MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Gary Johnson Wins Libertarian Nomination

After narrowly missing on first ballot, the 2012 presidential nominee sails through on second; tough VP ballot awaits.

In a decisive rout for pragmatism over purity, the Libertarian Party has nominated former New Mexico governor and 2012 nominee Gary Johnson for president. Johnson came within an eyelash of winning on the first ballot, pulling 49.5 percent of the vote, just short of the required majority. (Libertarian activist Austin Petersen and software magnate John McAfee came in second and third, respectively, with 21.3 percent and 14.1 percent.) With sixth-place finisher Kevin McCormick (and his 0.973 percent of the vote) booted from the second ballot, Johnson sailed through with 55.8 percent.

The nomination comes on the heels of a nationally televised presidential debate in which Johnson was booed several times on questions ranging from the Iranian nuclear deal to the necessity of having a driver's license. Darryl Perry, who was seen as the "Libertarian candidate for the Libertarian nomination," and whose vibe was well represented among the debate audience, received just 6.8 percent and 5.6 percent of the two ballots.

Stay tuned to this space for more coverage! You can also watch the forthcoming vice-presidential vote (which promises to be contentious, and will start at around 2 p.m. ET) on C-SPAN (livestream here), or follow my Twitter feed. Johnson insisted in his victory speech that he needs his pick William Weld to win the VP nomination in order to cross the 15 percent polling threshold, and therefore qualify for the presidential debates. With Weld in the picture, Johnson said at a press conference just now, "I would find it difficult to be excluded from these polls."

My interview with Gary Johnson this weekend:

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they 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 for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

On select articles, Reason is testing a new comment promotion feature developed by SolidOpinion. Commenters can purchase points and bid to promote their comments and/or the comments of others. Winning comments are displayed at the top of the comment thread for each article, and are identified as “promoted comments.” Point purchases and bidding are handled SolidOpinion. Please send any questions and feedback to promoted-comments@reason.com.

  • DenverJ||

    I am shocked. Shocked, I tells ya.
    Also, first.

  • Chipper Morning Wood||

    Not a valid first comment. How do we know what you are shocked about? This could apply to any article and is just the type of thing a bot would say.

  • DenverJ||

    DenverBot

    Also, Fist should change his handle to FirstofEtiquette

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    I've spent too much to build up my brand. It would be like McDonalds suddenly changing its name to FuckYouFatties.

  • McFuckYou (née commodious)||

    Boom.

  • Suicidy||

    Or...'Fisted by Ettiquette'

  • ||

    It used to be that, in the Old Times. He denies it to you millennials, now.

  • Ted S.||

    Your winnings, sir.

  • mfckr||

    Figures. Guess Libertarians can find a non-LP candidates, or sit this one out.

    #NeverJohnson

  • Chipper Morning Wood||

    Too late for #NeverJohnson. But there is still time for #Don'tWeldTheJohnson

  • Suicidy||

    That's a real conundrum for Rosie O'Donnell. Which to choose? #NeverJohnson, or #NeverTrump?

  • C. Anacreon||

    That's a Whole Lotta Rosie.

    /AC-DC

  • McFuckYou (née commodious)||

    Yep, staid and sensible and not at all wacko is the core of Libertarianism's appeal.

  • Hamster of Doom||

    I have a theory. AM is actually a decent and deeply sarcastic person who often means the opposite of what he says. This is not a theory I've tested widely yet, but he's starting to grow on me.

  • C. Anacreon||

    I think just about everything posted on this board is sarcastic, you beautiful wonderful person you.

  • McFuckYou (née commodious)||

    Don't be a dick, you twat.

  • Pompey (91% LOLLOLZ)||

    AddictionMyth is great when not prattling on about addiction crap.

  • CE||

    Glad they went with Johnson. There really is a chance to win this year, but only with a mainstream candidate. McAfee would have been fine though, and pulled record numbers for the LP (3 percent maybe). Petersen is completely unqualified.

  • DenverJ||

    I was hoping for McAfee. If the LP can't out-crazy the Donkephants, then it's not really the LP.
    Oh well, we still have the Orange Clown, The Commie, and The Felon to keep us entertained.

  • SIV||

    #NeverJohnson

    Trump may be the best pro-liberty alternative. He's less interventionist than Johnson and reducing our entangling alliances and military presence abroad is central to his foreign policy. The Billionaire real estate magnate has a 20+ year history of publicly calling for ending the drug war by legalizing all drugs as, something he's understandably downplayed during his run for the presidency.

    I'll have to look into the Constitution Party candidate as well.

  • Suicidy||

    Smuggling is always illegal. And let's be honest, most of that shit would go away if smack were legal to begin with.

  • mfckr||

    Agreed, Trump is arguably the best pro-liberty candidate available. He also isn't shilling for "carbon emission reductions" like GJ did yesterday.

    And the Constitution Party guy seems very sharp from an article I read this morning: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....10720.html

  • mfckr||

    I think you're delusional.

  • Suicidy||

    You have to remember, it's very hip here to froth at the mouth with hatred towards Trump.

  • mfckr||

    I'm well-aware.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Trump is TEAM RED! like many of the posters here.

    How dare you doubt the sincerity of the "libertarians" who post on this site!

  • ||

    Humm, look who suddenly shows up after his sock puppet got revealed. FAIL!

  • Chipper Morning Wood||

    Which username was a sock puppet?

  • Pat (PM)||

    Trump is TEAM RED! like many of the posters here.

    Only about 8%

  • Jickerson||

    Trump has advocated for Internet censorship, is fine with the government stealing people's property, has mocked Edward Snowden (and therefore is likely no fan of whistleblowers or getting rid of mass surveillance), is a warmonger, wants to steal people's money to waste on border nonsense, isn't against the drug war, and generally scoffs at the notion of limited government. A real pro-liberty candidate, that one.

  • ||

    Trump may be the best pro-liberty alternative.

    I... can't.... even....

  • mfckr||

    I guess getting the US out of entangling international alliances and corporatist trade agreements is no longer pro-liberty? Lol, some of you people are so gone.

  • mfckr||

    I don't see that statement as very worrisome. I'd only worry about if it happens to turn into comprehensive legislation. But I very much doubt Trump is going to turn into any kind of mass gun grabber.

  • mfckr||

    ERMAGERD FASCISM Y'ALL

    More delusional shit. Euthanize yourself.

  • PapayaSF||

    I am not sure that institutionalizing the mentally ill counts as "fascism," or that having them homeless on the streets counts as "liberty."

  • mfckr||

    Consider it a constructive criticism on your existence.

  • Rhywun||

    Much better to have crazy people on the streets randomly slashing people and pushing them in front of subway trains.

  • ||

    Indeed, Hamas in Tel Aviv and ISIS in Londonstan both agree.

  • Agammamon||

    I agree - that is a far better option than to have a small group of unaccountable 'experts' with the authority to lock anyone up at any time if they're deemed an 'imminent and ongoing' (heh, governmentspeak) threat to themselves and others and the incentive structure is such that they face no censure for pulling the trigger on those lockups but severe reputational penalties if the don't.

    IOW, crazies wandering the subway are less dangerous to you than men who live by the 'its for your own good' principle.

  • C. Anacreon||

    Where again in the US are people locked up due to 'unaccountable experts'? You do realize that the involuntary mental health system is heavily weighted towards patient's rights, with multiple hearings in front of judges/hearing officers/magistrates at every step of the process. And different parts of the hospital care receive different hearings in many states, so you can end up with the bizarre situation that someone has been judged unable to leave the hospital, but able to refuse all hospital treatment (so they are effectively incarcerated for no reason, as they cannot be treated to improvement so they can leave).

    And no damage to the reputation? Ask any physician who sees psychiatric patients about families who threaten them, go to the TV stations/news media and hire attorneys because the doctor felt the patient did not meet criteria to be involuntarily hospitalized and discharged them. Or google psychiatric hospitals and the term 'revolving door' and see the many different scathing articles about how psych hospitals 'don't keep people long enough to get them appropriate care'.

    Hospitals and doctors are seen as evil if they keep people OR if they discharge them. Damned if you do or don't.

    The reason so many acutely mentally ill people are wandering in the subway is precisely because it is so hard to force them into treatment, and there is no incentive or penalty for doing the opposite as you suggest. We don't have gulags here, either. You are way off base on this one.

  • Rhywun||

    I would agree in principle but what is your answer to crazy people maiming and killing random strangers? Just deal with it?

  • Robert||

    Simple: Don't be a stranger. Isn't that what people always say anyway?

  • Rhywun||

    GEORGE: Name tags! Name tags! What kind of an idiot thinks anybody would be interested in an idea like that.

    FRANK: I don't think it's so bad. People should wear name tags. Everyone would be a lot friendlier. "Hello, Sam." "How are you doing, Joe?"

  • Jickerson||

    That is significantly better than government intervention. The ends don't justify the means.

  • SIV||

    The Libertarian Party just sacrificed all its principles in nominating a RINO-lite hack.

    Enjoy your Nazi cake, statist. You can pay the Jewish baker you forced to bake it with your FairTax "prebate" welfare check.

  • tarran||

    Are you really sure that Trump is pro legalizing cock-fighting, Mr Single Issue Voter?

  • SIV||

    The one thing in Gary Johnson's favor is that cockfighting remained perfectly legal through his two terms as New Mexico's governor. Trump has never spoke out against it.

  • Chipper Morning Wood||

    [Shrugs. Starts cutting up delicious Nazi cake.]

    Who wants a slice?

  • AlmightyJB||

    Raises hand! I want zionist ice cream on top.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I want zionist ice cream on top.

    Do you care what flavor of Ben and Jerry's?

  • Ted S.||

    Who needs 31 flavors, anyway?

  • AlmightyJB||

    El duche

  • AlmightyJB||

    El Dulce de leche

  • Pompey (91% LOLLOLZ)||

    *polite applause*

  • Jerryskids||

    The GOP candidate is always the best alternative to the Democrat. I've been hearing that shit all my life and now that you've got yourselves a bona-fide, no joking Democratic clown complete with the fright wig and the tiny hands and the pancake make-up and the stream-of-consciousness nonsense-spewing as your candidate you expect me to swallow the same shit I didn't swallow when it was Bush or Dole or Bush or McCain or Romney? Get the fuck out of here you troll.

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    Trump may be the best pro-liberty alternative.

    1. Anti-free trade, which is harmful to everyone who isn't a domestic factory worker

    2. Pro-bombing the shit out of anyone who looks at us funny and committing war crimes

    3. Pro-militarized border and anti-civil liberties with respect to people accused of crimes. Imagine an FBI under AG Chris Christie.

    In short, you're a dumbshit and are not a libertarian by any reasonable definition of the term.

  • mfckr||

    1. TPP/NAFTA/etc. are not free trade.

    2. Withdrawing from NATO and other pointless overseas deployments is a good thing. Also not aping for a 2nd Cold War with Russia like the US govt is currently doing.

    3. Fuck open borders, they're a violation of property rights & free association. Clean up the welfare state 1st, and then maybe it'd be worth talking about.

  • Agammamon||

    As far as #1 - no, the good is getting the government to realize that it has no role in 'free trade'. If its free trade then we don't need the government. The good is getting the government to stop protecting a minority of producers at the expense of the rest of us.

    That means rejecting TPP/NAFTA/etc as a whole because the goal is not 'an equal playing field' or any of the excuses used to make trade less free, the goal is *free trade*.

    By supporting TPP as 'better than what was before' we're sending the message that what's been done here is *legitimate*, but just not done well enough, when we should be running around with pitchforks and torches threatening the Senate building if these fuckers stick there nose where it doesn't belong again.

  • mfckr||

    What you said here.

  • Jickerson||

    We don't need more draconian copyright and patent rules, and neither does the rest of the world. The TPP is anti-freedom for this and other reasons.

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    1. TPP/NAFTA/etc. are not free trade.

    Never said they were, but starting a trade war with China because it's what blue collar workers want to hear is retarded on steroids.

    2. Withdrawing from NATO and other pointless overseas deployments is a good thing. Also not aping for a 2nd Cold War with Russia like the US govt is currently doing.

    Trump is utterly incoherent on foreign policy. He might pull out of NATO or he might start a war with China over some petty bullshit.

