Joe Biden

Why Biden is a Lesser Evil than Trump

Both candidates have serious flaws. But a Trump victory would be a much greater evil than the alternative.

|

Joe Biden and Donald Trump at the September 30 presidential debate.

 

If you're a libertarian like me, elections in the US two-party system often come down to choosing the lesser of two evils. This one is no exception. Both major-party candidates have serious flaws. But Democratic candidate Joe Biden is far preferable to Donald Trump. And that's true based entirely on ideology and policy—without having to consider Trump's corruption, his tweets, or his awful personality. Judged from the standpoint of promoting liberty, justice, property rights, and human welfare, the choice is clear. Trump has the edge on a few issues, but they are greatly outweighed by the ones where he doesn't.

Before delving into the comparison between the two options, I should note I am not claiming  citizens have a moral duty to vote for Biden, or indeed to vote at all. To the contrary, I deny there is any duty to vote, and therefore have no quarrel with anyone who chooses not to do so because they prefer to devote their time and effort to other activities, and especially if they choose to abstain because they lack the knowledge to make a well-informed choice.

But those who do choose to vote have an obligation  to make at least a reasonably informed choice. And, at least in most cases, they should vote for the least-bad alternative among those with a realistic chance to win. I defend the morality and rationality of lesser-evil voting in some detail here.

To briefly summarize, Biden has significant advantages over Trump when it comes to immigration, trade, property rights, government spending, and maintaining relationships with liberal democratic allies. These readily outweigh Trump's edges on judicial appointments and certain types of taxation and regulation. Though I won't cover it here, Trump's undermining of liberal democratic norms is also a menace, even if it hasn't yet led to many concrete policy actions. I explained why in a 2018 post.

This piece  comes late in the election process; I admit I would have done better to write it sooner (though I did make similar points in public debates about the election here and here). But many millions of people still haven't voted. And I suspect that may include a disproportionate percentage of undecided voters. For those who have already voted, I hope this work might still have value in terms of understanding where the two major parties stand from a libertarian perspective.

Where Biden is Better

If there's one area where there's a truly enormous difference between the two candidates, it's on immigration. Trump has exploited the coronavirus crisis to make the US more closed to immigration than at any other time in our history. His most influential immigration policy adviser, Stephen Miller, has made clear the administration plans to continue these restrictions indefinitely. Moreover, Miller has a stack of still more onerous immigration restrictions he intends to push through if Trump is reelected. Even before the current crisis, Trump massively slashed refugee admissions to a mere 18,000 per year (down from about 110,000 under Barack Obama), imposed cruel and bigoted travel bans, and imposed all sorts of barriers to legal immigration. His administration has even used Kafkaesque bureaucratic tricks like rejecting visa applications if any line is left blank (such as a line for a middle name left empty by a person who doesn't have one).

The costs to human liberty here are enormous. Trump's expanded immigration restrictions forcibly consign hundreds of thousands of people to lives of poverty and oppression, simply because they made the mistake of being born to the wrong parents or in the wrong place. They also impose huge economic costs on both immigrants and natives. Immigrants make major contributions to American economic growth and innovation. The scale of economic harm caused by the administration's immigration restrictions  greatly outweighed any possible benefit from its deregulatory actions elsewhere—even before the former was ratcheted up during the pandemic.

Moreover, immigration restrictions severely constrain the liberty of natives as well as immigrants. Native victims include Americans who seek to hire, work with, and otherwise interact with immigrants, those whom Trump's travel bans and other restrictions have cut off from their families, and even many citizens detained and deported thanks to the paucity of due process protections in the immigration enforcement system.

Nor can these moves be rationalized by analogizing the US government to the owner of a private house who has a right to keep people out for whatever reason he wants. Such analogies are deeply flawed, and—if taken seriously—would justify draconian restrictions on natives' liberty, no less than that of immigrants. No libertarian—or any kind of liberal—should accept the dangerous idea that the state is entitled to such sweeping power.

Biden is far from perfect on immigration issues. But he plans to reverse pretty much all of Trump's new immigration restrictions, plus promote further liberalization, such as increasing the refugee cap to 125,000. The latter move alone will save over 100,000 people per year from poverty, oppression, and sometimes death. Freeing over 100,000 per year from a lifetime of oppression is enough to outweigh a multitude of sins elsewhere.

Moreover, virtually all of Trump's immigration actions are the product of unilateral executive action. Therefore, Biden could reverse them without getting any new legislation through Congress. And, obviously, the odds of immigration liberalization getting through Congress are clearly higher if Biden wins than if Trump is reelected. In the latter case, there would be virtually chance at all.

What is true of immigration is also true of trade. On this quintessential libertarian issue, Trump is the worst president of modern times. In addition to his trade war with China, Trump has also picked trade wars with numerous US allies, including Canada, Mexico, the European Union, and South Korea, among others. The costs include some $57 billion in annual added expenses for American consumers, and massively reduced the value of American businesses, to the tune of hundreds of billions. And, once again, these costs greatly outweigh any plausible estimate of benefits from Trumpian deregulation elsewhere, which even the administration itself estimates at only about $50 billion for Trump's entire term (thus, about $12.5 billion per year).

Biden's trade policies are far from ideal. It is very possible he would continue many of the tariffs on China. and promote wasteful "Buy American" policies for government agencies. But he would likely at least drop the trade wars with US allies. That would be a major gain. Biden might also reverse Trump's decision to drop out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement, which would greatly liberalize trade between the US and numerous nations in the Asia-Pacific region.

Like his immigration restrictions, Trump's trade wars are almost entirely the result of executive action. Thus, Biden could very easily undo them—though joining TPP would require congressional ratification.

It was in some ways predictable that the Republicans might become an anti-immigration party, and perhaps even that they would turn against free trade. But, a decade ago, I would never have expected them to become worse than the Democrats on property rights. Yet, under Trump, that's exactly what they have done.

Trump's proposed border wall will, if fully built, require using eminent domain to take property from many thousands of people in the border area. It would be the largest government taking of private property in decades. Meanwhile, Trump's Justice Department has abolished Obama-era limits on asset forfeiture, thereby facilitating the large-scale legalized plunder of property from people who in many cases were never even charged with any crimes, much less convicted.

Perhaps the biggest property rights issue of our time is exclusionary zoning, which bars many thousands of property owners from building new housing on their land, and artificially inflates housing prices, thereby cutting millions of people off from housing and job market opportunities. Trump has embraced full-blown NIMBYism, denouncing efforts to loosen zoning restrictions at the state and local level, and promising to use federal power to oppose them.

The Trump administration has also adopted anti-property rights positions in a number of important court cases, most notably claiming that the government has the right to deliberately flood thousands of homes during a hurricane without paying any compensation. As far as Trump is concerned, if the feds flood your house "only" once, they owe you nothing.

Biden and the Democrats are far from ideal on property rights issues. But Biden would terminate the awful wall-building project. He is also likely to restore Obama-era constraints on asset forfeiture (though it would be preferable to go further than that). On zoning, liberal Democrats have pushed through valuable reforms in several states and localities, with more potentially on the way. Biden would provide some modest federal incentives to facilitate that. At the very least, unlike, Trump he wouldn't actively oppose deregulation in this vital area.

When it comes to government spending and deficits, Trump and congressional Republicans have a truly terrible record. They have enacted gargantuan expansions of spending, resulting in record peacetime deficits—and that was even before the coronavirus crisis. Trump has even openly said he doesn't care about spending and deficits, because he won't be in office anymore by the time the debt chickens come home to roost.

In fairness, however, things could be even worse if Biden is able to push through all the additional new spending he advocates. However, he might have difficulty doing that. We know from much recent history that congressional Republicans only work to constrain federal spending when there is a Democrat in the White House, as they did under Clinton and Obama. If Biden wins the election, there is a high likelihood that the Democrats will have only a very narrow majority in the Senate, or even (less likely) that the GOP will retain control in that chamber. Working with moderate Democratic swing-voters, the GOP can constrain Biden's spending plans, and will have every incentive to do so. Indeed, even the mere prospect of Trump's leaving office has already led Senate Republicans to regain some of their fiscal religion, as they have rejected both Trump's and the Democrats calls for a massive new $2 trillion "stimulus" package.

I don't want to paint a rosy picture here. Regardless of who wins, there are likely to be major spending increases, and an exacerbation of our already severe fiscal crisis. But this will be incrementally better if at least one major party works to limit the damage, perhaps in cooperation with moderates from the other. That is more likely to occur with Biden in the White House than Trump.

Trump's trade wars, questioning of alliances, and other behavior, has also severely damaged relations with most of America's allies, with the notable exceptions of the Israelis and the Gulf State Arabs. America's image in most of the world is now worse than it has been for many years. Trump's support of cruelties like family separation and police brutality has further damaged America's image, and thus undermined our position in the international war of ideas against China, Russia, and other authoritarian regimes. In a variety of ways, Trump has made anti-Americanism great again!

Biden may not be able to fix all of this. But he would at least end most of the trade wars, treat the allies with greater respect, and curb many of the Trumpian policies that most damage America's image. That should matter for libertarians (and liberals of any stripe) because we want liberal ideals to advance around the world, not just in one country. And it is important that brutal authoritarian regimes stop gaining influence at the expense of more liberal ones.

The harm Trump causes goes beyond the details of specific policy issues. Hostility to immigration, protectionism, gargantuan spending,  damaging relationships with allies, and even undermining property rights, are all facets of the more general trend towards big-government nationalism in the GOP. If Trump wins reelection, we can expect that trend to solidify and continue. Should Trump's approach succeed politically even in the midst of a dire economic and public health crisis, other Republican politicians (and perhaps even some Democrats) will continue to imitate him. We can expect more of the same from the GOP for years to come.

By contrast, if Trump is defeated and repudiated, there is a real chance the GOP will have to reconsider its approach, and retreat from some of his awful policies. At the very least, that's more likely in the event of a Trump defeat than if he beats the odds and wins.

