MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

William Weld Gets the Libertarian Vice Presidential Nod on Second Ballot

Running mate Gary Johnson says: "I haven't had so much anxiety over a moment in my life."

William Weld, former Republican governor of Massachusetts, is now the vice presidential nominee for the Libertarian Party. He earned 50.5 percent of the vote on a second ballot, 441 delegates. His nearest competitor, at 46.9 percent, was Larry Sharpe on that second ballot. (Weld got 49 percent on the first ballot, 19 percentage points ahead of Sharpe, but a majority was required to actually win.)

Matt WelchMatt Welch

Weld overcame strong opposition mostly based on disbelief in his libertarian philosophical bonafides (particularly on gun rights), a broken promise to the Party in the past when he reneged on running on their ticket for a New York governor's race, and a general sense he lacked a permanent commitment to them and their values. When it was announced from stage that "William Weld" was a top trending term on Twitter, someone shouted "#statist!"

I was standing near Gary Johnson shortly after the Weld win was announced on the convention floor in Orlando. He was mock-collapsing with full-body relief.

"I haven't had so much anxiety over a moment in my life," Johnson told me, saying he had never taken Weld's victory for granted. (Johnson had told the Party his campaign would be hobbled by 50 percent without getting Weld as his partner.)

Much more about today's Libertarian Party convention doings coming later here at Reason.com.

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.

  • mfckr||

    Gross.

  • FreeSpeechMatters||

    It is gross. Why nominate someone who hates you? Weld hates pro-lifers (one-third of all Lbertarians are pro-lifers) and views them as not simply wrong, but as bigots, as being like homophobes (whom he detests).

    Weld is also pro-regulation. While he was fiscally conservative at the beginning of his governorship, he was never pro-free-market on regulatory matters. He supported the Big Green Initiative, a costly massive expansion of red tape that was rejected as too extreme by Massachusetts voters and even by his 1990 Democratic opponent, John Silber.

    Weld made Massachusetts employment law worse by appointing to the state judiciary intolerant left-wing judges who supported campus speech codes and made it hard to get frivolous lawsuits by minorities dismissed. Weld appointed people to the MCAD people who later forced private employers to fire employees for offensive racial jokes.

    Weld's mentor, former Senator Jack Javitz of New York, hated free-market conservatives with a passion, and so antagonized them that he was forced to run for reelection in 1980 on the Liberal Party line, under which he lost. Javitz was a part of the now extinct super-statist wing of the Republican Party that believed Democrats are too timid in increasing government spending. He was to the left of New York liberal Republican governor Nelson Rockefeller, who quadrupled state spending, and Pennsylvania's Ray Shafer, who was defeated for reelection after practically bankrupting his state.

  • ||

    Booo! Hissss!

  • Libertarian||

    +1 Alger

  • ||

    I haven't had so much anxiety over a moment in my life

    The fact that Gary thinks this is a serious thing and that the LP Is a serious contender for potus is quite worrying. I think Gary is mentally disturbed and should be 'deemed by the government' as not being allowed to have a gun. Maybe no pointy objects either. Only crayons and apple sauce.

  • Scarecrow & WoodChipper Repair||

    Since when should the government have that kind of power over anyone who is not in jail?

    You remind me of my pacifist atheist socialist mother, some of whose favorite expressions were "he ought to just be shot" and "he ought to be taken out and hanged".

  • ||

    I was being sarcastic. Johnson is the one who apparently believes that, not me.

    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.

    Gary Johnson on the government's right to take away the 2nd amendment from 'mentally ill' persons

    Peterson took him down pretty good here.

    So, I guess you're saying that Johnson is like your pacifist atheist socialist mother. Because I would never say it's ok for the government to take away Gary's or your or mine right to the 2nd amendment by 'deeming' us mentally unstable.

  • Robert||

    Maybe a throwback to the libertarian movement ~40 yrs. ago. In the 1970s weapons issues weren't as much a priority with most in the movement, & they were more likely to be conciliatory on points like this. OTOH, Tom Szasz was big in the movement then, and made some of us skeptical about "crazy person" ("mental illness") issues, so maybe that'd be a wash in terms of difference in attitude w now in the lib movement re 2nd amendment matters.

  • Robert||

    This time you put quotes (but only single) around "deeming". If the word were "judging" or "determining", would it make a difference? "Deeming" frequently connotes counterfactual.

    Funny, years ago the quotes would've been around "mentally unstable".

  • ||

    Semantics. I put special emphasis on deeming, because it's very troubling that the government would have the power to decide someone gets denied their guaranteed rights, just because.

  • CE||

    The Republicans are nominating Donald Trump. The Democrats are nominating a criminal.
    Gary Johnson is the sane one. The LP can win.

  • ||

    No, the LP cannot win. Let's be serious here. And I would say that no matter how much I loved the LP candidate. I voted for Johnson in 2012, he got 1% of the vote.

  • Hank Phillips||

    I'd bet money he got 2% of the vote and the looters simply cheated on the count. One does not expect honesty from folks who believe in taking what ain't theirs. But I am appalled at the DEA veep choice. I may have to volunteer for McAfee for mid-terms.

  • Robert||

    I would not be surprised if this time he got an even lower %, on the basis of Trump's sucking up many of the protest votes.

  • SIV||

    Who the fuck is going to vote for these two Rockefeller RINOs?
    The donors will bail as soon as the polling shows that 10% for GayJay is a mirage.

  • RoninX||

    Everyone who doesn't want Fascist Donald or Socialist Hillary.

  • Cordelia525||

    Yes.

  • Robert||

    I'm more disturbed by Dave Koch thinking so, if he's the one I know. It's somewhat consistent with things he said long ago, but still hyperbolic. Not sure whether he's sincere in his degree of stress on it. Then again, David Koch's a smart guy, and his say-so at least gives me pause.

  • SparktheRevolt||

    Every person running for president is delusional. You'd pretty much have to be.

  • prolefeed||

    Barr/Root lite?

    WTF?

  • robc||

    This is better than Barr/Root. Sad that thecomparison needs to be made.

  • SIV||

    How is it better?

    Show your work.

  • CE||

    Barr was a small time drug warrior. Johnson runs a marijuana business.
    Root was a small time con man. Weld was the governor of a large eastern state.

  • ||

    Root was a small time con man. Weld was the governor of a large eastern state.

    I'm having a hard time deciding which of those things is worse, or even if there's a difference. Oh yeah, one would be a big time con man.

  • C. Anacreon||

    Which is more painful, a bare root or a welded johnson?

  • ||

    Which is more painful, a bare root or a welded johnson?

    That's a toughie! Was the johnson fully erect at the time of welding? Is hypermia involved? And how cold is the bucket of water?

  • Robert||

    Hell, some people in the aftermath called Andre Marrou a con man. I don't see either him or Wayne Root as being any more con men than the necessary amount one needs to be a con man to be a politician.

  • DavidKennerly||

    Absolutely correct! I was a delegate at the horrible Barr and Root anointment and I had to leave LP in disgust.

  • GILMORE™||

    someone shouted "#statist!"

    "HASHTAG=BULLSHIT!"

  • Ted S.||

    How do you shout # anyway? Is it a click letter or something?

  • Drave Robber||

    Shout I I, then turn your head 90 degrees and shout I I again.

  • ||

    "hashtag statist!"

  • GILMORE™||

    That was my joke

  • Hank Phillips||

    Holler "grate, grate!"

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    I heard that Weld only scored 96 on the LP Purity Test.

    VOTE TRUMP!

    GO TEAM RED! GO GO GO!

  • Chipper Morning Wood||

    Hindsight is always 20/20 for you, isn't it?

  • C. Anacreon||

    Perfect is the enemy of Palin's Buttplug.

  • Ted S.||

    At least Weld pays up when he loses a bet.

  • ||

    You were better as AddictionMyth, shreek. You got busted and quickly changed back. Loser.

  • Brochettaward||

    His popping up right after the call-out is a pretty strong indicator to me that this is true.

  • ||

    Now he's going to make sure they are both here posting at the same time... oh it already happened!

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    You mean another non-Paleo has shown up here?

    MUST STOP NOW FOR PURITY!

  • Suicidy||

    I'll bet you're as quiet as a mouse when you don't have the anonymity of the internet as a shield you little rat fuck. Tiresome piece of shit.

  • ||

    I see your still kicking, Shriek. In your usual Lithium deprived state as well, you pus soaked tampon.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    "You're", not "your".

  • ||

    "still kicking" in nominative, meaning I am observing your otherwise still (read: seized) body involuntarily kicking, e.g. symptomatic of a larger medical condition. Idiot cockroach.

    Your list of medical maladies is long... why your insurance company hasn't post-partum aborted your ass and cut their losses is beyond me.

  • tarran||

    It's not sentient!

  • ||

    And now it's not sentient twice.

  • Acosmist||

    I fucking love the counter grammar Nazism.

    And fuck PB.

  • Suicidy||

    I'm liking you already.

  • SIV||

    Donald J Trump is a good "protest candidate" for all the libertarians disgusted by the Libertarian Party ticket.

  • Chipper Morning Wood||

    If you want to protest the libertarian philosophy, you mean.

  • ||

    Don't you get it, Donald J Trump is a libertarian messiah!

  • ||

    I'm not convinced until I see SIV type, *BIGLY!!!!*

  • Robert||

    10 yrs. ago LPNY nominated Weld for governor. 20-30 yrs. ago, Trump was talked up in LPNY as a candidate for public office. LPNY also nominated Howard Stern for governor (instigated by me), and Stern talked up Trump as a superior choice to run gov't fx. It goes around & around.

  • Robert||

    Also funny that while David Brudnoy's politics at the time seemed closer to Weld's, he had that prof-to-prof sympatico going with Silber.

  • mfckr||

  • Hank Phillips||

    ANOTHER libertarians for Trump faction? The DEA-GOP convention takeover wasn't enough? I guess when The DOn told Nick he "likes libertarians" it was in a canapes or appetizer sense of the word.