    3. Fuck open borders, they're a violation of property rights & free association. Clean up the welfare state 1st, and then maybe it'd be worth talking about.

    Oh look, it's another befuddle, impotent white dude who wants Big Daddy Trump to protect him from those dirty brown hordes.

    The largest number of people on welfare aren't blacks or Latinos, they're white trash. They're the reason we have a welfare state in the first place.

  • GILMORE™||

    Why is it that after 8 years of Obama, we still take presidential-candidate's "Campaign Rhetoric" and act like they are set-in-stone policy-promises which somehow are a better measure of a person's likely future manner of governance than their *actual previous policy track-records* (if they have one)

    Obama maybe gets the excuse of the latter point - he didn't have one.

    Clinton doesn't. And even Trump's got a long history of positions taken which belie a lot of his Primary Bluster.

  • mfckr||

    Depends on the candidate. The vast majority of humans don't support candidates based on their professed policy views. It's more about tribalism & visceral sentiments, rather than intellect.

    Intellect only enters the picture to rationalize the irrational sentiments; reasons are cherry-picked to justify the stance they already had anyway.

    Self-professed libertarians may be more unwilling to admit they're just as prone to this as nearly everyone else. They simply don't like Trump and would've have liked Trump no matter what he said.

  • mfckr||

    *would've never liked

  • DenverJ||

    See, and I'm the opposite. I fully acknowledge that I have a visceral hatred of HRC, and would vote for Satan himself if it would keep HRC out of the White House.

  • mfckr||

    Same tbh.

  • SIV||

    The largest number of people on welfare aren't blacks or Latinos, they're white trash. They're the reason we have a welfare state in the first place.

    What's with the racist non sequitur?

    The majority of welfare recipients are, by your own definition, non-white.
    An accurate claim, relevant to the immigration issue, is that in 2012 51% of immigrant households were on welfare while only 30% of native households were.

  • PapayaSF||

    I am always amused by the attempts to downplay immigrant crime and welfare usage by arguing about percentages. When you go grocery shopping, do you say: "Well, half the food in my fridge is rotting, so it's OK if half the food I buy today is rotting, because it doesn't change the percentages"?

    We have a moral and legal right to insist that immigrants not be a burden on the taxpayer. Millions want to come here, so we can afford to be picky.

    Also, I find it bizarre that so many libertarians are perfectly happy to go along with the explicit, often-stated plan of the left to make the US (and the UK, and Europe) more statist by importing people who believe in more statism (or whose existence requires more statism).

  • Robert||

    But won't that make the countries they come from less statist?

  • PapayaSF||

    Apparently not. Are Mexico, Honduras, Syria, and Libya getting less statist? Spreading victims around does not reduce the original infestation.

  • ||

    It's hard to tell with Honduras, their entire population are now here. How does no one get more statist? I'm thinking it must be the freest country on earth now.

  • GamerFromJump||

    On the contrary, having someone to offload people to provides a pressure valve that forestalls the inevitable collapse. And those people send money back to grab. Win-Win!

  • Agammamon||

    If they believed in more statism, then why did the disobey the state and leave?

  • mfckr||

    One can dislike a particular implementation of statism without being any less of an inherent statist.

  • PapayaSF||

    Statists prefer rich societies to leach off of, Agammamon. And you expect statists and socialists to be logical and consistent?

  • Chipper Morning Wood||

    Mfckr probably reads LRC on a daily basis. Seriously, those are some Rockwell talking points.

  • mfckr||

    I glance at it when I see a funny headline, but don't read it daily.

    It's true that people like Lew (and Ron Paul) were the ones who originally got me thinking about Libertarianism though.

  • Agammamon||

    3. Fuck open borders, they're a violation of property rights & free association. Clean up the welfare state 1st, and then maybe it'd be worth talking about.

    You've got that backwards. Borders are a violation of property rights and free association. If its wrong to freely travel between the US and Mexico, why is it not equally wrong to travel between Arizona and New Mexico? In both cases you are passing a border between independent governments. Why is it OK for me to trade freely with someone in NYC - over a thousand miles away - but not someone in San Luis, 10 miles away?

    There's a good argument to be made that open borders *and* a welfare state are a massive clusterfuck and should not be allowed - the major problem there is the *welfare state* and removing it removes the problems of an open border - but none of you xenophobics ever harp on that, welfare is just used an excuse to seal the borders.

    The problem being that once that wall is built and the guns are on top, its just as easy to turn them to face inwards as it is to have them face outwards.

  • mfckr||

    Freedom of association implies a right to exclude.

    The nation is essentially public property, ergo citizens absolutely have a right to dictate who shouldn't be able to traverse its borders.

    As a 'Libertarian purist', of course I naturally loathe the notion of public property, but this is the reality we live under. Throwing the borders of said property open effectively socializes it for the entire world.

    You rightly surmise that open borders & open welfarism is a suicide pact. Like I said, maybe we can talk about open borders once the welfare state is massively curtailed with all that perverse incentives it implies. But too many libertarians want open borders without resolving the accompanying welfare state issue. To which all I can think is, seriously, fuck you people.

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    But too many libertarians want open borders without resolving the accompanying welfare state issue. To which all I can think is, seriously, fuck you people.

    Oh, so it's libertarian to collectively guilt people who come here in search of a better life for the decisions made by non-immigrant Americans?

    What exactly is the end result going to be? We all know the system will collapse on its own, why do you want to forestall the inevitable by keeping out the immigrants if you're correct that they're just coming here to live off the government teat?

    Are you so delusional as to think that our fellow Americans would, in the absence of immigration, suddenly stop spending other people's money?

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    There's no reason to believe the 'system will collapse'. Odds are it will simply persist, and if it continues in its current policy form, it will consequently continue to erode at the quality of life for all Americans

    So it will erode the quality of life for all Americans and that won't at all inspire any sort of movement for change? How strange.

    You also have not explained how halting immigration will cause the welfare state to stop expanding.

    Only person who should be guilted is you for wanting to hold a gun to my head in support of this insanity.

    You can always leave the country. No one is forcing you to stay, you know.

  • mfckr||

    So it will erode the quality of life for all Americans and that won't at all inspire any sort of movement for change? How strange.

    It's inspiring change now—one of the primary drivers behind Trump's popularity is that many don't want open borders.

    You also have not explained how halting immigration will cause the welfare state to stop expanding.

    Never said both shouldn't be dealt with.

  • mfckr||

    You can always leave the country. No one is forcing you to stay, you know.

    I would if there are better alternatives available.

  • Agammamon||

    And you have a right to exclude - you just don't have a right to make that choice for me. And your right to exclude ends at your property line. Pubic is public.

  • mfckr||

    The public has a right to exclude. Open borders abrogates that right.

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    If the government has a right to keep people out does it not also have a right to keep people in?

    What if keeping people in were necessary to maintain living standards for Americans since apparently you feel that that alone is justification for people out rather than actual public safety?

  • mfckr||

    Dumb, senseless hypothetical. Nothing about property rights suggests that people shouldn't be able to leave the premises of their own property at will.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Nothing about property rights suggests that people shouldn't be able to leave the premises of their own property at will.

    -1 BOSTON STRONG

  • Pompey (91% LOLLOLZ)||

    +0, Is but isn't martial law.

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    Dumb, senseless hypothetical. Nothing about property rights suggests that people shouldn't be able to leave the premises of their own property at will.

    What about leaving the country? Can the government make you ask permission first before leaving?

  • ||

    They already do that. It's called a passport.

  • Intraveneous Woodchipper||

    "Pubic is public"

    .....Tell me more....;)

  • PapayaSF||

    Us "xenophobes" point out that first the welfare state has to go. Do that, and then we can talk about open borders. Until then, open borders undermine liberty, not preserve it.

  • Agammamon||

    That's funny, because *I* recall that its been me who's pointed that out to you, in several threads where you bemoan illegal immigration and open boarders and call for their closing - but where you've consistently failed to call for the reigning in of the welfare state even as you use its excesses to justify demanding more restrictions.

  • mfckr||

    I recall PapayaSF being pretty consistent in explicitly pointing out the incompatibility between open borders & open welfarism.

  • PapayaSF||

    Thank you, mfckr. I have always been in favor of reining in the welfare state. My objection is to the idea that the way to deal with the present problem of mass illegal immigration is to rein in the welfare state. It is simply impractical to think that's the solution. "Too many immigrants are on welfare, therefore, we are going to cut welfare for everyone, citizen or not." It just won't sell, politically.

  • GamerFromJump||

    1. Apparently the "Libertarian" view on trade is like Star Trek's view on treaties. The other guy does whatever the hell he wants, while the US must just be sad and not do anything because it would "violate the treaty".

    2. Indeed. Truthfully, the only real "obligations" we have are to Japan, since their ability to adequately defend themselves against the increasingly-belligerent China is blunted by law. A law they got nuked into accepting.

    3. Very much this, as well as the fact that enabling serfdom doesn't really allow market conditions to entail.

  • Jickerson||

    3. Fuck open borders, they're a violation of property rights & free association. Clean up the welfare state 1st, and then maybe it'd be worth talking about.

    This reminds me of, 'Get rid of the welfare state first, and then we'll talk about legalizing drugs.' In other words, we're restricting your freedoms in this way, so we also need to do it in this other way.

    The welfare state is the excuse of many authoritarians who want to pretend they are pro-liberty. We're just not ready for real liberty yet, guys. My freedoms should be limited simply because other people are on welfare. How nice.

    You know what else is a violation of property rights and free association? Government thugs robbing people at gunpoint so they can collect money to police the border. It's not as if the border is private property, either.

  • GILMORE™||

    Do you think Clinton is better on trade or Nat.Security?

    (i ignore immigration because i think its like abortion in the 1990s - something each party promises to do something drastic about but which actually never gets any federal legislation of significance at all other than some meddling at the margins to pretend they did something to appease their base)

    Because as bad as you think Trump is, the fact is that either he or Clinton is likely to be president.

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    Do you think Clinton is better on trade or Nat.Security?

    On trade, yes, absolutely. She has zero use or respect for Bernie's morons and isn't going to seriously entertain their anti-trade bullshit. She'll keep us on the same level we are now which isn't good but not as bad as Trump.

    On national security Clinton will be slightly more aggressive than Obama and will keep the US mired in the same Middle East quagmire as her two predecessors.

    I don't know what Trump would do but if he doesn't know what the nuclear triad is I don't think he should be given command over the United States military under any circumstances.

  • mfckr||

    I doubt any of them know what the nuclear triad is.

    Hell, Obama probably doesn't even know despite being briefed repeatedly on the matter.

  • CatoTheYounger||

    The billionaire you speak of used the government to gain his massive fortune by destroying private property, wishes to spend millions to eject 11 million workers from our economy, and wants to enact a tariff with China that would harm American consumers and move corporations overseas.

    Vote for whoever you like, but Trump is not "Pro-Liberty"

  • mfckr||

    "11 millions workers" lmao

  • Suicidy||

    They're illegals.

  • Agammamon||

    And illegals all sit around all day collecting their illegals checks, amirite?

  • PapayaSF||

    You seriously think all illegals work? You ignore the criminals (in and out of jail), and the stay-at-home illegal moms raising their anchor babies, who get welfare because they are counted as citizens.

  • Agammamon||

    So - reform the welfare state and your (and my) problems go away.

    And IME - I think the vast majority of illegals work. I live in the southwest. Half the Mexicans I know barely speak English - I would imagine that a large percentage of them are here illegally or plan to *become* illegals once their visas expire. And they're all working.

    IME its the *children* (of illegals and legals alike) that stop working. Because they saw daddy working 70 hours a week, has no insurance, a bad back and is still having to bust his arse while Uncle Sam is offering *them* 99 weeks of unemployment insurance.

  • mfckr||

    No question it tends to be the younger crowd soaking up bennies. Most older male Mexicans I've seen are indeed diligent workers.

  • PapayaSF||

    If we are going anecdotal, I regularly pass through neighborhoods which are turf for the Norteños and Sureños. Years ago I had to get a chest X-ray to check for TB, and the doctor explained that it was "epidemic" in SF due to illegal immigration. SF actually has a standard wallet card that they give you to show that you don't have TB.