On the other hand, a defeat for Biden is unlikely to improve the Democratic Party. To the contrary, it would probably give a boost to the more extreme "democratic socialist" faction led by Bernie Sanders, and others, whom Biden defeated in the 2020 primaries. Defeat for Biden would lend credence to their notion that there is no political payoff for moderation, and that the only way to combat Trumpian right-wing populism is the left-wing version of the same.

Where Trump is Better - And Why it's Not Enough

While I think a Biden victory is preferable, overall, there are undoubtedly some areas where Trump is better. The two most significant are economic regulation in areas unrelated to immigration and trade, and judicial appointments.

While, for reasons noted above, his achievements in this area have been overstated, there is no doubt Trump has achieved some useful deregulation in some fields. The best—and severely underappreciated—example is Trump's executive order permitting a wider range of expense compensation for kidney donors, which could save thousands of lives.

By contrast, Biden, if he wins, has a long list of new regulations he would like to enact. Among the worst are a $15 minimum wage (which would destroy thousands of jobs), and a nationwide version of California bill AB 5, which severely restricts "gig economy" employment by forcing Uber, Lyft, and other similar businesses to classify their workers as "employees" rather than independent contractors. Sadly, Trump has said he might support a $15 minimum wage, as well, though he is probably less likely to be serious about it than Biden.

As already noted, Trump's deregulatory accomplishments pale in comparison to the harm he has done in other areas, such as immigration and trade. Even if Biden undoes all of the former, and adds significant further regulatory burdens, it will still be outweighed by his plans to undo Trump's immigration and trade policies. Moreover, the more extreme Biden regulatory policies—including the minimum wage increase and a nationwide AB 5—would require legislation to enact. And it is unlikely that swing-vote Democratic senators like Manchin (West Virginia), Kyrsten Sinema (Arizona) and Hickenlooper (Democratic candidate in Colorado) would support them, given the vast damage they would do to their respective states (which are heavily dependent on sharing industries and—especially in West Virginia's case—low-cost labor). By contrast, Biden could probably undo Trump's horrible immigration and trade policies through executive action alone.

What is true on regulation is also true on taxation. The 2017 tax bill passed by the GOP Congress with Trump's backing includes some useful provisions, such as limiting corporate taxes, restricting the mortgage interest deduction, and constraining deductions for state and local taxes. Biden's tax proposals would only partially reverse these measures, but would move us in the wrong direction, nonetheless. However, this too would have to get through Congress, which might moderate it. And the net negative effect is still much smaller than that of Trump's immigration and trade policies.

As for the more general tax cuts in the 2017 plan (which Biden would repeal for those earning over $400,000 per year), they are—sadly—likely to be negated by irresponsible deficit spending. So long as that continues, if we don't pay more now, that just means we (and our children) will pay more later (along with accumulated interest). Overpending will probably be a serious problem regardless of who wins. But for reasons already noted, it is likely to be even worse if Trump gets reelected.

Finally, there is the issue of judicial appointments. Here, I have to acknowledge Trump has made substantially better appointments than I expected back in 2016. Some have proven outstanding, like Gorsuch on the Supreme Court, and Judge Don Willett on  the Fifth Circuit. Most of the others are, at least, no worse than we could expect from a conventional GOP administration. Essentially, Trump has accomplished this by delegating judicial selection to more conventional conservatives, as opposed to seeking judges who reflect his own distinctive nationalist agenda (as I thought he might do, back in 2016).

Conventional GOP judges are by no means flawless, from a libertarian point of view. But with the extremely important exception of immigration-related constitutional cases, they do tend to better than Democratic-appointed judges in terms of both judicial philosophy, and positions on specific issues (e.g.—property rights, federalism, gun rights, campaign finance restrictions, and some others).

If Trump continues in the same vein in a second term, his appointees would likely be better than those Biden is likely to choose. That said, there are several important caveats, that diminish this advantage.

First, conventional conservative jurisprudence tends to be bad at protecting us against abuses of power in the areas of immigration, trade, and executive abuse of civil liberties in wartime and emergency situations—precisely the areas where right-wing nationalists and populists—like Trump!—are most likely to perpetrate evil. If Trump wins and the populist/nationalist ascendancy in the GOP continues, that trend will become worse over time.

Second, while Trump has been content to appoint conventional conservatives to the judiciary so far, that can change over time. Already, his most recent Supreme Court list includes several dangerous big-government nationalists deeply hostile to civil liberties, such as Senators Josh Hawley and Tom Cotton. Recent appointee Amy Coney Barrett is not of the same ilk. But her appointment clearly offers more hope to social conservatives and perhaps nationalists than libertarians.

More generally, over time judicial appointments come to reflect a party's overall ideological priorities. The more big-government nationalism, with an admixture of social conservatism, comes to dominate the GOP, the more that will eventually be reflected in judicial appointments. Even if it doesn't happen under Trump, it is likely to come to fruition under the next nationalist GOP president, who could easily be either Hawley or Cotton! As discussed above, this dangerous development is more likely to be avoided if Trump is defeated and repudiated.

The possibility of court-packing is another factor to consider. If it happens, I think it would be a terrible development, likely to undermine the entire institution of judicial review. The threat should not be ignored. However, Biden's gyrations on the subject suggest he doesn't really want to pursue this option, which he dislikes on principle, and could pose political dangers because of it's unpopularity. Even if he chooses to try, this is another measure that would have trouble getting through a closely divided Senate.

Even a small chance of court-packing should be taken seriously. But it's not enough to outweigh all the evil done by Trump. Not even the best possible Supreme Court justices can do enough good to outweigh the hundreds of thousands of lives blighted by Trump's immigration and trade policies.

I will not try to deal with Biden and Trump's respective approaches to the Covid crisis. Suffice to say that I am not as confident as many Biden supporters that his policies will work better than Trump's. At the same time, they can hardly be worse than that of a president who often tries to deny the problem even exists. Ultimately, the best way to end the crisis is to accelerate the development and deployment of a vaccine. I see no reason to think Biden will be worse on that front than Trump, and some reason to hope he might be better. For example, a less nationalistic and xenophobic administration might be more willing to cooperate with allies on vaccine development and distribution.

We end where we began. The election presents with a choice of evils. But Biden is by far the lesser evil of the two. In some key areas, he could even be a positive good. And, as promised, I have defended that conclusion entirely without reference to Trump's personal behavior, his corruption, or his Tweets. Getting that out of the White House would just yet more icing on cake!

NEXT: Which outcome would forestall Court packing longer? A Trump victory or a Biden victory?

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. ILYA SOMIN is Professor of Law at George Mason University. DC Beltway citizen. Dismissed.

    1. I can’t wait until Trump is defeated so the GOP can return to its roots of slaughtering babies in Iraq, shipping jobs to China, and turning Mexicans into Americans!! George P Bush in 2024!!!

      1. Killing babies in Iraq. Right. How many wars did Obama and Biden start versus how many Trump started

    2. Ilya “Open Borders” Somin is a one-trick pony.

      The only thing he cares about is flooding this country with 3rd world immigrants to turn us into a some South American corrupt Socialist shithole.

      1. Evidence-less fears, paranoia and ideology.

        1. I will enjoy the suffering of the American people if Biden is President.

          1. Yay Sadism!

          2. “I will enjoy the suffering of the American people if Biden is President.”

            But not the suffering of the American people created by President Trump?

            1. Minorities broke records of prosperity under Trump. The lowest 20thile got repeated 10% a year raises.

              1. They don’t care about facts. That is why they are so dangerous. They want the power, Trump threatened that power. It took 4 years, an impeachment, hateful disgusting acts by the left and the left barely squeaked out a presidential win. Lost in almost every other place. But, if it takes that much just to barely win, they are doomed in 2 years. They will not have done a damn thing

            2. The establishment left wallowed in self-pity, but that is hardly suffering.
              Although, I suppose the neo-con warmongers and their corporate allies suffered from a lack of business.

          3. Me too. Americans need to learn the lesson that voting for someone because he’s a “nice guy” is not an appropriate strategy.

    3. Trump has “ma[de] the US more closed to immigration than at any other time in our history…. The costs to human liberty here are enormous. Trump’s expanded immigration restrictions forcibly consign hundreds of thousands of people to lives of poverty and oppression, simply because they made the mistake of being born to the wrong parents or in the wrong place.”

      Is it really a restriction on a Mexican person’s “liberty” that if the United States decides not to allow the Mexican person into the country? I guess maybe Somin thinks everyone is entitled as a matter of right to live in any country. That seems pretty wacky to me. Why don’t the group of people who make up the rules for a certain territory have the right to decide to let some people in but not others? Assuming those people are legitimately in charge of making rules for that territory, why shouldn’t they be able to keep some people out?

      Even more outrageous is the idea that restrictionist immigration policies “forcibly consign hundreds of thousands of people to lives of poverty and oppression”. So yeah people who are kept out are “forcibly” kept out. But being kept out is not generally “consigning” anyone to any particular place. Someone from Mexico who tries to move to America may be able to move to Guatemala, or Honduras, or whatever. And they’re certainly not “consigned” to live a life of poverty. People who aren’t able to move to the US are still free to be rich if that’s what they want.

      1. “Is it really a restriction on a Mexican person’s “liberty” that if the United States decides not to allow the Mexican person into the country?”

        Yes, it is. What you meant to ask is whether or not we have any responsibility or duty to honor that liberty, but pretending things don’t exist is the modern Republican way of problem-solving. We’re turning the corner on solving the coronavirus. We’ve turned so many corners we’ve come full circle back to where we started.

        1. It is an argument for greater arm twisting on these corruption-laden governments around the world.

          We libertarians like people coming to this country because of freedom, the shining city on the hill.

          We libertarians like people coming to this country because, with economic freedom, the more the better.

          Then the Democrats realized they could roll the domestic electorate to give themselves still more control over the economy, to directly harm the major benefit point above.