  • PapayaSF||

    LOL

    When you have lemons, make lemonade. That's what American Communists and socialists have done for a hundred years. They now control the Democratic Party. Another decade or so of mass immigration, and the Democratic party will control the federal government until it collapses. Kiss liberty goodbye.

    Trump is in deed a wild card, a roll of the dice, and his anti-trade and eminent domain positions aren't ideal. But when faced with certain doom, a roll of the dice is the better choice.

    Trump wants to protect the Second Amendment, and deregulate government. Why not get behind that? Your voice is heard better when you are inside the tent. And I can't think of an important issue (beyond international trade, maybe) where Hillary is more pro-liberty.

  • Suicidy||

    No, most of the people here haven't enough sense to be the slightest bit pragmatic or logical about things. This is why the LP has never gotten anywhere. If I was wrong, there would be at least a smattering of LP congressmen, lots of LP state assemblymen, a few LP governors, and maybe even a US senator or two.

    None of that has happened. So I am very skeptical that out of nowhere, the LP is going to seize the presidency. Even though the two main parties are so fucked up.

  • SparktheRevolt||

    Ahh, good old cognitive dissonance.

  • Robert||

    Heh, so funny this election. Bill Newmark, Bronx chair of the Conservative Party, used to rag on me for voting for LP nominees back in the 20th C. This year I expect to vote for Trump, who'll probably get the Conservative x-endorsement in NY, while Bill says he's voting for Johnson.

  • Suicidy||

    Nothing New Yorkers does surprises me anymore. New Yorkers are the morons who had the good sense to vote in in folks like Anthony Weiner, Bill DeBlasio, amd mafioso carpetbagger Hillary Clinton, just to name a few.

  • GILMORE™||

    Johnson had told the Party his campaign would be hobbled by 50 percent without getting Weld as his partner.

    ... is the idea that Johnson has so few estimated supporters that he's desperately relying on the (theoretical) diehard-Weldites to boost his profile?

    I mean, what does it say about any presidential candidate that thinks, "Without my Vee-Pee, I'm *nothing*!"

  • Chipper Morning Wood||

    Anti-Weldite.

  • ||

    I am an Anti-Weldite. A raging Anti-Weldite!

    Look, the LP is too old now, been around too long to be making these types of stupid mistakes. I guess we'll keep on being an obscure last place joke party.

    This is why I'm so much more inclined to voting for libertarian candidates running for the GOP. Old Ron got it right. I'll vote GOP if there is a libertarian enough candidate in the race, otherwise I'll vote LP is there is even an LP candidate in the race. But in this case, I stay home. I'm not having anything to do with this debacle.

  • Raven Nation||

    Worth checking down ticket? In 2012, I decided to vote for Gary Johnson. When I checked my full local ballot, discovered there were LP candidates for Rep and Governor. Decided it was worth voting just to check off their two names.

  • ||

    I voted for Johnson in 2012 also. Planned to vote for him this time also, but he managed to change my mind. I always check down ticket, but I live in MD, there's seldom a candidate to vote for. But I always check anyway. I voted for Larry Hogan and he actually won, the first time my vote has ever counted here. He's better than all the Dems, but he's hardly even a republican, let alone a libertarian. Even if he was, he would be powerless since Annapolis is stacked with the worst democrats on the planet. The only thing he can do is veto stuff. Basically holding back the proglotard tsunami from drowning us all, with a mop bucket.

  • mfckr||

    My guess is that Weld has some money connections which is why Gary was so adamant about having him on the ticket.

  • Scarecrow & WoodChipper Repair||

    Johnson has made it pretty clear that he thinks having a "serious establishment" VP like Weld makes it easier to get in the polls and get in the debates. He may be right. I think he probably is right. But that doesn't make it good. It implies he thinks he has a real chance at the White House. I don't. I think the primary opportunity for the LP this election is education, and having faux-libertarians like Johnson and Weld spouting the wrong message is not helpful.

  • mfckr||

    I doubt he'll get beyond 1% of the pop. vote.

  • ||

    Picking an establishment running mate will make it more like 0.5%.

  • ||

    In an anti-establishment election like this one, definitely a brilliant idea to seek out an establishment running mate.

  • Cordelia525||

    No, he's on the ticket because he's a credible candidate to lead the free world. This thread makes my head explode. Do you not see that Trump has authoritarian impulses? There is an imperative here: Trump cannot win. And LP is the vessel. Like it or not, ideological non-purists are crashing your party. We are legion, and we want nothing more than to elevate the party's profile. Let's come together and do this.

  • Scarecrow & WoodChipper Repair||

    Hillary is a worse threat than Trump. trump has no attention span -- he will change on a whim and flipflop so much that his credibility will tank, Congress Critters won't know which way to turn, and not much will happen.

    Whereas Hillary is single mindedly focused on being President and throwing her weight around, and she has 40 years of political experience, backstabbing, finding and hiding skeletons, lying, bribing, corrupt as hell.

    Both would be disasters, but Hillary would be a much more focused vengeful disaster. I want her to lose partly because I want Chelsea to not have a precedent for her own coming shot at the dynasty.

  • PapayaSF||

    Hillary is indeed worse, because she's another leftist ideologue who wants to "transform" America. Better an authoritarian who loves this country than one who wants to make it "progress" into the glorious multicultural, socialist, gender-fluid future.

    I am not so sure Trump would be a disaster. A pragmatist who wants to "win" is far better than an ideologue who wants to break eggs for the omelette. Trump is possibly influenceable from a libertarian view. Convince him there's a market-based solution to a government problem, and he's certainly 100x more likely to go for it than Hillary would be.

  • Suicidy||

    If Hillary wins, it will make everyone long the days when that shit sack Obama was president. If GJ can't win (he almost certainly won't) then any sane person will take their chances with Trump.

  • Je Suis Reason (Fmr. AuH20)||

    Well, here's the thing- from our perspective, you party crashers have treated us like shit and looked down your nose at us until you realized you needed us in the last three months. Guess what? Years of y'all calling libertarians uncaring assholes or idiot children hurt our feelings, and we have a bit of a grudge. You may not like that libertarians have gained new support grudgingly- but, once again, we have been both demonized and condescended to for so long that I think we can be forgiven a bit of a chip on our shoulder.

    From our perspective, the major parties have been fucking up forever, but now that they have really fucked up suddenly people who treated us like shit six months ago want to be our friends. And that would be fine, except to then walk in and try to take leadership is going to piss people off. I mean, some of the people coming in have come in the last two months. So that seems a bit presumptuous, especially when you struggle to talk the talk- in fact, you claim that your are changing the tall because it isn't serious... we don't aspire to be someone's vehicle.

    Look, I'll support the ticket. It's a sign of the party's growth that I mostly like it but don't totally love it- like a bigger tent party. And I'm all for opening the tent a bit, but before you come in at least have the courtesy to wipe your feet and try to understand the older, more fringey elements before just shitting on them.

  • Cordelia525||

    i get it. *swallows piece of humble pie*

  • AblueSilkworm||

    The fear is that the party will neither win (a given) NOR evangelize by putting up people who either barely get who we are (Johnson) or who have nothing to do with our believes (His Veep). Honestly, what the fuck is the point?

  • ||

    Doesn't sound like something Trump or Bernie, or even Hillary would say. I agree, it's a sign of weakness.

  • SIV||

    Johnson is weak. Dave Weigel should go to Nepal and interview his Sherpas to find out if they did carry GayJay to the summit.

  • Brochettaward||

    A victory for Trump in this election means a major set-back for libertarianism in the Republican party - what little there is. The best arguments I've seen anyone provide for the guy here is that we don't really know what he'll do, or he's made some comments in the past that he's contradicted a dozen times since. If Trump was running on ending the drug war, or I thought that was something he'd seriously pursue, I'd vote for him Greatest Wall or not. Right now you want people to sign up to endorse a candidate who is anti-free trade and who throws around casual threats about deportation and torture.

    There's a tenuous connection between what a candidate says in primaries and what they do in office. But it's pretty hard to get out of some of these positions. The worst of them are the ones his supporters like the most.

  • mfckr||

    Hate Trump for whatever reasons, but he's the most Libertarian GOP nominee in recent history. Far more than Romney, McCain, or GWB.

  • SIV||

    or he's made some comments in the past that he's contradicted a dozen times since.

    Trump's foreign policy views have been consistent for 30 years.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Trump's foreign policy views have been consistent for 30 years.

    Like when he supported invading Libya and overthrowing Qaddafi just before he was against it when NATO and Obama did it?

  • mfckr||

  • mfckr||

    Stupid URL parser on this site.

    https://is.gd/0qTRp1

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Donald Trump Bashes Libya Intervention… Which He Strongly Advocated For in 2011

    http://www.mediaite.com/online.....r-in-2011/

    Trump takes both sides on every issue.

    That is how libertarian he is!

  • Brochettaward||

    What was Trump's latest? He wants to turn the GOP into the worker's party? A populist demagogic worker's party candidate. Sounds very libertarian to me.

  • Robert||

    Better workers than slackers, right?

  • kevrob||

    Trump as a norteamericano Peron?

  • GILMORE™||

    A victory for Trump in this election means a major set-back for libertarianism in the Republican party

    ?

    Because it was making *such* strides until he came along?

  • Brochettaward||

    There are specific candidates, and a few positions where, yes, they have drifted more to the libertarian position over the years. In the aggregate they lead to bigger government.

    Try having an anti-trade, higher tax GOP. See how great things look then.

  • mfckr||

    You mean a candidate who's against crony-trade and streamlining the tax code? Yeah, I'll take that.

    I don't see much higher tax going on here: https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/tax-reform

  • Robert||

    Well, just thinking about this...given the tendency of the 2 major parties over the centuries to adopt positions to oppose each other, if the GOP becomes the high-tax, low-trade party, wouldn't the Dems then tend to become the low-tax, high-trade party? You know, just to stay on the other side? Like if they say black, you say white, just because?

  • PapayaSF||

    Robert: No, Democrats are now socialists. They won't change their spots that much.

  • Robert||

    Why not? They changed before. Is socialism like a roach motel?