  • CatoTheYounger||

    Workers, or consumers at least, if they don't work. But ignoring the economic implications of such a drastic proposal is insanity.

  • mfckr||

    Too bad for us they're a net cost rather than a net gain:

    http://www.fairus.org/DocServe.....013upd.pdf

  • Pompey (91% LOLLOLZ)||

    You go pick all that good damn fruit in California come harvest time. I fucking love "illegals." Murkins don't want sub-minimum wage shit jobs, fuck 'em.

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    Notice that when immigrants don't work and end up on welfare it's because they're lazy and culturally cancerous on American society.

    When white Americans don't work and end up on welfare it's because they're "demoralized".

  • Pompey (91% LOLLOLZ)||

    I love illegals. Why don't these various "net drag" studies ever even attempt to include a calculus showing to net fruit and vegetable harvesting? You already know why.

  • PapayaSF||

    Somehow, the country managed to feed itself before the mass influx of illegals. How was that possible?

  • GamerFromJump||

    So serf labor is a-ok if it keeps prices down?

  • Pompey (91% LOLLOLZ)||

    Market labor prices are now basically serfdom because jerbs. Got it, have a Bernie sticker, it suits you.

  • SIV||

    Destroying private property? Is that what you call building things on it?

  • CatoTheYounger||

    Yes, destroying private property, to build other private property. I.E. Eminent Domain, if you haven't figured that out yet.

  • SIV||

    When did Trump ever build anything on property seized by eminent domain?

  • CatoTheYounger||

    He didn't build anything of his, to my knowledge, but used ED to make his money. Google it. He's an ED abuser.

  • SIV||

    You claim it, cite it or STFU.

  • Slumbrew||

    used ED to make his money.

    That seems to be over-stating things, at best - googling around, it certainly looks like he happily would have used ED to acquire property but was thwarted in the courts in the case of Vera Coking & the Bridgeport deal falling apart. It's a tricky accusation since Trump can't, of course, use ED himself, but he's on record as being a fan of Kelo.

    "So, not a huge ED beneficiary but would happy to be so" is probably the best way to describe Trump (and I need to start just writing out Eminent Domain vs. ED, since now I have "Trump and Erectile Dysfunction" in the back of my mind, which is an image I need purged, pronto).

  • robc||

    He didnt own it. He is a ED abuser.

  • PapayaSF||

    I am amused by the ED attacks on Trump. Granted, he's not the libertarian ideal there, but is there any evidence he's worse than Hillary on that score?

  • ||

    Ah yes, the cancer that is "lesser of two evils", e.g. "You HAVE to support Hitler, he's the only one that can beat Stalin!" It's worked so well for America.

  • PapayaSF||

    For better or worse, we have (in practice) a two-party system, so lesser-evil voting makes perfect tactical sense.

  • Jickerson||

    It makes absolutely no sense, because it's the most shortsighted viewpoint imaginable. You only care about the elections that are going to happen in the immediate future, and not the long-term implications of voting for evil scumbags. All The One Party has to do to keep suckers voting for their candidates is to have one candidate be a bit more evil than the other, and bam, we have an endless cycle of elections where the candidates never get less evil and in fact occasionally get even more evil. There's simply no incentive for them to not be evil, since they stand to gain by doing so.

    The fact of the matter is, you need to attack one of the parties by using the perception of the spoiler effect. If they believe they are losing votes to a particular third party, they will be more eager to put forth candidates who would satisfy the people who would normally vote for said third party. And yes, that might mean The Evil Team will win several elections. Suck it up.

  • ||

    Hillary is worse, I have little doubt of that. I mean, it's not exactly an endorsement of Trump. Hillary is worse than Nixon, far more corrupt.

  • PapayaSF||

    Nixon would be aghast at the idea of setting up a foundation run by a Secretary of State who grants favors to foreign potentates and collects tens of millions in "donations." It's utterly brazen. The Clinton Cash documentary is another bombshell waiting to go off. And I'm not ruling out the FBI on that one, either. They are reading the book, and her emails.

  • CE||

    Trump is pro-trade war, pro-cop, pro-Patriot Act, pro-war on drugs, anti-First Amendment, anti-Fourth Amendment and pro tax-the-rich. He may be the least libertarian president ever if he wins.

  • PapayaSF||

    Nonsense. Obama takes that crown. Not that Trump is also pro-Second Amendment, and anti-government regulation.

  • TapDancingXenomorph||

    I preferred Petersen, but Johnson will get my vote regardless -- whatever problems I have with him, the alternatives are far worse. Well done sir.

  • LBR Love||

    I preferred Petersen too, and I was frankly a little disappointed with Reason on the topic of the LP nominee. It is not as though they were shilling for Johnson - some articles were negative in tone - but they mentioned him much more frequently. In politics, name recognition (not associated with formal charges) is a form of mnemonic endorsement.

    I will likely cast a vote for Gary Johnson, but many of his positions are party-styled pragmatism and not true libertarianism.

  • LBR Love||

    When he gets 1% in the general election, it seems like a very weak reason to speak almost exclusively about him. In an election featuring Barack Obama and a stiff in a tailored suit, one might reasonably expect more.

    Moreover I am not arguing that most (if not all) major news outlets do it. But this is a year in which the Libertarian Party could make real strides, perhaps even getting on a debate stage with the two-headed debacle. I would just expect Reason to be more balanced, particularly since they have a potential dog in the fight.

  • Suicidy||

    Now that Johnson is the nominee, expect articles like "The Libertarian Case for Hillary Clinton".

  • mfckr||

    I feel like the commentariat has preempted them enough on this, that they won't give in now to our prophetic accusations.

    Maybe if Hillary wins they'll come out with a Libertarian apologia for her. Gotta keep hope alive for the vaunted Libertarian Moment.

  • DenverJ||

    Trump is about to address Rolling Thunder.

  • ||

    It's going to be like the Rolling Stones and Hells Angels all over again.

  • DenverJ||

    Cool, that'll be fun to watch. But I really don't see the anti-trump protestors having the balls to take on a bunch of vets.

  • ||

    I am curious to see if the retards are going to show up and throw stuff at the bikers. Is this thing being televised or streamed anywhere?

  • DenverJ||

    Fox News keeps saying they are going to show it. From the way they were talking, I thought it was up next, but now I don't know when it is going to be.

  • DenverJ||

    2:30 EST

  • DenverJ||

    It's on right now if anybody cares

  • DenverJ||

    Trump "We must rebuild our 'decimated' military."
    Trump "I agree with Bernie Sanders on trade."

  • DenverJ||

    Trump "We will allow vets to go to a private doctor, and the government will pay for it."

  • Suicidy||

    That idea has been floated by a number of people for awhile now. So? It beats vets dying while waiting endlessly for VA doctors to perform time sensitive procedures.

    Or is it just bad because Trump said it?

  • mfckr||

    It's because Trump said it.

    Whereas if Johnson said it, these people would be extolling that Johnson was making bold, pro-market centered reforms of the VA.

  • ||

    I've got bad news for the vets. Unless they can afford concierge doctors, they still might die waiting, thanks to the ACA. Now we know why it's cheaper, you're never going to see the doctor. See, cheaper.

  • GamerFromJump||

    Right, because it just stuck on another bureaucratic layer, and the doctors still aren't getting paid.

    The "Right Angle" (Formerly PJTV's "Trifecta") guys made a good point. There are businesses everywhere with signs that say "We accept EBT". They are competing for, essentially, the government's business. You don't see EBT card holders waiting months for groceries.

    Obviously, the way to fix this is for vets to angrily demonstrate and issue thinly-disguised threats of riot. That seems to get the government moving.

  • DenverJ||

    Didn't say it was bad. Just reporting the major points before I got voted and stopped watching.
    I actually think it's a good idea, too.

  • DenverJ||

    "bored", not "voted"

  • ||

    I'll still vote for Johnson, reluctantly, if he doesn't have that east coast democrat lite on the ticket. WTF? Is the LP going to be just like the other 2 teams? Meet the new party, same as the old parties. Meh.

  • mfckr||

    They aren't that electable. And the LP shouldn't be striving for 'electable candidates' anyway except maybe on a local level.

  • Suicidy||

    No one here will. Most of the people here are ridiculous anyway.

  • CE||

    When the alternative is Trump-Clinton, the LP has by far the most electable candidate. Hopefully the voters realize that in time.

  • ||

    Yeah, I know, my vote will increase that 1.2% of the vote to 1.2000001%. I said I might vote for Johnson. But if he's running with Weld? I might as well vote for Romney. It's quite possible that Trump or Bernie might pick a more libertarian VP than that. They could do that without even trying.

  • mfckr||

    I suspect they'll end up giving him Weld anyway.

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    WTF? Is the LP going to be just like the other 2 teams? Meet the new party, same as the old parties. Meh.

    People keep saying this and I really, really don't see it. It's like complaining that the Libertarian Party under Johnson is vanilla paste and that makes it just as unpalatable as the shit-sandwich that is Hillary and the shard-of-glass Popsicle that is Trump.

    Not. The same. Thing

  • ||

    Sigh. One more time. I see I will have 4 choices.

    Hillary - crook

    Bernie - commie

    Trump - ???

    Johnson - (he took too many of the pots and is now delusional) and his Mitt Romney clone running mate.

    In conclusion - Meh

  • tarran||

    Is the LP going to be just like the other 2 teams?

    Why wouldn't they be? All political parties face similar incentives and pressures.

  • DenverJ||

    I'm starting to come around to that POV myself.

  • ||

    You don't know what Trump would do and neither does anyone else. It's a total unknown, the guy has never been in government before. Have you ever considered that everything he says is about getting elected? No one knows what Trump would do. For me, that's enough to not consider voting for him. But you're just talking bullshit, that's all.

  • ||

    And this is what I get for conversing with a moron.

  • BigT||

    "No one knows what Trump would do. For me, that's enough to not consider voting absolutely vote for him."
    The others are known to be evil. With Trump we got a chance.

    Plus, imagine the lulz watching him talk to various world leaders. "Hollande, you fukkin Commie, grow a pair and kill those terrorists." "Merkel, you're bleeding immigrants out of your ...wherever." "Putin, you schmuck, get your soldiers outta Crimea or you'll never see another dawn!"

  • Eman||

    Ive made the same argument, but in his favor (as opposed to Clinton)

  • 68sherm||

    In what sense is Trump a great businessman? He got big on massive bank loans that nearly cost him everything in the early 90s. His business today consists of collecting rent checks from stores in Manhattan and selling the right to use his name on buildings and golf courses. The businesses he wanted to run himself all went under. Trump Air, Television City, and Trump Taj Majal (bankrupted 6 months after opening) are testaments to his inability to handle deals and work within his means. Give that man the keys to the US treasury, and we're all screwed.

  • affenkopf||

    So are Libertarians know official just Republicans who smoke pot?

  • GILMORE™||

    Sauce cartridge extrapolation indemnity?

  • SIV||

    Gary Johnson doesn't smoke pot, he butt chugs it. Smoking is bad for you.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

  • affenkopf||

    Petersen just attacked Weldt in his concession speech. Based.

  • affenkopf||

    He's a cunt no doubt, but unlike Weld he is at least a libertarian cunt.

  • 68sherm||

    I'll believe he's a libertarian cunt when he's held a political office. It's easy to be a libertarian when all you have to do is bitch about government on the internet. When Austin Petersen gets elected to Congress and is expected to work with non-libertarians, we'll see what kind of libertarian he really is.

    Ideologues make for lousy leaders.

  • AlmightyJB||

    I think Peterson would make a good VP candidate

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Agreed.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Enough of them said, "Johnson is a candidate I can really see throwing my vote away for." Now onto the slow and fruitless march to debate inclusion.

  • CE||

    15 -11 = 4 percentage points. It won't be fruitless.

  • Chipper Morning Wood||

    WTF are you on about?

  • ||

    He's just spouting more bullshit, same as always.

