Hey Libertarians for Trump, How Much More #Winning Can You Take?

The president is doing everything he can do to alienate libertarians who believe in shrinking the size, scope, and spending of government.

|

It's almost nine months into Donald Trump's presidency and here's a question for the old "Libertarians for Trump" crowd: How much more winning can you take?

There was a small but vocal band of limited-government folks who vocally supported the billionaire real estate mogul on the grounds that he couldn't possibly be as bad as Hillary Clinton or even most of the other Republican candidates, especially when it came to foreign policy.

Leading the pack was economist Walter Block, who beat me in a competitive debate in New York City right before the election. Block's argument was that "the perfect is the enemy of the good" and "the Donald is the most congruent with [the libertarian] perspective" especially on foreign policy.

Trump has turned out to be anything but an isolationist. He promised to bring fire and fury to North Korea, "the likes of which this world has never seen before."

He bombed Syria on the same humanitarian grounds he explicitly denounced during his campaign. He escalated war efforts in Yeman and Iraq, And more recently, announced plans to "win" in Afghanistan. His secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, declared that while the United States might not walk away with a "battlefield" victory in the graveyard of empires, neither will the Taliban. That's not inspirational, it's stupid.

Apart from his foreign policy follies, this anti-free-trader and nativist has turned out to be even less libertarian than advertised during the campaign. He's continued giving mealy-mouthed support to white supremacists and pardoned Joe Arpaio, "America's toughest sheriff," who was found in contempt of court after he continued to illegally racially profile and detain Latino suspects. And his attorney general is walking back a decade of incremental progress on criminal justice reform.

There's no question that the Trump administration is doing some good things, such as deregulatory moves related to the FCC, the FDA, and the EPA. His Education department is supporting school choice to the extent that the federal government can do so.

His deregulatory push is all to the good, but it's overwhelmed by Trump's other policies.

There's also no question that at this point Trump is doing virtually everything else he can do to alienate libertarians who believe in shrinking the size, scope, and spending of government.

And the excuse that Hillary Clinton would have been worse is getting older than Bernie Sanders.

The perfect is the enemy of the good, but what Donald Trump has shown us so far just isn't good enough.

Produced by Todd Krainin. Written by Nick Gillespie. Cameras by Jim Epstein. Production assistance by Andrew Heaton.

Subscribe to our YouTube channel.

Like us on Facebook.

Follow us on Twitter.

Subscribe to our podcast at iTunes.

NEXT: Florida's Joe Arpaio Threatens to Imprison Irma Refugees If They Have Warrants

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.

  1. I’m more confident that voting Gary Johnson was the right thing every day, and I never fully bought into the potential libertarianism of a Trump presidency, but after the primaries and all hope was gone for anybody but Trump and Clinton, I don’t blame libertarians for favoring him over her.

    Many did go overboard and express not just cautious optimism but effusive praise, and they should be criticized, but I have yet to see Reason provide any evidence that the alternative to Trump, Hillary, wouldn’t have been even more disastrous for libertarian causes.

    1. That’s a very fair expectation of Reason.

      1. Of course Trumps sucks. And Clinton would’ve sucked even more. Shocking news, I know, but even after all of the overwhelming evidence that government is insanely expensive, corrupt, inept, and incapable of reform, we don’t vote for real change.

        1. I’m just pissed because Trump has ruined the chance of a non-politician ever getting elected president ever again, and I still do believe that a non-politician can be a great president.

          1. It’s not over ’till it’s over.

            1. Yep, it’s over! Thanks Deplorables!

          2. Honestly, we may have made a collective mistake not sticking with tried and true politicians in the White House all along. At least they were only slowly killing the Republic. I suppose there’s some hope of a more libertarian government, but it ain’t looking good.

          3. I wouldn’t think so.

            Trump has opened that Overton Window wider than anyone you’re likely to want in the White House.

            Or are you on the Presidential Campaign Committee for Kid Rock 2020?

            1. The majority of politicians are moron, that’s not going to change but the notion that we need a non-politician is the biggest crock of sh#t I’ve ever heard (Kid Rock included)! Why don’t we start by voting for the most qualified individual with a good track record. Gary Johnson was that choice, not perfect, but by far the best choice besides the other two morons. How will you feel the next time you go to the dentist and they have a car mechanic pull your tooth? Yeah, just what I thought!

        2. Trump has done far more damage to the cause of freedom in the long run. Why? Because he is associated for better or worse in the minds of the electorate with “small government principals” and “the free market”. Even though none of this is true and he is every bit the socialist that Hilary would’ve been, the brand is now tainted by the steaming pile of nonsense that his administration inevitably became. If you voted for Trump you have just guaranteed that most likely the next election will go to not only a Dem, but an extreme statist and lefty Dem. Not only that, but the next generation will always conflate “free market and small government” with the anti-freedom stances of Trump.
          Meanwhile, had Hilary won, she inevitably would’ve been horrible. But at least perhaps the left would’ve been even more exposed for the abject failure it is.

          1. “Meanwhile, had Hilary won, she inevitably would’ve been horrible. But at least perhaps the left would’ve been even more exposed for the abject failure it is,”

            and we’d have been saddled with a lefty, socialist judge on the Supreme Court. NO THANK YOU!

            1. And amnesty for illegals, ensuring that we’d never have a President to the right of Obama ever again.

              1. And single payer, and compulsory federal pre-k, and massive carbon taxes, a probable war with Russia, the Bill Clinton Act (50 state lowering of female age of consent to 11), and so much more.

                1. “The Bill Clinton Act” – good one.

                  1. Bill is currently en route to the Virgin Islands, or should I say, The Islands.

                    1. At least by the time he leaves.

          2. Baron Von Weinermobile|9.6.17 @ 4:50PM|#
            “Trump has done far more damage to the cause of freedom in the long run………………………..”
            That’s a lot of words to waste proving you really have nothing other than your predictions.
            How’d you do in the last election?

          3. But at least perhaps the left would’ve been even more exposed for the abject failure it is.

            Do I need to remind you that the media blames Obamacare’s problems on the Right?

            Does Obama get any heat for the refugee “crisis” his asinine policies caused? Seems to that he does not.

            The Left’s failures are the failures of “America”. The Right’s failures are the failures of the Right only.

            1. They’re blaming the collapse of Venezuela on the right, too.

              1. The count of cognitive dissonance it takes to do that…………..

        3. But the wrong lizard might win!

        4. Of course Trumps sucks. And Clinton would’ve sucked even more.

          When it comes to corruption, warmongering, odious personalities, etc, they’re entirely interchangeable. The only practical difference between them is that Clinton would have had the press on her side, helping in every way they could to minimize her blatant felonies, where Trump has the press fully against him.

          -jcr

          1. AND . . .
            She would have done much of her damage hidden away from the public view, only revealed when it would be too late to do anything about it.
            With Trump’s damage, at least we see it as it is happening, the updates are continual and loud.
            All out in the sunshine.
            Crap done in secret is much worse than crap done in public.

        5. That’s because the average voter is a moron.

    2. Because she wouldn’t be as disastrous generally. And once Trump’s gone we’ll get the hillbilly theocrat in his place. Or is it indeed the case that a slightly higher marginal tax rate on billionaires is so much more of a threat to liberty than anything else? Because that’s what you’re saying when you say you support Republicans.

        1. Oh I forgot, what’s most important for the cause of liberty is ensuring that the federal government can force women to give birth against their will.

          That’s definitely worth risking the existence of the republic on.

          The worst part of this is how much you fucktards waved the flag in our faces, all the while being the most cynical people in the civilized world.

          1. Ahaha, I drove you insane with two words.

            1. Good job, Popeye jaw!

            2. You give yourself too much credit – he arrived at that destination a looooong time ago. 😉

            3. I think you’re claiming credit for a pre-existing condition.

              -jcr

            4. and Trump might well get to appoint three more to SCOTUS in his first term. Possibly a total swing of the court.

          2. Oh I forgot, what’s most important for the cause of liberty is ensuring that the federal government can force women to give birth against their will.

            Because Neil Gorsuch is a famous anti-abortion crusader.

            1. Would you like to put some money on this matter, should the issue come before the SC again?

              1. Is the bet that Gorsuch wants a Federal ban on abortion, or that Gorsuch might not agree with the logic behind Roe v. Wade?

                You’re a bit of a sleaze, so I want to make sure in case of any wager that you’re not taking off across the field with the goalposts, like you usually do.

                1. The very article you linked explains how Gorsuch’s theory on life would practically require him to personally endorse a federal ban on abortion (though hopefully he’d suggest that Congress do it).

                  1. In other words, you don’t actually know what Gorsuch’s opinion on abortion is, but you nevertheless feel completely comfortable asserting that he wants to ensure “that the federal government can force women to give birth against their will.”

                    Never change, Tony.

                    1. Don’t worry, he won’t, but not because you told him to!

                    2. I don’t know, I said I’d put money on it.

              2. I favor abortion rights, but there is nothing in the constitution that gives the federal government the authority to make it a constitutionally guaranteed right.

                As I said, I favor abortion rights, but I favor a non-shape-shifting legal framework more.

                1. lol@Gorsuch equating assisted suicide with murder, btw.

                  Mens rea? Never heard of it. Malice aforethought? I’m a legal scholar, I don’t deal with such rubbish.”

                  Honestly, I didn’t have a negative opinion of the man before, but way to epitomize Jonathan Haidt’s thesis from The Righteous Mind.

            2. Yes, because there are absolutely zero pro life libertarians.

              1. The Non Aggression Principle only starts after your mother decides not to dilate and evacuate.

                1. So we’re OK if the baby “aggresses” against the mother by threatening her life by its presence. The one instance in all of human experience where a baby can be an aggressor. And they say the pro-life position is wackadoodle.

                2. buybuy, you remain a thoughtless twit. Since rights cannot conflict (one right begins only where another ends), and since a mother has a pre-existing right to bodily self-determination, a fetus can only have a right to life with the consent of its mother, or if its life is not dependent upon her body. QED.

          3. Women have been giving birth “against their will” for 150,000 years.
            It is not the federal government that has imposed that but the laws of nature.

            I will be happy to have a reasoned discussion, regarding resolving the conflict between the rights of women to control of their own body and those of the separate life within a pregnant women’s body.

            Thoughtless ranting and insult are not rational discussion.

        2. Presidential participation trophy.

      1. Or is it indeed the case that a slightly higher marginal tax rate on billionaires is so much more of a threat to liberty than anything else?

        Yes. Because the only thing in the Democratic platform is “a slightly higher marginal tax rate on billionaires.” The only thing.

        1. Dammit. Gotta type faster.

        2. And letting women choose whether to give birth rather than being forced by jackbooted government thugs to do so against their will. And requiring industries to pay for the damage they cause to the environment. That last one is the real sticking point, isn’t it? I mean, without the freedom of large industries to crap on other people’s property with impunity, there wouldn’t really be a point to libertarianism at all, would there?