          Do we libertarians like this? That it is cynically being used this way?

          Of course, Republicans long have known they should make better pitches to latino immigrants, given this slow change, and Trump has set that back at least a decade.

          Let’s not put on blinders and think any politician at all has any noble goal in any of this.

          1. We libertarians like people coming to this country because of freedom, the shining city on the hill.

            That again. I can’t deny it’s part of history, because Reagan’s speechwriters put the words in his mouth. But it’s hypocritical, anti-historical history, thus odious.

            Here is the historical reference, from John Winthrop’s sermon (note the meaning opposite to Reagan’s—an exhortation to humility, instead of an invocation of pride):

            Wee shall finde that the God of Israell is among us, when ten of us shall be able to resist a thousand of our enemies; when hee shall make us a prayse and glory that men shall say of succeeding plantations, “the Lord make it likely that of New England.” For wee must consider that wee shall be as a citty upon a hill. The eies of all people are uppon us. Soe that if wee shall deale falsely with our God in this worke wee haue undertaken, and soe cause him to withdrawe his present help from us, wee shall be made a story and a by-word through the world. Wee shall open the mouthes of enemies to speake evill of the wayes of God, and all professors for God’s sake. Wee shall shame the faces of many of God’s worthy servants, and cause theire prayers to be turned into curses upon us till wee be consumed out of the good land whither wee are a goeing.

            See, less boasting there than in the Reagan version. Stop boasting, is my suggestion.

            1. As is almost always the case, your criticism is misplaced. Setting aside that Winthrop isn’t the originator of this — he kind of borrowed it from his bible — Winthrop doesn’t own the concept. There’s nothing wrong with repurposing it. And no, it is not the opposite of Reagan’s. The two invocations are complementary. Withrop’s wasn’t a call for humility, but a call for righteousness.

            2. Based on your comment about Reagan’s speechwriters putting words in his mouth, do you follow the conventional wisdom that Reagan was too simple to write his own speeches? It’s not the case, actually. He wrote many speeches, including his famous 1964 speech for Goldwater, which is one of the best political speeches of the last century, and he edited many others.

    4. ILYA’s argument has a significant flaw, which he totally ignores. You aren’t voting for Biden, you are voting for Kamala. Joe has even said so….
      Alright, NOW do the libertarian take on Kamala.

      Also, as a law professor, I think you totally undersell the value of the Trump administrations work in deregulation, improved banking, and even economics. Someone who has followed the CEA successes wouldn’t make that mistake. Most of your argument is “we need open borders”…

      1. I would say you are not voting for Biden or Harris, but the faceless Blob, who happen to have chose Joe and Kamala as the prettiest faces. You are voting for, well, having no idea who you are really choosing. You are voting for the hydra. That is the scariest part of it

        1. You are voting for the tech billionaires. They outsmarted us.

          1. If only. Their knee bending for Democrats seems more driven by unconstitutional threats to hurt them for not censoring their opponents using the fascade of “harrassment” than for direct love of policy.

            When facebook says flat out they aren’t going to censor politicians, because you need to hear what they say, they caught holy hell from Democrats, who doubled down on creative ways to hurt them.

            Republican evils are a known quantity. But this is something else and dastardly entirely.

            1. I’ll say it. The Supreme Court should look at this chain of evidence, “Censor harrassment or we will mess with section 230 to hurt you and your stock price, or even break you up”, combined with immediate demands to censor their political opponents as “harrassing”, and toss the whole thing, no changes allowed.

              I have no idea if that could work, unconstitutional motivation for new law is different from unconstitutional motivation for repealing a law.

              But as it stands it is a vile, grotesque attack on the First Amendment, and by those who developed a reputation for First Amendment defense, so much so the Republicans created a derogatory meme, “Card-carrying member of the ACLU.”

              This rotting filth of Mordor needs to be cleansed.

          2. You are voting for the tech billionaires. They outsmarted us.

            That’s not saying much in your case. I’ve seen your writing for a decade plus; many garden vegetables can outsmart you.

        2. Better the faceless blob than Trump.

          Better to draw a name out of a hat.

          1. Better to draw a name out of a hat.

            Wait, is that option on the table?

            In all seriousness, this is actually something I could get behind. I’ve always felt the desire to be president should be a disqualifying characteristic.

      2. ” I think you totally undersell the value of the Trump administrations work in deregulation, improved banking, and even economics.”

        If Trump produces any value, we’ll fold it in. At present, though, he only gets credit for the 3 and a half years he’s wasted so far.

        1. “At present, though, he only gets credit for the 3 and a half years he’s wasted so far.”

          You say that like it’s a bad thing. Compared to the plans of Biden/Harris and the blue machine, Trumps bare ineffectiveness is a vast improvement.

      3. Henry. You are arguing with a rent seeking lawyer defending the rent. Facts and logic can never overcome the rent. The Democrat Party is the lawyer party. They take in $trullion and return nothing of value. You are wasting your time. They are the Inquisition 2.0.

        1. ” The Democrat Party is the lawyer party.”

          Sure. Except there isn’t a “Democrat Party”. Other than that, straight on, dead accurate.

      4. ILYA’s argument has a significant flaw, which he totally ignores. You aren’t voting for Biden, you are voting for Kamala. Joe has even said so….

        Far more fatal is voting for biden is a vote for socialism, a hard curve to the left, substantial reduction of rights under 1A, a repudiation of rights under 2A

        1. “Far more fatal is voting for biden is a vote for socialism, a hard curve to the left, substantial reduction of rights under 1A, a repudiation of rights under 2A”

          If the President could implement socialism, or affect rights under either 1A or 2A.

          1. James, Biden wouldn’t be doing all the heavy lifting by himself. The existing DC bureaucracy would continue it’s work against our rights and freedoms without worry of being opposed and exposed by the President or the press. We have already seen such efforts in an administration that Biden was a part of, when the IRS worked to shut down Tea Party-type groups. Any hope of holding anyone accountable for the FBI’s efforts to oust President Trump will be toast.

    5. If that’s the extent of your rebuttal, then it’s equally fair to say that you’re a psychotic, racist windbag of hatred and lies.

      Dismissed.

      1. I offered some specific areas of criticism. You were just an ass.

        1. My comment was not a reply to you. It was a response to the bag of burning hatred, DaivdBehar.

          You might want to brush up on the forum format. It is awful, but it is not unclear.

          1. Personal remarks violate the Fallacy of Irrelevance. You cannot be a lawyer. I have no dispute with you.

            1. Speaking of irrelevancy, you cannot possibly be an adult human being.

              1. I’m glad someone else noticed it too. Based on the structure and content of his response to me, I think he’s at best a bot, or at worst he’s a foreign troll.

            2. As I have explained to you on more than one occasion, one cannot “violate a fallacy.”

              1. If you’re intelligent compared to the people you insult, you’d recognize that use of quotation marks is incorrect for the subject, yes?

    6. Biden would raise taxes.
      Trump would not.
      Therefore, vote for Trump.

      1. Skipping the whopping borrowing this year, nobody in either party was dragged kicking and screaming to borrow the mere base $1 trillion each year in good times.

        If Biden’s goal was (again skipping covid) to reduce spending and use the increased taxes to reduce borrowing instead of increasing outlays (rember; politicians have formulae that say how much they can borrow and get away with it, as a percent of revenue) then one might conceivably vote for that.

        But they want more to spend, and more to borrow to have even more more more to spend. So, no. Sorry, Joe. On increased taxes you are full of fail because of what you will use it for.

        1. Presidents don’t set tax rates.

          1. They can sign tax bills that do raise taxes. Get it?

      2. Biden would raise taxes.
        Trump would not.
        Therefore, vote for Trump.

        Trump did raise taxes. A lot.

    7. I get paid more than $120 to $130 per hour for working online. I heard about this job 3 months ago and after joining this i have earned easily 15$ from this without having online working skills. This is what I do……USA PART TIME JOB.

  2. “It is very possible he would continue many of the tariffs on China …” Right, but first pigs must learn learn to fly.

  3. Yes, I agree that a serial groper who sniffs little girls and has made millions by selling influence with a crack smoking stripper banging idiot of a son is far better than the Bad Orange Man.

    1. “a serial groper ”

      Given the famous Hollywood Access tape you can be sure this person is not commenting in anything even approaching good faith.

      1. At least Dr. President Trump’s groping is age appropriate.

        Joe’s, like his son Hunter, favorite target is children.

        1. “At least Dr. President Trump’s groping is age appropriate.”

          Again, when one fervently defends a candidate by leading with ‘at least my guy’s groping…’ they are clearly not even remotely approaching an honest discussion. They’re transparently trying to deflect a glaring weakness of ‘their guy’ via the ‘Swift Boat’ method.

          And Dr? WTF?

          1. I guess influence peddling is just fine with you.

            1. Yeah, the guy hiding his taxes desperately is an influence peddling virgin.

              You’ve got no neutral principle to argue upon, it’s just partisan propaganda.

              1. But the point is, neither do you.

              2. Those NY officials sent Trump’s taxes to the NYT.

                We’ve seen them. Another Democrat Nothingburger.

                1. Why does he hide them?

                  1. “Why does he hide them?”

                    His brand is built around lying about how much money he makes, but his taxes are based around how much money he doesn’t make. If people find out how little money he actually makes, it’ll destroy his brand and he might (gasp) have to WORK for a living.

          2. The only side fondling and/or walking around naked smoking crack while facetiming underage girls is the Bidens. Well, the Big Guy probably hasn’t fondled any lately since he’s been stuck in the basement having mini-strokes.

            1. It’s illustrative how desperately you want to talk about one of Biden’s sons wild times…It’s obviously, transparently a dishonest ploy to deflect from Trump’s numerous conflicts of interests, allegations of sexual assault and impropriety, Trumps many close associates now found guilty, etc.,. It’s just so pathetic. Argue against Biden on policy if you think it popular. This is just sadly translucent.

