Can These Voters Say Something Nice About the Other Side?
Reason's Emma Camp asked voters to name "one good thing" about the candidate they didn't vote for.
HD DownloadDo voters think Donald Trump or Kamala Harris have any redeeming qualities? On Monday, November 4, Reason's Emma Camp talked to voters in Washington, D.C., about which presidential candidate they support and if they had anything nice to say about the other side at all.
As it turns out, many of the people Camp talked to didn't have many positive things to say. Watch here: https://youtu.be/OvYXySnw8BM
- Video Editor: Justin Zuckerman
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I don’t think Kamala participated in Biden showering with his daughter or the many documented times Biden groped, kissed, sniffed, and sexualized minors. She was ok with it, but I don’t think she joined in.
She would make a great speed bump.
This is a perfect example of my point, wanting to run over Harris with a car. MAGAs have polar opposite values and rhetoric. The violent and hateful rhetoric and actions are 95% by the MAGAs. I see nothing redeeming in them.
Oh no you piece of shit, I'm not going to let you get away with that big fucking lie. All the violence since 2016 has been 100% coming from Team Blue.
You killed ran over and killed teenagers for supporting Trump, and ran old men over with ATVs, drove your cars into crowds, you shot people, lots of people, from congressional ball games to the candidate himself, you rip hats off peoples heads, scream at their toddler's faces on streetcorners, You're the most violent and vicious political group in the states since the union busters. So fuck you.
You democrats spent the entire summer of 2020 rioting, burning, raping and murdering across the country. You’re 100% responsible for all US political violence.
So stop your lies,
Meanwhile Mollys team actually ran over multiple Trump supporters with cars in 2020.
You're a perfect example of someone who lacks any meaningful ability to make an intelligent point.
She sucks a good dink if she managed to become DA with those skills.
I'll let Willie Brown answer this question.
Trump voters have values that are opposite of me. They are knowingly and enthusiastically voting for a racist rapist liar fraudster felon traitor fascist.
What good things can be said about them? This is not about politics, I never had a personal problem with voters supporting past Republicans. This is about fundamental ethics and morality.
Wasn’t aware any Trump voters were writing in Biden.
Or Bill Clinton
Democrats were racist lying fraudster felon traitor fascists first, devoid of fundamental ethics and morality, so that makes it ok.
First. Are. Not were.
Second... you've participated in calling your enemies racist quite often. Need some links?
A normal person might contemplate why they reflexively attempt to mock one set of commenters but not the other.
If it’s because they know the one they don’t mock is a lost cause, they might even contemplate why mocking the people that might not be a lost cause isn’t the best course of action.
If they think both are lost causes, they might try and be a little more even handed in their mockery or at least attempt to understand why it may seem like confirmation bias to the people being mocked.
When both sides routinely justify acts of evil with “But mommy! Johnny did it first! That makes it ok!” then I’ll be sure to mock both sides for it. As it is though, only one side screams like a toddler when caught doing terrible things.
As it is though, only one side screams like a toddler when caught doing terrible things.
What's interesting about this is that when Dems do something stupid sarc blames Reps, then he pretends he's even-handed instead of a scapegoater. When the only question you ask is "how can I blame this on Reps" you don't have a reasonable set of answers and you certainly don't learn anything.
I hope he doesn't have kids, but if he does one will hate him and the other/s will fail in life because that's how this dynamic plays out.
What else do the voices in your head tell you?
You pretend as much as you want that this doesn't perfectly describe every comment you make. When Dems do something stupid your only comment is what you're doing now: finding a way to blame the right. But everyone recognizes your shtick and nobody gives a shit what trolls think. In fact it's kind of amusing you think being an asshole to other commenters is the best use of your life you can think of. In that at least I agree with you.
When Dems do something stupid your only comment is what you’re doing now: finding a way to blame the right.
Let me get this straight. You and your team routinely justify things like fraud, rape and fascism by claiming Democrats did it first and that makes it ok. But when I point it out I’m blaming the right? You and Jesse must buy your stupid pills from the same store.
You and your team routinely justify things like fraud, rape and fascism by claiming Democrats did it first and that makes it ok
I've done none of these things yet you consistently lie about it because your mind cannot comprehend anything more than "I hate him and therefore he must be guilty of these things I hate".