          1. Dodge. Weave. Duck.

            Never change, Tony.

            requiring industries to pay for the damage they cause to the environment

            Who here has ever argued that they shouldn’t?

            What have Democrats ever done to ensure that they do? In my experience, this is the kind of thing Democrats do, calling it “requiring industries to pay for the damage they cause to the environment.” By which they mean putting a cap on liability and writing up some regulations to protect established industry insiders.

            1. And taxing the FUCK out of who ever is left.

            2. The ozone hole didn’t fix itself via market mechanisms.

              1. The ozone hole was largely hyperbole and still is.

                But don’t let science get in the way of the narrative. But then, Dems never do.

          2. paraphrasing for Tony – ” jackbooted government thugs are bad”… I’m lost, follow me!

          3. Ill just leave these words here…..

            Wind Turbines, Solar Thermal, Dead Eagles & Government exemption.

            Yep certainly forcing industry to pay for their environmental damage.

            1. If you cared about eagles you’d care about the global environment being drastically altered.

              1. We do care. That’s why we’re against the movement to force it to stagnate.

                The climate changes. It changes due to the things that happen to it from without and within. This is the natural cycle.

                You and your fellow travelers want to end that natural cycle.

                1. That is complete and utter horseshit. The opposite of truth. Something you pulled from someone else’s ass. You’re just wrong by 180 degrees. So… fix that.

                  1. No, Tony, it’s 100 percent accurate. Stop pushing your religion on everyone else.

                  2. Wind turbines, using REEs stripmined in China, destroying the landscape, working (When they do) at about 5% of “rated capacity,” and, if you actually have enough of them, affecting surface wind currents, all while being tax exempt, because they’re “green.”

                    Cool story, bro.

                    You’d make a much better case for solar or nuclear, but again, science and Dems is like water and oil.

          4. What is someone so ignorant, and so ignorant of libertarianism doing posting on Reason ?
            Please get informed.

            Libertarian minarchist government includes the expectation that government will as necessary use force to compel those who actually harmed others, to make them whole.
            I do not think even anarcho-capitalists accept that you can crap over the property of another with impunity.

            The laws of nature “force” women to give birth. The modern ability to avoid that does nto inherently mean that all options for doing so are inherently acceptable. Further, libertarians distinguish between individual moral conduct, and what government can compel.

            Libertarians often share the same desired ends as those on the left – but good ends do not justify immoral means, something you are clueless about.

            1. > I do not think even anarcho-capitalists accept that you can crap over the property of another with impunity.

              I’m sure you can find someone over at C4SS.com that would say it’s OK as long as it’s somebody really rich.

          5. At what point do we ask that one accept responsibility for one’s actions?

      2. It’s true. The only thing that would be different is the income tax on billionaires. That’s it.

        1. So what else is so horrible. The key difference between the parties is one believes in evidence and the other believes in bullshit. So if regulating banks doesn’t serve to protect the economy from another meltdown, Democrats would be perfectly willing to try something else. Republicans meanwhile believe in their cynical corporate handout philosophy no matter how much damage it causes, because they are only there to distribute said handouts in the first place.

          1. > So if regulating banks doesn’t serve to protect the economy from another meltdown,

            END THE FED!!!!

          2. It’s a good thing the Democrats and Obama went after those Wall Street fat cats when they had complete control of the federal government. (And I’m sure glad Obama and Hillary never received one red cent from those dirty fuckers).

            Oh wait, that never fucking happened because they were too busy getting in bed with the fucking insurance agencies and the AMA to fuck up health insurance for every American.

            1. “Democrats had complete control of the federal government.” The talking point of a horseshit argument. Three months. After seating Franken and before Ted Kennedy bit it. All these expectations, and none for Republicans who now control all of government. Except, try not to shit yourselves on live TV, perhaps?

              1. If you were a rep shill instead of a dem shill, I would have pointed out how they completely failed to deliver on a six year fucking promise.

                You are wrong.

                But honestly, I don’t have any expectations of Republicans because they pretty much universally suck donkey balls. Democrats always talk about helping the little guy while actively screwing him over.

              2. “Democrats had complete control of the federal government.” The talking point of a horseshit argument. Three months. After seating Franken and before Ted Kennedy bit it. All these expectations, and none for Republicans who now control all of government. Except, try not to shit yourselves on live TV, perhaps?

                Bush had his “buddies” (they were closer with this dad, actually) in Enron prosecuted for their crimes.

                Didn’t notice the same desire from Obama. Funny.

          3. We have been regulating since the 30’s. It has proven to be an abject failure.
            You claim to beleive in evidence – well the evidence is that that regulatory approach of the left fails. Yet, you have proven incapable of “trying something else”

            Both parties have their flaws. You are incapable of grasping how deluded the left is regarding evidence and how deep it is in bullshit.
            Maligning the right – deservedly or not, is not exhoneration of the failures of the left.

            You make mistakes, and you do NOT learn from them. Worse most often you double down on them.

            Much if not all your criticism of republicans is true, but you fail to grasp that today – those same criticisms apply to democrats – democrats receive more corporate politicial contributions today than republicans and great more corporate favors.
            Democrats have successfully challenged and defeated Republicans as the most corporatist party.

            Absolutely much of what Republicans do is wrong and cynical, and it remains so when Democrats take up the same torch.

          4. Tony, the bullshit is very strong in you.

          5. Dems believe in evidence?

            BWUAHAHAHAHAHAHahaahahahaha!

            Fucking hilarious.

            The only thing Dems are willing to try is “more.” Hello, Agent Smith. The real virus in the Matrix.

      3. Tony here is the first commenter to realize the contest is between both wings of the looter kleptocracy and the LP, not personalities. The LP legalized abortion with just over 3000 votes plus 1 electoral vote earned in 1972. This was despite Nixon using the IRS code to funnel tax money to subsidize looter parties within a day of the party forming. But that electoral vote was shared by the first viable lady candidate, Theodora ‘Tonie’ Nathan. All sane Suprema Corte republicans then copied the LP abortion plank into the first decision in Roe v. Wade 45 days after the electoral votes were counted. The court’s paraphrasis of our plank is logically perfect.
        Neither looter party was in favor of women having individual rights. The Dems wanted communism and God’s Own Prohibitionists wanted nationalsocialism. Only libertarian voters had the courage to rewrite American jurisprudence by voting for individual rights. That is Libertarian Jurisprudence in action!

      4. Has anyone ever called Tony a cuck before? Someone should totally call Tony a cuck.

      5. Hey shitbag, read my above comment about why she’s so much worse. Although you being an evil pedophile racist marxist piece of shit, you will likely consider them good things.

      6. Hitlery would have been the end of America.
        Trump may yet be the end of America.

        With the latter, there’s a chance things will be okay.
        With the former – no chance at all – barring assassination.

        Overall, I’d have to say I think Trump is doing worse than I’d hoped and better than I expected.

    3. For the first time in decades, there actually WAS a dimes worth of difference between the two parties.

      1. The only deliverable difference was in the energy planks. The GO-Pee copied the LP energy plank and added embroidery. The Dems copied the CPUSA and Greenazi planks. Everything else, some 71,000 words of combined cant, was hot air and spin. It all cancelled out.

        1. But the GOP lost.

          People seem to forget that.

          It wasn’t Trump vs Hillary–it was Trump vs the Dems, the Reps, the media, the LP, the CPUSA, the Greens–it was Trump vs everyone.

          And Trump won.

          GOP planks are irrelevant. GOP hot air is irrelevant. We are the trump. You will adapt to service us. We will assimilate all the winning. Democrats are irrelevant. Republicans are irrelevant. You will win, or you will be fired. America will be great again.

          1. Still beats four years of Hildebeast.

          2. Actually, I kinda like that. And I didn’t even vote for Trump!

    4. She would of been anti-libertarian in different ways. To paraphrase Doug Stanhope, “How does her suck make his suck not suck?”

    5. I smelled a rat the day I saw it riding down the escalator! I voted Libertarian in 2016 and was happy not to buy into the hipe, and guess what, I can say I sleep very well at night!

    6. I smelled a rat the day I saw it riding down the escalator! I voted Libertarian in 2016 and was happy not to buy into the hipe, and guess what, I can say I sleep very well at night!

  2. Since you mention Walter Block, see “Ep. 894 Revisiting Libertarians for Trump, as the First Hundred Days Come to a Close” (Walter Block on the Tom Woods Show) at http://tomwoods.com/ep-894-rev…..o-a-close/

    > And the excuse that Hillary Clinton would have been worse is getting older than Bernie Sanders.

    Are you saying that the alternative (opportunity cost) is not relevant?

    1. I hope that you have your arguments and supportive links* in good order.

      *I also hope that you have realized that you could benefit from sources not disparaged by previous (and perhaps some current) commentators on H&R.

      1. Wow, now the commenters think they’re the final authority on what sources are and aren’t legitimate.

        1. > Wow, now the commenters think they’re the final authority on what sources are and aren’t legitimate.

          Obviously we are. On sources that we find persuasive. Or are you going to try to tell me that I “have to accept ” this mythical authoriteh, because reasons.

          My mom used to say that “A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.”

          1. My mom used to say, “Life’s a bitch, and then you die.”

            1. My mom used to say “Go clean your goddamn room!”. Words of wisdom to live by.

  3. Is this whole article a big “I told you so”?

    1. And it’s a link from Reason to LRC, which rips a hole in the spacetime continuum.

      “What year is this?”

      [ear-splitting scream]

      1. I laughed

        A commenter also posted a link to a Tom Woods episode. Tom Woods himself is fighting the chair of the LP. The chair of the LP told Jason Stapleton that maybe the LP isn’t for him. Sheldon Richman mentioned Murray Rothbard in a column a while back. A recent paragraph on Chris Cantwell mentioned Hoppe

        We are in the end times. The paleos and cosmos were supposed to keep their divorce civil

      2. LRC.com is fucking unreadable. I had it in my RSS feed for a while and I had to axe it. Those guys are bad news if you don’t like infinite warfare, and do like uninsane thinking.

        I was in the middle of a 30-paragraph parenthetical history lesson about Nazis and WW2 when I realized what I was reading. No mas.

        1. I think the shunning of the Murray Rothbard crowd by the “mainstream” libertarians pushed them into the arms of some really unsavory people and it’s a shame because they would have things to contribute otherwise. They certainly wouldn’t allow the LP to focus all its attention on legalizing pot. Instead, Lew now talks unironically about “the deplorables” and peddles conspiracy theories and I think it’s because paleoconservatives were more willing to talk to him than other libertarians. Or maybe he was always this insane, who knows

          I’d love for a libertarianism that bridges the gap between the paleos and cosmos because I don’t want a party that puts forth Bill Fucking Weld as its standard-bearer, but I also don’t want to side with someone like Pat Buchanan in the culture wars. I would think that coming together might temper each side’s worst attributes. Ah well, probably no chance

          1. I totally agree, especially about Rothbard. I admire the man’s thinking eminently.

          2. > I’d love for a libertarianism that bridges the gap between the paleos and cosmos

            That would be “thin” libertarianism, as opposed to the “thick” libertarianism (just add a dash of social justice!) you find at C4SS and to a (thankfully) lesser degree at Reason.