              1. The Trump progeny are so obviously innocent of living priviliged lives.

          3. He’s been awarded five doctorates.

            That’s earned him the title of “Dr. President”.

            1. Thanks for logging how laughable you are.

          4. Neither Biden’s or Trumps groping is appropriate.

      2. Didn’t Trump say they “let” him cop a feel?

  4. Both Biden and Trump have policy positions that undermine individual autonomy and appeal to tribalism. Neither Biden nor Trump strike me as very intelligent or distinguished. But the former seems to have some sense of professional deportment and honoring professional norms while the other seems to have no inkling of it. It was clear to me that Trump, and by virtue of his cult of personality many of his more ardent defenders, really couldn’t even conceive of why an executive going out of his way to to try to push another country to investigate his chief domestic political rival in an election year was, at the *very* least, a terrible look. That’s a decider if anything else is.

    1. Yeah, Biden has “deportment” going for him. Well, until you ask the wrong question and he calls you a lying dog faced pony soldier, or something like that.

      I guess it’s important to some people that the President looks good while he does all the wrong things.

      1. I like the two step here:

        ‘I can point out when Biden acts un-Presidential’ (full well knowing your guy does ultra-regularly, you yourself said here the other day he’s ’embarrasing’, you know it), here’s an instance, so both-sides!’

        Then denying the value anyways (who cares about deportment?).

        You should have gone for the head…

        1. Yeah, Biden acts unpresidential when ever he doesn’t meet with fawning softballs from the press. If he were getting the treatment Trump gets from the press, he’d be nothing BUT unpresidential. But, yeah, he’s pretty mature acting so long as you suck up to him.

          I care about deportment. I just care a lot more about substance.

          1. Substance like laughing at someone being shot for instance? That kind of substance?

            1. No, I’m pretty sure that falls under “deportment”.

              1. Somehow, I think if Biden was getting a crowd to laugh at how you were injured doing your job you wouldn’t think it was simply a matter of deportment.

                I can’t think of anything more substantive than the person in charge of the powerful institution for implementing state violence laughing about how funny it is when people are victims of state violence.

                1. No, actually I would, because I understand “deportment” to actually have a distinct meaning. In no world is laughing at somebody “policy”.

                  “I can’t think of anything more substantive than the person in charge of the powerful institution for implementing state violence laughing about how funny it is when people are victims of state violence.”

                  Wow. That’s quite the confession of intellectual inadequacy. Any other failings you want to admit to, while you’re in the mood?

                  1. What’s intellectually inadequate is believing that a government official’s feelings on use of government violence doesn’t affect government use of violence.

                    And FWIW I’d much prefer to confess intellectual inadequacy than confess moral inadequacy like you typically do.

                    1. Oh, I’ll agree that deportment might affect policy on the margin. But how can deportment be MORE substantive than the policy it might affect?

                      Trump vents about the media. Biden actively threatens to subject it to political censorship. How can the mere possibility that Trump’s venting might presage censorship be more important than Biden’s outright endorsement of it?

                    2. Way to change the subject from endorsing wanton government violence to something else. I assume it’s because deep down you know how bad that is.

                      Maybe you aren’t so immoral after all. You’re just craven.

                    3. “How can the mere possibility that Trump’s venting might presage censorship be more important than Biden’s outright endorsement of it?”

                      Not everybody has your unnatural ability to see inside the souls of politicians, and see their “real” hearts, Brett.

                    4. I’d settle for you having the power to look inside Biden’s campaign website. Though the power to care about what you found there would be handy, too.

                    5. “I’d settle for you having the power to look inside Biden’s campaign website. Though the power to care about what you found there would be handy, too.”

                      Propaganda works on you. Which is YOUR problem.

          2. “If he were getting the treatment Trump gets from the press”

            Again, this is not an honest person. He explicitly mentioned Trump’s Tweets as embarrasing. Those are not press event responses.

            1. The tweet was Trump venting about the nature of his press coverage.

              1. The only tweet of Trump’s you find embarrasing is that one? Good grief dude.

                1. Whereas the only statement of Trump that you never question is the “pussy” comment. You call Trump words worse than Biden actions, which is how we know you are not a serious person.

              2. He’s complaining because it’s accurate.

          3. “Biden acts unpresidential when ever he doesn’t meet with fawning softballs from the press.”

            Oops, you seem to have the two major candidates reversed in your mind, there.

            1. Indeed. For instance, we just saw Trump have a tantrum and storm off during a tv interview because he didn’t like the fact that the interviewer said that they’d ask tough questions.

        2. The best the Presidents critics have is deportment? After 5 years of constant investigation by the US Intelligence communities, at least a year of foreign “allies” investigating citizen Trump, The FBI running investigations, no derogatory intell was found. President Trump is by far, the purest, most honest person in Washington DC
          Deportment, is defined as acting like a politician. Failing to understand that politicians act the way the “deport” themself is because they are alway running for re-election, and building their ‘legacy’. President Trump is running for re-election, but only this once. His deportment was never in question before he became President. But thats the only weak excuse his detractors can invent.

          1. “His deportment was never in question before he became President.”

            Well that is ludicrously wrong.

          2. “President Trump is by far, the purest, most honest person in Washington DC”

            At least you’re not trying to fool anyone into thinking you’re rational and interested in the truth.

            I applaud your transparency.

          3. What happens when your idyllic bubble runs into a fact that can’t be rationalized or imagined away?

          4. “President Trump is by far, the purest, most honest person in Washington DC”

            I’m honestly not sure if I’m this serious or parody.

            1. I’m inclined towards parody; Trump might be more honest than your average Washington politician, but I suspect less so than your average Washington garbage man.

              1. This comment actually tells us something: Trump thrives on the nihilistic cynicism of his ardent defenders.

              2. I mean, Trump acts amazingly casually about things like conflict of interests, that his supporters handwave this is…telling.

                I just wish people like Brett would just be honest with others and themselves: Trump is an embarrassing boor and a good government nightmare, but he gives us guns, hates migrants and says our anti-PC things out loud. Just be honest about how important that is, it’s ok!

                1. So? Seizing our guns and filling our country with even more third worlders who love socialism and big government are the biggest threats to the West.

                  Americans never asked for 100 million Latin Americans, Somalians, Arabs, and other “others.”

                  1. Xenophobic racism is your problem, not America’s.

                    A small point of emphasis, we never asked for people like you, either.

                    1. Diversity sucks, especially when it’s with 85 IQ peasants. There’s a reason why racially homogenous nations are the most stable.

                    2. “Diversity sucks, especially when it’s with 85 IQ peasants. ”

                      But here you are, and the smart people have to account for you.

                  2. “Seizing our guns and filling our country with even more third worlders who love socialism and big government are the biggest threats to the West.”

                    Not counting idiots getting access to the Internet…

    2. The willingness to conforms to norm is not a small thing because much of our democratic system is dependent upon norms rather than formal rules.

  5. Biden if elected won’t serve a full term and he’ll resign or get forced out by his VP. You aren’t electing him you’re electing far left wing progressive marxists. Good luck with that.

    1. If I can interrupt your Alex Jones listening hour for a minute, what’s the basis of your two claims?

      1. Here is where you deny that both Biden and Harris have referred to President Harris.

    2. Full term? More like “a full MONTH”

      1. How ever long it takes to get the progressive control of the cabinet.
        Then amendment 25 and Kween Kamala rules!
        Exercise for the reader: who will she bring in as VP?

        1. If the establishment R’s couldn’t pull this off with Trump, what makes you think the leftwing D’s can do it to Biden?

          1. Haven’t been listening to Pelosi? They’re proposing to transfer the 25th amendment duty away from the cabinet to a commission created and staffed by Congress.

            1. Fun fact; if the dems get a clean sweep, they can legally appoint the DNC to decide if a president is fit for office. (as long as they get the VP to go along with the gag)

              Section 4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

          2. Oh, I don’t know – maybe because the R’s didn’t use Trump as a Trojan horse for Pence?

            1. Right, the establishment Republicans MEANT for Trump to be elected. They were hoping he’d come along and destroy their brand for them.

    3. Harris the candidate of the tech billionaires. They own the media and the Democrat Party. They got rid of Sanders in 5 minutes in South Carolina. Sanders was Soros. Then they got rid of Trump with the COVID lockdown. It destroyed Trump achievements, the stock markets and full employment. On the way to their electoral victory, they scored an extra $800 billion in profits in 2020.

      I hate how much smarter they are than we are. I propose to seize their assets in civil forfeiture, for the billions of internet crimes on their platforms. Millions of those crimes were committed by them, when they inflated viewerships, to rip off advertisers. Many of their viewers are not even human, but fake.

      1. “They own the media and the Democrat Party. ”

        Someone notify tech billionaire Larry Ellison that he’s doing it wrong.

        “Then they got rid of Trump with the COVID lockdown. It destroyed Trump achievements, the stock markets and full employment.”

        In the sense that Trump never achieved anything wrt to the stock markets and full employment, sure.

      2. “I hate how much smarter they are than we are. ”

        This part of your rant, is the only accurate part.

      3. > I hate how much smarter they are than we are.

        I don’t get it. If they are that much smarter, we should very likely back their preferred candidate(s) as the better choice.

  6. So, I gather you don’t consider amendments 1 or 2 worth even mentioning? Kind of surprised at that.

    Well, not really surprised at no mention of Biden’s hostility to 2nd amendment rights, but I’d been under the general impression you thought freedom of speech was a big deal.

    Freedom of speech, the right to keep and bear arms. Pretty important to a lot of people, but I guess not to you. Didn’t even make the cut as something you had to excuse.

    Kind of shocked you didn’t even think they were important enough to make excuses about.

    1. I give you that Trump is better on 2nd amendment rights, there’s no doubt there. But what in the world makes you think he’s a defender of the 1st? ‘Let’s tighten these libel laws!’ ‘I want the FCC to look into NBC’s license!’ ‘I want the Post Office to not do business with businesses that criticize me!’ ‘I want Twitter dealt with!’ etc.,

      1. Joe Biden: “It’s not enough to just end Citizens United — we have to eliminate all private dollars from our federal elections.”