  • Suicidy||

    No, the democrats are basically a marxist organization anymore. The two parties will devolve further to the left, like in England. where you have leftist shitbags, and hardcore commie leftist shitbags.

  • Brochettaward||

    Or one that thinks overturning Citizen's United is a swell idea.

  • Cordelia525||

    He wouldn't know the constitution if it hit him over the head. He wants to change the libel laws to quiet dissent. He wants to bring back torture. He wants to ban people from immigrating based on religion.

    If elected, he will be an affront to liberty of epic proportions.

  • PapayaSF||

    Our liberty is already infringed by Islam. Not importing more of the problem is a victory for liberty. Not for the liberty of foreign Muslims, I grant, but I'm not willing to give up my liberty for the sake of their anti-liberty asses.

  • Suicidy||

    As soon as you mention ANYTHING about any slight form of immigration or border restriction, it all becomes pops and buzzes to the 'open borders at any cost' crowd.

  • Robert||

    A victory for Trump in this election means a major set-back for libertarianism in the Republican party


    No, I don't think so. I think primarily it's a defeat for the neo-cons, and that'll shake up the GOP establishment enough to enhance the possibility (not certainty, of course) for other factions to ascend within. Sure, some of them may be factions mostly inimical to our interests, but some of them not, & we'll see how things land in 5-10 yrs.

    Ending the drug war seems to be a thing the people have to be fooled into. The voters won't go for it beyond pot, but if it's presented as an imperious move by Generalissimo Trump—it'll be huge, you'll love it—the pop. may just sit back & take it. I'm not saying he'll do it, just that he might, and that it probably will take such dictatorial action by someone some day, against the wishes of the people, to do it. After it's done, within 3 yrs. everybody who was so pro-prohibition will deny they were ever for it, because it'll become normal practically instantly.

  • Robert||

    Like the parent who stuffs the Maypo into the unwilling baby's mouth, & then the baby likes it.

  • ||

    Trump is beating the living shit out of the PC doctrine, something no other candidate has had the balls to do. That is the one thing to me that Trump has done as a favor to everyone, despite the fact that I disagree with him about a lot of things. This needs to be done. PC needs to die a quick and painful death, and be buried so deep that no one can ever find it again, and no one else who has that much media attention has the ballz to do it.

  • Cordelia525||

    Reality check: you are submitting to the populist tug. I feel it too. I hate the PC rhetoric; I appreciate unfiltered, unscripted speeches. This is populism. You can't submit to it....and then play the ideological purity card.

    Once you recognize The populist tug, you can resist it. And see Trump for what he is - an affront to liberty.

  • PapayaSF||

    American populism is not the worst threat to liberty. The socialist/SJW juggernaut is, and whether it's Hillary or Bernie or Biden, that juggernaut can't be stopped in November by anyone but Trump.

  • mfckr||

    Rothbard & Mises loved populism because they saw it as the only way to circumvent entrenched oligarchies.

  • PapayaSF||

    "Rothbard & Mises loved populism"? Interesting. Well, it looks like some oligarchies are about to get unentrenched.

  • ||

    No, you are wrong. It's not about populism. I'm not in agreement with Trump about most things, and I don't trust him. But he's fearlessly saying things that the PC crowd say cannot be said. And he's getting away with it, not only getting away with it, but it's making him more popular. This will embolden other people to do it and that's exactly what needs to happen. I'm not a populist.

  • Suicidy||

    That will be a lot more civilized than the events i force if we don't. The real question then becomes, what do we do about all these progressives? I don;t see how we can maintain our freedoms with their sort running around in any kind of numbers.

  • ||

    You think he has time for that? He's too busy being Sheektard and AddictionMyth.

  • Brochettaward||

    I'm guessing Weld is just the closest the LP can get to having access to big GOP donors turned off by Trump.

  • ||

    Here comes a debacle of epic proportions. I hope the LP learns from this. The LP starts getting involved with Romney and Ryan republicans, it's going to severely damage what little good vibe we have.

  • mfckr||

    They won't learn. Many real Libertarians already lost interest in the party ages ago due to dumb shit like this.

  • SIV||

    The LP was a reliable NOTA line up until 2008. I gave up on them when they drank the "Fair Tax" Flavorade.

  • ||

    I'm for a flat tax. Eliminate the income tax and replace it with sales tax, including eliminating property tax with a one time tax. 15% should do it. If you don't have enough money then to fund all the programs, start cutting.

  • ||

    I guess the Weld deal pretty much does make Trump the only anti-establishment candidate in the most anti-establishment election we've seen... ever? I'm not even saying that Trump is really anti-establishment, but he's the only person who can even make the claim. Well, Bernie can, but come on, the guy has been in congress since Moses was still alive.

  • Ken Hagler||

    I agree. If they were going to learn this wouldn't have happened in the first place, because they'd have learned from allowing Barr as a candidate.

  • douloskerux||

    While I agree, to be fair, they are also getting involved with the left as Gary's platform skews toward blue.

  • douloskerux||

    While I agree, to be fair, they are also getting involved with the left as Gary's platform skews toward blue.

  • ||

    You can be a leftist and a republican at the same time if you're on the east coast. Especially the northeast.

  • Suicidy||

    Yep. Plenty of weaselly little fucks up there.

  • CE||

    It's the credibility threshold. No one east of the Mississippi River takes any governor of a western state seriously, except California.

  • Suicidy||

    It's only fair. i think everyone in the western US considers the east coast to be run by a bunch of morons.

  • C. Anacreon||

    Weld had him at hello.

  • Chipper Morning Wood||

    Well, I hope it's a nice day on election day, so I can go fishing.

  • kevrob||

    I'd say this reminds me of Paul/Marrou 1988, except instead of a gold-bug backbench House member* from the days when the GOP was still "permanently in the minority" we have two candidates who have been chief executives of states. Neither of the entrenched parties have that this year, though they could choose potential veeps who have that on their resumes. They might be able to raise some #nevertrump money, or an independent PAC may be able to spend some cash. Not being able to buy media has always held LP tickets back. Weld may only be libertarian-ish, but twill serve. - Kevin R

    * I voted for Ron as a delegate at the Seattle convention. I thought he was our best shot.

  • ||

    Weld may only be libertarian-ish

    But it's much more likely he's east coast democrat lite-ish.

  • Cordelia525||

    He cut taxes and spending. He dismantled decades of patronage...in Massachusetts. I'm a MA resident; I don't judge him based on my excellent Googling skills. I judge him based on his governance.

  • ||

    I think Christie did that also. Would you vote for him?

  • Cordelia525||

    Weld is not authoritarian, like Christie.

  • ||

    They see eye to eye on 2A issues.

  • ||

    Well, he might not be, I have to admit I don't know much about the guy other than what I've learned in the last week or so. I never heard of him before then. But what I am learning, I don't like any of it. So I need to see a case made for Weld as a libertarian. I haven't seen that yet.

  • Robert||

    Of the likely choices for NJ, Christie was one of the better ones for governor. There were better, but of course no guarantees, so I think they did fairly well w him. But it does seem that libertarians, esp. in LP, in this part of the country (NE) were for a long time eager to seize on any candidate who cut across party lines as a potential libertarian breakthru. So like, well, he's holding up med mj, but not forever, hey! And the view from farther away gets even more distorted at least temporarily, so on the opposite coast or the middle of the country, Giuliani looked good because he was a Republican, pro-law-&-order, but not anti-gay. Come to think of it, I'm afraid Gary Johnson might think in those terms.

  • Brochettaward||

    Johnson told me, saying he had never taken Weld's victory for granted.

    Weld only won by about 1%.

    There's a lot of people taking shots at purity tests right now. A lot of the people saying it would gladly attack commenters here if they adopted any of the numerous positions held by Johnson-Weld.

  • robc||

    I an big tent when it comes to voting, but, yeah, there are a lot of Johnson/Weld ideas that I roundly criticize.

    Johnson's lack of support of freedom of asdociation is a huge one.

    Still not rnough to get me to vote Trump.

  • SIV||

    How's the Constitution Party looking?

  • mfckr||

    Darrell Castle seems like a sharp guy. Definitely the most intelligibly informed candidate.

  • CE||

    The LP usually should nominate a purist to spread the message, because the LP usually has no chance.
    This year is different -- the Dems and Reps have shot themselves in the foot with their nominees.

  • SIV||

    Lol! The Republicans have a nominee who'll win in a landslide

  • ||

    Trump will either win a close election, or win in a landslide. I think it's all up to Hillary and how rapid her self righteous suicide is. But it's not looking too good for her right now. The Dems only chance is to force her out of the race. Biden/Sanders might beat Trump. Hillary doesn't have a chance in hell.

  • Cordelia525||

    Not if republican moralists - swaths of the Midwest - don't get behind trump.

  • ||

    They already have, Trump beat Cruz in a landslide in Indiana. The guy has flyover and the south. The real factors will be OH, PA, and FL. And I think Trump will win all of them, if Hillary is his opponent.

  • lap83||

    Trump lost a number of flyover states. But I do agree that he's going to win.

  • ||

    It was earlier on. Trump will win every single flyover state against Clinton and every southern state. The election comes down to PA, OH, and FL, which Trump will win all of them against Clinton.

  • Cordelia525||

    Indiana is one state. You don't appreciate the depth of Trump revulsion. This is a real opportunity for LP.

  • ||

    Yeah, I know, Trump revulsion is so bad that it has led him to breaking a record for most votes in a GOP primaries race, ever.

    Look, I don't support Trump, and I see no way that is going to change. But let's be serious here.

  • Suicidy||

    IF Johnson can get into some of the debates and make a good showing. He needs a lot of press like the way Trump gets press.

  • Suicidy||

    Satan is more moral than Hillary Clinton.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Paddypower bookies are betting 2 to 1 the pro-choice party wins, and that the GOP, Tea, Prohi and "Constit" mystics all lose. Math is cold that way...

  • CatoTheChipper||

    Gary Johnson is no more than 3/4 libertarian. Despite his protestation, Weld is probably no more than 2/3 libertarian. Their positions on issues will align with libertarian purists in rough proportion to their libertarian philosophical tendencies. Imperfect as they are, neither Johnson nor Weld are LINOs.