" You and Jesse must buy your stupid pills from the same store."
Very disappointing. A man of your education should be more creative.
You let slip the "fascism" though, weren't you trying to keep the crazy in?
"A man of your education"
There's only so much a teenage dropout can learn blowing hobos for meth behind the 7eleven dumpster. He does have a degree in political science from the University of CNN though.
What education does he have? Believe he admitted it was community college.
"You and your team routinely justify things like fraud, rape and fascism by claiming Democrats did it first and that makes it ok"
No, you guys (Because you're a fucking Dem 100%, Sarckles) make fraudulent and obviously false accusations of fraud, rape and fascism AT THE SAME FUCKING TIME you are actively committing fraud, rape and fascism.
And when people point that out you shriek "boaf sides!!!" and then slide into squeals of "whataboutism" like your accusation of fraud, rape and fascism ever had any veracity.
You're such garbage.
Sarc has screamed Trump is Hitler dozens of times. He has justified novel and political use of the law many times. He even defends the state shooting of an unarmed protestor. He thought it sicked Rittenhouse was found not guilty.
Sarc is the fascist.
Exactly
What you do is demand no investigation of bad acts from democrats. That’s what you do. As you cheer on authoritarian state abuses by democrats.
Your autistic self thinks it is clever for conservatives responding to abuses, but you simply don’t want your team to be held accountable for their abuses. Full stop.
Democrats create nivel legal arguments to go after J6 and Trump, you cheer.
Gop says they will investigate censorship and legal abuses, you rage.
You're tricking only yourself.
Protective services were called on him, he has kids. His daughter even vandalized cars for fun.
So that’s a no on the self-reflection then?
If you take personal offense when I say "Democrats did it first, that make is ok" when Team Red justifies evil deeds by pointing at Democrats, then perhaps I'm not the one in need of self reflection. Maybe you need to reflect on why you find that so offensive (I'll give you a clue, it wouldn't be offensive if it wasn't true).
They don't say "it's ok", this is just your dishonest framing. Their point is that when both people fail the standard and you must pick between the two that point is not a differentiator.
This cannot be too hard for you to understand since we see you apply exactly this point when you respond to Dem spending with the claim that Reps spend too. So to recap, you ridicule this claim when others make it, but you routinely make it yourself in other contexts.
Do you think others don't notice you attack others using principles you denigrate when others use them? Do you think they don't notice that whether you assert this principle or denigrate it aligns perfectly with whether the principle in context supports Dems or Reps?
It's really pathetic how juvenile your arguments are.
No one finds it personally offensive. The offense is against intelligence. Blabbing about other people blabbing about other people did it first lacks intellectual value.
I take no offense because I’ve not once said “it’s okay because the Democrats did it first” or any variation thereof. (Though I will note that crying foul when the target finally fights back is a hallmark of every schoolyard bully.)
Pointing out the silliness of this schtick and its results, like pointing out the Democrats are engaging in absolute bullshit, is not an endorsement of future words/actions of the opposing party.
But that's not what's happening.
Democrats attack, and their victims turn the Democrats weapon back on them.
It is right to defend yourself.
The left also demands that such defense be proportional so defending yourself by using the weapon that was used against you is EXACTLY proportional.
But you seem to think that the victim should just take it.
And the reason I'm using 'victims' rather than 'Republicans' is because the Dems don't just attack Republicans.
Sarc, please tell us how investigating abuse of government by democrats is evil.
Self-reflection and awareness aren't a Sarcasmic superpower.
Difficulty. You've routinely justify lawfare against your enemies from J6 to Trump. Discuss.
Hilarious from Molly who thinks minorities are too stupid to get voter ID and need white saviors to care for them.
Give her a break, man! She'd be lost without her victims! Where would the virtue be found in a victimless world?
Kamala Harris willingly partnered with the man she said was a racist. A man who is a known plagiarist and liar. A man who multiple times tried to use the power of government to increase his own power and to impose his own vision on society.
But, sure, Orange-man Bad.
The worst of this is her claim Biden was a racist, and that she undoubtedly knew he had dementia. But every Dem knew these things as well so in selecting a Dem it didn't matter.
