2 said "Shields", but I sure haven't kept tax records from before I started doing them on a computer, and if I had, they'd have burned up in a house fire. If the IRS kept detailed enough tax records this long, and IF I could get them, it should have my W2 and/or records of tax withholding by the restaurant. But it wouldn't show what job I did there.

There's a second way that _might_ confirm or disprove her story. Has she given specifics of where the restaurant was and when she worked there? If so, maybe other former employers can be found, and maybe they can remember working with her, or not.

Even then, it's no guarantee. I have those specifics, but I'm doubtful that anyone would remember me after all that time. I can only remember four names from the place, I'm sure 3 of them are dead, and I'd be very surprised if the 4th one remembers me. I guess I could slightly describe three others from one or two dozen dishwashers that came and went - the Cherokee, the fat girl that wanted to start a girls' football team, and the fat boy that hadn't even worked three nights when he took the trash out and never returned.

But somehow I suspect that Kamala's been as short on the details as Christine Blasey Ford, when she made damn sure that Kavanaugh could not produce an alibi even if he had a dairy recording every move he made for an entire year.

[Zeb]

What a retard. The Cheneys are like anti-libertarians. The worst of both parties wrapped up in a neat package.

[Wizzle Bizzle]

There needs to be a parallel to Godwin's Law wherein using the word "retard" in an argument means you immediately won the argument.

[Think It Through]

Having broken with Trump over the former president's (admittedly loathsome) attempts to remain in power following his 2020 election loss

Essay Question
Please list what those attempts were, devoting 1-2 paragraphs to each, and what was "loathsome" about them.
Then, compose a second section comparing/contrasting those efforts to the efforts of other persons in previous elections who did not believe or accept the official ballot results, starting with the Venezuelan election of 2024.

[ducksalad]

Let's skip to the summary, you don't really want 20 paragraphs.

Donald Trump and Nicolas Maduro are both men who dishonestly claimed to have won elections when it was obvious to everyone that they'd lost. Both tried to cling to power. US institutions are more robust than Venezuelan institutions, also Trump is weaker and less competent than Maduro. Therefore, Trump failed and Maduro succeeded.

[EscherEnigma]

Uh, nonsense court cases to throw out votes and assign him the winner with no evidence.
Calls to stop counting votes in multiple places.
Attempts to pressure state officials to commit ballot fraud.
Attempts to pressure states to send electors to support him regardless of losing the states.
Organizeing a riot to storm the capitol building while the vote was on-going.
Egging on his supporters to lynch Pence.
Getting his own supporters killed by encouraging them to attack congress.

In comparison to other Americans, Stacy Abrhams and Hilliry Clinton pouted a little, and Bob Dole sued for a recount.

So yeah. Months of chaos, death threats flowing every which way (some of which lead to Guilliani getting sued for defamation), having to sit through the absurdity of "the voting machine magnetized me!", his own followers killed and branded as felons, all for his own ego.

And the contrast is pouting women and a lawsuit that, unlike Trump's 40+, was actually understandable.

[Michael Ejercito]

Organizeing a riot to storm the capitol building while the vote was on-going.
He never did that.

[Dillinger]

>>(admittedly loathsome)

you lose me every time you choose the fork that says douchcanoe.

[Minadin]

Paul has maintained that he prefers Trump to Harris, but is unenthusiastic about the former president given Trump's broken promises on reining in spending.

Harris is far, far worse on 'reining in spending'. What was her administration's most recent proposed annual budget? 7.2 trillion?

[Use the Schwartz]

It's been bugging me for weeks, but I finally realized why Walz looks familiar to me.

He looks like Spike the Bulldog from Tom and Jerry.

[sarcasmic]

Don Rickles

[Don't look at me!]

Ideas™ !

[Dillinger]

lol you found a thing that would insult Don Rickles. fabulous.

[tracerv]

Droopy Dog.

[Wizzle Bizzle]

My dick in its refractory period. (Emphasis on the period)

[RUSHER]

Having lived in Minnesota during Walz’s first term as Governor, the fact he’s clueless about Libertarians is hardly surprising. To say he’s not the bright bulb on the tree is to overstate his intellect.

[ducksalad]

The Cheneys "give permission" for me to vote for Harris?

Nice to know but too late. Already early voted, straight ticket Libertarian wherever we had a candidate.

For House there was no L candidate and I was going to vote for the R (Monica de la Cruz) since the D (Michelle Vallejo) is full-up Squad material. But then the day before voting I heard two de la Cruz ads. On the Tejano station she bragged about wanting to expand the Affordable Care Act; while on the talk radio station she called herself a "God and Country" conservative. Disqualified for each ad alone and for the dishonesty of trying to play it both ways.

[gnome]

You wasted your time or you wasted your vote, not that it matters.

[Incunabulum]

Soave, Walz doesn't GAF about libertarians. *Libertarians* DGAF about libertarians.

[Incunabulum]

>Having broken with Trump over the former president's (admittedly loathsome) attempts to remain in power

What attempts? When did this happen? I haven't heard anything in the news about this.

[EdWard]

Whenever Walz speaks on a subject I know a bit, he's always wrong.

[Michael Ejercito]

I heard a rumor that libertarians are not into COVID snitch lines.

[Wizzle Bizzle]

You heard wrong.

[DesigNate]

Considering there have been multiple studies that show Democrats can’t even grok the basics of their political opponents positions or reasoning, this does not surprise me.

[Strider]

Walz's comments were not meant for libertarians. His comments were preaching to the choir. Or should I say, the Democratic Party's version of "ditto heads." Suggesting that Liz Cheney could bring libertarians to Harris is simply a stupid idea meant for stupid people to absorb.

[arpiniant1]

Way to deliberately misinterpret a comment and run with it.
Walz was making the point that people who fundamentally disagree with Harris view her as better than traitortrump.
No libertarian with two brain cells to rub together would support trump, but they would support Harris to keep the Republic together

Vote for the person you disagree with so you can argue another day

Oh, and tea party bobbleheads are not libertarians. They are right wing authoritarians if you haven't notices, they are all MAGA now

[Uomo Del Ghiaccio]

Minnesota Governor Tim Walz has no clue of what makes libertarians and independents tick. The reality is that support by the extreme neo-con warmongering Cheney family is a repellent for libertarian and the majority of independents.

For me current Biden regime Vice President Kamala Harris picking Tim Walz as her Vice President candidate is a profound negative compounded upon the utter revolting way that she became the candidate and her record.

I hate former President Donald Trump, but abhor the thought of Kamala Harris becoming President. Neither got my vote and neither deserved my vote, but the team of Harris/Walz is a poison pill and Trump/Vance is preferable with Vance being the only semi-redeeming one out of the four.

[bacchys]

Calling Massie and Paul "liberty-minded Republicans" shows this article is a joke written by a clown.
out the liberty of people like themselves.

Seeing a bunch of MAGAts in the comments section think they know what libertarians think is also very funny.

[Vesicant]

Nobody knows what a libertarian is, especially the libertarians. And the rest of us don't give a rat's patootie.

[AT]

I think we can all agree that if there’s one thing we know about them, it’s that they need to take more showers. And use deodorant.