    Hillary is zero percent libertarian. Trump is zero percent libertarian. Any alignment of their position with libertarians on a given issue is purely coincidental, and is largely due either to the interests of the elite or to overwhelming popular support.

    Other LP candidates were much better exemplars of libertarian purity, but Johnson and Weld have infinitely more executive experience than the competitors. They actually could serve as president, and would be better at it than either Clinton or Trump. They present a responsible alternative to independents, never-Trumpists, and those who prefer not to have an incompetent criminal hack to be president.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    During the portion of the debate I saw the candidates howled in disgust at the idea of Drivers Licenses (to actually drive). Lastly Johnson chimed in and said the idea wasn't so bad. He got roundly jeered.

    The Purists have ruined the movement. See example.

  • ||

    The opinions of a statist like you does not matter in the least. You're irrelevant to libertarians. Now go lick some cankles like a good statist sheep.

  • Cyto||

    When the plug is the voice of reason.....

  • ||

    No. SIV supports Trump, he said so. Everyone can support whoever they want. Despite notions to the contrary, everyone who's not willing to jump on the Trump pants shitting, Trump is Hitler train do not necessarily support Trump.

  • Suicidy||

    Really, I was about to suggest he kill himself, and that his family will likely celebrate his offing of himself. I'm guessing you wouldn't like THAT either.

  • CE||

    Thank you, well said.

  • ||

    Better than nothing!

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Well, my preferred candidate, Mark Cuban, didn't run. Johnson/Weld it will be for me then.

    But then again I (The Buttplug) only scored 96 on the LP Purity Test myself.

  • ||

    You're voting for Hillary, shreek. You're not fooling anyone here. Bloop Derp Boink!

  • geo1113||

    Nailed it. Hyperion. And if not Hilary, PB would feel the Bern.

  • ||

    Bernie's not crony enough for shreek, he worships at the alter of cronyism. Hillary is his guy.

  • mfckr||

    Mark Cuban is an idiot. Makes sense you'd prefer him.

  • ||

    Seriously. Why are people looking to him and why is he being courted?

    I don't get it.

  • Suicidy||

    Because he is also a billionaire who is on TV. Other than that I have no idea.

  • SIV||

    Johnson/Weld it will be for me then.

    How you like that cosmos? You're backing the same ticket as Nick Gillespie's sockpuppet shreek.

  • Derpetologist||

    From the LP platform:



    Individuals should be free to make choices for themselves and to accept responsibility for the consequences of the choices they make.

    Individuals have the freedom and responsibility to decide what they knowingly and voluntarily consume, and what risks they accept to their own health, finances, safety, or life.

    Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships.

    We affirm the individual right recognized by the Second Amendment to keep and bear arms, and oppose the prosecution of individuals for exercising their rights of self-defense. Private property owners should be free to establish their own conditions regarding the presence of personal defense weapons on their own property. We oppose all laws at any level of government restricting, registering, or monitoring the ownership, manufacture, or transfer of firearms or ammunition.

    We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression. The United States should both avoid entangling alliances and abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world. We oppose any form of compulsory national service.

    I wish Johnson sounded more like his party's platform.

  • SIV||

    GayJay is running against the LP platform. Maybe he could hire Bill Kristol and Charles Krauthammer to write a new one.

  • ||

    We affirm the individual right recognized by the Second Amendment to keep and bear arms

    Sounds like an epic failure has occured here.

    Sorry, but if Johnson and his VP cannot figure out what 'shall not be infringed' means, that is their problem. They won't get my vote.

  • Hank Phillips||

    It's a reversal of Al Smith, who declared wet when the KKK still ran the Dem party. Having a DEA veep is like FDR declaring for keeping beer a felony in 1932.

  • No More 2 Party System||

    The 2 Party System is a disastrous, outdated failure and must be stopped. YouTube search: No More 2 Party System

  • mfckr||

    The best thing might be to advocate for an end to the party system altogether.

    Multi-party systems in Europe manage to generate even douchier outcomes.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    In the entire history of democracy, there have really only been two parties: Optimates and Populares

  • mfckr||

    Sounds like oligarchs vs. populists.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Has there ever been a crisis in a democracy that when boiled down didn't amount to that?

  • ||

    Nope. Patricians v. Plebeians was a very popular, and long enduring iteration.

  • mfckr||

    Can't think of any.

    I always recommended the Iron Law of Oligarchy to democracy fundamentalists.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_law_of_oligarchy

  • robc||

    I have been involved with enough small orgs to know this is true. A small core either runs everyrhing or it falls apart.

  • Robert||

    Spare ribs cooking detail in the previous thread.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Broiling, eh? Works for me.

  • __Warren__||

    Johnson Weld? Check the Box!

  • SIV||

    #NeverJohnson


    #NeverWeld

  • CE||

    #Never Trump-Clinton

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    ATTN: Gilmore
    Simpsonwave

  • GILMORE™||

    That's nice.

    I can't tell if the keys arpeggio is sampled or interpolated from "The Message". I think the latter. although i think there was a remix where that was isolated.

    Its actually kind of fun to take MIDI versions of old jams and chop them up and replace instruments and see what happens. I was fucking with Gap Band basslines the other day. "Sampling"/remixing can go to such extreme lengths now with digital tools that its lost a lot of its original wit. Its "too easy" and you can bite/rework stuff with zero limitations. We used to be so impressed when someone just took a guitar loop and put a beat to it. I still think a lot of the best producers stick to fairly "primitive" approach despite being able to do almost anything with raw material.

    On the other hand, you have guys like Pogo, who are also freaking amazing. Thanks again to whomever pointed me at that guy.

  • ||

    The very fact that Shreek/ButtPlug/Addiction myth retard supports Johnson/Weld is a good reason to oppose them. Of course, the retard really supports Hillary. Derp bloop boink!

  • Derpetologist||

    Well, Johnson does have this to say:

    As Governor of a state with an overwhelmingly Democrat legislature, Gary Johnson stood up to excess spending, vetoed 750 bills and literally thousands of budget line items…and balanced the state’s budget.
    Governor Johnson has pledged that his first major act as President will be to submit to Congress a truly balanced budget. No gimmicks, no imaginary cuts in the distant future. Real reductions to bring spending into line with revenues, without tax increases. No line in the budget will be immune from scrutiny and reduction. And he pledges to veto any legislation that will result in deficit spending, forcing Congress to override his veto in order to spend money we don’t have.
    No excuses. No games. A REAL balanced budget.
    Responsible adults should be free to marry whom they want, arm themselves if they want, make their own decisions about their bodies, and lead their personal lives as they see fit — as long as no harm is done to others. And they should be able to do so without unconstitutional scrutiny by the NSA, the ATF, the DEA or any other government agency.

    https://garyjohnson2016.com/issues/

    I wish Johnson sounded more like his campaign website.

  • ||

    No line in the budget will be immune from scrutiny and reduction

    You know who else spoke about line items?

  • Derpetologist||

    That stupid talking paperclip when I typed stuff in MS Word many moons ago?

  • __Warren__||

    I see you've forgotten a name. Do you need help with that?

  • ||

    I do remember something about a scalpel, but that may have been work related....

  • __Warren__||

    A trapper?

  • Suicidy||

    The super hero Accountantman? He was the one who gained super accountant powers after being bitten by a radioactive accountant.

  • creech||

    Despite what we've been led to believe, perhaps inartfully by Johnson himself, I don't think he is really in favor of a law forcing private bakeries, of any persuasion, sell Nazi-emblazoned cakes.

  • mfckr||

    He sounded quite passionate when he advocated about it, and defended it repeatedly.

  • lap83||

    Yes, despite that...

  • Notorious UGCC||

    Specifically, his stance is that the government *does* have the power for force a Jewish baker to make a nazi a cake, with the stipulation that the nazi his to put his own swastika on it, so there!

    Here's what he said on May 22

    Does a public bakery have to sell a cake to a Nazi? Probably so. Does that bakery have to draw a swastika on it? Absolutely not. And that’s the way it should be.

  • Notorious UGCC||

    The final para should have been in quotes, it's Johnson's words on his Facebook page.

  • mfckr||

    He also stated during a debate that govt should intervene in forcing bakers to bake gay wedding cakes regardless of their religious reservations against it.

    He advocated this position quite passionately. The nonverbal component spoke volumes about the man's actual convictions.

  • Suicidy||

    What if a straight couple wants to force an unwilling gay baker to make a straight cake? What then?

  • GILMORE™||

    I wish Johnson sounded more like his campaign website.

    Yeah, when he actually debated, he seemed to be a nonstop series of 'exceptions' to the above.

  • CE||

    They've got my vote.

  • Hank Phillips||

    They don't, but the party has my vote unless the DEA guy splices in a Tea, Prohi, GOP or "Constit" plank to force women to reproduce at gunpoint. At least the looters are scared enough to seriously infiltrate and undermine--and even get Brian to lie to us.

  • Derpetologist||

    He Must Not Be Named sounds better on gun rights than Johnson:

    Here’s another important way to fight crime – empower law-abiding gun owners to defend themselves. Law enforcement is great, they do a tremendous job, but they can’t be everywhere all of the time. Our personal protection is ultimately up to us. That’s why I’m a gun owner, that’s why I have a concealed carry permit, and that’s why tens of millions of Americans have concealed carry permits as well. It’s just common sense. To make America great again, we’re going to go after criminals and put the law back on the side of the law-abiding.

    link

  • GILMORE™||

    [insert default gasping and pearl clutching and vociferous denunciation]

  • mr simple||

    Why do we need permits and what gives the government the right to force people to get permits to exercise their rights? How is this libertarian or better than Johnson?

  • Entelechy||

    Two intellectually serious candidates on one ticket?