            Libertarianism is the non-aggression principle. Nothing more. No additives. What you want to do with your liberty is your own goddamn business. If you want to hold hate in your heart AS LONG AS YOU DON’T DEMONSTRATE IT WITH YOUR FISTS, you’re fine. If you choose to associate or not associate or do business or not do business based on whatever criteria you choose, we’re cool with that, JUST DON’T INITIATE FORCE OR FRAUD.

            Chris Cantwell, now referred to as the Crying NAZI, still believes in the NAP, but he’s shinned by the “mainstream” libertarians like Reason, CATO, etc. I guess C4SS wants him dead, even though he still calls himself an anarchist (anarcho-capitalist).

  4. There was no reason to vote for Trump other than he wasn’t Hillary. Trump is a random number generator, sometimes he does the right thing (rarely) and sometimes (mostly) he does the wrong thing. However, both Bush and Obama almost always did the wrong thing which makes Trump slightly better than either of his predecessors.

    However, randomness isn’t much of a selling point. Trump has no core principles and can be talked into anything by the last person he talks to. We would be better of having a “Magic 8-Ball” run the country. Should we invade Afghanistan? The 8-Ball says “Without a doubt”. Looks like the 8-Ball is about as good as Trump.

    1. Too bad the 8-ball wasn’t on the ballot, that would have given some chuckles.

      The other candidates were like dice with 1s on them, so they always roll snake eyes.

      1. Now I want someone to run for President on the explicit pledge of using the Magic 8-Ball to make every major decision in office.

    2. He ended DACA, and he ended it in a humane way. That was the right thing to do.

      He Gorsuched the likes of Tony. Again, the right thing.

      He ripped a gaping hole in regulation-state. More right.

      He called Hillary a liar and a criminal. Righteous, baby!

      My only real quibble with Trump is his intemperance.

    3. There was no reason to vote for Trump other than he wasn’t Hillary.

      Which coincidentally, is why Obama got the nomination.

      -jcr

  5. Given that the primary argument of “Libertarians for Trump” was !=”Hillary”, i don’t see how this is a super-compelling argument that is going to spark some backlash from the currently-indifferent.

  6. This should elicit some good comments. I may go pop some popcorn.

  7. As I watch HRC’s somewhat less-than-classy behavior post-election, the raging left-wing nutjobs prowling our streets and universities who would have been yet more empowered by her, and imagining where we were headed generally if she had won, I feel even better about my Trump vote than on election day.

    You’ve lost me Reason.

    1. Ditto. I held my nose for Trump because Johnson is a God-damned moron and Hillary is pure sleaze. Watching the Left and the bureaucracy go as ballistic as they have, I am ecstatic about my vote. Nothing worse than the state deciding that they know better than the voters.

      1. Good thing the guy you voted for isn’t a moron or a sleaze!

        1. Sleaze comes in a variety of flavors.

          1. I voted for a crook for President. I got one.

            No worries.

      2. Johnson is a God-damned moron

        He doesn’t even know what Aleppo is!

        1. One of the Marx brothers.

        2. At least Johnson knows what the nuclear triad is! Little Marco had to explain it to Drumpf on national television just so it was on the record that Drumpf is a total moron.

    2. Yeah, same.

      Something tells me Gillespie wrote the first draft of this article the day after election day thinking it would be a slam dunk.

      It’s just absurdly tone deaf.

      1. You gotta admit that it was a tedious eight years of Reason contributors endlessly pointing out the same thing about Obama.

        Oh, wait…

    3. yes, thank god our president is anything but “less-than-classy”

    4. I’m totally feeling Iheartskeet’s commentary, but I still love you Reason; even if you spaz out on me from time to time.

      I totally love that HRC is not president and as a result that antifa is self-destructing, that Regressives are eating their own, and that the snowflakes are in perpetual meltdown. Hopefully, if man-made global polar bear hurricanes don’t wipe us out first, we’ll get to see sanity and decorum returned to our universities.

      I’m almost sorry I wasted my vote on Gary and didn’t vote for this chucklehead, puss-laden big-gov skin cysts and all.

      1. Mitsima, your vote packed 21 times the law-changing clout of the other guy’s cowardly surrender. Nobody but the commie populists wanted an income tax in 1892, but 9% of the voters went 3rd party and the tax passed within two years. Nobody but the fascist prohibitionists (and yeast and glucose trust) wanted beer made illegal. But the Prohibition Party got 1.4% of the vote 11 campaigns in a row and light beer became a federal felony in the Constitution for the length of a Vietnam War. They who voted with integrity rewrote the laws with their votes. THAT is winning when the votes are cast for freedom. All else is bootlicking and losing.

    5. I’m not saying I’m a fan of Hillary’s post-election behavior, but do you seriously think Trump would have reacted in a classy fashion had he lost?

      1. Trump takes rejection as a personal sleight, so I doubit it.

        1. I agree with you. He gave every indication before the election that he was going to unleash a wave of butthurt if he didn’t win. If someone wants to argue Trump > Hillary, go ahead – but Hillary being unclassy, while true, is a pretty bad reason to justify voting for Trump.

          1. The difference being that if Hillary had won, Trump’s butthurt would have been mocked by the media for a few weeks, and then completely ignored. Republicans wouldn’t have gone out in the streets to riot over Trump, or tried to shut down Hillary’s inauguration, any more than they did when Obama won.

            1. What? Are you trying to insinuate that the right wouldn’t be behaving like petulant children right now? Forever poised on the verge of a tantrum, like Nick Gillespie?

        2. The impression I had of Trump on election night was that he was pleasantly surprised that he won. This doesn’t mean he wouldn’t have treated rejection as a personal sleight, but I suspect that he was ready to do so, but mostly to do so for show, rather than out of sincerity….

          I, too, was amused that Trump won, but more because I was certain that Hillary was going to win, and was *very* pleasantly surprised that she lost. (I still didn’t vote for either Trump or Hillary, but hey, of the two likely outcomes, I really appreciated this one…)

      2. He didn’t act in a classy fashion when he won. The union of class and Trump is the null set.

      3. Trump would have fired off some Tweets for awhile and mentioned it from time to time.

        Hillary wrote a fucking book.

        1. A book that will probably be required reading at schools

        2. I think that has more to do with Trump’s attention span and preference for tweeting than difference in class.

          1. Obama was “classy” and he sucked as a president.

            I’ll take a tasteless, vulgar, goof any day if he’s a tasteless, vulgar, goof that wants to install originalist supreme court judges, lower corporate taxes, lower my healthcare costs (nearly 3x what they were pre aca, with higher deductibles. Same coverage), and generally put the American economy first.

            Also, even though I’m libertarian and i care about gay marriage rights, abortion, police discrimination, etc, etc, I voted for trump because I’m sick of hearing about all that petty shit while our economy and infrastructure collapsed around us. He’s the first president to completely focus on the truly important (read non-social) things in my votable life. That’s why most of us voted for him. He may be an idiot at times, but he’s an idiot who wants to put our key interests first, and its about damn time. That’s more than can be said for any recent candidate on any side.

            Lastly, we gave the GOP so much crap for pushing establishment hacks like jeb down our throats, but we let the LP slide on Gary Johnson? Gary got his 4 mil votes and Trump won because independant voters were fleeing all things clinton. He’s got to be one of the most unremarkable candidates ever, to begin with. Then he makes an ass out of himself on national tv multiple times and even says something so arrogantly libertarian id have smacked him in the head if i was his adviser, along the lines of “if i don’t know where a country is, then i can’t bomb it!”

            1. So that’s your argument? Well good job, we’ll see you in 2020 once again complaining about the same government bullshit you voted into office!

        3. Hillary paid someone to assemble a book.

      4. I never said that, nor hinted it. For sure he would not. My point was her refusal to take responsibility for failure, her cloistered pomposity, the spectacular ineptness with which she ran her campaign, capped off by allowing Podesta’s non-concession speech on election night, all indicate she isn’t as different from Trump as many suggest. When one looks at boxes to check on HRC vs Trump, “acting presidential” looks like a tie. I’d go further an say Trump had a nice human touch in Houston.

        1. My impression of Hillary is that outside of the public eye she is little more than a conniving violent tempered vicious harridan given to violent fits of uncontrollable rage.

    6. Iheartskeet is right on. Another example why I come here for the commentary more than the writers.

      AND as others have said, Hillary would have been pulling so much crap in secret and without the howling of the media.

      Reason is acting as if it’s a news flash that Trump’s extremism begets an extremist lefty next election. Ha! The left’s extremism brought on Trump. The cycle repeats itself. Thanks for pointing that out Reason!

      Oh, and it looks like ISIS is finally getting whacked, not growing like a wildfire.

    7. the raging left-wing nutjobs prowling our streets and universities who would have been yet more empowered by her

      I know, right! Next thing you know they’ll be running over people with cars!

      Oh, wait….

  8. There’s also no question that at this point Trump is doing virtually everything else he can do to alienate libertarians who believe in shrinking the size, scope, and spending of government.

    Where are these Libertarians and why aren’t they writing for Reason?

    1. And why the fuck would Trump try to pander to the current crop of libertarian intellectuals and pundits when their sole object of intensity is no borders?

      Fact is, if Trump had an immigration position slightly closer to Clinton’s, Reason would think him the best thing since sliced bread.

      1. Yep, because open borders no matter what!

  9. Dunno. I still think HRC was a guaranteed clusterfuck. So far things have been going a good deal more conservative than the average Repub president.

    You seem to be implying otherwise.

    1. And maybe that’s good for conservatives, but we’re libertarians.

      1. There was no chance of a libertarian being elected.

        And Johnson was a fucking disaster of a candidate. His Supreme Court shortlist included progressive law professor Jonathan Turley and Alex Kozinski, who famously told Reason “I disagree with the liberals on the bench half of the time, and the conservatives the other half”, i.e. Anthony Kennedy redux.

        I’ll take a more conservative agenda over a more progressive one.

        1. LOTS of libertarians were elected. Every one of them spells terror to the looter kleptocracy, which seeks government jobs, paychecks and graft. The Dems tried to make electricity illegal. The GO-Pee copied the LP plank that electricity remain safe, legal and unsubsidized. These pro-energy party planks won both the popular and the electoral college majorities.

        2. Jonathan Turley is far more libertarian than you would imagine. And becoming more so as time goes by.

    2. Conservative is just another term for progressive.

  10. mealy-mouthed support to white supremacists

    Wow.