They are knowingly and enthusiastically voting for a racist rapist liar fraudster felon traitor fascist.
If you’ve ever wondered why the left is so driven to disarm its political enemies, remember this statement. They want you dead. To save democracy of course.
In this case, "democracy" being in the eye of the shill/ 50 center known as Molly Godiva. Which means I want you all sidelined and silenced so we can have our way [and dispense with that racist and patriarchal document known as the US Constitution].
The left thinks "democracy" is them getting their way.
It's why they approve of EOs that usurp the democratic process.
"Democracy are two wolves and a lamb debating what to have for lunch. Liberty is the lamb contesting the vote with a loaded gun." Ben Franklin
"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard." H.L. Mencken
Also...
Democracy is a logical fallacy: argumentum ad populum.
Listen, you either want a meddling, interventionist, profligate spending, freedom hating and censorship loving government, or you don't. I cannot think of one good thing to say about such an administration either.
Any government that would censor free speech does so out of fear. The fear of being exposed as corrupted and immoral as they have become.
In the challenge to say something nice, you failed.
^
I never had a personal problem with voters supporting past Republicans.
This is a lie. This is just what left wingers pretend as they assert whoever the current nominee is the most racist candidate evah. They think it gives their current accusation more weight instead of noting they said the same about every Rep back to and including Lincoln.
Do you always project your personal hatred towards everyone who votes differently than you, or is today special?
When trying for personal insults you should try to find one that fits the other persons actions. That tactic makes it more believable. The problem here is that this comment expresses no hate so your reply presents as if you only have three insults and you rotate through them rather than honestly responding to the circumstances.
Do better.
You've made it clear that you hate anyone who you perceive as supporting the left. You just loathe them. You don't consider them to be human beings. They're just something to scrape off the bottom of your shoe.
Thing is, not everyone is that consumed by partisan hatred. So when you accuse others of feeling the way you do, you're projecting.
You’ve made it clear that you hate anyone who you perceive as supporting the left.
That's just what you claim perceive because you don't have any better accusations to make. But if this were true you would point it out using examples instead of relying on mere assertion and your smear tactics. For example when I point out your double standards I actually do it on those very comments so everyone can see that your principles change entirely based on whether the person accused in a Rep or a Dem.
Thing is, not everyone is that consumed by partisan hatred
You say this trying to backtrack, but it's too late since you already referred to "my team". The problem you have is that you're acting. If you seriously believed what you claim you wouldn't contradict yourself constantly and ruin your credibility. You do the same whining about others using labels but then you go and accuse me of what others do and lump me in with a "team" again so you can smear me with the actions of others.
You're not game-ready yet. Go back to the JV.
Are you trying to say that the left hasn’t called every Republican presidential candidate a horrible racist since at least Bush the lesser?
I remember when Mitt was the next Hitler with binder full of women.
When Paul Ryan wanted to push grandma off a cliff.
When W didn't care about black people.
Democrats have one argument. Personal hatred.
Not a lie. Dole was an honorable person. GW Bush was a family man with decent personal values. Romney was also honorable. I very much disliked (most of) their polices but I did respect them as people. Each even had policies that I supported. I always believed that each of them was a patriot who wanted the best for our country.
Sure. Dems always claim past Reps were less evil so the current nominee can be portrayed as uniquely evil. But in 20 years you and every other Dem will claim even Trump believed X and the current nominee is the most racist and fascist ever even if he's a Romney clone. Membership in the cult requires you to follow the program.
This is still Chapter 1 in the Dem playbook. You all need to pick it up, it's disappointing you aren't trying harder.
They were Literally Hitler but now that it's perceived that they don't threaten Shrike's deviant politics, he's cool with them.
Just get rid of the democrats, that must happen if we are to save our constitutional republic.
Thanks for the good laugh. LOL!
But that is no reason to elect them. Kamala might be a patriot but that is completely irrelevant. Do you go to a high-quality doctor who dresses bad and snarls or to the well-dressed pleasant doctor who deals in Paraquayan folk remedies.
They are knowingly and enthusiastically voting for a racist rapist liar fraudster felon traitor fascist.
Wow, so true. You really figured it out.
How dare those people exist--and why do we let them vote? Right, Molly?