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    #WeldtheJohnson

  • Derpetologist||

    More from Voldemort on gun rights:


    GUN AND MAGAZINE BANS. Gun and magazine bans are a total failure. That’s been proven every time it’s been tried. Opponents of gun rights try to come up with scary sounding phrases like “assault weapons”, “military-style weapons” and “high capacity magazines” to confuse people. What they’re really talking about are popular semi-automatic rifles and standard magazines that are owned by tens of millions of Americans. Law-abiding people should be allowed to own the firearm of their choice. The government has no business dictating what types of firearms good, honest people are allowed to own.

    BACKGROUND CHECKS. There has been a national background check system in place since 1998. Every time a person buys a gun from a federally licensed gun dealer – which is the overwhelming majority of all gun purchases – they go through a federal background check. Study after study has shown that very few criminals are stupid enough to try and pass a background check – they get their guns from friends/family members or by stealing them. So the overwhelming majority of people who go through background checks are law-abiding gun owners. When the system was created, gun owners were promised that it would be instant, accurate and fair. Unfortunately, that isn’t the case today.

    I now see why he got the NRA on his side.

  • Derpetologist||

    NATIONAL RIGHT TO CARRY. The right of self-defense doesn’t stop at the end of your driveway. That’s why I have a concealed carry permit and why tens of millions of Americans do too. That permit should be valid in all 50 states. A driver’s license works in every state, so it’s common sense that a concealed carry permit should work in every state. If we can do that for driving – which is a privilege, not a right – then surely we can do that for concealed carry, which is a right, not a privilege.

    MILITARY BASES AND RECRUITING CENTERS. Banning our military from carrying firearms on bases and at recruiting centers is ridiculous. We train our military how to safely and responsibly use firearms, but our current policies leave them defenseless. To make America great again, we need a strong military. To have a strong military, we need to allow them to defend themselves.

    Not much to criticize here.

  • ||

    Trump's definitely the best 2nd amendment candidate, at least according to Trump. I don't trust him, but to say that he's not the best candidate on the 2nd according to what he's saying, is just willful ignorance.

  • GILMORE™||

    People are going to keep insisting that the Trump of December 2015 is the "Real Trump" and the Trump of the 2016 General Election is somehow 'all just marketing'.

    Basically my point from the previous thread. People keep mistaking campaign rhetoric as actual "policy proposals"

    When he gets into the heat of the general people will probably find that he's gradually worked himself into the "right" position on everything

    (*with the exception of immigration and defense - tho my impression of the latter is that its mostly just noise, but the former i think he intends to deliver red-meat on; walls, etc.)

  • Ken Shultz||

    William Weld would make a better President than Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump.

    And Donald Trump won't find a better Vice Presidential pick than William Weld.

    We just won the lottery.

  • mfckr||

    … a washed up left-leaning GOP ex-governor of a deep blue state, with no name recognition outside MA.

    Yeah, lottery.

  • __Warren__||

    Maybe it's a Shirley Jacksonian type lottery.

  • mfckr||

    Hah.

  • ||

    If the lottery is pissing off 50% of libertarians and then getting 0.5% of the vote, then I agree.

  • Hank Phillips||

    I've got a bad feeling about this...

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Nerd alert: The secret to Klay Thompson's* epic record-breaking performance

    As he quietly got dressed, Thompson rolled up a pair of Stance socks with a cartoonish image of the green, pointy-eared Jedi master from Star Wars, Yoda. Thompson packed his lucky socks especially for Game 6, knowing he'd need something a little extra to fend off the Oklahoma City Thunder.

    "I brought my Yoda socks to bring out my Jedi powers," Thompson told The Vertical after a performance in which the least heralded, but no less important, member of the Splash Brothers saved Golden State's season.

    *Klay Thompson is a basketball player.

  • __Warren__||

    I fucking love science!

  • Brochettaward||

    The people most accepting of Johnson were the same people who attacked Rand the hardest for his supposed flip-flops and conservative pandering.

    Rand Paul was more libertarian throughout the entire primary process than either Johnson or Weld.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Baba Booey!

  • Brochettaward||

    Watch it Crusty. I got a knife...I'll cut you three ways: wide, deep, & frequent.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Brochetta "The Joke Man" Ward.

  • ||

    Where's Robyn?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I didn't realize you were such a fan of 90's dance-pop, but here you go.

  • ||

    HELL YEAH!!!!! I loved me some Robyn back in the day! And yes, HM, you already knew of my predilection for Euro-POP. This is widely known.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

  • ||

    If we're going that direction, I'm gonna need more EDM.

    Nononononono.....you gonna need more KLF....

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Well played. I expected this.

  • ||

    Well played. I expected this.

    Meh, not one of my faves...

    A little fun stuff from my current neck o' the woods...*

    *We're in Odessa, not Kiev

  • Crusty Juggler||

    At least he doesn't like Aqua. *shudders*

    Of course, neither of those two can compete with the lovely Willa Ford.

  • ||

    At least he doesn't like Aqua. *shudders*

    I tolerate it in small doses, but my wife REALLY likes that song.

    Of course, neither of those two can compete with the lovely Willa Ford.

    Who pales in comparison to Sophie... My wife and I love to go dancing and we always request this song at the discoteque. Your POP-Fu is weak, Crustified One...

  • Crusty Juggler||

    I have been put in my place. I concede defeat. Only you, Groovus. Only you.

  • Suicidy||

    Don't care about her singing. She should just do porn.

  • Brochettaward||

    Yea, because the anti-immigration stance is what did Rand in with regards to the GOP and his father's supporters.

    Now maybe next someone can explain how he differed from his father in that regard. Or how he changed his position. Because the Pauls have never stood for open-borders.

  • mfckr||

    I never saw Rand as a flip-flopper, but there was no way he was going to meaningfully distinguish himself trying to out-sermonize bible goons like Cruz. It was just bad campaign strategy.

  • ||

    Rand would have my vote for POTUS, no questions asked. The guy is a proven deal, his voting record and his behavior in congress is impeccable.

    I got upset with Rand for pandering to SoCons and the establishemt, but I only did so because I wanted him to win.

  • Deli-bro||

    Ok, anyone here who's been paying attention knows that Johnson and Weld are hardly the most libertarian candidates at the L.P. convention but we need to remember, this isn't a purity contest. We're choosing who we want to be in the white house for 4 years.

    I know Peterson is probably more libertarian than Johnson but if you think a 35 year old blogger will do a better job scaling back the government than someone who vetoed nearly half the bills that reached his desk as governor of new mexico, then I've got some land in the okefenokee to sell you.

  • mfckr||

    "choosing who will be in the white house for 4 years"

    Such an idiotic way of thinking. No LP candidate was going to end up in the WH this cycle. They needed to nominate someone who could get more people excited about Libertarianism and build the base.

    Johnson will not do so, this much is obvious.

    I miss Ron Paul running because he was the last Libertarian person to successfully do so.

  • ||

    I miss Ron too, I'll always love the guy, he's like the founding father of the libertarian movement in the modern era.

  • KerryW||

    "They needed to nominate someone who could get more people excited about Libertarianism and build the base."

    But we are never going to get a large fraction of the people to agree to all Libertarian (or libertarian, whichever you prefer) viewpoints. We are more likely to build the base with fewer of the fringe positions front and center.

  • mfckr||

    BS. Libertarianism doesn't have a position problem—the problem is getting the ideas across in ways that people can resonate with.

    There are ways to realistically talk Libertarianism without betraying core principles. But few are bothering to figure this out.

  • JeremyR||

    Dude, it's a protest vote.

    If we can't nominate principled people for a protest vote, what is the point of it?

  • ||

    There is no point.

  • Derpetologist||

    Spot the Not: top issues of Clinton's campaign

    1. Racial Justice

    2. Campus Sexual Assault

    3. Women's Rights and Opportunity

    4. LGBT Equality

    5. Promoting Religious Tolerance

    6. Gun Violence Prevention

  • GILMORE™||

    This is a trick question = none of them are real.

    Her only issue is destroying her enemies

  • JagerIV||

    here, have a verbal like.

  • GILMORE™||

    I shall cherish it always.

  • ||

    5

  • lap83||

    2

  • Derpetologist||

    5 is indeed the Not, but here are some Clinton thoughts on Islam:

    “Let’s be clear, though. Islam is not our adversary. Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.”

  • Dave C||

    5.

  • Derpetologist||

    Spot the Not: top issues of Sander's campaign

    1. Racial Justice

    2. Combating Climate Change to Save the Planet

    3. It's Time to Make College Tuition Free And Debt Free

    4. Economic Justice

    5. Fighting for Women's Rights

    6. Fighting for LGBT Equality

  • straffinrun||

    7. ELGBT HMPDNK

  • Derpetologist||

    oopsy- should be Sanders'

  • straffinrun||

    Ok. He's a Sander if you ask me.

  • ||

    A very fine grit.

  • straffinrun||

    A smooth groovus?

  • ||

    And the rap's too slick....

  • straffinrun||

    Slickin' my feet to the sound of the beat.

  • Derpetologist||

    4 is the Not. Did you that Sanders also has a plan for Guam?

    link

  • Derpetologist||

    Did you know*

  • JeremyR||

    I think it's time Reason starts covering the Constitution Party

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Reason would have to change its motto from 'Free Minds' to 'Minds Chained by Religious Dogma'.

  • ||

    Not enough SJW pandering potential.

  • Notorious UGCC||

  • Notorious UGCC||

    great minds think alike, and so do mine and JeremyR's

  • Notorious UGCC||

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    UNLEASH THE HOLY HAND GRENADE!

  • Notorious UGCC||

    Well, that's that, PB doesn't like Darrell Castle.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Front page of the Wall Street Journal, and I bet it makes the front page of the print edition tomorrow:

    "Libertarians Pick Gary Johnson and William Weld as Presidential Election Ticket"

    "By selecting a ticket composed of veteran Republican officeholders, Libertarians were hoping to present voters with a credible alternative to presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump and Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton, both of whom are likely to enter the fall election as the most unpopular presidential candidates in modern history."

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/li.....1464561553

    I love it when a plan comes together!

  • straffinrun||

    I guess we'll see how "unpopular" stacks up against "WTH is this?".

  • Notorious UGCC||

    The MSM - or at least Newsweek - covered Johnson in April, reprinting an article from the Foundation for Economic Education.