    1. I know, hardly mealy-mouthed right?

  11. I think you could create another more nebulous category of Libertarians who don’t necessarily root for Trump or favor him but find some of the insane media coverage about him somewhat laughable and annoying.

    1. If there was anything left of even the slightest hint of credibility in the insane media before Trump’s election, it sure is gone now. If nothing else, they’ve let Trump drive them so mad that even a decent number of lefties are having trouble understanding what they’re supposed to hate from week to week.

      1. Trump, 1

        Media, 0

  12. There’s also no question that at this point Trump is doing virtually everything else he can do to alienate libertarians who believe in shrinking the size, scope, and spending of government.

    Its hard to argue that Trump is ‘alienating’ people who didn’t vote for him in the first place.

    but as for that argument – Trump *has*, admittedly, made some efforts at trimming the size/scope issue, mainly by going after the various agency-level expansions-of-mandate which Obama had tried stuffing in in his last months in office.

    you’ll hear the most about things like labor laws or environmental regulations…. or things which seem to target various ‘protected’ classes

    iow, the things that get highlighted are the things which only seem to hurt the weak, and don’t actually help anyone (except evul corporatey corporashuns)

    …but to claim he hasn’t done anything to appeal to those who want to limit government is simply wrong.

    1. e.g.


      Trump administration cancels hundreds of Obama-era regulations

      The White House has frozen or withdrawn hundreds of planned rules, a move aimed at bolstering the economy but that scraps proposed protections for workers and the environment.

      I’m not trying to make more of this than it is, and i don’t see it as equal to any legislative repeals, which would be far more appealing… but as someone who didn’t vote for trump…. i personally think he’s delivered more than I would have expected.

      as for his ‘reversals’ in foreign policy vs. campaign rhetoric…. i made a comment on Welch’s last bit about that. I think it says more about libertarian naivete than it does anything special about Trump. Obama campaigned on ‘ending wars’, and yet he literally did nothing beyond see out Bush-era Status-of-Force-Agreements. He mostly continued bush era wars, and even expanded most of them. Thinking that Trump was going to turn on a dime? I seem to recall this magazine being skeptical before he took power. Pretending to be ‘betrayed’ after he did exactly what was expected…. looks silly.

      1. There have been some useful “undo” moments. DoL “regs” are a great example. While it’s not surprising, it is troubling that so much of the previous administration’s actions were totally unconstitutional. That’s only going to get worse, but at least there’s been some movement to stop some of the active destruction. Not that some new crap hasn’t been stirred in.

        1. it is troublingto be expected that so much of the previous administration’s actions were totally unconstitutional.

          what is ‘troubling’ is literally no one else giving a shit

          i do think its funny that between summer 2016, and summer 2017, Obama passed dozens of new rules/expanded many stupid regulations….

          …. just because he knew Trump/congress would immediately repeal those stupid things, and in so doing, justify a WILD SCREECHING FROM EVERY DIRECTION THAT THE GOP IS TEARING SOCIETY APART AND DRAGGING AMERICA BACK TO THE DARK AGES

          everything from new gender-related rules re: the federal workforce, to the expansion of national parks into places they had no business being, to various forms of red-tape added everywhere…. none of which were things anyone actually thought were important or necessary (else, why did obama wait 8 years to stuff them through when no one was looking?)…. yet, without which America was regressing to the 19th century.

          the net result of which is that most federal laws are more or less *exactly where they were in spring of 2016*… yet the media narrative is “OMG the scale of the Trumpapocolypse is hard to even comprehend”

  13. No Reason author that I have seen has had the temerity to say who they voted for, which leads me to believe they all caved for Hilary. Because:

    1) The content has been obviously Anti-Trump since Nov 2016

    2) Why wouldn’t the authors of the leading Libertarian Magazine just say they voted Libertarian?

    I’d be more open to siding with them on these hit pieces if they just owned up to the fact they were Libertarian Hilary supporters, not dissimilar from the Libertarian Trump supporters they love to bash.

    For the record, I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again — GayJay was my bae.

    1. What are you talking about? They post a huge multi-page article on who everyone voted for, every single presidential election. You must be new?

      1. You must be new?

        Just ignorant I guess. I retract my comment and rebuke.

        1. That’s not enough.

          You must also disavow your comment.

          1. And Nazis – never pass up an opportunity to disavow Nazis … if you know what’s good for you.

            1. And, of course, RAAYYYYYCCCCIIIISM.

            2. Why? Both the Dems and GO-Pee mouth the same mystical and altruistic appeals to collectivism National Socialist candidates mouthed in 1932. The only difference is that exterminating all individualists to make the world safe for altruism has fallen WAY out of fashion even with them. Nazi coins said “The Common Good before the Individual Good” just like the DemoGOP does today.

        2. Just ignorant I guess.

          And in the absence of knowledge, you just make up whatever facts you think are most convenient for your argument.

          1. And in the absence of knowledge, you just make up whatever facts you think are most convenient for your argument.

            Not exactly, I regularly visit this website and never see any authors talk about their election votes besides this one article I apparently missed. I moved forward with the knowledge I had in that moment; being in error is regrettable but I’ll own my ignorance and adjust my views accordingly.

            1. Don’t worry, there is a large group of people who are aware of the existence of these articles, but feel comfortable claiming that a large proportion of the reason authors voted for Clinton regardless of the content of these articles.

              Actually, it’s more like they remember it the way to bolster their argument, forgetting (maybe?) that it’s pretty easily refutable. Of course then it’s the argument that the authors voted differently than what they claimed.

            2. Your whining apologies are not enough. You must record yourself eating shit and post it to Youtube. It’s the only way the H&R Commentariat can be appeased.

              1. The H&R Commentariat can never be appeased; two girls, one cup.

      2. Yeah. An article filled with ‘tells’.

        One writer actually claimed not to remember their vote in the Obama/McCain election. Mmmmhmmm. Suuure.

        Just read through it. It’s pretty easy to see who was actually voted for–particularly if you’ve read the writer’s articles leading up to the election.

    2. The Reason writers have an article every election saying who they plan to vote for, if they plan to vote at all.

      1. Which just makes Arpaio more of a non-issue which is bizarre to get worked up over.

        1. Should be down below.

        2. It’s not so much about the specifics outcome of Arpaio’s case, but the message it sends. An unequivocal endorsement of Arpaio and his tactics, someone who was unrepentant and repeatedly violated the Constitution he swore to uphold. A man who made his fame off of “enforcing the law” and thought it didn’t apply to him. That’s what upsets people about it, especially if it paves the way for more Arpaios to operate and get off scot-free.

    3. Re: Half-virtue, Half-vice,

      1) The content has been obviously Anti-Trump since Nov 2016

      Which is to be expected since Cheeto-man is anti-libertarian.

      The least worst thing about a Hitlery win would be that the libertarian cause would not be conflated with Trumpism, which is exactly what the leftards are doing now. It would also be better for Capitalism since if the economy went kablooey on Hitlery, no one save for the least honest of socialists could blame Capitalism and expect to be taken seriously. But Cheeto-man is now the face of Capitalism for at least a generation, hurting the liberty movement more than helping.

      1. There’s also the fact that the Second Amendment was toast if HRC won.

        A new young progressive on the SC would have been disastrous for an entire generation of Americans.

        Sorry, that far outweighs any temporary damage that Trump may or may not do.

        1. Nope. Would not have happened. This is a card that Trump’s fellators always trot out. The truth is that Trump voters simply love a big strong man to dominate them and tell them what to do.

          1. Wouldn’t have happened? Are you serious?

            DC vs Heller was 5-4, and HRC said it was “wrongly decided”.

            She also said this:

            “I was proud when my husband took [the National Rifle Association] on, and we were able to ban assault weapons, but he had to put a sunset on so 10 years later. Of course [President George W.] Bush wouldn’t agree to reinstate them.”

            “We’ve got to go after this,” Clinton continued. “And here again, the Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment. And I am going to make that case every chance I get.”

            http://nypost.com/2016/08/03/h…..n-job/amp/

            It’s not me with the dick in his mouth, sir.

            1. Of course, the great irony of *that* quote was that President George W. Bush *was* willing to re-instate the ban, but we were fortunate for having a Congress that wouldn’t put a reinstated ban in front of him to sign…

              Even so, George W. was *still* a greater friend to gun rights than Hillary…

          2. Baron Von Weinermobile|9.6.17 @ 4:57PM|#
            “Nope. Would not have happened. This is a card that Trump’s fellators always trot out. The truth is that Trump voters simply love a big strong man to dominate them and tell them what to do.”

            I’m trying to remember who posted shit like this under a different handle in the past. Why is it you changed handles? Is it because you were constantly busted for stupidity in the past?

      2. It would also be better for Capitalism since if the economy went kablooey on Hitlery, no one save for the least honest of socialists could blame Capitalism and expect to be taken seriously.

        Oh, I giggled so hard I nearly spilled my cup of tea.

        Nobody will blame capitalism if the government fucks things up, is that your theory? Oh, my, you must be new to the history of…everything.

        Jeeeez.

  14. North Korea is actively threatening American territory and American allies. Not responding to such threats with “we will end you, if you do that” is terribly irresponsible. Sorry, total pacifism is stupid when faced with that kind of belligerence and the number of people who support such a position is vanishingly small.

    Arpaio is 85 years old, no longer holds a position of authority and the court decision against him was procedurally dubious. That is more a desire for vengeance than a rational consideration.

    If Trump is doing some good things with regards to regulation, then he is not doing everything to lose libertarians. Tone down the hyperbole, Gillespie.

    1. Trump didn’t say he would unleash “fire and fury” if North Korea followed through on their threats, he said he’d do it if they issued more threats. Which is fucking stupid, because he was obviously never going to follow through on that.

      Arpaio deserved everything he got and more. He was unlikely to face any jail time in the first place.

    2. You do realize that tariffs are a regulation right?

      1. Baron Von Weinermobile|9.6.17 @ 4:58PM|#
        “You do realize that tariffs are a regulation right?”

        And?

    3. > North Korea is actively threatening American territory and American allies

      Bullshit. The NORKs are responding to the west’s acts of war (sanctions) and showing that any attempts at regime change will be catastrophic for SK and Japan. Kim knows that if he strikes first, he’s toast, along with most of his population. MacArthur completely leveled NK’s capital leaving only TWO buildings standing. Gen Curtis LeMay said that they had killed over 20% of the population. Do you think that Kim has forgotten about that? Or about Gaddaffi’s anal rape with a bayonet, AFTER HE ABANDONED HIS NUCLEAR PROGRAM, but not his plan for a pan-African gold backed currency.

      Don’t get your news from TV.

      1. Let’s not forget that all this started when the west responded to the NORK’s acts of war (invasion of South Korea) in the first place.

  15. “The perfect is the enemy of the good, but what Donald Trump has shown us so far just isn’t good enough.”