        How do you do that and retain freedom of the press, freedom of speech?

        I really didn’t expect you to care that Biden is hostile to two enumerated civil liberties. I did expect Somin to care.

        1. Trump said SNL should be tested in courts and can’t be legal.

          1. Yeah, he vents a lot, while nominating judges who’d make sure it remains venting.

            Meanwhile Biden is determined to get CU overturned, so that it won’t just be venting you have to worry about.

            1. Judges who want to overturn Sullivan. Judges who are going to go along with putting some kind of fairness doctrine on social media.

            2. Again, ‘he constantly says things I oppose but he rarely gets them done so I love him’ is strange indeed.

              1. It’s not that strange given the alternative. And who said I love him? I’m proposing to vote for him, not marry him, no love is involved.

                1. I’m proposing telling the incompetent con-man he’s fired, now that we’ve firmly established the point that any idiot can grow up to become President (as long as they’ve been US citizens since birth and have reached 35 years of age.)

                2. Brett: ‘When Trump proposes restricting speech he’s just ‘venting!’ When Biden does it I take him seriously! I am not an ideological crank!’

                  1. People accuse Trump of lying. That’s a feature, not a bug, If Trump was serious about half the stuff he says, he’d be scarey. When Biden says he wants more strict gun-control, I believe him.

                3. Brett, you worship Trump. It’s plain from your comments, even if you won’t admit it.

              2. And yet you’re one of the first to say that Trump says a lot of bullshit.

            3. Trump applauds violence against reporters, and I’m supposed to think he cares about the 1A?

          2. Boys, boys. They’re both s%#$ on freedom of speech.

            However, Trump’s legislative “suggestions” are going nowhere.

            The Democrats are eager for their court to support allowing laws to punish companies for allowing harrassment, oh, and by the way, our opponents’ speech is harrassment, so you should silence them lest the law hurt you.

            This from the party that used to be derided for vociferous defense of the First Amendment.

          1. “Should be tested in courts… libel”

            First, does Trump not have the right to not be libeled?
            Second, who else would you think should decide that is or isn’t libel?
            Third, Trump tweeting doesn’t start a case. Until Trump decides to actually attempt to sue, nothing has actually happened.

        2. Oh, dude, they will exempt their allies from the press.

          Look at the massive in-kind donations the Democrats are getting now, just think if they also take control over regular people’s political speech.

          Only politicians and the media will be allowed to engage in political speech. Exactly how the Democrats want it.

          1. “Only politicians and the media will be allowed to engage in political speech. Exactly how the Democrats want it.”

            Noted Democrat Donald Trump was the one issuing orders to change the intepretation of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

        3. I love how you just ignored my points. You’ve just got talking points, not rebuttals from your masters, eh?

        4. “How do you do that and retain freedom of the press, freedom of speech? ”

          You accept that freedom to spend money however you want has limits.

          1. IOW, you give up your freedom.

            1. Silly hyperbole. Does losing your gun rights if you’re a violent felon mean we’ve given up freedom?

              1. A violent felon that is still dangerous? No. That is part of due process. A 40 year old non-violent drug offense? Yes.

              2. Losing freedom if one is not a violent felon does. Biden and the Democrats want more strict gun-control and to pave the way to prohibitive regulation like the U.K.

          2. Freedom to do what you’re told isn’t freedom

      2. Trump’s vice president doesn’t have a history of criminally prosecuting investigative journalists on behalf of the special interests that are offended….

        1. Lol, Trump just proposed prosecuting leakers

          1. Not just leakers. He wants it to be illegal to write about Covid. he tries to prevent books critical of him from being published. he calls for violence against reporters and applauds when it happens.

            So fuck off.

            1. Trump’s a liar. None of that is serious.

              1. That’s a pathetic fucking excuse.

          2. Obama ACTUALLY did so. Repeatedly. More than all other Presidents combined.

          3. Whereas Obama raided a reporter’s home and restricted the press more from the White House than any President in living memory.

            Yet more of your Trump words is worse than your side’s actions bullshit.

    2. He’s a one trick open borders pony.

      That foreigners should be allowed to enter freely, is to their liberties once they are here (and ours) as the mountain is to the molehill.

      1. I’ve read this blog and his work for years, a great deal of it has to do with imminent domain, likely more than about immigration.

        And it’s not that wacky for a libertarian to prize lessening government imposed immigration restrictions. Opposing government restrictions is kind of what that’s all about, and freedom of movement and association are freedoms. When you argue ‘but these freedoms must be restricted because of bad secondary effects’ you’re in the same boat as every slaver, ever.

        1. Yeah, saying states shouldn’t use violence and force to stop humans from living and working where they want is kind of peak libertarian. I mean what’s more big government than saying you can’t move beyond this arbitrary line to live your life?

          1. This is a kind of suicidal libertarianism. I was an activist in the movement from the mid 70’s, and back then we clearly understood this thing called “path dependence”: That once the US was a night-watchman state without any welfare programs, you could have open borders, but that it would be suicidal to throw the borders open while we were still a welfare state bordering on a large 3rd world country.

            Somin would throw the borders open to people who’d come here, and transform the US into a far LESS libertarian country. What it comes down to is that he really only cares about ONE liberty: The liberty of non-Americans to move here. Everything else is secondary, and the 1st and 2nd amendment aren’t even worthy of mention.

            1. Almost every statist argues it’s ‘suicidal’ to follow a libertarian line. You can’t allow people to own all kinds of firearms because there will be mass murder and people will turn to the government! You can’t allow free speech or else there will be Communist ideas that subvert the government!

              1. I’m talking about what was a routine understanding among libertarian theorists for decades: That open borders would have to be the LAST thing libertarians did, not the first, because while a thoroughly libertarian society would attract more libertarians, a welfare state would attract people who wanted a welfare state.

                Open borders had to be the last thing on the agenda, or else it would be the last thing libertarians ever achieved before watching the country go down the tubes.

                1. Open borders aren’t scary to people capable of out-competing the furriners.

                  1. I can out-compete them in a free market, but a welfare state isn’t a free market, and if you import enough moochers, you can no longer outvote them.

                    1. How mediocre are you that you would have a hard time competing against people simply because they have access to basic food, shelter, and healthcare?

                    2. They would also have access to voting, and being a very clever and experienced engineer with next to no social skills doesn’t gift me with any extra votes.

                    3. “I can out-compete them in a free market, but a welfare state isn’t a free market”

                      You can win if only the government will help you win isn’t a position backed by freedom, Brett.

                    4. “They would also have access to voting, and being a very clever and experienced engineer with next to no social skills doesn’t gift me with any extra votes.”

                      But being a mediocre Republican engineer gives you all the extra votes you need.

                  2. Yes, except the third worlders and their progeny all vote, and vote for big government.

                  3. I don’t want those furriners outcompeting me on votes. Liberty requires a balanced politics where no collectivist side can impose its will upon the others.

            2. Illegal immigration is not a libertarian issue. Don’t fall for the partisan framing where they blow up the aspect of crossing the border while completely ignoring the gigantic welfare state that grows up around it. I’m sure people would have less of a problem if we weren’t obligated to spend a load of resources on those that made it through.

              1. Statists have always made this argument. If we allow people to drive without helmets and seatbelts it will cost us more in the age of government emergency care! If we let people use drugs it will cost us in the age of welfare! Etc.

                1. So what? Unlike those things you listed. Illegal immigrantion is blatantly not a libertarian issue on its face.

                  1. That sounds like something someone who didn’t understand libertarianism would say! OF COURSE getting the government to tell other people what things they can’t do is totally compatible with libertarianism. Why wouldn’t it be?

          2. I mean what’s more big government than saying you can’t move beyond this arbitrary line to live your life?

            I take it you missed the 20th century.

          3. I like how you guys bait and switch acting like illegal immigration is just a matter of going over the border when its really about the entire package of the massive drain in resources and chaos it brings afterward.

            BTW Is there some inherent aspect of libertarianism that forbids people from maintaining the integrity of their borders and property? Maintaining a border is literally the base function of a government. Far more than transgender bathrooms or forced cake baking. Without a border a nation really doesn’t exist.

            I certainly don’t associate using taxpayer dollars to hide murderers and gang members from deportation and provide them with billions of dollars in government assistence with ‘minimal government’ but maybe don’t understand the philosophy as well as academics like Prof Somin and you.

            1. ” Is there some inherent aspect of libertarianism that forbids people from maintaining the integrity of their borders and property?”

              Interfering with other people’s liberty is generally incompatible with libertarianism, yes. If Jose lives in Ciudad Juarez but would like to live and work in the US, and can find an employer and landlord willing to take him, why do YOU want to horn in and tell him he can’t do either one?

              1. Tell him that he and his progeny can never vote, and bring back anti-miscegenation laws, and then we’ll talk.

                1. ” bring back anti-miscegenation laws”

                  The fact that the attractive women don’t want anything to do with you should take care of that.

    3. You think Trump is a big freedom of the press guy?

      His judicial appointments might be better on 1st amendment stuff than Biden’s would be. But I don’t think Trump particularly loves being constrained by the bill of rights. If he could lock people up for saying mean things about him… I don’t think he’d hate that.

      1. So, you fully expect Biden to be worse in terms of actual acts, but Trump has evil in his heart, so he’s the worse of the two?

        1. He IS objectively bad at the job of being President.
          Let’s try letting a grown-up give it a go?

        2. I didn’t say that. But you were implying that Trump is some kind of champion of the first amendment, and that it was an important point Ilya failed to make.

          If you think that Trump will be better about judicial nominations, Ilya did cover that.

          1. No, I think Biden is some kind of anti-champion on the 1st amendment, and Ilya just blew it off.

            1. I think Ilya covered a lot when he covered judicial appointees.

              He could have written a longer article articulating everything that covers, but figured it was implied.