    Spoiler: It disagrees with Johnson.

  • Notorious UGCC||

    (there seems to have some kind of autoplay)

  • Ken Shultz||

    Just talking about us and him seriously is a huge victory.

    Open the floodgates. All those disaffected Republicans are coming to our open house.

    Let's vacuum the carpets and put out some drinks.

    "You think Obama is an asshole? Well, we do too!

    Hey you guys wanna go bowling Friday night?"

    Every disaffected Republican who didn't think they had a Republican to vote for? Well now they've got two!

  • SIV||

    All those disaffected Republicans are coming to our open house.

    Only the pro-abortion, anti-gun, culturally-left Acela corridor-elitists. The D.C.-dwellers votes won't even count.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Watch what happens when Trump tries to paddle to the middle on gun control, etc.

    You think Hillary has a problem not being able to move to the middle because Bernie is challenging her on the left? Trump's got a problem with a viable alternative to the Republicans on all sorts of issues, now.

    P.S. I don't really give a shit about abortion or people being culturally left--whatever that means.

    If they're against the drug war, pro-gun rights, against overspending, and want to see taxes cut, and they wanna come to our party, the more the merrier.

    That's what a successful party looks like. It's full of people who agree on 75% of everything. And that 25% is different for all of them. The important distinction is that it's full. Not 1% of the electorate. We can't blow up 20 times our size and stay just like we were. And that's alright. I'd rather live in an America that's 75% libertarian rather than 1% Libertarian.

  • mfckr||

    If Trump was going to swing Left on gun-control, he'd have done it by now.

    As it stands, Johnson/Weld are to the left of Trump on fundamental issues that actually matter (gun rights, interventionism, etc.).

  • ||

    The facts are the facts, but the Trump pants shitting train trumps (no pun intended) all common sense.

  • Cordelia525||

    He'll go left on gun control when he's president and he needs to subjugate the sheep, I mean people.

  • Robert||

    When this ticket gets less than 3% (probably half that) of the popular vote nationally, & in no state more than 4%, then will people finally give up on a specifically libertarian political party in the USA? Or will they say, no, they got more than the difference between the Democrat & Republican in 2 states, and if at least 80% of those votes had gone to the Democrat or the Republican instead, it would've changed that state's electoral vote, so there's future leverage there? And when exit polls show, no, they drew close to 50-50 from the other candidates, will they still say "BALANCE OF POWER!"?

    Or will they say, just give up on president for a cycle or two, & concentrate on lower offices? Even though they don't elect people there either, even when they campaign vigorously, if the election is partisan & there's no cross-endorsement?

    Or will they say, see, we could've gotten more att'n if less vanilla-Establishment candidates had been nominated?

    Or will they say, well, there's no sense operating in the major parties, even when there are members of Congress who are at least as, or more, libertarian than the LP nominees?

  • creech||

    LPers will be found saying all of the above.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Oh well... we survived whutsizname... and Badnarik... Maybe the platform committee can come out with a pro-choice plank and offset the infiltration by the prohi/tea/"constitution"/GOP prohibitionists.

  • Shit Pyrate||

    Okay.... Which one of you assclowns spiked Hinh's Geritol with LSD ???

  • ||

    I did. IT'S A HINH-SPIRACY!

  • Shit Pyrate||

    Good job Groovus. Keep up the good work.
    =D

  • GILMORE™||

    Wait, Hihn is back?

    I keep blocking people and forgetting that i ever did it. I confess, there's something blissful about it.

  • Shit Pyrate||

    He is a million laughs Gilly.
    =)

  • straffinrun||

    *Milky Way*

    And another bully appears.

    *Babe Ruth*

    They travel in packs.

    [oh yeah, and *Snicker*]

  • Shit Pyrate||

    =D

  • Shit Pyrate||

  • Ken Shultz||

    Most popular story at CNN?

    You guessed it!

    "Libertarians pick ticket, slam Trump"

    "At one point on Sunday, an announcer told the convention that Trump had begun attacking Johnson and Weld. The audience roared in approval at the news. It was not immediately apparent what attacks the announcer was referring to, but in a statement to the New York Times about Weld, Trump said, "I don't talk about his alcoholism."

    http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/29/.....index.html

    Good things will come from this.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I'd be worried if The Shithead were ignoring us!

  • ||

    Perhaps, if Tumescent Johnson and Gelded Weld can offer a stunning rejoinder to Troomp's nicknames, a la "Stoned Johnson" and "Plastered Weld".

  • Shit Pyrate||

  • Shit Pyrate||

    I LOVE THE CIRCUS !!!!!
    =D

  • ||

    Again. Was it ever in doubt?

  • Winston||

    So what sort of Ambassadorships can Johnson and Weld get from Clinton this time?

  • SIV||

    Libya!

  • PapayaSF||

    Duh: Somalia, of course.

  • Winston||

    Only thing needed now is the Romney and Koch support.

  • Cordelia525||

    Coming soon. Romney endorsement, that is.

  • __Warren__||

    The best news is that the new TMNT movie looks awesome!

  • Winston||

    A good showing in 2016 is useless without a good showing in 2020. Who should the LP nominate? A Michael Bloomberg/Chris Christie ticket?

  • Notorious UGCC||

    Again, I hope we don't keep hearing the word "purity test" whenever someone objects to Johnson's freedom-of-association stance.

    A purity test would be complaining because Johnson says the 1964 Civil Rights Act is OK.

    But Johnson goes further than this.

    He wants to *expand* the Civil Rights Act into new areas - sexual orientation, "gender identity," and apparently political affiliation, none of which is currently covered by the 1964 Act.

    It's as if a candidate said there wasn't enough social spending in the budget.

    This goes beyond purity tests. It's what I'd call a WTF dude test.

  • Notorious UGCC||

    the *phrase* purity test, not the word

  • Shit Pyrate||

    It's now called the Civil Privilege Act. Get with the program Biggie !!!!

  • Hamster of Doom||

    "WTF dude". I like it.

    I can understand. Libertarians have been shunted to the side and left to feel like Cassandra of Troy. And now the tantalizing possibility of a hint of national relevance and - dare we even think it - importance! I get it. Ken's bouncing around as chirpy as I've ever seen him. I can't harsh his squee, dude.

    I merely maintain that if the Libertarian party has to stop being libertarian in order to gain the national stage, then I don't understand why we would want such a thing.

    Now there's an independent socialist, a Democrat and two Republicans in the race. Big win for libertarians, ayup.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

  • ||

    *bookmarked*

    My daughters are just infants but they seem to like this song, at low volume. *grins* Me thinks I will put the girls in the bassinet and go to bed...

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    My 10 year old has taken a liking to it as well. One day they're listening to Vocaloid songs; the next, they're showing off their titties as Chun-Li at cosplay conventions.

    *sniff* They grow up so fast!

  • ||

    Needs moar Bubblegum Crisis...

    One day they're listening to Vocaloid songs; the next, they're showing off their titties as Chun-Li at cosplay conventions.

    Thanks a lot HM, I've now decided we are moving to the Carpathians, where I will have moat filled with salt water crocs, 50 cal. machine guns with autonomous laser sighting, 50 foot high walls of razor wire, and a splendid castle with fortress fortification. I guess my son will have to learn how to avoid traps when I send him to the orchard to pick apples, whilst I keep our daughters safe and sound... and we teach them how to harvest organs of gentleman callers.

  • Hamster of Doom||

  • Robert||

    WTF, dude? Exactly. I can go for waffling, compromising, & the like. I can go for differences of analysis that make my position on infanticide an outlier, for instance. Lots of room for pragmatism on every issue. Give a little, take a little. But this one will go down in hx as the "WTF, dude?" because it doesn't fit any of those categories. Hard to imagine what'll ever succeed it.

  • Winston||

    So Anti-Gun, pro-war, anti-freedom of association, pro-EPA ticket that can be bought by the Clintons. You Know What is happening...

  • Dan Bongard||

    It is a very strong ticket. Far from ideal ideologically, of course, but good for luring people away from the other two parties.

  • ||

    Explain how this ticket lures people from each party? I really cannot wait to hear this.

  • Notorious UGCC||

    I'll try to be fair - the legalize-weed types will at least consider Johnson in preference to Hillary, some of the non-warmongers and sentencing reformers will give him some consideration, maybe some of the choicers who don't like the insanity of the Dems will feel comfortable with him, blah blah.

    But as for peeling votes from Trump...what, will Kristol support Johnson? Will the alienated former Ted Cruz voters? Seriously.

  • Notorious UGCC||

    PS, Kristol has his candidate already, it's Hillary, he just needs to lie back and enjoy it.

  • ||

    The more the LP tries to look like the other 2 parties, the less appeal they will have. When you are looking for something different, more of the same is not going to do. At least give Bernie and the Donald credit, they've managed to set themselves up as an alternative, no matter how bad that alternative might be.

  • Notorious UGCC||

    "When you are looking for something different, more of the same is not going to do."

    Very Yogi Berra-esque, but true.

  • Cordelia525||

    I'll bite. Fiscal conservatives. Has Trump ever had a credit limit he hasn't maxed out? That's how he has thrived- having so much bank credit invested imprudently, so much so that if he goes down, he takes down the bank. He has spent his life living beyond his means.

    Now imagine he's responsible for balancing the budget and, in part, reigning in spending. Hello?!?

  • ||

    There's no possibility that the GOP establishment have schemed up a plan to infiltrate and render the LP irrelevant, like they did with the Tea Party. Yes, I know the Tea Party is not a political party. But it's the same. When I see this welded penis machine getting big donations from establishment republicans, I for one am not going to be suspicious at all. I cast away my tin foil hat and get on my best naivete.

  • mfckr||

    It's been floated as a tool to ding Trump from the get-go. That's all this has ever been about.

  • Shit Pyrate||

    Okay I'm out guys, and gals.
    Sorry for the terror.
    Just looking for some laughs.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBMVZdE97l0

  • Notorious UGCC||

    Johnson will make your roger more jolly

    ...is the kind of predictable joke we can expect to hear a lot of this year.