    Not sure who should be blamed for this bullshit; who owns it, Nick? You?
    First, I was never a ‘LfT”, Johnson got my vote. But the “good” we’ve gotten so far is better than the last three or four POTUS put together. It is certainly possible that this is a result less of design than of chance, but who ever penned that crap in the quoted sentence above now has the duty to back it up:
    Who would have been better than what we got?
    If you can’t answer that, please tell us how you’d like your crow.
    And quit bullshitting; it doesn’t help the rag’s rep.

    1. I, reluctantly, also voted for Johnson. I was glad (here, in the real world) to see Trump beat Hillary. The secondary reason was that I thought he’d do less damage than Hillary. But the main reason wasn’t what his election meant in governing, but what it meant to the two major parties. I thought his election would be at least a modest earthquake that would help reorganize both the GOP and the Democrats, for reasons I won’t list here. I still hope that’s true, but time will tell. I hope by now that he realizes that the GOP is not his friend, and can do him much more damage than the Democrats. His lack of guiding principles is hurting the chance of progress more than I had expected.

      1. “…His lack of guiding principles is hurting the chance of progress more than I had expected.”

        Ambivalent about this. If he had principles, no one in DC would bother listening to them or him.
        And his scatter-gun efforts has the Dem-Publicans peeing their pants and pretty much gridlocked DC, so I’ll take that.
        Even the SF Chron admits the Ds are splitting even more as a result of Trump; another positive.
        The Rs are left pretty much admitting publicly that they are D-lites, so I can hope many of the party-supporters might finally realize there’s not much there.
        It could (and probably will) get worse, but so far, it’s better than any hopes I had.

        1. “The Rs are left pretty much admitting publicly that they are D-Lites

    2. Johnson may have been more acceptable to Gillespie in foreign policy but I doubt even he would be the totally inoffensive wallflower Gillespie apparently wants the USA to be in international relations. Clinton would certainly have been quite belligerant but perhaps more to Gillespie’s liking on the culture war (but hardly for love of free thought). The only tbing Clinton had to offer was being a more run if the mill politician if running to the more slimy side, but she had little to offer a liberty minded voter.

  16. He didn’t run on a limited-government platform and he’s not governing as a limited government guy, but he’s doing at least some limited government stuff – at least compared to a Democrat or a “sensible moderate Republican.”

    Am I singing his praises too much? I don’t think so, but I guess it looks that way compared to the hyperbole against him.

  17. Alienating Liberal………………….tarians maybe.

    But libertarians?

    Gorsuch, regulatory repeal, EO reversals, cabinet picks.

    Trump is doing so much shit that ‘Libertarians’ claimed to want done that this tone is getting more and more ludicrous–of course, this is taking those ‘libertarians’ at their word.

    Even his response to Charlottesville was pure libertarian gold–he refused to accede to the demands that it be tribalized. There WAS violence on both sides, and, truth be told, leftist violence is just as bad–if not far worse.

    How much more #losing can reason take? It can’t generate in a week what glibs gets in a day. When it DOES generate views they’re from people complaining about how the writers at Reason are shitting on libertarianism.

    1. Re: Azathoth!

      Gorsuch, regulatory repeal, EO reversals, cabinet picks.

      For some voters, the important issue was the nomination of a conservative to man the empty Supreme Court seat and that was done. Other than that, the regulatory repeal is merely a token gesture and nothing grand?we still suffer under Dodd-Frank and, worse, Sarbanes-Oxley?and the cabinet picks are mostly decorative.

      The bad part is that Cheeto-man has proven not to be the staunch anti-war candidate the paleo-libertarians expected. Besides his penchant for economic ignorance and his lack of political sophistication, his habit of listening to the last opinion he hears is very troubling.

    2. Gorsuch is like, meh, not that great, but whatever, he’s not Garland.

      1. Nobody wants a decorative necklace for a supreme court justice.

    3. > There WAS violence on both sides, and, truth be told, leftist violence is just as bad–if not far worse.

      RAAAAAAAYYYYYYYCCCCCIIIIISSSSSS!!!!!!!

  18. Welcome To Trump Derangement Syndrome, Episode #342

  19. HRC would have been far worse.

    Her warmongering would certainly not have been less than Trump. She never saw a conflict she didn’t want to increase America’s footprint in. At best, it’s a push.

    Supreme Court Vacancies – Trump puts in Gorsuch, HRC gets elected and the senate would have approved Garland in the lame duck. BIg Points – Trump.

    Regulation – Trump talks big talk about cuts, and maybe 2 for 1 doesn’t really get at quality. HRC would cut nothing. Point Trump.

    Obama’s 11th hour executive orders – Trump puts them on hold, HRC makes them permanent. Point Trump.

    Healthcare – Trump fails to rally Team Red to repeal Obamacare. HRC continues business as usual while Team Red passes repeal bills that get pocket vetoed. Push.

    Title IX Excesses – Trump via DeVos says “Slow down, cowboy”. HRC likely creates witch hunt panel, ensuring the insanity continues. Point Trump.

    Imperial Presidency – Trump is regarded as a joke, even by half the people that voted for him. HRC would have continued to grow and expand the view of President as King like the last several POTUS’. Point Trump by sheer buffoonery.

    1. Now we get to the 3 that Nick actually cares about:
      Immigration – Trump threatens to enforce laws, and revokes Obama’s executive order over-reach, forcing Congress’ hand on immigration. HRC shrugs. Half point to Trump for somewhat following the Constitution and reducing the scope of executive power.

      Pot – Trump appointed a poor AG and adopts a 1985 drug war pose. HRC would have been business as usual. Point Clinton.

      Ass Sex – Trump doesn’t like the notion of men walking into women’s showers, but has no issue with gay marriage and has made no overtures towards helping out Christian bakers. HRC may possibly be a closet bi-sexual but says the right things. Push.

      On balance, Trump is no Libertarian Dreamboat, but the score is pretty clear – Trump 5.5, HRC 1. On issues Reason actually cares about, it’s a 1-1 tie.

      1. So Reason doesn’t care about foreign policy or Title IX? Or healthcare or the supreme court?

        1. Pot/Mexican Immigration/Ass Sex – It’s been a meme here for a while.

          And just to clarify – I voted Johnson.

      2. Re: The Last American Hero,

        Immigration – Trump threatens to enforce laws[…] reducing the scope of executive power.

        “Enforcing” those laws the Trumpistas get off on would require expanding the size and scope of government to the point of REAL intrusiveness, especially if you add to that the awful e-Verify which turns employers into immigration officers.

        1. “to the point of”???????

          LOL

          Where you been for the last half century?

          Open borders or a welfare state, pick one.

          Oh, wait. We already did. Deal with it.

      3. Gotta say I pretty much agree with your scores but HRC would have said mean(er) things about Nazis sooner than Trump did. Considering the fact that Reason posted at least 5 articles on the subject it is obviously the issue they care about most so 10 points for Hilary. Revised score: HRC 11, Trump 5.5.

    2. “Supreme Court Vacancies – Trump puts in Gorsuch, HRC gets elected and the senate would have approved Garland in the lame duck. BIg Points – Trump.”

      And that is the best case scenario. If Hillary had won and the Democrats taken control of the Senate, Obama could have pulled Garland’s nomination and waited for President Hillary to nominate him to the Supreme Court, or somebody like Larry Tribe (not Tribe himself, because he’s too old to shape the court for the future, but somebody in the same ideological ballpark).

  20. Any libertarian who gets repeatedly scorned by the two parties has it coming. But here’s the thing: this is not Block’s first time. He also explicitly said that Obama was the best of the bad options outside of the LP during the primaries in 2008 because of foreign policy. And in some ways I don’t think he was wrong. Even though Obama deserves eternal scorn for turning into an interventionist, I would say that fewer people were slaughtered abroad than would have been slaughtered under McCain or Hillary. (Now perhaps Obama’s legacy of drone bombing the antiwar sentiment out of the left is more damaging than what anyone else would have done, we’ll see). I regard Obamacare as a lesser evil than McCain commanding our armed forces

    It’s hard to say if Trump is going to still play out as the lesser of two evils. Even with his foreign policy, he has a high bar to clear to be worse than just what Hillary promised to do abroad, much less what she would have done. Not to mention everyone on both sides has finally shown their true colors, which we wouldn’t have seen with anyone else. But it is worth considering that when he loses, which I think he will, the Dems’ candidate might be both openly socialist and pro (or indifferent to) war in response to him and that’s terrifying

    But no matter what, no libertarian should be playing the “lesser of two evils” game anymore. It’s a nice thought exercise but don’t go throwing your vote to these bastards

    1. the Dems’ candidate might be both openly socialist and pro (or indifferent to) war in response to him and that’s terrifying

      Might be, but Trump’s nationalistic protectionism/rejection of globalism combined with how earnestly the left is now pretending that Trump is a warmonger and that the Dems are the Party of Peace could also swing it in a very different direction.

      Various Democrats seem to be experimenting with various anti-Trump positions, and it’s really hard to say right now where things are going to end up.

      1. I’m seeing indifference amongst the left regarding war. They’re harping on North Korea but that’s it. They reluctantly cheered him when he bombed Syria. Their rhetoric regarding Russia is openly hostile. The trans ban sparked more anger than the surge. Sanders criticized Hillary but then would turn around and say he would remove Assad

        And I saw someone on Twitter say “A million people might get deported and you’re talking about Yemen?!”

        Well yeah people are starving and dying of cholera and we aid the Saudis’ actions there. People dying provokes less of a reaction than discrimination and inequality to the left. It could change by 2020 but being critical of Trump means examining Obama critically as well and he’s “the best president of my lifetime” to these people

        1. It is in no way rational or consistent with reality, but I see all over the place people from the left decrying Trump the Warmonger and speaking as if HRC was campaigning on Peace, Love and Harmony.

          In any case, I don’t see the Dems coming around in 2020 with a “Trump is not warlike enough” campaign. Unless he starts to really seriously disengage from overseas conflicts he’ll be painted as an imperialist warmonger no matter what positions real-life Dems and Repubs take.

          I think it’s something of a toss-up whether the Dems will pitch harder left trying to pick up the Antifa/Bernie-Left, or whether (as NPR has been doing) they’ll take up the standard of free trade and globalization against Trump’s economic isolationism. The two parties may even fragment and realign over this very issue.

          1. I just don’t see it being a central issue. People didn’t like Bernie because he was less interventionist, they liked him because he bitched about “the 1%”. Similarly, Hillary’s Goldman money was a bigger issue than stuff like “We came, we saw, he died! Haha!”

            They might run a candidate who says they want to leave Afghanistan, but you’re not gonna get Ron Paul preaching the theory of blowback. There will be no conviction behind it because they don’t need any. I don’t see it being central to their message, just a checklist issue like it seemed to be with Bernie

            And again the warmonger stuff I’ve seen reserved for Trump’s threats against Korea and Venezuela. They’ve barely made a peep on the ME because it opens up criticism of Obama. Where’s the critique of the tens of thousands of civilians who died in Mosul? It’s not there because it started as an Obama operation

            1. I think you’re right that the next Dem that runs may run as indifferent to war, but I don’t think you’re going to see a pro-war stance from a Dem unless Russia ramps up the aggression and Trump ignores it.