              I don’t think you really believe 1st and 2nd amendment issues aren’t important to Ilya. And if you do believe that, you’re probably wrong.

              The Supreme Court is 6-3 conservative. Maybe that helps cover those things for the next four years well enough that we can focus on other things.

              I’m not saying I know the proper calculus here to determine the most libertarian outcome, but I trust that Ilya is considering everything he should consider.

              1. What I think is that Ilya weights open borders high enough that it always dictates the win.

                1. What I think is that your xenophobia is severe enough to always bias you, and thus, whatever you’re currently against is probably the better choice. Who do you like for Monday Night Football this week? I might put a fiver on the other guys.

                  1. Are the xenos gonna vote Libertarian in gratitude, or vote Democratic? So long as the xenos vote overwhelmingly Democratic, I’ll have a phobia of them.

    4. Trump recently said reporting on Covid should be illegal election interference.

      1. Got a cite? Because that sounds pretty implausible.

          1. So, no, he didn’t say that reporting on Covid should be illegal election interference. He said that coordinating to use it as an excuse to not cover anything positive should be.

            Yeah, he’s venting. Only one candidate in this race wants Citizens United overturned, and it’s not Trump.

            1. “He said that coordinating to use it as an excuse to not cover anything positive should be.“

              And you agree? And if not how is that remotely better than Biden wanting to overturn Citizens United?

              Why is everything Trump says just venting but everything Biden says is going to happen? Why are you convinced his judicial picks won’t take their cues from him regarding media regulation. I mean the conservative movement is already into heavily regulating social media. Marsha Blackburn was asking why an employee who made fun of her still has a job. Why won’t the conservative legal movement and conservative judges follow suit?

              1. No, I don’t agree, I just think you mischaracterized it.

                Trump is a long, long way from my idea of the ideal President. I was really routing for Rand Paul in the primaries.

                But, yes, Trump vents a lot, and then doesn’t pursue any policy to make the venting reality. While Biden has a radically anti-1st and 2nd agenda. I’d rather Trump didn’t vent, but between the guy who vents, and the guy who make substantive proposals to take away my rights, I’ll take venting every time.

                1. Because, unlike many, you’re not just pretending to care about civil liberties.

                  1. Mainly his liberty to murder people for breaking his stuff.

                    1. Thieves and arsonists definitely don’t like it when Americans protect themselves and their families and the fruits of their labor from thieves and arsonists.

                      Luckily they’ve got you to advocate for thievery and destruction and against righteous defense.

                    2. If the cops stop shooting unarmed black people, who else is going to pick up the slack?

                    3. Ben_ with the good morality takes once again: stuff over people.

                      What is the dollar value of stuff you would be willing to kill someone over?

                    4. The cops are bit players in the game of shooting unarmed black people, as I’m sure you’re aware. And are generally shooting the sort of “unarmed” black people who shoot other black people.

                      The latest “unarmed black person” shot by the cops, with attendant riots, was unarmed with a knife, and chasing the cops around at the time he was shot.

                    5. I’m of the opinion that criminals should be asking, “What’s the dollar amount of stuff I’d be willing to risk being killed attempting to steal?”

                      If they asked whether it was worth dying to steal something, there’d be much less occasion to kill them for stealing something.

                    6. I’m of the opinion that criminals should be asking, “What’s the dollar amount of stuff I’d be willing to risk being killed attempting to steal? If they asked whether it was worth dying to steal something, there’d be much less occasion to kill them for stealing something.”

                      Are you some kind of robot compelled to kill people for stealing your stuff? No. You’re a person who can choose to inflict violence or not. Your choice here exposes you as a person of poor moral character. Sure, you don’t deliberately want to murder as many people as you can like Aktenberg, but you clearly value stuff more than human life. That is simply not morally acceptable.

                    7. Self-defense is a fundamental human right. Property is another. If you want to take those fundamental human rights away from everyone, then it doesn’t matter why.

                    8. I’ve pointed this out before: Property doesn’t fall from the sky or come from wishes, or magically respawn the next day if stolen.

                      People expend the finite hours and days of their lives earning that property, and if you steal property that took a week to earn, you’ve stolen that week of their life away from them, and they’ll never, ever get it back.

                      So I don’t think property is categorically different from life. It’s just another form of it.

                    9. LTG, you’re an idiot, criminal thug apologist.

                    10. “The cops are bit players in the game of shooting unarmed black people, as I’m sure you’re aware. And are generally shooting the sort of ‘unarmed’ black people who shoot other black people.”

                      If, in your pocket reality, unarmed people can shoot other people (black or otherwise), why are you whining about the “gun grabbers” coming to take your guns away? Just be an unarmed person who shoots people!

                2. “Trump is a long, long way from my idea of the ideal President.”

                  Ugh, these goal posts are heavy!

                3. “Trump vents a lot, and then doesn’t pursue any policy to make the venting reality. ”

                  That’s one possible explanation for observed results. Another is that he pursues the hell out of policy to bring about his preferred policy, but reality is resistant.

                4. Rand Paul.

                  The guy who ran around the Senate knowing he had Covid.

                  Typical libertarian behavior.

              2. Why is everything Trump says just venting but everything Biden says is going to happen? Why are you convinced his judicial picks won’t take their cues from him regarding media regulation.

                Because he’s Brett Bellmore.

                1. Because Biden has a history of legislation attacking civil liberties, and of concrete policy proposals to violate civil liberties, and so far the only thing has done on the 1st amendment is just that: Vent.

                  Get back to me when Trump proposes legislation to bring back the fairness doctrine, or prohibit anybody but the candidates from engaging in campaign related speech. The worst he’s done so far is propose that internet platforms be required to abide by the actual terms of Section 230 to be protected by it.

                  1. But of course you’re lying about what § 230 says, and what Trump proposes is explicitly the “fairness doctrine” for the Internet.

              3. Why is everything Trump says just venting but everything Biden says is going to happen?

                Because Trump’s a liar. It’s a feature, not a bug. Yeah, if Trump was actually serious, he’d be dangerous. But, Trump’s a bullshitter. But Biden and the Democrats are dead serious about enacting strict gun-control…strICT.

                1. His followers aren’t. They take the bullshit seriously, and he will too. Besides, he’s not some guy mouthing off in a bar. He’s the President. What he says carries weight.

                  So even if what you say is right, which it isn’t, his crap would still be dangerous.

              4. “https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1320690788628598784”

                So, it doesn’t say what you say that it says. As usual.

                “Why is everything Trump says just venting but everything Biden says is going to happen?”

                “20,000!!!!!!!!! That’s how much Trump lies!!!!”
                “How dare you say that the guy we claim is incapable of telling the truth is telling the truth this time.”

                Cognitive dissonance.

            2. “One candidate in the race wants Citizens United overturned”

              Yeah, most voters do too. Even most regular republicans who aren’t fedsoc weirdos think it’s an awful decision.

              1. Most voters aren’t libertarians, and have been marinated in anti-CU propaganda for years anyway. In general they don’t have a clue what the ruling was about, except that they’ve been told it was bad.

                But I’m not criticizing Somin for failing to be a mainstream Republican. I’m criticizing him for failing to take seriously threats to civil liberties libertarians are supposed to care about.

                1. He disagrees with you. From your point of view, that makes him wrong. But at least consider the possibility that it makes YOU wrong.

                  1. Oh, does he disagree with me on free speech and gun rights? Not so’s I’ve noticed.

                    But he doesn’t seem to care much about them at the moment.

                    1. No, he doesn’t disagree with you about those things. Neither do I.

                      But Ilya did in fact list judicial nominees, which is what we’re really talking about, as an area where Trump would probably be better than Biden.

                      I honestly don’t know if Trump is just venting when he proposes things that are so ridiculously unconstitutional that he would get nowhere if he tried to implement them. Maybe someone eventually tells him and that’s why he doesn’t do anything about it.

                      I do tend to believe people when they tell me what they want.

                      Ilya was trying to take everything into account in order to decide what outcome would ultimately be better for libertarianism.

                      He did take into account what you wanted him to take into account. You just weigh it all differently and come to a different conclusion.

                      I guess I’m just assuming your goal is the same as Ilya’s but I don’t know that for sure.

                      I admit that I’m not really sure what would yield the most libertarian outcome. I’d feel a lot better about a Biden Presidency if I knew the Republicans would take the Senate.

                      That would remove my fears about court packing. Because I don’t trust Biden on that, regardless of where he is today. I also don’t trust Harris, should Biden’s term end early.

  7. As a final thumping of the tub to exhort the lawyerish electorate, it seems, well, lacking in snap and pith.

  8. I always appreciated Trump’s canceling of the postal subsidy for China, which I thought was long overdue.

    And Biden has a lot to answer for from his drug warrior past.

    But when you total up the columns, yeah, Biden still comes out well ahead.

  9. A whole bunch of the libertarians here on Reason seem to have forgotten that libertarians are in favor of self-defense and the right to keep and bear arms. Trump and Biden are worlds apart on the RKBA. Biden proposes to infringe a fundamental civil right that’s expressly enumerated in the Bill of Rights, and he would seek to appoint judges who would limit if not abolish that right. There’s no way in hell I would vote for Biden on that point alone.

    1. There was a time when the libertarian movement used to brag, and credibly, that libertarians were more principled on the 2nd amendment than the NRA. And more principled on freedom of speech than the ACLU.

      Now they’re not even worth Somin’s time to mention.

      1. It’s one freedom among many, though I really do get that for many it’s the main one. Me not getting to hire or rent to a migrant is nothing to you, you getting to have your 50th gun is everything.

        1. Getting to have even one (1) gun free of onerous burdensome regulation. Biden would appoint Supremes who would nullify the 2nd Amendment as protection of an individal right. If those immigrants voted Libertarian when they attained citizenship, rather than overwhelmingly Democratic and for their authoritarianism to which the immigrants are accustomed, then I’d be more sympathetic.