  • Shit Pyrate||

    Okay. Last comment. No one wants their natural rights anymore. They just want their own privilege over others.
    I am told that the LP stands by principles. I am not seeing this in it's candidates. I am also not seeing the required ruthlessness to win in the political battlefield.
    I see a lot of kowtowing to the Democratic party.
    Agree/Disagree with my opinion. I don't care.
    Like any other creature in nature. I will fight to live.
    YARRRR !!!!!

  • Notorious UGCC||

    Gary should have had Dwayne Johnson as his VP candidate, then it would have been Johnson & Johnson, or Johnson Fest 2016.

  • Cyto||

    So it looked like you had gotten it together after a having a couple of hours to regroup.....

    Then....

    Nah! Full Tard! Come on HnR.... you never go full tard!

    Just because the DNC put up Chance Gardner in 2008 and made it work doesn't mean that the RNC putting up Forest Gump in 2016 is in any way worthy of consideration.

  • ||

    More Couric EDITING!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cv8oclY7h0Q

    Or something.

  • Cyto||

    Crazy, but not this crazy....

  • Crusty Juggler||

    I dare one of you to toss your young child into the gorilla pit tomorrow.

  • Notorious UGCC||

    Now that Johnson has emerged, things will get hairy.

  • Quincy.||

    Don't be so sure, I see sparks from the Weld nomination.

  • Notorious UGCC||

    Yeah, but Johnson can put out those fires.

    (sorry, that joke was just stream of consciousness)

  • Quincy.||

    Hey, Eddie, the party's in flux. Don't slag the results.

  • Notorious UGCC||

  • Notorious UGCC||

    Even better, Johnson is *pulling* 10 percent.

  • Quincy.||

    Lincoln weeps at the missed opportutunities

  • Quincy.||

    opportutunities

    I do so love the ballet.

  • ||

    I really think after initial flash swells, the tumescent nomination will flame out.

  • Clint Eastwoodchipper||

    +1 Harry P. Ness

  • Notorious UGCC||

    Eliot didn't talk much about his brother...

  • Clint Eastwoodchipper||

    Harry was Prohibited.

  • Clint Eastwoodchipper||

    I think it's a decent ticket; weak in various respects, but could the LP really have done much better?

    It's nice to imagine Johnson or some other nominee shouting freedom of association from the rooftops, but given the strong support for Clinton/Trump/Sanders, it's evident enough that the voters are nowhere near "libertarian." People who vote for those three might wish to be left alone, but they still dream of a Big Government that can go after their "enemies" (gun owners, rich people, immigrants, Muslims, etc.).

    Why not focus on moving the Overton window in a more libertarian direction? At least you'll get that with Johnson.

    I liked Petersen and McAfee, but the former has zero major experience and is just 35, while the latter fits the "crazy" stereotype too easily. The media (excluding the anti-Trump conservative media) would ignore Petersen outright, and McAfee would be treated as a "clown" who's potentially dangerous/unhinged, thus giving cover to Trump.

    Weld is a snoozer for a VP pick, but if this gets the LP more attention, money, ballot access, and protest votes, then I'm for it.

    You libertarians looking to Trump as a "protest vote" should realize that you'll be included in whatever the hell he pushes for as POTUS, should he win. Idiotic trade wars? Well, President Trump will just claim he had a mandate from the voters, including the "libertarian" ones.

  • Winston||

    Why not focus on moving the Overton window in a more libertarian direction? At least you'll get that with Johnson.

    How are gay cakes and more gun control moving the window in a more libertarian direction?

  • mfckr||

    How are gay cakes and more gun control moving the window in a more libertarian direction?

    It'll end up drawing more Dem-leaners to the ticket than Republicans.

  • Notorious UGCC||

    And if Johnson's campaign really gets off the ground, then whenever some libertarian goes on the air to defend freedom of association, the smug prog host will say, "but your own candidate disagrees with you - can't you just give up your bigoted attachment to this lost cause of free association already?"

  • Clint Eastwoodchipper||

    If you really think Johnson would push for gun control as president, you're exaggerating and I don't know what to tell you.

    Yes, he screwed the pooch on the whole "Nazi cakes" thing, but I think he's realized how idiotic that answer was. If by some chance he wins the election, he won't have the authority to go around enforcing "Nazi cakes."

    That's something to remember about a LP victory: abuse of power is unlikely, especially when compared to Clinton and Trump.

  • Winston||

    You specifically mention the Overton Window so public statements are quite important to that.

    If you really think Johnson would push for gun control as president, you're exaggerating and I don't know what to tell you.

    He said he is open to it so why not? Need to make some deals with the Dems...

    That's something to remember about a LP victory: abuse of power is unlikely, especially when compared to Clinton and Trump.

    Citation needed. The LP has demonstrated that it can be as unprincipled as the Main Parties so how does that mean they won't abuse power?

  • Clint Eastwoodchipper||

    Citation needed. The LP has demonstrated that it can be as unprincipled as the Main Parties so how does that mean they won't abuse power?

    Oy vey. The nihilism...

    The LP surely has its problems, but as bad as the Dems and Repubs?

    I don't even!

  • Winston||

    They haven't had any access to power that can possibly be abused.

  • Clint Eastwoodchipper||

    They haven't had any access to power that can possibly be abused.

    That's the Trumpbot argument!

    "Well, Donald can't be too bad... I mean, all those other people suck and at least Donald hasn't shown that he sucks. He could suck but we don't really know..."

    Good grief!

    How about this? Did Johnson abuse his power as the Republican governor of NM?

  • mfckr||

    Johnson is too passive & wishy-washy, I wouldn't trust him to not be susceptible to corrupting influences.

    I think he's good-natured and doesn't go out to do evil, but you can't throw a guy like that to the hyenas and expect him to tame them.

  • Winston||

    That wasn't an a defence merely a statement of fact that the LP has not had any power to abuse so of course they haven't abused it. If they get some then who knows...

  • mfckr||

    It's not about what Johnson will do as president, because he'll never be president.

    Even if he was, I doubt he'd be very proactive about gun-control. But I also wouldn't expect him to veto gun-control legislation if it landed on his desk. So that's a problem.

    It's more important what kind of message the LP is sending out. And the message is that they're basically combining the worst elements of both the GOP & Dems.

  • ||

    And the message is that they're basically combining the worst elements of both the GOP & Dems.

    I wanted to say this, so thanks for beating me to it.

  • ||

    Whereas what I've always told people is that the LP are just taking the best things from both parties, and throwing out all the bad. I guess I lied.

  • mfckr||

    Right, I used to think the same. But that's no longer the case.

  • mfckr||

    Lol, no problem.

  • Clint Eastwoodchipper||

    But I also wouldn't expect him to veto gun-control legislation if it landed on his desk. So that's a problem.

    Respectfully disagree, but to each his own. I think veto power is exactly what Johnson is great at.

    It's more important what kind of message the LP is sending out. And the message is that they're basically combining the worst elements of both the GOP & Dems.

    Look. The Johnson/Weld ticket has two boring old guys, but they're effectively telling the American voters:

    "You won't get melodrama from us, we're not crooked like Hillary, not crazy and clownish like Trump, we're just two former governors who have a simple agenda with no added bullshit."

    That's just IMO anyway.

  • mfckr||

    The outcome will be Trump or Hillary. Ceteris paribus, Trump has more Libertarian-ish positions than Hillary—ergo the pragmatic recourse is to go with Trump.

    If the LP had bothered to actual Libertarians who can carry a real message, I'd have advocated for it. But I won't be bothering with a miliquetoast republicrat ticket like Johnson/Weld.

  • Clint Eastwoodchipper||

    The outcome was always going to be Trump or Clinton. The goal here (IMO) was to expand the appeal of the LP. Voting for Trump won't do that.

    The outcome will be Trump or Hillary. Ceteris paribus, Trump has more Libertarian-ish positions than Hillary—ergo the pragmatic recourse is to go with Trump.

    I do not understand the appeal for Trump from a libertarian perspective, even as a "protest vote." Donald Trump has no political views other than being the tough guy "strongman" who knows how to "get things done." He is virulently anti-First Amendment, staunchly opposes/undermines free markets and capitalism, claims he could order war crimes and that the troops "won't refuse me," would potentially start trade wars out of jingoism, and he has pledged not to do squat about entitlement reform.

    And that's still compared to Hillary Clinton, who is quite possibly the most anti-libertarian nominee in modern history.

  • ||

    staunchly opposes/undermines free markets and capitalism

    I need convinced of this. How is Trump against capitalism. His most worrying position for me is trade.

  • Clint Eastwoodchipper||

    I need convinced of this. How is Trump against capitalism. His most worrying position for me is trade.

    His views on healthcare?

    "We're going to take care of everybody."

    Trump's whole campaign is targeted towards depressed factory workers who want a rigged economy (as long as it's in their favor). The guy flip-flops on the minimum wage and raising taxes, says he'll get the government to "negotiate" drug prices, thinks a company like Apple can be "forced" to make products wherever he wants it to, and won't do shit about entitlement programs.

  • mfckr||

    His views on healthcare?

    "We're going to take care of everybody."

    ↑ More contextless misrepresentation. Most of his healthcare policy views are quite sane:

    http://www.donaldjtrump.com/po.....are-reform

  • Clint Eastwoodchipper||

    Trump's website is a waste of time. He just slaps generic Republican bullshit on there to fool the gullible rubes.

    His view on healthcare for most of his life has been that it should be government-run. That's not misrepresentation. He's an old-school right-wing Democrat on most economic issues (more government spending, Big Military, trade = evil, protect entitlements, etc.). Just ask Trump about entitlement programs. He'll tell you how wonderful they are.

  • Cordelia525||

    Too bad he doesn't know his position(s)

  • mfckr||

    Those who say Trump is anti-trade know nothing of international trade.

    They earnestly believe that because an agreement has free trade in the title, it must be free trade. When it shouldn't take considerable reflection to realize that actual free trade shouldn't necessitate 1000+ agreements chocked full of corporate exemptions & stipulations for regulatory fairness.