              And I would argue that Bernie’s “anti-war” leanings were in fact a big part of his appeal, in addition to the 1% nonsense. Most people I know who were into Bernie were more about his foreign policy – but in fairness these are people who tend toward Green and Peace & Freedom, but wind up voting Dem in every election only to spend the intervening months complaining about what Traitors to the Cause the Dems are.

              But for some reason, many Team Blue types are completely impervious to the observation that HRC is pretty much just John McCain with two x chromosomes.

              The only counter-example I can think of (I.e. where the Dem was running as more belligerent than the Repub) is Bush v. Gore when Gore was campaigning on “Team America: World Police” and Bush was campaigning on “a more humble foreign policy.” But I know no Team Blue loyalist who doesn’t believe that Bush’s wars wouldn’t have happened under Gore. Because even though Gore tried deliberately to cultivate an image as a warmonger, to most Team Blue people, the Dems are the Peace Party and the Repubs are the War Party, all actual evidence and real-world outcomes notwithstanding.

              1. > the next Dem that runs may run as indifferent to war

                And that’s why they’re going to lose 2020. Trump won the highest margins in the areas that took the most war casualties. Antiwar rhetoric SELLS.

              2. Many Dems will say “Of course I’m antiwar” but then breathlessly talk about transgender bathrooms and intersectional feminism for hours, and are a few questions away from saying “Well, the drone war isn’t THAT bad”. I don’t think you can be “kind of” antiwar. It’s your biggest issue, or you don’t actually care that much about it. Maybe that’s the principled libertarian in me, but people dying at the hands of our government always ranks above everything else. Wanting to expand the warfare state should be an automatic disqualification for any candidate if you actually care

                And that’s why I think it’s important that those people you mention who said they liked Bernie’s foreign policy still came home to Hillary. It never actually mattered that much to them, it’s just a thing for them to say. For that reason I don’t trust most leftist pundits on their antiwar credentials unless they’re Jeremy Scahill or Glenn Greenwald. If they wanted to play the lesser of two evils game on foreign policy, they would have gone Trump. If they were principled they would have gone for Stein

                1. > It never actually mattered that much to them, it’s just a thing for them to say.

                  And that’s exactly why Ron Paul got such large crowds. People know that he means it.

    2. Obama’s scorn at the thought of having to get even a minimal Congressional approval for acts of war against Libya marks him as worse. Obama was never met a Presidential power he recognized a limitation on.

      1. Obama was absolutely horrendous. His foreign policy was the biggest reason I jumped ship from the Democrats. Watching people who were critical of Bush’s foreign policy just a few years earlier justify the drone war was one of the most disgusting things I’ve ever seen. The man had the gall to joke about killing the Jonas brothers via drone strike. That’s more disgusting than a tweet of CNN getting body slammed

        But the alternatives were John McCain and Hillary Clinton (poor Ron had no chance). I have no doubt they would have flaunted the AUMF all the same, and in even more countries than Obama. As for Romney, he was backed by the same hawkish establishment that brought us McCain, and he was an early adopter of the “Putin is the new Hitler” thing we’ve gotten from the establishment GOP and Dems

    3. He also explicitly said that Obama was the best of the bad options outside of the LP during the primaries in 2008 because of foreign policy. And in some ways I don’t think he was wrong.

      Besides Ron Paul, he was, unfortunately.

      1. He’s talking General Election.

        1. I think Ron may have been out of the running by the time Walter Block came out for Obama, but Obama/Hillary was competitive for far longer and it wasn’t certain who would come out ahead

  21. Trump is being scrutinized by the press. Hillary would not have been. That’s a plus. Are journalists giving Trump anything resembling a constructive critical analysis? No. They (along with a portion of Reason’s own) have gone batshit insane over relatively par-for-the-course presidential statisms. But at least nowhere outside of the Hannitys and the Dobsses are free passes being handed out.

    The Trump presidency is mainly garbage, but since he’s unsubtle about everything he’s pretty transparent. That’s inadvertently better than Hillary.

    1. “Hillary would not have been [scrutinized by the press].”

      Sorry but that’s the most ridiculous thing I’ve read all week.

      1. Tony|9.6.17 @ 4:24PM|#
        “Hillary would not have been [scrutinized by the press].”
        “Sorry but that’s the most ridiculous thing I’ve read all week.”

        We fully understand your imbecility; carry on.

        1. Hillary Clinton is possibly the most press-scrutinized person in the history of the world.

          Give me a fucking break. I try to take you people seriously, but come on.

          1. Tony|9.6.17 @ 4:28PM|#
            “Hillary Clinton is possibly the most press-scrutinized person in the history of the world.”

            And you are likely the dumbest fuck to ever draw a breath.

          2. You spelled “most corrupt politiician” wrong.

            That’ll net you some press attention, despite the overall political lean of American media.

            1. Anyone claiming Hillary Clinton is especially corrupt is a propaganda victim. May you get the treatment you need.

              1. Clinton Foundation.

                Child trafficking.

                  1. But if you don’t want to pay for a shrink and just want my advice, if a particular “news” source is telling you that only they can be trusted and that every other mainstream source of news in the world is in on a conspiracy against you, you might just be a propaganda victim.

                    Listen carefully now.

                    1. Tony|9.7.17 @ 12:39AM|#
                      “But if you don’t want to pay for a shrink and just want my advice,…”

                      Your advice is NWS.

              2. Tony|9.6.17 @ 5:01PM|#
                “Anyone claiming Hillary Clinton is especially corrupt is a propaganda victim. May you get the treatment you need.”

                Whatever he’s smoking, you don’t want. That level of imbecility can be dangerous.

      2. Out of curiosity, how much journalistic scrutiny do you believe President Obama endured, relative to other presidents?

        1. Is fellatio the same as scrutiny?

        2. Oh they slobbered all over his magic black cock. But what he didn’t get was the extreme grading on a curve that Republicans get, and the more incompetent, the bigger the curve, with Trump thus benefiting most of all. You may be skeptical of that, but just consider if Obama had done even a single one of Trump’s, uh, miscues.

          Consider the last 40 years in which Republicans were simply assumed to be the party of flag and Jesus and Murica, only getting a token bit of pushback when they lied their way into a decade-long war, tortured people, and let a city get destroyed. Which in American media terms is roughly equivalent to Obama putting his feet on the Oval Office desk.

          1. Which in American media terms is roughly equivalent to Obama putting his feet on the Oval Office desk.

            Yeah, we’ll just ignore the continuing degradation of the Middle East that he oversaw, or the fact that he’s the first President in the nation’s history to conduct combat operations his entire eight years in office.

      3. > Sorry but that’s the most ridiculous thing I’ve read all week.

        Tony, Hitlery was the choice of the Deep State. The Deep State controls all major news media (see Church Committee hearings, 1975 DCI William Colby testimony), and the CIA spends a sizable chunk of its budget on this (40% of its budget in 1975, probably less today, as the industry has consolidated). Look at the amount of “nothing burgers” the MSM has gone after Trump for. The Deep State HATES Trump. He is difficult to control (they seem to have him under house arrest, though.) and they yearn for President Pence.

        1. The GOP no doubt yearns for PP. As the Wicked Witch of the West wisely noted, the trick is how to do it. These things must be done delicately.

          Which is to say Trump’s moron cousinfucking supporters hold these men’s jobs in their hands too. Damn, who knew a cynical, deliberate strategy of subverting American democracy for the sake of raw, directionless power would turn into some kind of shitshow!

          1. No, it’s the National Socialist Democratic Party who yearns for President Pence. Why else would they constantly bleat about impeachment with no criminal grounds?

            1. Democrats are just fine keeping Trump where he is, ruining the Republican party, at least until he gets truly dangerous. Any Dem calling for Trump’s impeachment is doing so for patriotic reasons alone.

          2. > Which is to say Trump’s moron cousinfucking supporters

            You do realize that you’re talking about an electoral majority of this country of 330,000,000 people, right? THAT MANY people you want to insult?

            Just shows your ignorance.

            1. Oh, and you’re absolutely right about the GOP yearning for PP. They’re at least as corrupt as the Dems – they’ve had more and better practice. Lincoln was the original [gangsta] crony capitalist (railroad lawyer).

  22. Still in the running to be the best prez of my life, & I’m 63. I don’t see how you can so heavily weight the negative in comparison to the positive w.r.t. Trump.

    1. Slightly OT but since you are old enough to remember – is Trump more boorish than LBJ? My parents say yes, but they’re pretty hardcore Team Blue.

      1. LBJ sat on his fat ass for the better part of five, long years, while about 29,000 American boys died in Vietnam. Then (likely knowing he was dying from cancer) he chose not to run for a second full term, because … as little Robby McNamara relayed in his writings, … “he didn’t want to be the first US President to lose a war,” and he’d likely not have won the nomination of his own party either.

        So, “more boorish than LBJ?” I don’t think boorishness is the issue.

      2. LBJ was legendarily boorish in ways Trump couldn’t even approach. Trump is boorish like a Rodney Dangerfield character in a couple of movies. LBJ was boorish like the drunk uncle you invited to family gatherings only because you had to.

    2. Well, it’s early yet. At this point in Dubya’s presidency the press was giving him shit about golfing so much and debating whether NCLB went far enough.

  23. Maybe it’s the case that, in recent American history at least, the Democrat will always be the less bad option, and that’s despite the fact that Democrats believe in slightly higher taxes on rich people and regulating air pollution. (The horror.) Maybe you are the ones who have to put your bullshit hobbyhorses in storage for a while as we eliminate the actual present existential threats represented by the GOP and its frightening descent into madness.

    1. I’m not sure that’s right.

    2. > Democrats believe in slightly higher taxes on rich people and regulating air pollution

      You left out starting world wars.

      1. Well, winning them anyway.

        1. But Democrats and Republicans switched sides somewhere around the time everyone realized progressives were vicious racists and klansmen, no?

          1. I’m not your fucking 10th grade history teacher.

            1. Your 10th grade history teacher should probably tell you about Korea and Vietnam, then.

            2. Tony|9.7.17 @ 10:40AM|#
              “I’m not your fucking 10th grade history teacher.”

              Fortunately, you’re not anyone’s ‘teacher’, you imbecile.

        2. If you’re talking WWII, fine. That war was totally necessary. WWI wasn’t. America stuck its nose where it didn’t fucking belong and we got the goddamned Treaty of Versailles out of it, which paved the way for Adolf Hitler and his madness. That and the Great Depression, of course. WWII was simply the disgusting clean-up job for the first; kinda like an overflown toilet after Andre the Giant just took a massive dump. Sad but true.