Everything you said is a lie. And you speak of morals? You’re a pawn. Pawns don’t have morals. Pawns have marching orders. Like the ones you were given for your comments here.
It must be thrilling for her to think she might actually get some votes for a change.
Reason has spent 8 years reviling Trump - but yeah, random people should be able to find something 'nice' to say about Harris?
"Can These Voters Say Something Nice About the Other Side?"
No.
Maybe it's because people employ emotions over logic and common sense since the beginning of time.
Wizard's third rule.
Love those books. Great to see it referenced
"Maybe" and that's an answer ???
They haven't dragged me into a work camp... yet.
The only thing that will make that okay is you know that Jeffy, Shrike and Sarckles will be there too, looking around all bewildered and insisting that there is some sort of mistake.
I'm a hippie I love everyone but it's anti-American to cede to communists.
I wasn’t aware hippies wore Armani suits
every time I appear at Court in my shorts & vans they tell me to go home & put on a suit
They frowned upon your legal briefs?
not when I bang the judge slowly.
THis guy eventually became a very wealthy guy runing seminars for Wall Streeters
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQoha8I8P5J3XesPZYtf4BcpGdaGntpUyJw2w&s
Jerry Rubin
I just wanna rock and roll all day... and part of every night.
It’s the other way around, dammit!
Plus: it's "party" every day.
Cat scratch fever......
Bingo Jed had a light on.
Not when you get older.
Funny. I didn’t catch that part.
Trump is occasionally funny. Harris occasionally laughs at Trump (finds him funny).
...and all sane people laugh at Comrade Kamala.
You mean all the obedient, compliant people (not counting fellow barren cat ladies).
Can These Voters Say Something Nice About the Other Side?
Kamala's not an actual birthing person.
Kamala is more of a woman than Michelle Obama.
What do I win?
Did you pull down their genes?
They said something nice, not your TERF bigotry, you bigot.
Unless you've got a DNA/Maternity kit or birth certificate to say otherwise, Kamala is less of an actual birthing person than Michelle Obama.
No doubt Emma had to look much harder in DC to find Trump supporters than she did a trans dude.
If we didn't have elections, we wouldn't be so hostile and partisan.
Long live the king!
Not monarchy. Sortition (random selection - same as juries - or even a muster of militia/nightwatchman or other part-time 'officials') rather than election. Both are perceived as rule by the many rather than rule by the few/one. But they don't work the same to foster majoritarian hatreds.
""random selection""
Any qualifications? Or just outright random selection? Would it be just a monkey in a suit for show with career agency administrators really running the show?
Forced work is the best work.
It doesn't require any more force than jury duty.
Once you make it possible for random selection to play a part (which we used to with militia or nightwatchmen or volunteer fire depts or individual school boards), then it becomes very possible for that randomly selected 'assembly' to pick (or elect) a jury foreman, a militia officer (see constitution Art1 sec8), CinC during wartime, a school principal, Cabinet officers, postmasters, etc.
One of the reasons, elections create such hostility/factionalism is because elections have such extreme consequences to eliminate all future accountability. It is not because of some ideology about 'the size of government'. ONLY the Prez gets to appoint all ambassadors, judges, cabinet, main bureaucrats, senior general officers, etc. They are accountable only to the Prez - not to citizens. Back in the day, that was self-evidently what leads to tyranny even if we only paid attention in the case of a standing army.
Libertarians don't pay attention to that - but it is one of the big differences between libertarians and 'classical liberals'.
>>Once you make it possible for random selection to play a part
force wins.
Force is the consequence of ELECTIONS. That is what rationalizes ONE person to use 'consent of the governed' to justify their use of government force to do anything they fucking want. Until such time as they themselves decide to let a subsequent election 'vote them out'.
We've already seen that consequence from your ilk - via force and violence. And from the D's via lawfare.
making someone serve in a position they do not seek is definitional.
... correction ...
If we didn’t have an UN-Constitutional (ILLEGAL) [Na]tional So[zi]alist Regime ...
We wouldn’t be so hostile and partisan.
Your belief in 'democratic' [Na]tional So[zi]al[ism] *IS* the problem.
The USA is a *Constitutional* Union of Republican States.