  • 4schitzngrins||

    I'll never understand the Statler and Waldorf L/libertarians who'd rather remain part of an obscure debate club than push L/libertarian ideas/ideals into the mainstream. The "No True Scotsman" routine may help you sleep at night, but it guarantees that your ideas will NEVER be implemented on any level. Right now the LP is positioned better than it ever has been to break past the 5% & 15% barriers b/c the country is disgusted w/the 2 major parties & their BS candidates, & you'd rather sit on the sidelines & whine like a petulant child than help spread the L/libertarian vision to an unwashed populace that has been brainwashed into thinking that they only have 2 choices. So what that you didn't get your perfect candidate. If we don't take advantage of this window, we'll never get the opportunity again.

  • GILMORE™||

    I'll never understand the Statler and Waldorf L/libertarians who'd rather remain part of an obscure debate club than push L/libertarian ideas/ideals into the mainstream

    Its not a debate club.

    Pushing ideas into the mainstream mostly involves participating in the mainstream. Which the LP mostly doesn't. Most libertarians do their best 'outreach' work simply by interacting with the wider world.

  • mfckr||

    Pushing Libertarian ideas/ideals into the mainstream would require a capable Libertarian messenger. Johnson is neither a Libertarian nor a capable messenger. He's a goofy, incoherent, repulsively boring prog-lite who most people won't pay much attention to.

  • GILMORE™||

    pretty much.

  • Nick W B||

    And you are thinking they might be willing to take McAfee seriously? With the major party tickets we currently have, we don't need the most interesting man in the world routine. Those who want to support a crazy are already on the Trump train. All we need is to look reasonable in a debate between the two most hated presidential nominees ever.

  • mfckr||

    Anyone seeking 'reasonable' is already in Clinton's camp (she's fucking deranged of course, but presents an image otherwise).

  • CE||

    Exactly. Not only is Johnson more qualified than Trump-Clinton, he is more mainstream.

  • CatoTheYounger||

    Agreed. The Radical Caucus can shut up for this one election. I, for one, am not interested in having the one opportunity to potentially score it big wasted because some people can't tolerate a minor deviance from from the Libertarian Agenda that has to do fuck all with running a country.

  • mfckr||

    Because being a pro-interventionist, pro-regulation statist constitutes a 'minor deviation'.

  • CatoTheYounger||

    Johnson an interventionist? Last I heard, he wants to get out of the Middle East.

    His stance on regulations.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nELE799C3o

    A 43% cut and using regulations as they should be - to protect property rights - is not fundamentally anti-libertarian. Do you deny that property rights could be harmed if a corporation dumps chemicals in a river? Sure. But the EPA at least has deviated from this function. I think this was also covered by the Stossel debates.

  • mfckr||

    He was shilling for climate change regulations yesterday in the debate, so fuck him.

    I don't care what the specific minutia of his policies (as nobody should—specifics mean nothing until someone is in office and working with Congress).

    What matters right now is the general ideas a candidate subscribes to, and as said, fuck Gary Johnson for subscribing to climate change hokum.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "He was shilling for climate change regulations yesterday in the debate, so fuck him."

    You got a link for that?

  • mfckr||

    He said in the debate yesterday that he supports regulation for carbon emissions reductions.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "He did talk about the need to reduce CO2 output, but said it should be done via the market. But then he said the bankruptcy of coal was the market at work, so he just sounded tone deaf to the damage of over regulation."

    Co2 emissions in this country have continued to fall since 2007--to a level that's so low, we would have met our Kyoto goals if we'd signed the treaty. We did all of that without regulation.

    According to the Department of Energy, almost all of the drop in Co2 levels is attributed to the markets substituting natural gas for coal. Burning natural gas releases about 40% less Co2 than coal to produce the same amount of energy.

    If you care about Co2 emissions, then thank the market for cheap natural gas and fracking.

    Sounds like Johnson is very well informed on the issue. Certainly more so than other people in this thread who mischaracterize what he said.

  • DenverJ||

    And Ken comes in with the slap down! Facts! Figures! Logic! It's Brutal! FINISH HIM!

  • CatoTheYounger||

    Hear, hear.

  • Pat (PM)||

    We did all of that without regulation.

    Are you fucking daft? You're seriously suggesting there are no regs on coal? Good thing you've got a cadre of retards as pig fucking ignorant as you are to carry your water.

    Just to clue you guys in: part of the reason coal is so expensive "in the market" is because "the market" includes hundreds of thousands of pages of environmental regulation.

    Christ on a fucking crutch.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Are you fucking daft? You're seriously suggesting there are no regs on coal? "

    Did I say there weren't any regulations on coal?

    Natural gas is cheaper than coal--mostly because it's less labor intensive. It just doesn't take as much time and effort to pump gas out of the ground as it does to mine coal.

    The reason natural gas displaced coal was because market forces are such, and fracking made all that natural gas accessible when it wasn't before.

    In other words, the drop in CO2 emissions is due to market forces--not regulation. If anything, regulation has made fracking more expensive and natural gas more inaccessible. The gains natural gas has made have been in spite of that regulation--not because of it.

    So, Johnson is right to point out that market forces are responsible for dropping CO2 emissions, and if you think otherwise, then you are wrong.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Here: read this from the EIA (The statistics arm of the Department of Energy). You might learn something:

    "Declining carbon intensity of the energy mix since 2008 has contributed to a general decoupling of carbon dioxide emissions from economic growth

    The carbon intensity of energy supply began declining in 2008, in step with the recession that resulted in a two-year drop in per capita economic output.

    ----With recovery in the economy, GDP in 2014 exceeded pre-recession levels, but the carbon intensity of the energy supply has continued to decline.

    ----In prior years, with relatively flat carbon intensity, it was mainly declining energy intensity that kept CO2 emissions from rising as fast as the economy. Substitution of natural gas and renewable energy for coal in the electric power sector has contributed to the decline in carbon intensity of the energy mix since 2008.

    ----As a result of the recent decreases in the carbon intensity of the energy supply, the overall carbon intensity of the economy has begun to decline more than the decline in energy intensity of the economy.

    http://tinyurl.com/cwgnsop

    You also might read under the section entitled, "Increased use of natural gas and the growth in non-carbon generation have contributed to the decline in power sector carbon dioxide emissions since 2005", where they talk about the lower carbon intensity of natural gas relative to coal.

  • Ken Shultz||

    P.S. It's amazing how emphatic people who don't know what they're talking about can be.

    But you said there was no regulation on coal!!!

    No I didn't, asshole. I said the decline in CO2 emissions was mostly due to the power of markets. The declines happened in spite of regulation--certainly not because of them.

    You're just wrong--again.

  • SIV||

    5%? 15% ? WTF?

    The LP hasn't broke 1% since 1980.

  • CE||

    Trump-Clinton was never the bipartisan nominee before.

  • Libertarian||

    Maybe we need somebody named Koch for VP?

  • ||

    A libertarian is not going to get elected president, at least not for the next 2-3 decades, if the, and if the 2 party duopoly is broken. The only way to promote libertarian ideals is through media and getting more libertarians elected at the state and federal levels, especially congress. the POTUS race is not a realistic thing right now for libertarians. I would bet that by election day, not more than 5% of the voters will even know who Johnson is, let alone considering voting for him. Last election, every single person who asked me who I'm voting for, when I said Johnson, asked me who is that, they'd never heard of him, not even one person.

  • Nick W B||

    WTF is wrong with pragmatism? Can we stop being the crazy party for just 5 minutes? We might actually have a slight chance to matter this election, in which the major parties are about to nominate a Mussolini clone (except with much smaller hands) and someone would might be facing criminal charges for avoiding mandatory transparency requirements in her last job.
    Seriously, the election already has a parody of a conservative in Trump, and a parody of a lifelong politician in Clinton. What's wrong with not giving it a parody of a libertarian like McAfee?

  • CatoTheYounger||

    Absolute blasphemy. No Nazi Cake for you.

  • SIV||

    Can we stop being the crazy party for just 5 minutes?

    Not with a candidate who thinks bakers can and should be forced by the government to bake Nazi swastika cakes.

    Who "doesn't know" if we should have responded to the 1941 Axis attack on Pearl Harbor.

    Who wants a new 30% federal sales tax to fund a scheme in which every household receives a monthly transfer payment.

  • Hamster of Doom||

    Can we stop being the crazy party for just 5 minutes?


    You know what's really crazy? Doing the same thing over and over and over and fucking OVER again and expecting a different result. Now there's some crazy.

  • SIV||

    3 elections in a row the LP nominates washed up minor GOP pols.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Badnarik, Johnson, and Barr?

    I only count one washed up minor GOP pol.

  • SIV||

    2008: Barr

    2012: Johnson

    2016: Johnson

    3 elections in a row

  • Ken Shultz||

    Johnson wasn't washed up. He was term-limited out of office.

    He certainly isn't washed up because he lost the Presidential race running as a Libertarian. And you're counting him twice.

    Our chance to make a splash this year is by going after disaffected Republicans. Using former Republican governors to do that isn't unreasonable. In fact, snubbing Republican governors for being Republicans is no way to appeal to disaffected Republicans.

    P.S. The governor of New Mexico and the governor of Massachusetts are not minor pols. I'd rank them higher than Congressmen, generally speaking.

  • SIV||

    And you're counting him twice.

    WTF? Are you having some sort of neurological "event"?

    3 elections in a row the LP nominates washed up minor GOP pols.

    More than half the country has no idea there is even a US state called "New Mexico".

  • McFuckYou (née commodious)||

    That's just a joke New Mexicans tell.

  • ||

    Crazy is being exactly like the other 2 parties. Look, most people are going to think we're crazy just for being libertarians. That's just the way it is right now. Most people don't even know what that means, and they don't care. Look what happened to Rand Paul when he decided to pander to the establishment and SoCons. The same thing is going to happen to Johnson, he's making himself irrelevant by picking Mitt Romey's twin as a running mate.

  • Ken Shultz||

    We're not just like the other two parties.

    Trump is campaigning against free trade and said he wanted to raise taxes on the wealthy--because they're willing to pay more.

    The LP is the only party putting up a pro-capitalist for consideration.

    The other way we're unlike the two big parties is that they're nominating a couple of blowhard buffoons, one of which is a crook. If we're putting up a sensible experienced candidate, then we're differentiating ourselves by our sensibility. That's how we kick the lunatic fringe reputation.

  • Rhombus Parallelogram, Jr.||

    and a parody of a lifelong politician in Clinton.

    Parody? She, my friend, is very much the real thing in that regard.

  • Derpetologist||

    Gavin McInnes vs. The Daily Show:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkBpCWdT3EM

  • PapayaSF||

    He can be very funny.

  • SIV||

    TRUMP4LIBERTY

  • Hamster of Doom||

    Watch libertarians flee.

    "But but but he can get elected!!"

    Fantastic. To do what?

    Cakes at gunpoint and a "more government can solve prostitution" president during a sex trafficking media push. I'm not seeing an up side.

  • SIV||

    GAYJAY = LINO

  • ||

    And his running mate wannabe is not even a LINO, he's a real life RINO.

  • SIV||

    Weld is now the presumptive LP VP nominee

  • SIV||

    Coley's out, unfortunately.

  • CatoTheYounger||

    Oh brother, if those are the two issues that is most concerning Libertarians, then the LP deserves to be a fringe party that excessively focuses on minutae.

    As for me, I'm more worried that a presidential candidate doesn't carpet bomb the Middle East to oblivion or enact widespread gun legislation, something that I am not convinced with the Reps or Dems will avoid. Nazi cakes are inconsequential.

  • Hamster of Doom||

    Oh brother, if those are the two issues that is most concerning Libertarians, then the LP deserves to be a fringe party that excessively focuses on minutae.


    Upon looking for a reason to justify handwaving away a viewpoint, CTY was able to find one. And he lived happily ever after. The End.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Weld doesn't seem to have a problem with widespread gun legislation. But he's cool with hunting wabbits so...

  • Ken Shultz||

    Weld has an amazing ability to attract cameras to the libertarian movement and project sanity.

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/ol.....1464468693

    And that's pretty much all I care about in a protest candidate.

  • mfckr||

    They're only attracting cameras because the media wishes to undermine Trump's support by any means necessary. Once Johnson/Weld's poll #s fade into irrelevance, they'll be discarded.

  • Ken Shultz||

    So what? That's how coverage always works.

    Did you imagine McAfee would have been here to stay?

    That losing big because we refuse to compromise would bring even greater coverage and influence?