          Of course, I don’t think Wilson would’ve minded that much, being the racist, Klan-loving fuck he was. He and Der Fuhrer would’ve probably gotten along. Too bad they weren’t aborted; the world would’ve been a better place.

          1. > If you’re talking WWII, fine. That war was totally necessary.

            Cow Pucky. You’ve been reading too much bad history. I’ve even seen some almost main stream texts point out that WW1 was to establish the League of Nations, and WW2 was for the UN. Check out the work of Antony Sutton’s work, specifically “Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler.”

        3. > Well, winning them anyway.

          Oh, OK. THAT makes up for the firebombing of Dresden and Tokyo, and Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

          As long as “we” won those civilians’ lives don’t mean shit.

  24. Trumps’ anti-trade and anti-free market stances make him perhaps the worst economic president since Nixon. Throw in his anti-foreigner impulses and love for all things police brutality and you have a recipe for disaster. If you didn’t support Johnson you should have abstained. If you didn’t then you owe me a f****ing check to pay for that stupid f***ing wall that I’m going to be taxed for.

    1. I don’t necessarily disagree with anything you’ve said, but Trumps main redeeming value aside from a few bones to the “less regulation” crowd is probably his total lack of competence and his apparent mastery of saying stupid shit and sticking his foot in his mouth.

      After the fiasco with the white supremacists among others he seems to have very few remaining political allies in Congress and maybe fewer in his own administration. His views on trade and the free market in general are shit and he loves authoritarians such as Arpaio and Clarke, but I doubt very much at this point he’s going to be able to get very much done to make things much worse than they already are.

    2. “If you didn’t then you owe me a f****ing check to pay for that stupid f***ing wall that I’m going to be taxed for.”

      Yeah, if it ever gets built.

    3. Baron Von Weinermobile|9.6.17 @ 5:07PM|#
      You’ve been posting bullshit for a couple of days now, and the bullshit is very reminiscent of someone who posted here under a different handle. And that would be you; what was that handle?
      Are you embarrassed by the bullshit you used to post? Are you hoping no one recognizes your bullshit now?
      Why did you change handles? What embarrasses you about your past?

  25. I really expected Hillary to win. And when it came down to Hillary vs. Trump after the primaries, it didn’t really seem to matter who won – It was lose – lose either way.

  26. Hey Nick, did you forget Gorsuch?! Really?? How about putting DACA back to Congress where it belongs? Sure, Trump is a turd, but he is still infinitely better than Hillary.

    1. ‘Or the fact he forced the masks off the left as they went into full unhinged mode.

      And it looks like Reason is taking the bait.

      Imagine that. Trump did indeed turn out to be an existential threat…to Reason!

      Trump, Obama, Hillary. When will you bozos and chooches realize (or at least trust your instincts) they never were remotely close to holding any libertarian principles. But of the three, Trump has take more action that pleases libertarians than Obama and likely Hillary had she – gulp – won. I also like that he’s not afraid of over turning Obama’s EO’s.

      1. Drop the apostrophe.

    2. He’s not just infinitely better than Hillary, he’s incomparably better than Obama, McCain, George Jr., or Gore Jr. You have to go back to the last century before you get any prez candidate with a chance to win who’s even in the same ballpark as Trump.

      The bad things about Trump so far are almost entirely symbolic, while the things that are actually getting done & having effect are good.

      1. The worst that can be said about Trump is that he’s an arrogant, boorish asshole who publicly says what’s on his mind, as opposed to professional pols who are just arrogant assholes.

        At least I know what I’m getting with Trump, and if it results in a marginally more conservative society than if HRC had been elected, all the better.

  27. “There’s no question that the Trump administration is doing some good things, such as deregulatory moves related to the FCC, the FDA, and the EPA. His Education department is supporting school choice to the extent that the federal government can do so.”

    AND…. AND … he appointed an originalist to the Supreme Court. That’s no small matter, when that judge might just be the most libertarian of all the Supremes. Gillespie is correct in that Trump’s no libertarian, but I’ll take another half-assed President for four-to-eight in exchange for a good supreme court justice anytime!

  28. While I didn’t not vote for Trump, he is preferable to Hillary Clinton, the bloodthirsty war monger and sworn enemy of individual liberty.

    WATCH: The Biggest Media Meltdowns to Trump’s Win

    America is crying tonight – everyone is upset – it’s the end of the world – how did this happen ? get your abortions now!
    You’re awake this your life now – it’s a different earth now! Obama said Clinton was the best candidate ever – it was a white lash!!!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtJvYdX4GKM

    LOL!!! @ Left wing nut jobs & marxist kooks !!!

  29. > And the excuse that Hillary Clinton would have been worse is getting older than Bernie Sanders.

    May be so.

    Still very, very true. Hillary would’ve bee an absolute catastrophe.

    Nick, Todd, you left out the very best part of a Trump admin.: The Deep State absolutely hates him! (The progtards even more!) The mere fact that he campaigned on a LESS interventionist FP was enough for the Deep State to pull out all their tricks, forcing the MSM to promote lie after lie, preposterous fiction after preposterous fiction, and now they are nearly completely discredited. (Factoid: in 1975, CIA control of MSM news took up 40% of its budget – Church committee hearings)

    But I know, “Oswald acted alone” … .yeah. Sure.

    1. “But I know, “Oswald acted alone” … .yeah. Sure.”

      Tin foils hats on aisle six. Brain-dead conspiracy idjits, get lost.

      1. Good comeback.

        Got any facts? Any at all?

        1. You DO know that the term “conspiracy theory/ist” was coined by the CIA to discredit those that didn’t buy the Warren Commission BS and were doing their own investigation, right? Right?

          You DO know that those in the Deep State conspire for a living, 40 hours a week, and they’ve gotten pretty good at it, right?

  30. I voted for Mccain and Romney enthusiastically. I detest Mccain now and Romney has proven himself to be man with no backbone. I almost regret voting for them now. I voted for Trump reluctantly but I’m morbidly intrigued.

    Americans are conditioned to be outraged and by certain things, especially anything that concerns racial issues. That’s why the travel ban, DACA decision and transgender ban riles up the opposition. And yet, Obama did destabilize a chunk of the middle east with his ill advised intervention and contributed to the migrant crisis. He inherited a volatile situation from Bush somehow made it worse.

    Given how many lives were lost under the last two presidents, it’s hard to say that Trump is worse than either of them. He still has 3 more years to go and he already bombed Syria with no congressional authorization, so we’re all holding our breathes. There are certain conservative causes that overlap with libertarianism – school choice, gun rights, religious and SOME economic freedom, etc. On those, Trump might be more useful than a conventional republican. Because he’ll churlishly brush aside the manufactured “that’s racist” opposition and push on. “Shut up, it’s good for America”.

    There’s a lot of Ron Paul in Trump. They’re EXTREMELY blunt about expressing their views, in ways that rub people off. Trump is more on the theatrical side. These personalities attract certain fringe of the white population who are increasingly growing tired of he PC culture.

  31. If you vote you are not a libertarian.

    1. I’m allowed to vote in self defense.

  32. I have no particular complaints about Trump so far, and I still prefer Trump to Clinton.

    (I voted for neither.)

  33. Trump has turned out to be anything but an isolationist. He promised to bring fire and fury to North Korea, “the likes of which this world has never seen before.”

    And it’s not like poor lil’ Kimmy did anything! I mean, lobbing some potentially nuke-capable missiles over Japan, threatening to hit U.S. territories. Big deal!!! Why couldn’t Trump just meekly funnel more cash to the DPRK like a responsible president??

    Holy shit has this place jumped the shark. I eagerly await Nick’s next article singing the praises of Bernie Sanders and Nicholas Maduro.

  34. The Fleas and the Ticks were the major parties on the Dog. The Bath had only 3% of the vote. Fleas tried to convince the Dog that if he voted Flea and the Flea candidates won, the Dog won! The Ticks had a similar argument, but both bloodsuckers agreed that a vote for the Bath was a wasted vote.
    But the Dog, who wanted only to keep his own blood, voted for The Bath. This spoiler vote threw the election into a runoff. Each bloodsucker party changed its platform, now calling for a scrubbing of the other bloodsucker party. The Owner noticed what both bloodsucker parties were doing, got out the soap and brush, and the Dog and Bath both won! Wouldn’t you know it? BOTH bloodsucker parties lost.

  35. Nick, can you get Mango or Matt to take away Robby’s posting privileges? If you do that, I’ll agree with and even believe anything you say.

    I did not vote for the bloated orange retard currently occupying the Brothel-in-Chief, and I hate the way he talks. He may be a rich man, a successful man, a powerful man- but he speaks as an undereducated, credulous lout. His voice, diction, loose words and tendency towards babble are unbecoming in a leader, and I find his bearing clumsy and oafish. I cannot watch him stultify himself.

    Also, his minders need to cut off that goddam Twitter feed. Doing an end-run around the fucking Pentagon on fucking Twitter was one of the dumbest goddam things I have ever seen anybody do.

    What if Armageddon is started on Twitter by a bored President who is awake at 2am?

    1. See and I think this is a disturbingly real danger. While Hillary certainly would have deepened our military involvement in the Middle East, to our detriment, Trump may well yet ignite a war with some careless tweet.

      1. So you are saying that tweeting is more dangerous than sending soldiers into foreign countries and shooting people?

        The attacks on Trump are just so bizarre.

  36. Reason descends even further into Leftist race baiting. Sad.

    He’s continued giving mealy-mouthed support to white supremacists

    Here is Trump’s “support” for white nationalists:

    I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally

    1. Funny how Nick’s video evidence for “white supremacy” at Charlottesville is a bunch of whites shouting “White Lives Matter”.

      Hmmm, I can’t quite recall Nick condemning BLM for “black supremacy” for chanting “Black Lives Matter”.

      Oh, but that’s right.

      It’s only racist and supremacist when Whitey does it.

      Reason is increasingly transitioning from white guilt Progressitarianism to full on white hating Progressive Social Justice.

      They work so hard to recruit for the Alt-Right.

  37. His deregulatory push is all to the good, but it’s overwhelmed by Trump’s other policies.

    There’s also no question that at this point Trump is doing virtually everything else he can do to alienate libertarians who believe in shrinking the size, scope, and spending of government.

    Couldn’t Nick at least have avoided contradicting himself in his very next sentence?

  38. Hey Libertarians for Trump, How Much More #Winning Can You Take?
    The president is doing everything he can do to alienate libertarians who believe in shrinking the size, scope, and spending of government.

    I could do with more winning, but am certain I would have gotten only more losing with the GOPe Washington Generals, and the fast track to the end of the country with Hillary.

    With Trump, there is still hope. Without Trump, it was only a question of how long til the fat lady sings.

    1. “the fast track to the end of the country with Hillary”

      lol

      Hillary is a corrupt sleazy moderate-left Wall Street Democrat. Not some Marxist ideologue.