You're just full of shit. Aaron Burr killed Alexander Hamilton over 200 years ago because of hatred fueled partisan politics. Had nothing to do with your [Na]tional So[zi]alist GovGuns bullshit.
No, but you democrats are violent, hate filled insurrectionists. Real ones. You also want to murder the Jews.
"Had nothing to do with your [Na]tional So[zi]alist GovGuns bullshit."
Why don't you try supporting a USA (US Constitution) instead of the 'Guns' against those 'icky' people will make sh*t for me and find out instead constantly supporting the same CRIMINAL BS and pretending it has nothing to do with the hatred?
FYI: Alexander Hamilton was the biggest Commie of the Constitutional Convention and why nobody put his BS in the US Constitution.
I'm one of the few here who actually cites the real constitution. Your ilk just sticks it on a pedestal pretending that it was some ancap creation. You assholes don't even understand the militia because you're too fucking interested in a Gov-guns standing army. Morons
Wasn’t that U who pretended Socialist policies was A-Okay because you found two-words, “general welfare”, in the Constitution and completely dismissed (truncated) the FACT that it was a taxation power for the general welfare of the United States government (i.e. Federal Government)???????
Citing cherry-picked words and filling in what you want to read is NOT ‘citing’ a real Constitution. It is making one up in your head.
I have never said a damn thing about 'general welfare'. That is your hallucination - and a tediously unoriginal one at that. There are enumerated powers - and there are a whole bunch of powers that Congress (NOT the Exec branch) is required to legislate re 'interstate compacts'. I know for certain that you don't know shit about interstate compacts.
FDR and his [D]-trifecta congress VOIDED the Congresses responsibility for Tariffs and I have no doubt Democrats will never fix that. [R]'s just might.
Says one of the people calling everyone he disagrees with, presumably for believing everyone should be treated the same since that's what they believe.
> If we didn’t have elections, we wouldn’t be so hostile and partisan.
Or, I dunno, if we didn't such an omni-present, overreaching government encroaching and intruding on so much of our everyday lives we might not be so hostile and partisan. Elections are much less of a problem than the size and power of the State.
The Gov-Gun theft STEALERS versus their VICTIMS.
Ya know; robbers don't usually have nice things to say about their victims either. There's just never enough cash in their drawers!!! There isn't many who praise their 'armed-theft' robbers either.
If you think Gov-Guns make sh*t you're hated *BECAUSE* of that right there. No. Your 'Guns' don't make sh*t; they just make VICTIMS of your 'armed-theft' mentality.
Something about Libertarians...
https://babylonbee.com/news/election-officials-unveil-special-new-ballot-box-for-libertarians
Is it gay?
Misinformation. The number of Chase voters wouldn't fill a garbage can. Do better or I'll report you.
Seriously, I have having a hard time thinking of one good thing about Kamala. If she wins, what is the one thing I can be happy about or glad for? I really cant think of one.
At least Kamala would no longer be VP.
solid entry
Dougie becomes the first dude. That's worth something?
He would have a real impact on women.
Nannies of the World! Untie and take over.
If Kamala wins maybe all the nagging I have to endure about voting for a woman will stop?
If Kamala wins, thousands of downtown shoe stores and CVSs wont get burned up in a riot?
If Kamala wins, uh.. hold on. Damn that's it. that's all I can muster.
They didn't stop the accusations of racism after Obama, so this is beyond hope.
Democrats plan to save democracy by outlawing free speech.
Tim Walz promises to prosecute all Libertarians.
The new Harris administration plans to eliminate the southern border with Mexico and declares all citizens of Mexico as legal American voters.
The media reported that Tim Walz paid off his Chinese mistress a porn star, to remain quiet about their relationship.
The election is over with over more than 127% of the votes counted declaring the team of Harris and Walz as President and Vice President by 200 million votes.
The headline and subhead are very different questions.
I think your standard democrat voter is poorly informed and falls for emotive messaging. I do believe they are genuinely empathetic and want the best for people. It just seems like they don't think deeply about issues or understand how things are and how they work.
If you want me to say something nice about Harris, it's going to be a shorter answer. She does seem like she really enjoys cooking. It's the only time I've seen her come across as genuine and show any competency. Ideology aside, she lacks just about all the traits a politician needs.