          1. That’s because they’re genetically unintelligent. How is anyone surprised that a group of people with average IQs of 85-90, no education, no skills, and hordes of illegitimate children support the party of free stuff?

    2. “A whole bunch of the libertarians here on Reason seem to have forgotten that libertarians are in favor of self-defense and the right to keep and bear arms.”

      More specifically, this particular libertarian is in favor of responsible adults having the ability to defend themselves, with the weapon(s) of their choice, but I see a good number of politicians I can’t rightly classify as “responsible adults”.

  10. We have all already voted man, but ok. Not an invalid opinion. I think Trump is completely ill suited and frankly terrible at his job. I also think a lot of the presidency has been just rerhoric and real change is happening in other areas of government, which from a conservative point of view is positive. How you balance that, if you are mote libertarian or conservative, is up to you.

    1. Actually no, we haven’t all already voted. election day is next Tuesday. Mr. Trump will not get my vote either, for demonstrated incompetence. The latest rounds of attack ads have failed to turn me against the target(s).

  11. If you’re a libertarian like me, elections in the US two-party system often come down to choosing the lesser of two evils.

    Someone left the irony on.

    1. That is hilarious.

    2. The lesser of two weevils it is, then.

  12. We all have political opinions. I’m sure that we would all like to write long winded essays on our political recommendations and to have them published on a widespread blog such as The Volokh Conspriacy. But we can’t.

    I think it is abuse of privilege for Ilya Somin to do so and to thereby rub our noses in it.

    1. Thing is, I actually can’t tell if this is a parody.

  13. You make a far better argument for Trump than you do for Biden.

    Your Biden argument essentially boils down to “immigration, immigration, immigration, immigration, trade, immigration, wall, immigration.” Well, I disagree with you completely on immigration and the wall. And Trump’s work on trade has pretty much universally benefitted the United States.

    1. A gigantic wall o text for essentially two arguments against trump that are wedge issues that are mostly down to what side of the fence you fall on.

      1. Funny you should mention what side of fence you fall on, since, of coufrse, you’re paying for both sides of the fence. And the fence isn’t tall enough to stop the airliners flying over it, full of people who want to live and work here in the United States.

    2. “Trump’s work on trade has pretty much universally benefitted the United States.”

      Tariffs on net destroy more jobs than tbey create, but do explain why you think this is the case.

      1. If other countries tariff our goods and we don’t reciprocate how does that work out for us?

        1. Just fine, actually.

        2. Depends on whether people like our stuff better than what they can get from someone else.

      2. Basically there are several issues here:

        1) We’re talking about trade with a geopolitical foe which happens to be a totalitarian state. They are actively pursuing a strategy of creating industrial dependence on the part of anybody who might oppose them by subsidizing bottom level industries like resource extraction. It’s a matter of long term strategic security to not cooperate with that strategy, lest we find ourselves unable to oppose them without ruinous effects on our economy.

        2) We are on a glide path to eventually fiscal crisis, when our currency will suddenly not be accepted for foreign trade. We’ve been on this path for decades, and probably passed the point of no return back in 2008. When this crisis arrives, the more self-sufficient we are the better, because foreign exchange will come dearly indeed.

        3) While mutually free trade in a free market does create net gains, one sided free trade with a command economy isn’t guaranteed to, and we have to be concerned with where the jobs occur. Here, or China? You might think of the tarriffs as a kind of redistribution program, aimed at helping the least well off in America by increasing their job prospects, even if it lowers the welfare of some well off people.

        1. Gosh, let’s blame all our economic problems with regards to totalitarian, economic foe China on noted socialist liberal Richard Nixon, who opened us up to all their influence.

          1. Nixon made a mistake. At that time, people actually thought that liberalizing trade with China would cause them to liberalize. It turned out it just gave them the wealth they needed to be a more dangerous threat.

            It’s been a long time since anybody had an excuse for making that mistake.

            1. It was smart at the time. It was during the height of the Cold War and the Soviets had far more nukes and were a much greater threat than the Red Chinese. A conflict arose between the Soviets and the Red Chinese. Opening relations with Red China helped exploit that conflict against the Soviets who were the greater threat at the time.

        2. Yes, they sell us cheap stuff in exchange for our printed dollars, and use those printed dollars to buy real assets, like companies and real estate, in the U.S.

          They’re slowly trying to take over.

      3. There is no such thing as free trade with unfree nations. Red China uses the technology gotten by trade with the U.S. and the west to upgrade its military capabilities and oppress its citizens via surveillance, tracking and internet control made possible by western technology. If it wasn’t for trade with the west, Red China’s communist government would have collapsed long ago.

  14. How can you on 1/30/2020 attack Trump for corruption and totally ignore Biden’s corruption? What a sick hit piece.

    1. This has been explained perhaps a hundred times over, repeated with every new tinfoil idiot theory you people propose, but numerous investigations of Biden’s time as VP has come up with precisely zero evidence of any corruption.

      Investigations led by the GOP.

      Partisan hysteria should eventually succumb to the truth. There’s still hope for you to be cured.

    2. “How can you on 1/30/2020 attack Trump for corruption and totally ignore Biden’s corruption?”

      Easy. Choose to live with at least a tenuous grip on reality, and let the partisan fantasies go, because they aren’t helping you in any way.

      1. Here’s a hint:
        Let’s let some of the vapours in, and start with the claim that Hunter Biden was hired by Burisma as a method of obtaining influence on the US government, because pappy Joe was pretty highly-placed.
        OK, so if we swallow that notion… point to what they got for that money. What did Joe do to benefit Burisma? Nothing? Wow, that’s a smoking gun you got there.

        1. What did Joe do to benefit Burisma? Nothing? Wow, that’s a smoking gun you got there.

          Getting a corruption investigation stopped – Duh

          1. “Getting a corruption investigation stopped – Duh”

            Take the plastic bag off your head, it’s cutting off the supply of oxygen to your brain.

            1. This is how low IQ people who have run out of talking points respond. Admittedly only your low IQ is entered into record (and oh what a record you are a gasbag of damn near mythic proportions).

    3. Because Trump ignores even basic low level conflict of interest concerns?

      This reminds me of 2016: “Hilllary is a crook because her taxes show conflicts of interest, Trump doesn’t have that problem [because, er, his taxes are secret]”

      1. Kind of like “We won’t let you take even the most basic steps to stop voter fraud, and there’s no evidence of voter fraud, because there have been no steps to root it out!”

  15. TLDR WAH WAH Trump doesnt want open borders for illegals and globalism where everybody plays by one set of rules except China who plays by another WHA WHA WHA

    1. Pretty much.

  16. Jews own biden and all his people. There is no greater evil in the world than jews.

    1. Bullshit. No objective proof. Paranoia.

      1. I do not support Biden.

    2. The Jews are who made America great. Without the Jews, America would have fallen to the Soviets. It’s because Jews gave nuclear weapons to the west before the Soviets that the west won the Cold War and the Soviets collapsed. ‘ey Pavel, comrade, maybe that’s why you’re pissed, beause Jews defeated the Soviets. Look up Jews (or those of Jewish blood) Leo Szilard, Stanislaw Ulam ,Edward Teller.

  17. LOL if you think I am reading one sentence of this.

    If you’ve read one or two of Ilya Somin’s posts relating to particular topics, you’ve read them all.

    1. It is so utterly predictable.

      1. Unlike you two, who take on such a wide range of reasoned opinions.

  18. It will be such a relief to have a grown up as President again.

    Though if Trump joins the comment section here he will be a distant second, third or fourth in misogyny and schoolyard hostility.

    1. Throwing paint on antipolice graffetti should be punished more than intentionally giving someone AIDS.

      COVID can sense the intentions of people and will stop infecting those protesting in solidarity with BLM

      8 year old children should be given access to hormones and sex change surgery

      There is absolutely no difference between a man and a woman. Its a social construct.

      Yep, sounds like real adult mature thinking to me.

      1. I invite anyone to do some googling for some VC posts in the pre-Reason era, when it was a stand-alone site. The comments were fact-based, respectful and engaged. You never saw any trash like this.

        1. Good rebuttal.

        2. Sadly, many self styled libertarians are prone to this

        3. “VC”? Viet Cong? Venture captalist? What the fuck?

          1. What? Volokh Conspiracy. The blog you’re commenting on. Which has not always been hosted at unReason.

      2. “COVID can sense the intentions of people and will stop infecting those protesting in solidarity with BLM”

        This’d be nice, inasmuch as apparently the Republican party has taken on coronavirus as a sponsor, and now acts to spread it to as many people as possible.

        “Yep, sounds like real adult mature thinking to me.”

        You don’t appear to be in a position to judge maturity.

        1. I would support a modification of the party platform to take measures to keep you personally inside and away from others for as long as possible. It’s for your own good.

          1. Whereas you are invited to go lick every surface in the coronavirus ward at you local hospital after the Trump rally.

  19. There’s no such thing as journalism any more, so if Biden wins, look for cheerleading from people who no one seriously calls journalists any more. You’ll never learn from journalists what the Biden Administration is really doing.

    If Trump wins, you’ll never learn any of that either. But they’ll make up stories every day about what They want you to imagine Trump doing.

    Either way America will only survive if the left half of the country changes to become less totalitarian.

    1. Why don’t you take the time to imagine some more original wacky conspiracy theories?

    2. Eh, the country’s not going to survive all that much longer anyway, and certainly not in any form most of us would recognize. The rot is too deep at this point. It was probably too deep a decade ago.

      I think the important thing at this point may just be having an escape plan, and making sure why everything went to Hell is well documented, so future generations at least make different mistakes.

      1. I don’t think you and I will be the ones who need to escape.

        1. Oh, I know I won’t, I’m nearing retirement. I’m more concerned about my son.

          1. Does he have dementia, too? Or is he capable of normal cognition?

      2. “Eh, the country’s not going to survive all that much longer anyway, and certainly not in any form most of us would recognize.”