      1. Hillary is a corrupt sleazy moderate-left Wall Street Democrat. Not some Marxist ideologue.

        The differences between fascists, progressives, Marxists, socialists, etc. are situational; the ideology is the same, and it’s Clinton’s ideology: “put me in charge and I will make all your lives better”.

  39. “There’s no question that the Trump administration is doing some good things, such as deregulatory moves related to the FCC, the FDA, and the EPA.”

    Would Hillary have done this? My guess is no. On this alone we could argue she would have been worse because she would have been a war hawk AND not deregulate. And heaven knows about her crooked shenanigans.

    Neither of the candidates could be characterized as ‘libertarians’ or even advance its principles and it was pure folly to think so.

    1. “Would Hillary have done this? My guess is no.”
      I find it hard to even call that a guess. The woman never saw a government restriction on human action which she did not like. Never once did she even hint that she would have reduced the regualtory load.

      “On this alone we could argue she would have been worse because she would have been a war hawk AND not deregulate. And heaven knows about her crooked shenanigans.”
      Last I checked, the Clinton Foundation is showing contributions for 2014. Maybe when the update them to post-election data, we’ll see how profitable her (and their) shenanigans were.

      1. Hillary would have been at best ‘status quo’ for sure. How people at Reason can even remotely settle for her and not see she would have been a war monger as well as not do any of these tangible things Trump has done (apparently we’re Trumpatarians now) is beyond me to comprehend.

        She was toxic. Pure toxic waste.

  40. It just isn’t good enough? Is that it?

    So, they should have voted for Clinton, is that it? I suspect the answer is YES. You should have voted Clinton. Does anyone at Reason have the guts to actually say so?

    And since the Reason faction of libertarianism is now fully sold on the idea of no borders–it has become their cause celebre, their defining issue, their sine qua non–it’s justifiable for them to feel pissed that Trump kept Clinton out since she would have been very sympathetic to that position, and Reason, et al. would have been overjoyed no matter what the collateral damage.

  41. And the excuse that Hillary Clinton would have been worse is getting older than Bernie Sanders.

    And remains just as true.

  42. I continue to be amazed at the number of people who insist that electing Hillary would have represented “the end of America” or some other apocalyptic phrase. Hillary is a corrupt sleazy moderate-left Wall Street Democrat. She is not some Marxist ideologue and certainly not as ideological as Obama. Obama I think took many of his positions because he genuinely believed them, but Hillary’s positions are more constructed out of convenience. (See: “public position” vs. “private position”). Electing Hillary would have represented some combination of Obama’s third term and Bill Clinton’s third term. Actually probably more like the latter, because – again – I think Hillary’s embrace of Obamaism was pure convenience and not sincerely held. You can’t in any way seriously argue that a slightly more liberal and more opportunistic version of Bill Clinton would spell “the end of America”. Now just to be clear, I did not vote for Hillary, and would never vote for Hillary, if for no other reason that she is shamelessly and unapologetically corrupt. But I also don’t have Hillary Derangement Syndrome and I don’t view here as some sort of antichrist.

    1. Obama I think took many of his positions because he genuinely believed them, but Hillary’s positions are more constructed out of convenience.

      Quite correct.

      Electing Hillary would have represented some combination of Obama’s third term and Bill Clinton’s third term.

      No, it wouldn’t. Hillary is not just a power-hungry opportunist, she doesn’t understand how incompetent she actually is, and she is ill-tempered, perpetually angry, and incredibly thin-skinned (far more so than even Trump). Unlike Trump, who vents his frustrations on Twitter, Hillary would have vented her frustrations through the passage of laws restricting free speech and restricting political campaigning, as well as ordering killings and military campaigns.

    2. > She is not some Marxist ideologue

      Out loud and in public.

  43. And the excuse that Hillary Clinton would have been worse is …..

    ….absolutely spot on.

    We would be wishing for something as pleasant as ‘worse’ by this point.

    The woman believes she is ENTITLED to rule(not govern). She is visibly disgusted that she has not ascended to her place yet–and ‘yet’ is how she thinks.

    1. Hillary Clinton would have been more predictable than Trump, and better for the right. Trump has split the right, whereas Clinton would have likely united it. Whether Clinton believes that she is entitled to govern is irrelevant. Had she won the presidency, she would be entitled to rule whether you like it or not.

      1. mtrueman|8.30.17 @ 1:42PM|#
        “Spouting nonsense is an end in itself.”

        trueman has nothing other than nonsense.

  44. He’s continued giving mealy-mouthed support to white supremacists
    racially profile ?

    and pardoned Joe Arpaio, “America’s toughest sheriff,” who was found in contempt of court after he continued to illegally racially profile and detain Latino suspects
    racially profile is illegal?

    .

  45. Both Block and Gillespie are right.

    Trump has been a disaster for Libertarians.

    Though less coarse Obama was worse, and Clinton would have been.

    We got the lessor evil.

    Unfortunately the lessor evil is still evil.

  46. So what actions has Trump done that are so unappealing to Libertarians?

    Most of his bluster is concerning, yes. But when you tally up the actions, reality is a quite different picture.
    For all the talk of trade controls, border tax, etc…..there has been no action that reduces freedom of trade.
    For all the talk of deportation and immigration crackdown….there has been no action beyond a temporary ban on specific countries while improved vetting is implemented on the other country’s end of things. Something that was actually already in place prior to Trump taking office.
    For all the talk of blowing the Norks back to the stone age….there has been no action beyond the most active engagement of China/SK/JP we’ve seen in decades regarding the ongoing Nork issues.
    For all the talk of deregulation and reduction in the agencies…there has been extensive change and improvement…more than we’ve seen in decades.

    When you actually look at reality, perhaps all the bombastic spewing and extreme talk is exactly what Trump himself described as his approach and style in Art of the Deal. Take an extreme position, redefine the scope of the discussion and move the middle-ground and final negotiated outcome further to your preferred conclusion.

    But we can just rant about words if you prefer. Free minds and all that.

  47. America dodged a bullet on Nov 8. The gunfire continues.

  48. Maybe you’d rather have Hillary in the Oval Office. Oh, and BTW, Gary Johnson never had the chance of a snowball in Hell.

    Why don’t you blame the turds who are really responsible for fixing NOTHING — the goddamned scumbag Republicans?

  49. He may not be perfect. That said, the article you guys just posted about Betsy DeVos is an incremental change (like Justice Gorsuch) better than anything I’ve seen in my lifetime.

  50. I love watching the soft communist outrage from the “liberals.”

  51. Thank you for publicizing “Libertarians for Trump”! We have a Facebook page by the same name.

    While most of us oppose Trump’s bombing in Syria, this opposition is for practical reasons. Clearly Assad is an evil dictator, and has committed war crimes; but still, he is better than ISIS. The perfect should not be the enemy of the good.

  52. This screed was not written by any true “libertarian” I would recognize. This is written by a reactionary.

    Looks like Reason is infested too. Where is Virginia when you need her?

  53. I smelled a rat the day I saw it riding down the escalator!

  54. Nick is a fine gentleman and while his arguments are well made, he continues to ignore the alternative. An America under the thumb of a Hillary administration would perhaps give him a lot better source for his press but it would make for a great deal more suffering in the world.

  55. I don’t get anybody’s surprise; he was a Democrat for ages before he was a Republican, he enjoyed stealing people’s property using eminent domain, he loved intimidating and threatening business, he did not believe in free trade, had no problem with military adventurism, had a hard time getting the gang of eight to pass anything he wanted to pass, and lately has found he has more in common with the Dems.

    He preaches to the mob and is a super nationalist. Where is the surprise?

  56. Its a trick question because we’d have been screwed either way.

  57. Not myself a voter, (not American) – but my (late, second) brother was, and he told me, “We do not vote for the man we prefer, just against the worserer -” So my vote would have been for Trump, and still would be – because Hilary is not imnproving with age, and hey – once you have cast your vote, that’s it !

    Regrets, yes I have a few, but then again, too few to mention – (sorry, this is going Piaffy) – and so the Donald is making a mess of things – but then you could say, Trump is now being sabotaged by the RINOs – and it will take at least another term to remove some of “his” supporters in name only, and replace them with genuine appreciators of freedom. The question is, can such be found within the Republican party ? AND ALSO, is there any reality behind the Trump flagwaving ?

    This is what makes American politix int’resting. Keep up the good work.

    1. The problem isn’t that there aren’t better choices. Ron Paul would have made a stellar president – but aside from facts, experience, ability, logic and a genuine desire to improve America, the deck was stacked against him. The average American voter is an idiot. Even in electing the lesser of two evils in the last election, the majority of Americans voted for Hitlery! In Ron Paul’s case, it was the establishment, the media and the blinkered American voters who were against him – much as the case with Trump. The difference is that Trump had more name-recognition, was more “entertaining” (very important if you want to attract the votes of the sub-80-IQ crowd) and was actually supported by the press up until the general election.

      Imagine the horror in “news” rooms across the country when, thinking they had tricked the (more) conservative elements of America into nominating a clown who had no chance of winning, reality dawned as the election returns rolled in and their nightmare scenario became reality! They’d baited the bull and the bull had gored them!

  58. So he is deregulating the very bureaucracies that are the greatest threat to human progress, nominating freedom minded people to the SC, and doing pretty much everything else like Hillary Clinton would have besides on immigration.

    I voted for GJ personally, but Trump is still far superior to Hillary Clinton, one of the most vile, corrupt human beings on the face of this planet.

  59. I’m confused by this sentence: “Trump has turned out to be anything but an isolationist. He promised to bring fire and fury to North Korea, ‘the likes of which this world has never seen before.'” It comes across as a complete non-sequitur. What does this have to do with Libertarians? Are you trying to say he is one or isn’t one?
    Obviously, he’s not a libertarian because he advocates initiating force in that example. He is an isolationist, because threatening violence tends to isolate one, even if the wall isn’t built, yet. But if you thought he was an isolationist, you wouldn’t think he was a libertarian, anyway, because Libertarians are anything but isolationist, too.
    To have an isolationist foreign policy, one must be authoritarian (the opposite of libertarian), by keeping people in, or out. Freedom would have lots of comings and goings by those who want to come and go, and lots of staying home by those who want to stay home.
    This sentence just throws me and I don’t understand why it’s here.

  60. Even though I am a libertarian I see no need for anyone to try and please us. We just don’t have anything they want. I’m no cheerleader for Trump. I do wonder what changes he can get done that are lasting?Did the Supreme Court. Looks like his appointees are on point. You got to agree that watching the Repubswamp squeal over the debt limit is priceless.

  61. Tidak tahu. Saya masih berpikir HRC adalah clusterfuck dijamin. Sejauh ini, banyak hal telah berjalan jauh lebih konservatif daripada rata-rata presiden Repub.

Please to post comments