Your average Democrat is indeed an emotionally driven low information idiot. I have relatives that are like this, and they’re always the stupid ones. Anyone with a triple digit IQ instantly recognizes that Harris is probably really stupid, or suffering from some undisclosed neurological deficiency (which explains the bizarre inappropriately timed cackling).
Observe that the smuggled premise is that there are only two (02) "sides" to the ballot triangle. You either vote to ban electrical power because Sharknados, or you vote to force doctors to let women die while DEA zealots kick in doors and shoot people because Jesus and Nancy Reagan. Leveraged libertarian spoiler votes helping voters to cost the more idiotic looters government paychecks? Those are throughtcrime!
You do sound disturbed and lazy.
You commit 3 gross logic fallacies. Feel free to look this up
1) The fallacy of 'I am right because I showed you are wrong"
2) the 'abortion is a right" therefore no abortion is in practice wrong
3) You attack thoughtcrimes but all your examples impute motives and intentions you can't possible know. --- not to mention the escape clause...you dont asy DEA you say DEA zealots.
Might use this in class
Gorsuch was a pretty good Scotus pick. Harris has an uncanny sense to know exactly who to butter up to and who to avoid. Jill Stein is a woman who believes strongly in her own cause and has never given up, and I respect that.
There, I said something nice about all the people I didn't vote for.
"Pretty good" doesn't make sense at all, not legally. Justice Taney was a Catholic and appears to have been sincere but he was a TERRIBLE judge just going on Dred Scott
As to Harris's sense, good or bad can only apply to HOW she uses that sense. So no compliment there.
Hitler believed strongly in his cause and never gave up but that counts against him. You cannot respect traits enlisted in a horrible cause no matter how much they represent misplaced virtues.
And overall I can't respect violations of 'If you can't boost don't knock"
Trump - seems to have a genuine concern for America, its economic health, and its status as the global superpower.
Harris - seems to have a genuine acknowledgment for the rising prices that are harming Americans and a desire to address it.
Oliver - is willing to openly promise to abolish the Dept. of Education.
Stein - knows she's going to lose every time, but dang it she just keeps going at it full tilt.
It's not hard guys. You just have to step back and ignore the impulse to let tribalism make them out as evil incarnate.
But isn't that tribalism to think that everyone who disagrees with you does son the those grounds. IF a Nazi says 'this cake is not good' it might be because ---- this cake is not good.
I have something nice to say about Democrats.
After 20 years of being treated like I’m stupid (in spite trouncing all my peers in academics, books read, and SAT scores), of being an extremist (I’m a soccer mom… can’t get more extreme), of being a radical for maintaining my political and moral positions for 20+ years, I can say today it was worth it to watch my generation to reach the un-cool, culturally entrenched, stagnant, old-people status and have their politics roundly rejected as “Boomer” by the young kids.
As they say these days, it’s totally gemmy to see 18-29 year olds break for Trump 52-46%. So thank you, Democrats and Millenials. You made it cool to be MAGA.
I found it cool to be deplorable in 2015, and now garbage in 2024...have to say that the schadenfreude is SO satisfying.
I worked as a Statistician and also followed Biden for 40 years.
You are essentially asking a quesition like 'Do you thinkt this mass murderer is handsome?" -- and what is wrong with that question is that for some being a mass murderer means you cannot be handsome. Like saying "do you like the melody of this super-filthy song?"
Now I do get your premise and it works in rather trivial cases to expose the innate crabbiness and self-righteousness of people BUT to take an example : I cannot but dislike Kamala , who jeopardizes world peace just so she can imagine she is not stupid and lazy and incompetent. I say that calmy and with no rancor.
Hillarly is that way and Christopher Hitchens captured it so perfectly
https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=qE8PG2mpo58&t=2s
Observe that the smuggled premise is that there is only one "other" side, and the BOTH sides lie inside the Looter Kleptocracy. This is the trap Matt, Nick and Peter fell into every minute or two when LOSING the debate with the Bullwork communists. The two real sides are yourself and the looter gang that seeks to rob and enslave you. How complicated is that to understand? Nor do these Reason "libertarians" ever mention the existence of a libertarian party transforming spoiler votes into tax cuts repeal of looter laws. That challenges understanding.