  • mfckr||

    *1000+ page

  • Clint Eastwoodchipper||

    Trump isn't just against those bloated agreements, though (and they are bloated, you'll get no argument from me on that). He uses the fake tough guy "We're going to threaten you with tariffs" stance, which is quite insane.

    I'd rather not have NAFTA. But unless you can draw it down bit by bit, you're going to have problems.

  • PapayaSF||

    Sounds like what they call "negotiating."

  • mfckr||

    Shrug. Trump's articulated an America-1st FP w/ less interventionism, is an absolutist on 2A rights, desires a more streamlined tax code, and opposes transnational crony-trade agreements.

    That's enough for me.

  • Clint Eastwoodchipper||

    That's also Johnson's platform.

    Unless you're willing to be skeptical of Johnson because of something he said, but not of Trump, who supported the Assault Weapons Ban and had been anti-gun until recently?

  • mfckr||

    Johnson has no chance of being elected though. So Trump it is.

    I don't care what Trump's position on 'assault weapons' was 15+ years ago. That's not recent. He certainly doesn't appear to be endorsing any such ban these days, and that's all that really matters. Odds are back then he thought 'assault weapons' meant machine guns & RPGs, like most people assume.

  • ||

    Yes, they could have done a lot better. McAfee/Weiss. Even Peterson would have been better.

  • ||

    False Flags!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPbv1H2krtQ

    How does Richman feel about losing his Lanza angle?

  • Notorious UGCC||

    When the Green party has its nomination (perhaps Jill Stein), then Stossel can host a 3rd party debate - Johnson vs. Castle vs. Stein.

    Plus invitations to Trump and Hillary, or failing that, some camera-crazed celebrities representing the Dem and Rep viewpoint.

    Better than internal debates of a third party.

  • Notorious UGCC||

    Seriously, I bet Stossel's Rolodex is yuge, can't he persuade some actors/talk show hosts to talk up Donald or Hillary, if those two don't accept their debate invitations?

  • ||

    Better, Johnson, Stein, and Bernie. It's not going to be that great without at least one angry geriatric commie.

  • ||

    Opening statements:

    Johnson: Look the 2 party system is a failure. And the only way that libertarians can fix that is being more like the failed 2 party system.

    Stein: We're doomed! Repent deniers!

    Bernie: Everything should be free! Look at these 2 snapper opponents of mine! They think people should still have to pay for stuff! When I was growing up, Moses made a loaf into a fish and fed a million people. Or wait, was that Buddha... I can't remember, that was 6000 years ago. Free shit for everyone!

  • Derpetologist||

    Bernie: I'm going to stand here with my shoulders hunched and talk in a run on sentence while occassionally shouting a buzzword like JOBS or HEALTHCARE.

  • ||

    Oh, yeah, I wasted all of that punctuation there on the Bernie.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

  • ||

    Stein: I'm relevant to the process, Gaeia dammit! Wymyn's issues, Mathus, Erlich. I'M A HARVARD GRAD!!!!!

  • Playa Manhattan.||

    Promoted comments = Child molester

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Promoted comments = whatever is worse than a child molester

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Trump fanatics?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I'm sorry, but the correct answer was "Kizone Kaprow".

  • ||

    HA!

  • SIV||

    Reason is just softening us up for Disqus.

  • ||

    Edit feature at last!

  • ||

    We may as well cut to the chase here. The problem is political parties, period. Most libertarians don't want anything to do with politics, they just want to be left alone. Even the ones who care and want to discuss it, like most of us here, don't have what it takes to get involved in politics. People who are drawn to get involved in politics are for the most part, the worst sociopath control freaks in society. So why wouldn't it make sense that even the LP will eventually be controlled by statist control freaks? That's why I identify as a libertarian, but don't care if I'm associated with the LP. Political parties are about control and manipulation. The best course is to probably just join the independents and hope that all political parties cease to exist. Honestly, the 'we won, you lost! shit makes me sick'. When McAfee and Weiss wrote that every 4 years Americans come together to bully their neighbors, they were spot on.

  • Derpetologist||

    Spooner called it a secret band of robbers.

    “The secret ballot makes a secret government; and a secret government is a secret band of robbers and murderers. Open despotism is better than this. The single despot stands out in the face of all men, and says: I am the State: My will is law: I am your master: I take the responsibility of my acts: The only arbiter I acknowledge is the sword: If anyone denies my right, let him try conclusions with me. But a secret government is little less than a government of assassins. Under it, a man knows not who his tyrants are, until they have struck, and perhaps not then.”
    ― Lysander Spooner, No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority

  • Winston||

    So will Cytotoxic come out against the Secret Ballot too?

  • ||

    Cyto will come out in favor of open borders and bombing everyone on the planet, cause we're Murika! That's it, there's nothing more. IOW, neocon logic.

  • mfckr||

    When McAfee and Weiss wrote that every 4 years Americans come together to bully their neighbors, they were spot on.

    Unlike the market, politics is a zero-sum game. Those who win get the right to repress and steal from those who lose. This matters a lot more than trying to score LP talking points.

  • ||

    I think most libertarians are among the most principled of all people. And so it stands to reason that there is a lot of bickering and arguing going on right now here on Reason. Libertarians always agree to disagree. This is very healthy stuff compared to the other political ideologies where everyone is fully expected to be the borg and mindlessly accept the cable company like package deal. Nothing is wrong with the libertarian movement, it's working as expected. When we are less like herding cats, we will have lost our way.

  • Shit Pyrate||

    This !!!!!

  • PapayaSF||

    I am surprised that more people here don't support Trump on punk rock/anarchist grounds. You want to kick the Establishment? You have had no better chance in many years.

    Yes, I know all his downsides. But the additional upsides:

    Anti-PC
    anti-regulation
    pro-2A
    anti-interventionist
    anti-Obamacare
    decent judge list
    possibly influenceable by libertarians (which Hillary is not)

    On eminent domain, 1st Am., and many others, he's at least no worse than Hillary. I have a hard time coming up with areas in which Hillary is superior.

    And in my few, reducing the number of illegal aliens and refugees, and stopping Muslim immigration, is a pro-liberty position for me and US. (Sorry, foreigners, I'm not giving up my liberty to improve yours.)

    You want to get the left and the media and academia to start noticing constitutional restrictions on Presidential power? Then elect Trump. The masses who cheered on Obama will have a new-found respect for the Constitution.

  • mfckr||

    I concur.

  • mfckr||

    Speaking of immigrants, here's a fun graphic from Pew Research for all you open borders liberty-lovers:

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CjrHR2lWkAAhJF5.jpg

  • PapayaSF||

    Yup. And yet, somehow pointing that out is "xenophobia," or "utilitarianism," or worse.

  • mfckr||

    Saw someone on here today say that opposing open borders is something only "a scared white guy" would do.

  • Derpetologist||

    Come now, Papaya, don't you want to try taharrush gamea? I hear it's an exotic dish from the Middle East:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pHnQ6W2KkM

  • PapayaSF||

    Gosh, it's almost as if human beings are more than bundles of rights and economic units, and have a thing that might be called "culture"...!

  • Agammamon||

    So, you know that 'foreign born hispanics' are a tiny, tiny minority, right? That their children are 'native born hispanics'? And I don't see you guys bitching about asian immigration.

  • PapayaSF||

    OK, I will now bitch about Asian immigration. (Though it is less problematic for various reasons: lower numbers, no revanchist movements, less crime, better education, higher average IQ.)

  • Derpetologist||

    For me, the main upswing of a Trump victory would be the wails and gnashing of teeth on the left. It'll be like Walker's recall times a thousand:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jy8FSyI_Djg

    Or the 2014 midterms

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3p5kzwd7mZo

  • PapayaSF||

    Indeed.

  • Cordelia525||

    He's not an anarchist - he's the opposite. He's authoritarian. Support him if liberty is bumming you out and you want someone to tell you what to do.

  • Agammamon||

    Trump is not

    Anti-regulation - just anti-any regulation that gets in his way. He's been more than happy to use regulation and the courts to screw over others

    Pro-2nd Amendment. Never has been. Best you could say about his is he's not *anti*.

    Anti-interventionist - he's already made it explicitly clear that while he thinks our previous 'interventions' have been mistakes, they're mistakes born from *not having the right people running the show*.

    he's not going to be any more influenceable by libertarians than any other Republican who's in office. Best case is that we could influence his pre-election rhetoric while he attempts to curry favor and votes from us.

    Trump is a better candidate than Clinton or Sanders - but only because they are so horrible, not because he actually has any significant upsides himself.

  • PapayaSF||

    His website has his 2A stance, which is infinitely better than Hillary's. He has made regular comments over the years about the federal regulatory burden and says he'll reduce it. Again, much better than Hillary.

  • Derpetologist||

    OT: Caught a glimpse of MSLSD today. They ran a little Memorial Day thingy listing all the service members who were killed overseas this year. They referred to them as "conflict related casualties", which I suppose spares them the indignity of having to say "combat casualties" or worse still "war dead".

  • ProLifeLibertarian||

    So, according to the Libertarian Party, there's no room for pro-life libertarians like me, but there's plenty of room for compromise when it comes to principles like freedom of association, nonintervention, and gun ownership.

    And the LP's decline into irrelevance continues unabated.

  • ProLifeLibertarian||

    BTW, I look forward to reading all of the purist libertarian's excuses for this ticket.

    But...but...but...WE'LL FINALLY GET INTO THE DEBATES!

  • ProLifeLibertarian||

    *libertarians'

  • Derpetologist||

    Cornel West or Agile Cyborg?

    "Clever gimmicks of mass distraction yield a cheap soulcraft of addicted and self-medicated narcissists."

  • Derpetologist||

    Cornel West or Agile Cyborg?

    "Clever gimmicks of mass distraction yield a cheap soulcraft of addicted and self-medicated narcissists."

  • Shit Pyrate||

    Cosmic Sex Rodents.

  • Agammamon||

    How do you yell '#'? Did he yell out 'pound statist'?

  • Agammamon||

    Or is he the one guy who could pronounce the 'prince symbol'.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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