  • mfckr||

    McAfee can actually speak Libertarianism, and would've garnered more interest in the platform. But I don't expect you to comprehend that.

    Johnson already had a shot to do so in the '12 elections and failed miserably. Many sought an alternative then too, but 1% Johnson clearly didn't deliver.

  • ||

    Yeah, Gary is so meh, at least McAfee would generate some attention. And he doesn't come off as crazy to me. Ok, a little crazy, but when debating, he seems quite sane to me.

  • Ken Shultz||

    If we're trying to kick the lunatic fringe reputation, then the less coverage McAfee generates, the better.

  • SIV||

    Gary Johnson "doesn't know" if we should have entered WWII after Pearl Harbor.

    I'm sure he can get some neocon refugees on board to straighten him out on that.

  • ||

    Funny, I never even heard of the guy until last week, and now he's libertarian superman?

  • Ken Shultz||

    He's a big deal in the northeast--especially in circles where libertarianism has the same reputation as Al Qaeda.

    William Weld was a serious contender for Presidential consideration at one pint.

  • ||

    Most people who are a big deal in the Northeast, Mitt Romney, Chris Christie, Rudy Guliani, etc, etc, etc, are some of the worst statists on the planet. Why didn't Johnson just go for Christie, he's more well known? What about Romney? Wouldn't that increase our chances even more?

  • Ken Shultz||

    If Mitt Romney wanted to run as a Libertarian and could credibly sell himself as one, then we should give him serious consideration.

    Mitt Romney isn't asking to run as a Libertarian, unfortunately.

  • ||

    Oh come on, stop that! So you want to elect fake libertarians? What is accomplished by that?

  • Winston||

    The Party might benefit from it but the ideology on the other hand...

  • ||

    Sure, if you only care about winning. If that's the case, let's just make Trump our nominee.

    Trump/Sanders!

    Liberty dies, but we won!

  • SIV||

    With Ken it's all about TEAM.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Political parties are about team.

    In this situation, yeah, I think big tent is the way to go.

    Next time, maybe not.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Do you expect a Libertarian Presidential candidate to win the Presidency and control of the government despite single-member districts?

    We can only have our ideas adopted by outsiders.

    George Wallace once said, "Segregation today, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever!"

    A few years later, he jumped on the integration bandwagon.

    The libertarians we need are already in Congress. They'll follow their constituencies wherever they go. Their constituencies just need to skew libertarian--and they need to vote libertarian at the ballot box. The sooner the voters vote libertarian, the sooner the politicians will change their minds.

    If Mitt Romney were running as the Libertarian candidate, we'd make a great showing. .

  • Winston||

    George Wallace once said, "Segregation today, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever!"

    A few years later, he jumped on the integration bandwagon.

    That's because he jumped on the segregationist bandwagon in the first place.

    The libertarians we need are already in Congress.

    Um, what? I think we need more than a handful...

    The sooner the voters vote libertarian, the sooner the politicians will change their minds.

    Except if the Libertarian politicians have already so watered down their policies that they are scarcely different from the mainstream first...

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Um, what? I think we need more than a handful..."

    You're missing the point.

    They're all George Wallace. They're all communists. They're all libertarians.

    Libertopia doesn't happen because we elect the right politicians. Libertopia happens when the politicians we already have fear crossing a libertarian constituency. Suddenly they'll start acting like they were always libertarians!

    Before that can happen, we need mainstream libertarian candidates to accomplish mainstream results--like Perot's 19%. An invisible libertarian constituency has no influence.

    Give them someone respectable to vote for, and maybe they'll start showing up at the polls.

  • Winston||

    a "libertarian constituency" has no influence if the LP getting the votes isn't particularly libertarian. What are the ideas the mainstream will take from a Johnson/Weld ticket.

  • lap83||

    Never mind the fact that he can't and won't be elected.

    I guess the up side is that he will help one of the candidates lose more easily?

  • Ken Shultz||

    The upside is that for the next election cycle, the LP won't be seen as a fringe party--they'll be the sanest choice compared to Donald Temper Tantrum or The Crook.

    We've never really had a chance to not be the fringe party before.

  • mfckr||

    If Johnson didn't dispel the image of the LP being an insane fringe party in '12, I don't expect he will do so in '16.

  • SIV||

    He's only gotten crazier and fringier too

  • ||

    I wish that were true, but it isn't. We will be seen as a fringe party and we'll get 1-2% of the vote. You have a very popular guy on the GOP side who is bringing out voters in record numbers. And on the other side, you have democrats who hate libertarians more than they do republicans. If anything, we'll do worse this year, because Romney was so fucking lame, we got some of his votes to get that whopping 1%.

  • sarcasmic||

    The sad part is that liberty just isn't popular anymore. People want control. They don't want to be able to live their lives without asking permission and obeying orders. That entails personal responsibility, and American culture is to shirk responsibility. There must always be someone or something to blame. That isn't a society that values liberty. The American Experiment in liberty has failed. It's back to the default state of humanity: slavery.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Time to look at the bright side, Eeyore . . .

    I was thinking about Hillary's tweet the other day about how 90% of Americans who don't own guns support universal background checks.

    About one-third of the households in the US have a gun. Assume a round 300 million population, that means 200 million non-gun owners.

    If 10% of them do not support universal background checks for gun purchases, that means 20 million Americans don't own a gun but are against universal background checks for those that do--on principle. I'm going to go ahead and call those people libertarians regardless of whether they call themselves that.

    Meanwhile, that's just the ones that oppose universal background checks, those that support gun rights otherwise but don't own a gun themselves are presumably a higher number than 20 million, and we haven't even started counting the gun owners yet. Add in people who don't smoke cannabis but support legalization, those who aren't gay but support gay marriage, et. al.

    I think there are a lot more principled libertarians than people realize. If we could just get half of them to vote for a big tent, libertarian candidate, we'd be in a whole new ball game.

  • Winston||

    And getting the support of anti-gun controllers by nominating William Weld works how?

  • ||

    I haven't figured that out either.

  • Ken Shultz||

    This was the subject of yesterday's thread; I'll try to go with an abbreviated version.

    A legitimate political party is a group of individuals with certain principles, that are willing to sell some of those principles short for pragmatic reasons--mostly to gain influence and win elections.

    Because of single-member districts, third parties and their politics are generally absorbed into one of the two major parties after the third party makes an especially good showing. Examples of this include FDR adopting the American communist party's platform, the cost cutting of the Gingrich congress in the wake of Perot, and the Democrats lifting a slew of environmental issues from the Greens.

    If we want that to happen to the LP platform (and we do), then we need to make a big showing in an election. This election represents an excellent opportunity to do that since the two major parties are running a blowhard and a crook. Like I said, legitimate political parties win big by compromising on some of their principles sometimes--the big tent approach.

    If we need the kinds of voters that would support William Weld in order to make that big showing we need, then we need to run William Weld to get that showing. There will be a time to stand fast on principle again, but now is not that time.

  • mfckr||

    Yeah, let's not stand on principle about the 2A when it's on the verge of being revoked from us entirely. God you're fucking dense.

  • Winston||

    So Compromising on the 2nd Amendment will convince the Dems and Reps to not compromise on it, how?

  • Ken Shultz||

    Do you imagine Weld is going to be the next Vice President and weigh in significantly on the Second Amendment?

  • Winston||

    How are Libertarians going to influence gun laws in a good direction when they themselves want more gun laws?

  • mfckr||

    How are Libertarians going to influence gun laws in a good direction when they themselves want more gun laws?

    Bears repeating.

    Since when did "a choice, not an echo" become so passé?

  • Winston||

    Also the goal should be to get the Dems and Reps to reduce onerous gun restrictions not to have more of them!

  • ||

    Yeah, the GOP have been doing a pretty decent job of protecting the 2nd. Libertarians should be more 'shall not be infringed' than the GOP is, not less.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "And getting the support of anti-gun controllers by nominating William Weld works how?"

    Also, I hope the point didn't get lost that gun rights were just one example of people demonstrating libertarian positions who don't necessarily self-identify as libertarians.

    Gun rights are an important position to me.

    So are taxes and spending and the drug war.

    It's not like we're choosing William weld to represent us in government. He's not going to be our next Vice President.

    But if he's the one that can best help us get to respectability in the mainstream, then he's the best one for the job. In fact, keeping the party pure by refusing to compromise on issueswhen its in the best interests of libertarianism to compromise is probably a long term threat to gun rights. Before we can have influence, we need credibility. Before we get credibility, we need to make a good showing. Before we can make a good showing, we may need libertarians to do what legitimate political parties do.

  • ||

    I don't want the type of attention for the LP that says 'hey, look, we're just like the other guys, so why not vote for us'. That will effectively kill the party.

  • Ken Shultz||

    We're not like the other guys.

    We're running respectable candidates; the other guys' candidates are almost universally hated.

    Also, our candidates are generally pro-capitalism.

    Trump is pro-raising taxes on the rich and anti-free trade.

    Someday, maybe our candidates will be respectable simply because they were nominated by the LP. It'll be great to stand on principle then.

    Today, the party is seen as respectable (or not) because of whom we nominate. Squandering opportunities like Weld just doesn't make sense right now--not when we're starving for lack of respectability.

  • Hamster of Doom||

    ... if he's the one that can best help us get to respectability in the mainstream...


    I don't want the Libertarian party to gain respectability in the mainstream. I want the ideals of freedom and liberty and leaving your neighbor alone to gain respectability in the mainstream.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I want that, too.

    And as I was trying to demonstrate using universal background checks as an example, I think there are more libertarian minded people out there than most people realize.

    But if the candidates can't see them show up at the polls, then they don't matter--even if they do exist. At some point, to have those attitudes matter to politicians, the libertarian voters need to come out of the closet.

    A lot of them don't do that because it's embarrassing. That McAfee guy is a kook!

    Give them William Weld to look at. There's nothing kooky about him. He makes Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton look like a couple of kooks.

  • Winston||

    So again how do appeal to people who oppose Universal background checks by nominating a guy who supports them?

  • Ken Shultz||

    "So again how do appeal to people who oppose Universal background checks by nominating a guy who supports them?"

    I'd answer your question for a third or fourth time, but I guess you're being willfully obtuse today?

    Or maybe the truth is just too complicated for you to understand. That can happen!

    How 'bout trying it this way: How does the Libertarian Party polling less than 1% in perpetuity help oppose universal background checks?

  • mfckr||

    I don't want the Libertarian party to gain respectability in the mainstream. I want the ideals of freedom and liberty and leaving your neighbor alone to gain respectability in the mainstream.

    Right. Diluting Libertarian principles to cater to a perceived mainstream is the wrong approach. Better to uplift those principles into the mainstream.

    It's possible to talk Libertarian-based policy in ways that'd be palatable to the mainstream, without eschewing core percepts of Libertarianism as Johnson/Weld have done. But I guess that approach is too nuanced for the Johnson-fags to consider.

  • CatoTheYounger||

    You are the most rational person here.

  • mfckr||

    Those 90% of Americans don't know what 'universal background checks' might mean and are probably operating under the false assumption that no checks occur at all.

  • mfckr||

    The only new-ish votes I see Johnson potentially getting are from Neocons who can't quite pull the lever for Hillary (also I imagine Weld will appeal to them).

    The petulant brats at NRO generally won't go Johnson because he isn't pro-life.

    All the other conservative/typical GOP camps are firmly in Trump's corner.

  • SIV||

    Judd Weiss endorses Will Coley

    I endorse Coley for LP VP as well. He'll scare off GayJay's neocon buddies and Glenn Beck.

  • ||

    I said that Johnson will only lose my vote only if he chooses Weld as VP. But I see another possible reason, if I see him hanging out with Glenn Beck. Talk about crazy, there you go.

  • DenverJ||

    Meh, we already elected a Muslim to president.
    ;)

  • prfd1||

    Great.
    Now we have 3 Statists to choose from in November.

  • CatoTheYounger||

    Cognitive Dissonance on this board:

    "Gary Johnson is not a true libertarian because Nazi Cakes!"

    "Trump 2016!"

  • GILMORE™||

    While I'm not really in either camp, its not as dissonant as you make out.

    the next president will be Trump or Clinton.
    a LP candidate is, at best, a 'protest vote'

    Johnson is indeed pretty dissatisfying as a protest-candidate, because he's pre-emptively compromised on so many areas which voters desperately want someone to be standing strong on.

    Associating himself with Weld, he's basically said he's given up trying to be a pro-2nd amendment candidate. He's openly bullish on Federal regulation of the Energy sector. And he got zero respect for freedom of association.

    On these things and others, Trump is in fact more appealing to many, at least in his "screaming bullshit" sort of way. (*to the degree you actually credit anything he says as significant of any future policy direction)

    There's also the fact that Trump could actually win, while Johnson will not.

  • mfckr||

    Ditto. Not in either camp, but also not a hysterical Trump-catastrophist like many on this board.

    As you say, pragmatically speaking the winner will be Trump or Hillary. And ceteris paribus, Trump has more Libertarian-ish positions than Hillary.

  • ||

    In fact, if Johnson and Weld get the attention of the Mitt Romney republicans, the effect of that will be more votes for Trump. Some people never learn.

  • CatoTheYounger||

    It'd be miraculous if Gary Johnson can pull some big numbers, it's the media attention that we should be after, not winning the election. Media attention can build upon media attention. And unlike Ross Perot, the LP has the infrastructure to build upon it. Easy ballot access and federal money and we could be knocking those 5%'s every election.

    The election I am not worried about since both candidates are different flavors of dogshit. Maybe Trump would have a nicer foreign policy? I'm not sure if that's worth his domestic issues. And honestly, I don't care. A conservative argument for Hillary is that the next 8 years would be status quo, while Trump is a wild card - his policies may benefit liberty, it may not. Not that I endorse either.

    All Weld has to do is shut up and look pretty for the camera. Just hope Johnson doesn't kick the bucket in office and he'd be mostly harmless.

  • GILMORE™||

    it's the media attention that we should be after,

    yes, i can't wait until libertarianism attracts lots of fans enthused by Gary's various positions.... such as

    - Enforcing gun-control against the mentally ill
    - "Compelling Speech" via business-regulation (aka Nazi Cakes)
    - Pro GMO-Labeling laws; broadly pro EPA , etc.

    What a wonderful job he does of promoting and spreading 'libertarian ideas'

  • mfckr||

    Is it Libertarian Moment yet…?

  • ||

    TURMP IS TEH OLNEE REEL LUBRETRIAN

  • __Warren__||

    Lube? What do you care about lube?

  • kevrob||

    Might work with his hands. Calluses. - Kevin R

  • Ken Shultz||

    This is great news for the libertarian movement.

    I can't wait to tell all my non-libertarian friends and family that they should feel great about voting for the most sane, responsible, experienced, and well-respected candidates in the race.

    Congratulations to the Libertarian Party.

    We have a huge opportunity to make waves here. And the bigger the wave we make, the more influence we'll have in the future.

  • SIV||

    Media-types were already mocking Johnson as a kook fringe candidate after he said "he didn't know" if we should have entered WWII after Pearl Harbor.

  • ||

    They'll go vote for Trump if you tell them that.

  • ||

    I miss Harry Browne, for what it's worth.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Don't they make some, like, Harry Browne underoos or something?

    You could get the Harry Browne action figure with the kung-fu grip!

  • BigT||

    His underoos ate already brown. And hairy.

  • Banjos||

    Me too. *wipes tear away*

  • JagerIV||

    I had no idea who this was, but upon reading (well, skimming) his wiki page, I think I might miss him too.

  • AlmightyJB||

    AlmightyJB sits in corner by himself playing with barbie dressed up like John Locke.

    "All mankind... being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions."

  • AlmightyJB||

    Mr Hobbes, that is not your tea.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Can't we all just get along?

  • Ken Shultz||

    Sure.

    The Paul-fags and the free staters, the sea steaders and the objecto-freaks, the paleocons and the Lew-fags, the anarcho-capitalists and the neolibertarians, the small-staters and the cosmotarians, we all just need to hold hands in a big circle, look into each others' eyes, and wish everybody a merry fuckin' Christmas.

  • kevrob||

    So, what are the Outright Libertarians, fag-fags? Sheesh! - Kevin R

  • AlmightyJB||

    Pass the dutchie on the left hand side

  • ||

    Herding cats...

  • ||

    Herding cats...

  • ||

    And squirrels

  • Sonar Taxlaw||

  • Jerry on the rocks||

    Johnson/That muslim guy 2016!

  • ||

    A libertarian Muslim?

  • Jerry on the rocks||

    And apparent Tea Party activist.

  • ||

    I don't get it.

  • Jerry on the rocks||

    Can't be worse than chosing Weld.

  • Jerry on the rocks||

    Or even choosing.

  • Stilgar||

    Prepare for the onslaught of the Orange Plague in the Reason comments to tell us how horrible Johnson is and how only TheManWithSmallHands is for liberty.

    Hopefully all those on board with the above will go to Trumpbart instead.

  • SIV||

  • mfckr||

    Link no work.

  • Sonar Taxlaw||

    President Johnson will make links work again!

  • SIV||

    It's not actually a link. I was trying to infect "Stilgar" with the Orange Plague.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    The Orange Plague, like your namesake, is a sexually transmitted disease.

  • mfckr||

    Ah. Clever.

  • ||

    Pantsed the link

  • ||

    If only they would go to Breitbart. We can dream.

  • __Warren__||

    A rookie won the Indy 500 on a fuel mileage play.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Impressive

  • AlmightyJB||

    Speaking of fuel, just broke out the blackberry moonshine. Tasty.

  • Robert||

    Skipped a pit?

  • Winston||

    At least the LP, unlike Trump and Clinton, will be steadfast in their support of gun rights...oh wait.

  • Sonar Taxlaw||

    I'm casting this convention thing in my mind as a movie or miniseries.

    Johnson: John Slattery

    McAfee: Ian McShane.

    Petersen: Jeremy Piven

  • Brochettaward||

    Watching the LP convention - there are many cranky old men in that audience.

  • Winston||

    They have the pulse of Teh Yutes...

  • SIV||

    The Libertarians have a 15 y/o girl delegate. Old enough to buy heroin? Old enough to chose her party's nominee!

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Suthen wasn't kidding about that purple hair thing.

  • Brochettaward||

    There's two 15 year old delegates. Both female. One black. Yes, there is a black female libertarian somewhere in this great nation.

  • ||

    Dude, females political alignments are like quantum level particles. You can never be sure exactly what state they're in at any given moment, but you can be sure that it's going to change in a nano second.

  • mfckr||

    This is the red pill.

  • sarcasmic||

    “Political tags — such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth — are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort.”

    ― Robert A. Heinlein

  • ||

    There are other kinds of libertarians?

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    GET OFF MY LAWN!

  • CatoTheYounger||

    "Libertarian Marxism" is apparently a thing.

  • ||

    I've said repeatedly here that left libertarians are not a thing, and I'm still saying it. Libertarian Marxism, oxymoron of the century.

  • CatoTheYounger||

    So Richman, he's apparently a "left-libertarian." Does he not exist too?

  • ||

    He exists, he's just deluded about what he is politically.

  • Pat (PM)||

    Libertarian communism could, at least theoretically, be a thing. Since Marx advocated for violent class struggle in the achievement of a socialist non-state, libertarian Marxism could not be a thing.

  • Winston||

    Who should the LP nominate in 2020? Newt Gingrich? Or Lincoln Chafee? A mean an ex-Republican Senator and ex-Democratic Governor will fit in quite well. Or a Romney-Ryan ticket? That should get quite a few votes...

  • Rhombus Parallelogram, Jr.||

    Orrin Hatch.

  • ||

    Hatch/Christie 2020!

  • Winston||

    Dang it forgot Chris Christie or Michael Bloomberg.

  • ||

    Romney/Sanders 2020!

  • Brochettaward||

    Just saw a unicorn - a black, female libertarian.

  • Brochettaward||

    And she's only 15. A Millennial! Reason, quick! Poll her!

  • AlmightyJB||

    What's legal in Florida?

  • Brochettaward||

    16-18 and then 18 up.

  • ||

    Then you blinked and it was gone.

  • Glide||

    That's fine, and about what I expected. I totally get it if you want to go purist, but Johnson will be much better suited to lay a framework for future votes to actually matter, which is the main name of the game here. Johnson may seem like a punt on a core value or two, but a punt is better than going for it on 4th and 30 when the game just started.

  • Winston||

    Problem is that in American history the major third party candidates have been flukes. If say Johnson-Weld can get 17% in November then what will happen in 2020?

  • Brochettaward||

    Hope that it gets the GOP to adopt parts of the libertarian platform/pander to libertarians to get their votes.

  • Winston||

    Judging by the way things are going it seems to be the opposite...

  • Brochettaward||

    Well, guys like Gillespie run this party.

  • ||

    Yes.. into the ground.

  • Je Suis Reason (Fmr. AuH20)||

    So, Sharpe I suppose? I think Petersen is to young to be taken seriously yet, and I say that as someone younger than him.

    Yeah, he lacks experience, and he doesn't have the same media favors/talk show contacts that Weld has, but I would rather have someone who gets less attention than someone who gets more attention but sucks at selling ideas or doesn't really make us look like anything than Rockfeller Republicans.

    Also, I watched his campaign video on his life story. His life sounds like it has been unbelievably tragic and I gotta say, in this very social media/reality tv news era, a story of overcoming tragedy plus political outsider could sell (although because of all that I wish there was more time to vet him and all of his stuff, because if any of his story has a shadier side than he has said, it could be bad)

  • Hamster of Doom||

    *warms hugs*

    Now stop crying and get back out there. You're doing fine.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I liked you better when you were posting as 'Michael Hihn'.

  • ||

    He was a little better as Shreek also.

  • Hamster of Doom||

    O.o

    o.O

    -.-

  • ||

    Actually, we were standing back and saying nothing hoping you would go euthanize yourself.

  • ||

    I just can't get excited about this presidential contest. Sounds like Johnson is giving up on liberty to try to get elected. I've not really been following the convention and haven't really been paying much attention at all, outside of occasionally looking at primary results. But what is really concerning to me is all the talk about Johnson and his VP pick not being pro-2nd amendment. That's too important of an issue to just ignore. I just went to Johnson's web site and I couldn't find a single thing about the 2nd amendment. That's quite disturbing. It should be one of the top most important issues to any libertarian.

    How is it even a protest vote if I'm voting for a republican/democrat hybrid?

    From Wiki:

    Johnson has stated he is open for debate on the subject of gun control and is open to a discussion on preventing those the government deems mentally ill from possessing weapons.

    Fuck that.

  • ||

    I mean sounds like Gary is ready to give the gun control crowd their dream legislation. I can just see the list they'd create to determine if they deem someone to be too dangerous to own a gun.

    More than 2 weeks of canned goods in their cupboard.

    Drinks alcohol.

    Visits libertarian websites.

    And if this can apply to the 2nd, why not the first also? Deemed too dangerous to speak publicly.

    Gary definitely OD'd on the pots.

  • ||

    I doubt they'll even put forward that much effort. They'll just create another unaccountable rogue agency and a Mental Health czar, whose job will be to write up a bunch of totally ambiguous criteria on what makes a person too crazy to own a gun, and suddenly a lot of people will start showing up on that list with no idea how they got there and no chance of getting off it. And Johnson sounds perfectly ok with that. Why would I vote LP if even the GOP are better on liberty? I mean even Democrats might make weed legal and the GOP will protect the 2nd. What good are libertarians then?

  • Robert||

    I think the idea is that since "libert" is part of "Libertarian", that gov't officials in the LP would be more likely to honor liberty, or at least the contradiction would appear greater if they didn't. That's the theory, anyway.

  • SIV||

    Gary definitely OD'd on the pots.

    Buttchugging...not even once.

  • Robert||

    You bold-faced "the government deems". Who else would you want making such a determination?

  • CatoTheYounger||

    What's McAfee doing that's "undermine(ing) the principles that made the country great in the first place?"

  • ||

    You're responding to a troll. And all you're going to get is troll stink.

  • ||

    Was it ever in doubt that he would win the nomination?

  • ||

    I was hoping it was. But looks like it was never in doubt.

    Johnson/Weld - Making libertarians republicans again!

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Not really.

  • mfckr||

    I was hoping sanity might prevail and they'd nominate a real Libertarian with a real message that people could resonate with.

    But, this is the LP and they have a history of not nominating Libertarians…

  • DenverJ||

    Did everyone see this cool story about Dr Heimlich?

  • __Warren__||

    Good thing he didn't.....choke...in the moment!

  • DenverJ||

    It's a very touching story; I'm all choked up.

  • CatoTheYounger||

    Damn adbots.

  • Episteme||

    Remember, not only do we see two wildly-unpopular major-party candidates, but there's no incumbency or sitting vice-president (2012's 1% for Johnson was against Obama's reelection, remember). A Libertarian ticket able to sell itself on experience and principles –the very things the other candidates lack –could well gather the polling to get into debates this year, given the media attention already directed towards Johnson (as well as the general search for third-party alternatives). With that, there's a greater possibility of real funding (as well as the direct message of debates,1992 Perot-style).

    Speaking of "Perot-style," even managing 5% hits the FEC threshold that the Reform Party did (with 8%) in 1996 for funding and ballot-line placement. Looking back at 1998, with Jesse Ventura in MN and other state-level victories in the Southwest, that change in visibility can be useful for a minor party in stretching out in states. Given the fifty-state reach and organization of the LP, taking advantage of 2016 even to hit an FEC benchmark (whether the 5%, 15%, or 25% threshold) to aid local and state race positioning for 2018 and 2020 (seeing for GOP and Democratic battles this year have already caused the beginning of havoc in local parties that a third party can "take terrain" from with smart planning) could be a major subsidiary and libertarian victory in itself (even if it takes a more pragmatic step in the 2016 race to allow for that aspect).

  • Alice Bowie||

    I'm so excited for Gary Johnson.

    He's got my Vote!!! Fuck Hilary.

    I would had only voted for Hilary to vote against Trump.

    I'm hoping Gary has a fighting chance.

  • ||

    Voting for Johnson over Hillary? That may be the first intelligent thing I've ever heard you say, Alice.

  • Alice Bowie||

    I voted for Gary in 2012.

  • __Warren__||

    AND THE SIXTH SEAL HAS OPENED!

  • Ayn Random Variation||

    Hmm, I had thought Johnson/Weld would guarantee a Hillary victory. Would disaffected commies and union types actually vote for a Libertarian ticket with 2 Republicans? I don't see it.

  • ||

    Trump won't even miss that 1%, won't even know it happened. If Hillary is depending on libertarians to deliver her the win, she's even dumber than I thought.

  • Pat (PM)||

    The outreach is working already!

  • Winston||

    Citation needed.

  • AblueSilkworm||

    Let's pretend for a moment Trump calls a press conference in which he is flanked by Janice Rogers Brown and Napolitano were he vows they will be his two Supreme Court nominees, in that order. Do you down a fifth of whiskey and pull that lever?

  • Bob Meyer||

    No, I would have myself committed to an asylum because I am obviously delusional if I imagined that Trump would nominate a Napolitano or Rogers.

  • AblueSilkworm||

    I don't think I'd believe him anyway, nor believe they'd ever be confirmed. Which is good, I suppose. If I believed this was actually going to occur, I'd have to kill myself at that point. Because either something truly awful would just be bound to follow it or things would never again get so good.

  • Brochettaward||

    We now have a fat bearded man stripping at the LP convention on stage. Respectability, here we come.

  • Brochettaward||

    And now people want to throw him out of the party.

  • Libertarian||

    The LP leadership should step down for allowing this to happen.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Enough of this shit.

    What did everyone have/will have for lunch/dinner this Memorial Day? I broke in my new grill with hotdogs, Italian sausage, hamburgers, pork burgers, chicken drumsticks and thighs, and corn. Samuel Adams "Adventures in Lager" also made an appearance.

  • ||

    We went simple. I prepared two egg/bacon sandwiches on English muffins for my wife and I for breakfast (regular mayo, not artisinal). Now we have two ribeyes cooking and we have been simmering green beans, small red potatoes and bacon for a couple of hours.

    Our tomatoes are large enough so tomorrow it will be fried green tomatoes with crawfish remoulade sauce.

    Tuesday is girl's night out.

    The recent storm blew a large limb out of my hickory tree. Wednesday I plan to smoke a side of pork ribs with it.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Now we have two ribeyes cooking and we have been simmering green beans, small red potatoes and bacon for a couple of hours.

    Nice. And the crawfish remoulade sounds delicious!

    Eat in good health!

  • mfckr||

    Ugh. Motherfuckers making me hungry.

  • GILMORE™||

    how do you do corn on the grill? soaked then in-husk, tinfoil-wrapped, or heavily buttered bursting into flames?/other

    i

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Today was cobs husked and cut in half, then placed directly on the grill until it got a light char on each side. Then sprinkled with salt while still hot.

  • ||

    recommend the indian (dot not feather) treatment of the corn - rub with a lime half you first touched to a saucer of salt and cayenne.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I'll have to try that. Is that from a particular region of India?

  • ||

    I first had it as a little child visiting relatives in Chennai (Madras then), and my mom started making it at home. I remember it was from a dude with a cart with a charcoal fire on it, and I remember the combination of the acid from the lime and the heat of the pepper mixed with the sweet of the corn.

    I keep trying to duplicate it at home but can't exactly copy it. Even with my folks having moved in, now, my mom can't quite get it. I dunno. Maybe the cheap charcoal or something. But it was awesome.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I wonder if there is something similar in Indo-Trini cuisine. If there is, I have yet to come across it as doubles and/or goat roti serve me just fine.

  • GILMORE™||

    Yeah, the trick i heard with in-husk was to soak them in a pot of water for like an hour beforehand.

    My preferred M.O. is to remove husk, soak 10-20mins, then coat with herb-butter-plus-cayenne, roast on lower-heat corner of the grill (get near open flames, they have a tendency to set alight and/or start popping kernals)

    I like them to be half-burned/caramelized, then re-apply some herb-butter & eat

  • Robert||

    Tonight I'm going to make baby pork back ribs, marinated in pineapple, low-sodium tomato sauce, garlic, & cayenne pepper, broiled along with corn on the cob. Boiled on the side will be brown rice, baby carrots, & peas w ginger powder & the rest of the tomato sauce rinsed from the can. I'll drink Wyler's no-cal imitation lemonade with Gordon's gin, chased with Coke. And see how much of it I can chew w/o hurting a lot—way behind on dentistry! Tomorrow, French toast, leftover ribs & teeth.

    First a cool bath, propping my feet against the wall to drain the edema from my legs. Don't think I'll use my bubble mixture— http://users.bestweb.net/~robgood/lather.htm —because this batch is so many yrs. old, the sulfosuccinate ester's mostly hydrolyzed back to lauryl alcohol, so it takes at least 3X as much now to make the foam.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Sounds good! Are you cooking the ribs on the grill or in the oven?

  • Robert||

    Electric broiler. Since the rotisserie's xmission broke, the question for me is always whether to do it on the flat grill or on the pan that's intended as a drip pan. This time I'm going to do it on the pan, which will result in a greasier product but allow the marinade to cook & become a sauce. I always do flat broiling on medium instead of the high setting the Roto-Broil says.

    There's a story to this Roto-Broil. Mother bought one like it ~55 yrs. ago. Many of its parts & fx were broken by the time I moved in here 30 yrs. ago. Then when my libertarian friend Peter Psyras/Perras & his mother died in 1996, I took his, which I found in its box, apparently never used. It being a slightly more deluxe model than Mother's, I replaced the old one w this, only to have the handle of the glass window break off almost immediately.

  • ||

    Fried chicken. The Keller version, which I've made a few times and liked. Today, after the town's parade, sat with my kids over a nice charcuterie plate of jamon serrano, speck, and some salamis with cold (almost frozen) honeydew, and an assortment of nice cheese. Fried catfish for a light dinner.

  • ||

    And I made a few variants of a Planter's Punch mix and put them in the fridge yesterday, so I can just pull that out, add rum , and sit back and relax.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Another excellent menu!

  • Robert||

    Keller? As in cellar, as in rathskeller?

  • SIV||

    I made several racks of St Louis style ribs yesterday in my Weber Kettle. I bought a rib rack so I could fit more than usual. Made up a quick dry rub and cooked indirect with pecan and mesquite for about 3 hours. Wrapped the leftovers in foil and baked at 275 for an hour today. Today I made pinto beans with a lot of bacon and cornbread. Plenty of corn on the cob and baked Vidalia onions. Brats and burgers tomorrow. Plenty of Heineken, ice tea, coffee and San Pellegrino blood orange soda for beverages

  • ||

    damn that sounds awesome.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Ribs are definitely on my to-do list with the new grill, but I didn't want to risk it with guests until I learn the idiosyncrasies of the grill. Brats and burgers are also a classic workhorse summer meal.

    Bon appétit!

  • Hamster of Doom||

    ... cooked indirect with pecan and mesquite for about 3 hours...

    I typed this response one-handed. You should know this.

    Ribs, beans and cornbread. Uffda.

  • Robert||

    I don't think I ever cooked Vidalias, because it seemed a waste of an onion that was so good raw. But I never cooked red onions until a few yrs. ago either, so what do I know?

  • ||

    I know I am not the only one anxious to hear what Sloopy is cooking up for his tribe.

  • Hamster of Doom||

    We did a brunch earlier. Ham sliced off the bone, toasted french bread, eggs whipped with cream, fresh watermelon and strawberries with mascarpone. The good fruit is hitting the markets, there's some divine stuff to be had.

    Simple tonight. Ham and red pepper risotto, bacon-wrapped jalapeno poppers. Later there will be rum.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Just skip to the rum.

  • ||

    All of these menus sound fantastic! I do miss more Western Menus at times, to tell the truth.

  • Pompey (91% LOLLOLZ)||

    Scrambled eggs with chopped chives and purplish aviary over warmed French bread slices for brekkie. Hike up and down Mt. major during lunch. Grilled steak tips, garlic chicken sausages, and bisected Portuguese style hot linguiça for din-din.

  • Ghetto Slovak Goatherder||

    Weld won VP.

  • mfckr||

    Mushy diarrhea.

  • mfckr||

    Dislike repeating myself. I should only need to implore you once.

  • mfckr||

    Keep crying, retard.

  • ||

    Has anyone seen shreek recently?

  • ||

    Let Life Live, retard. Don't you have a Hillary statue to worship or something, shreek?

  • Winston||

    So Which Party doesn't have a gun-controlling pro-Iraq war candidate?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

  • AblueSilkworm||

    How can you be so sure?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Who knows?

  • mfckr||

    The GOP, apparently.

    Trump is against gun-control and was against the Iraq War… but I guess he's not a "real Republican" depending on who you ask.

  • SIV||

    More than that, Trump has a decades-long consistency of supporting drug legalization and sharply reducing our foreign military commitments. Neither of those positions are traditionally sure fire vote-getting pandering. It's almost as if he has principles or something.

  • mfckr||

    Yeah I know. There's videos from 20+ years ago of him saying the exact same shit he is now. But the narrative says he's mentally unstable and changes his mind whenever he has a bowel movement.

    Would be great to see him talk drug legalization as part of his platform. Not that it'd convince any of the deniers here, of course.

  • ||

    The only candidate who would say legalize all drugs is McAfee, or Ron Paul. Johnson says he would deschedule weed by executive order, but he's not in favor of legalizing any other drugs. Not sure what Trump's position is. I thought he said in an interview a while back that he's against legalizing cannabis.

  • mfckr||

    His position in the 90s was for decriminalization of drugs. Maybe he still feels the same way but doesn't know how to say it yet to a GOP voter base? I know I'd be somewhat hesitant in his position to say "legalize all drugs!", because I've no idea how that might actually be received.

    Problem is there might be lots of conservative voters very apprehensive about drug legalization, seeing it as an effector for social-moral decay ,and omg what about the chillunz, etc.

    Apparently he's still 100% on board with medical marijuana, and is fine with states rights' to legalize.

    http://www.ontheissues.org/201....._Drugs.htm

  • ||

    Problem is there might be lots of conservative voters very apprehensive about drug legalization,

    There is, most conservatives I know are incredibly hypocritical about it. They drink alcohol like water and think pot smokers are all losers who need locked up. In general though, more than 50% of the electorate now favor cannabis legalization, so it's in no way a losing proposition in a general race.

  • mfckr||

    The current stances at least wouldn't be a step backwards from the status quo re: sane drug policy.

  • ||

    Apparently he's still 100% on board with medical marijuana, and is fine with states rights' to legalize

    Yeah, but then he said the line about it's not something I would do right now. That's actually the interview I was remembering.

    I guess this makes him somewhat better than Obama.

  • SIV||

    As Sullum pointed out Trump last publicly advocated legalizing all drugs (to put the cartels out of business) in 2011. He proposed the exact same thing as early as 1990. That's never been a politically popular position. I was unaware until yesterday that in 1987 Trump bought a full page ad in the NYTs advocating that the US stop providing military defense for the wealthier countries of Europe, Asia and the Middle East. In case it's not obvious to you none of these countries would choose to pay the US "tribute". They would respond by building up their own defensive capabilities and forming new alliances.

  • ||

    According to the rhetoric, the GOP.

  • SIV||

    TRUMP4LIBERTY

  • Winston||

    So will the LP get their long-awaited Romney endorsement?

  • DenverJ||

    So, who thinks the paid comment is really Dave Koch?

  • Bob Meyer||

    He may be Dave Koch but his comment on deregulation causing a recession proves that he is not THE David Koch.

  • Libertarian||

    "Bill Clinton's deregulation and his economic policies are what caused the inherited economic collapse of 2008"

    Doesn't sound very Kochian to me.

  • ||

    Here's a clue:

    If Gary Johnson - William Weld are the Libertarian candidates, they will win the White House

    David Koch isn't that dumb.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I'm sorry you had no guests visit you this Memorial Day weekend.

  • ||

    Gee, I wonder why.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    You are assuming facts not in evidence.

    But while you have this supposed telepathic link to my brain, what is my favorite color?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    What are you even going on about?

  • ||

    It's shreek.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    It's easy - just accuse the dissenter of 'mind reading'


    So what you're saying is that you have hard, empirical evidence that my purpose for engaging "in playful banter about .. dinner plans" is out of some craven desire not to be "bullied"?

    If so, let's see it.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Wait, what?

  • ||

    The LP have thoroughly screwed themselves here. To get more votes, right now, they have to steal those votes from the GOP. Why would even libertarian leaning republicans vote for these guys? You know democrat votes are not up for grabs and Johnson and Weld have no possible appeal to millenials.

  • ||

    This is not difficult to figure out. For the LP to do better in this potus race, they have to get more votes. Where do they get them from?

    Republicans? The GOP has their most popular candidate in a long time, maybe since Reagan. Are Trump voters going to switch to Johnson/Weld? No. They will see Weld as the establishment and Johnson as a stoner goofball.

    Libertarians? Johnson seems a lot less popular than last time. I'll go with, they will lose 50% of the libertarian vote because of libertarians staying home.

    Democrats? Lololololol

  • mfckr||

    Honestly I could see them getting more Democratic-leaners votes than Republican. Gay cakes, climate change regulation, and gun-control—what's there for a Prog not to like?

  • ||

    Yeah, but the current dem candidates have all that and a ton more crazy liberty killing stuff, so why the need to switch?

  • mfckr||

    Disaffected Bernouts, and a handful of Dem-leaners who dislike Hillary enough but won't vote Trump.

    Hardcore Dem constituents will still vote for her of course, no matter how much they might depise her.

  • ||

    Don't forget all "Teh Freebies" that Dems are promising, granted Bernie has pulled Skullduggery Rotten to the left, do *not* forget the only Progressive difference b'twixt the two is the speed of arrival to the Progressive Mecca of Socialism. The impending (I believe), total Student Loan Bailout (including repayment of pennies on the dollar) will be especially expensive, for no other reason than shore up legions of Millennials who paid for worthless social "science" degrees.

    Bernie wants it *YESTERDAY*, and Skullduggery Rotten believes in incrementalism.

    The real tossup is where Sen. Warren fits in these schemes; with Troomp quite possibly nerfing downballots, there's a very real possibility of her leading The Senate, given Moobs Schumer's recently falling star. Fauxchahonta is TEAM Blue's primary and most prolific fundraiser, and she's extremely popular.

  • mfckr||

    Don't forget all "Teh Freebies" that Dems are promising, granted Bernie has pulled Skullduggery Rotten to the left, do *not* forget the only Progressive difference b'twixt the two is the speed of arrival to the Progressive Mecca of Socialism.

    I agree (and believe Hillary would actually turn out to be more radical than Bernie in many respect).

    But most humans don't vote based on a candidate's specific policy views. Voter decide based on what they irrationally perceive a candidate's character & tribalistic outlook to be.

    So long as many voter groups (esp. millennials, etc) perceive Hillary to not be 'about them', she will lose many of their votes. Regardless of how close her actual policy views might be to Bernie's.

  • JeremyR||

    Most popular candidate in a long time? What are you smoking?

  • ||

    My kids and I marched in the town parade with the scouts, like we always do. And stood at the ceremonies in the center and at the cemetery. Then we went to the church in the center (it's really the only place in town with a big enough room) where the old ladies club (I think they're called the Sunshine Girls or something) made a nice "cold collation" of finger sandwiches and lemonade, and baked goods.

    Then we went home and had aforementioned charcuterie.

    It's been a wonderful day to be alive and free. I hope yours was nice, too.

  • ||

    If the LP really wanted to win the Whitehouse in 2016 and forget about principals, which they've already done, I can tell them exactly how to do it. Here's how. After Hillary gets the D nomination, give the nomination to Ron Paul and tag Bernie Sanders for VP. That's the only way.

  • mfckr||

    I'd vote for that.

  • ||

    Paul's like 80 and Bernie is what, 79? My worry would be that one of them don't survive the entire 4 years and that it might be Paul.

  • mfckr||

    Ah, fuck. Good point. That's a no go then.

  • Libertarian||

    CSPAN showed the fat naked man on stage at the LP convention. The LP leadership should resign immediately for allowing that to happen. Gary Johnson should have hired a sniper. If he gets over 2% now, I'll die of shock.

  • Libertarian||

  • ||

    He blew any chance of the LP getting 2% by first getting the nomination and then tagging that east coast democrat for the VP. No snipers needed.

  • Brochettaward||

    It was an event broadcast on CSPAN. Like a few hundred people even saw it. Even then, most people don't care.

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    Johnson-Weld sounds like a penis-reattachment surgery.

  • ||

  • ||

    Holy fuck Groovus, when did you come back? I really have been away too long.

  • ||

    Hello! Just up really late, since the babies are a bit colicky, and my wife really needs the sleep, so's I am tending to the girls. Fortunately, my son is finally sleeping on a regular schedule better these days.

    I decided to drop back in about five days ago, as I was feeling a bit sentimental and all the political and civil warring has calmed down some here.

  • ||

    Wow, family and all. Congrats, much joy, and happy to see you weren't Bad Thinged out there, doc.

  • DenverJ||

    Sigh. It was good that Johnson/Weld got the nomination, because now we'll seem like the grown-ups in the room and... is that fat man dancing on the stage naked?

  • ||

    Make Fat Men Naked Again!

  • McFuckYou (née commodious)||

  • SusanM||

    Reasonoids not happy with the LP candidate? Inconceivable! At least you should take some solace in the fact that, for possibly the first time ever, the Libertarian candidate is the least crazy of the available choices.

  • ||

    Not crazy isn't selling this year.

  • GILMORE™||

    the Libertarian candidate is the least crazy of the available choices.

    I know! And i'm *so disappointed*

  • PapayaSF||

    Cripes, that's 100x worse than a stupid stadium deal.

  • kevrob||

    After losing GE from Fairfield to Greater Boston, Gov Malfoy...er...Malloy is scared to death every financial employer will split. If they repealed Lowell Weicker's "temporary" income tax we'd have 99.9999% occupancy for white-collar office space. - Kevin R

  • PapayaSF||

    They gave a subsidy to a company equal to 5.7 days of the CEO's pay.

  • Pat (PM)||

    So two former Republicans running to the left of the Democrats on the meme issues of the day... Ladies and gents, welcome to the Bull Moose Party.

  • SIV||

    At least Teddy had some charisma.

  • SIV||

    Dave Koch

    If the World survives a Trump presidency, which is clearly a legitimate question, the Republican Party will be decimated.

    Decimated? I voted TRUMP4LIBERTY because I want the Republican Party fucking annihilated. Looks like the LP is going down too.

  • Cyto||

    Holy crap, I leave you kids for a couple of hours to go have a beer and some ribs by the pool and you go full retard. C'mon, guys! You never go full tard! That shit ain't new!

    Trump? What in the hell is wrong with you people? Johnson's johnson would be a better President than Trump.

    Good lord... I just can't even with you people. You guys are so problematic....

  • Cyto||

    Continuing my "what libertarian moment?" coverage of the coverage from earlier:

    Only MSNBC is prominently featuring the Libertarian convention. Main article with photo: "2016 Finally Had a Contested Convention". The others have a buried link somewhere on the page.

    Yahoo News has their big title article : "Schwarzenegger Not Ready to Endorse Trump..."

    Really? A convention and nomination going on right now, and the top article you can come up with is about politics..... but it is about a long-retired governor's temporary non-endorsement. Holy crap.

    Yeah, we libertarians are going to get loads of coverage... sheesh.

    Somebody had better come up with a big spend to get Johnson enough juice to make the debates, or we will have squandered the opportunity of a lifetime.

    The semi-nutcase Ross Perot nearly garnered a third of the vote against two professional politicians without super-huge negatives. With these two lame candidates carrying the banners for the red and blue teams we should be able to crack that number, given half a chance. Mr. Johnson, you'd better bring your A game all the time... we can't let this one slip by.

  • Shpongle||

    Thanks Libertarian party for being stuck on stupid. Now I have no candidate to vote for president this year. I love this site and its comments section. The party- not so much.

  • SIV||

    STFU and VOTE TRUMP

  • BigT||

    Hillary:

    "Johnson weld??

    I already had one!"

  • ProLifeLibertarian||

    LP: The reason why the LP hasn't been successful is because we don't compromise on the issues. We need to be pragmatic!

    Two days earlier...

    LP: You can't be pro-life and libertarian, you statist!

    These people would have endorsed a George W. Bush/Michael Bloomberg ticket if it would have gotten them any attention.

  • SIV||

    That's why I'm not a libertarian

  • GamerFromJump||

    It's cute that they're talking about this like it matters.

  • SIV||

    Sad

  • XM||

    The likes of Gary Johnson and Jill Stein might be nominees of their parties eternally for the same reason a dad can be elected "president" of the family because the wife and the kids vote for him. They have a small but like minded group of supporters who can vote for someone they like anytime without influence or meddling from the larger world outside their group, who doesn't care about them.

    If libertarians content with a protest vote, then none this matters. If libertarians want their party to actually WIN, then they should be concerned that their party remained static in an election year in which outsiders are energizing voters and hijacking the two party system. Gary Johnson is as invisible and anonymous 8-10 years ago when he first started his presidential ambitions. He has not advanced his party's agenda to the emerging demographics. He has not personality, no charisma, no money, no resources. There's a reason why Mitt Romney can't run for the GOP nomination for 20 years. At a certain point, the voters on that side will demand something new, something more viable.

    Gary Johnson will likely make a LOT of noise in reddish states with center right white population. But he'll be irrelevant in big blue states with multi ethnic population. If that happens, what changes? He would win a slightly larger piece of the pie that's dwindling in size every year.

  • depand||

    bandar judi bola This is a nice and informative, containing all information and also has a great impact on the new technology. Thanks for sharing it

  • depand||

    bandar judi bola This is a nice and informative, containing all information and also has a great impact on the new technology. Thanks for sharing it

  • Sombody||

    Damn, I better get off my ass and vote lol

  • Undercover Libertarian||

    As a libertarian (though registered republican for local politics reasons) who voted for Johnson in 2012, I am nervous about him this time around. Aside from a few comments he made about supporting the government forcing private enterprises to provide certain services, I am also not a fan of Weld for various reasons. But at least this year there might be chance

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online