        It won’t be like those good old days of 1790 [most of the population and even white males excluded or something].

        Don’t be such a tool for hyperbolic conspiracy theories.

        1. No, it won’t be like the good old days of even the 1990s at the rate we’re going where most suburban neighborhoods are safe, where society is generally functional and where people’s needs are mostly taken care of.

      3. The turning point will be when no one overseas wants our printed dollars, and we actually have to live within our means.

        Most of the third world underclass will not tolerate that.

  20. If there is anything the carefully cultivated class of conservative followers of the Volokh Conspiracy can’t abide, it is genuine libertarian content.

    You really need and deserve to find better political playmates, Prof. Somin. These bigots, disaffected clingers, and faux libertarians are no fit for you.

    1. Genuine libertarian content… Approved by Artie. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. If Artie likes it, it ain’t pudding.

  21. Biden is moral? Ok what planet are you on? I recall reading Sebastian Coe’s 2012 autobiography where is states how Biden was hitting on an intern at the 2010 Vancouver Olympics to the point where the young women was freaking out. A small piece of evidence of Biden’s scum bagness. Then there is Hunter and Jim…obviously they were trying to do the usual politican thing of enriching themselves by greasing a few skids (how the hell did Nancy Pelosi get rich?) but they were incompetent at doing it as was Joe. The guy can’t even make millions the old fashioned way by corruption.

    As for “immigration”…any libertarian who thinks open boarders won’t destroy our Bill of Rights and turn the Republic into a tribalism is an idiot. Just look at California. New York. The “immigrants” will vote your rights away in a second to collect govt money you moron.

    Free trade? Ok really you want to go there? Free trade means both sides agree to no tariffs, no subsidizes and no peging to each other’s currency. China does not do that…and is a favorite of libs cause we can export our inflation on them as we print money, keep rates artificially low so pols can buy votes and enrich their friends. And we lost our industrial base but who cares..the wokes in silicon valley and NYC don’t give a shit. You want free trade..really free trade..go back to the gold standard (a very good idea which would kill deficit spending day one).

    Liberal Allies..why the hell are we paying for the defense of Europe anymore? the Cold war ended 30 years ago. Russia has the GDP of Spain and a regional power..they are not a threat to the US anymore than Pakistan.

    I get it…the author probably has “old world” grudges (the “czar “…) and thinks America exists for your global wokeness.

    Oh and how many countries has Trump overthrown? Game , set, match wokie…

    As an American of Italian ancestry Trump is doing a better job protecting my natural rights than Bush or Obama did.

    1. “Liberal Allies..why the hell are we paying for the defense of Europe anymore? the Cold war ended 30 years ago. Russia has the GDP of Spain and a regional power..they are not a threat to the US anymore than Pakistan.”

      Russia has the ability to deliver a nuclear weapon to any city in the US. Some people might consider that a threat.

      1. Leaving NATO tomorrow would change neither Russia’s ability to launch a nuclear strike or our ability to defend against one.

        1. “Leaving NATO tomorrow would change neither Russia’s ability to launch a nuclear strike or our ability to defend against one.”

          Is what one would say if they had no idea how launch detection works, or where our nuclear arsenal is based.

          1. Launch detection is done by satellite or by northern stations. A Russian nuclear attack would come from over the arctic or from submarines anywhere in the oceans, not much from Europe if at all. The purpose of anti-ballistic missiles and detection stations in eastern Europe is to guard against a much exaggerated threat of launch from Iran, not from Russia. Russia is not necessarily an adversary. The Cold War is over.

    2. “Oh and how many countries has Trump overthrown? Game , set, match wokie…”

      He hasn’t yet managed his overthrow of this one, though not for lack of interest. If you consider incompetence a plus, then Trump’s your man. His range is incredible… he’s incapable in so many, MANY different fields of human effort.

      1. Right, because a bunch of MAGA hat wearers just burned and looted my city’s downtown and hardcore right-wing health officials are out there citing people for holding pro-Biden rallies.

        Liberals are also accusing Republicans of what they secretly themselves are hoping to do (less secretly, these days).

        1. “Liberals are also accusing Republicans of what they secretly themselves are hoping to do (less secretly, these days).”

          Take it up with them, and leave the rest of us the fuck alone.

      2. If you consider incompetence a plus, then Trump’s your man. His range is incredible… he’s incapable in so many, MANY different fields of human effort.

        It’s a feature, not a bug. If you hate Trump, be glad; may we be blessed with incompetent enemies and adversaries. If he was competent, then he’d really be dangerous. Be glad he lies and mainly lies about himself. It’s a feature, not a bug. If he was serious about half the shit, he’d be dangerous. Be happy.

        And where he is competent, he’s not dangerous. He nominated and got confirmed three (3) pro-gun freedom Supremes. That’s competent enough for me. The question is do we want the Supremes to be any more then 6-3/5-4 conservative? Once there are enough decisions upholding and implementing the Heller and McDonald decisions and protecting the right to keep and bear arms as an individual right against over-reaching gun-control, then we can worry about the Supremes being too conservative, after the 2nd Amendment is secure, first.

    3. I recall reading Sebastian Coe’s 2012 autobiography where is states how Biden was hitting on an intern at the 2010 Vancouver Olympics to the point where the young women was freaking out

      You know, it’s a lot harder to lie about these things now that we have an Internet that allows us to look things up. You recall nothing of the kind.

  22. Ilya seems to live in a different world than I, with very different values. Luckily we won’t have to live with the results of his choice. MAGA.

    1. #MASA – Make America Sick Again

  23. If you love America in foreign wars, Biden is your guy. He voted for all those wars.

    Trump has won the war against ISIS and is ending the American fighting in Afganistan and is bringing soldiers home.

    Apparently Ilya Somin doesn’t care about the topic enough to mention it. We better not hear any complaints from him about wars in the future.

    1. Trump did such a good job protecting American forces, the Russians had no choice but to stop paying bounties for killing them. Remember when we were fighting them over there so we wouldn’t have to fight them over here. “Mission Accomplished”

      1. This would be a more impressive comment if there hadn’t been a multimonth investigation into that anonymous claim by the military and intelligence community, and they hadn’t concluded that it was completely untrue.
        And if this hadn’t been reported months ago. And repeatedly during the months since then.

        Also, good job with the old fake news “Mission Accomplished” slam! I mean, when you’re going in on a post that is full of lies, why not go full in and top it off with another one from 2003?

    2. Trump has won the war against ISIS and is ending the American fighting in Afganistan and is bringing soldiers home.

      Again, lying. He did surrender to the Taliban in Afghanistan, yes, but there are more U.S. troops in the Middle East now than before he took office.

  24. Sorry Ilya, as a libertarian, immigration is not my #1 issue of concern. Quite frankly, it isn’t even my #10 issue.

    1. It doesn’t matter. If Trump were open borders, Ilya would be railing against that.

      1. No, I really doubt that. Somin is so fanatically open borders that he’d probably welcome an invading army in uniform. He really is single issue on the topic.

        1. Again, as a long time reader, he’s written more about Takings (on which Trump is terrible btw, his wall for example). You’re telling more about your biases than Somin.

          1. “Again, as a long time reader, he’s written more about Takings (on which Trump is terrible btw, his wall for example).”

            Probably true long term. I’m skeptical that would hold considering just his post 2016 articles.

            And yet, immigration, not takings is his sole justification for why Trump is the greater evil.

    2. As a libertarian, it’s probably in my top 10, but mostly in opposition to Somin. We’re never going to become a more libertarian country by importing more people who are even less libertarian than the average American. We might have persuaded the American electorate of the 1970’s that libertarianism made sense. The electorate that 50 years of illegal immigration has created?

      Not a chance.

      1. We can’t even persuade the American electorate today of anything less than far left authoritarianism.

        Look at the electoral map. Specifically about Trump/Biden aside, the Republican has to win basically every state he has a chance in winning to win, while the Democrats start the election almost at the finish line due to third worlders and leftist American transplants flipping Colorado, New Mexico, Virginia, Nevada and several others.

  25. The polls are changing just like when…. WHAT’S HAPPENING!!
    https://youtu.be/Ysf5o5xOGYE?t=2

  26. Sorry, but, Biden or Trump, anyway you look at it you lose. You’d think that anyone with Libertarian pretentions would realize this.

    1. Well, yeah, the question is whether you lose with a chance to continue the game, or you lose and it’s “game over”.

      I’m serious, the Democrats were broken by 2016, they thought they’d finally arrived at their long awaited permanent majority, then Trump won and they lost Congress.

      Now they’re not so naive, the next time they’re in a position to enact stuff unopposed, they’re not going to take any chances. We’ll have arrived at Erdogan’s train station, and we’ll be hustled off the train.

      1. “We’ll have arrived at Erdogan’s train station, and we’ll be hustled off the train.“

        You know that Republicans are in court right now trying to make sure less voters have their votes counted right? You don’t actually fear losing democracy, you fear losing minority rule. More people will vote and The Senate and Court might might represent a wider range of people.

        You don’t fear getting off the train. You fear getting on it in the first place.

        1. Republicans are in court now opposing Democrats’ efforts to have campaign laws violated. The fact that Democrats always describe this as “vote suppression” doesn’t particularly move me. You don’t change the rules weeks before an election.

          1. They don’t move you because you don’t want people to vote, because you know you don’t have a popular position. Just admit it: you want permanent minority rule.

            And you might want to tell Governor Abbot that changing rules before an election is bad. He decided there can be one drop box for a county of four million people the size of Rhode Island. Why would you do that unless you wanted less turnout?

            1. And the mail. And voting in person. And early voting…

              1. Are things that Republicans like to restrict?

                1. See, the issue is, you don’t even realize what you’re talking about.

                  Voting in Texas, under Abbot’s governance, is the most expanded it’s ever been, with vote by mail, in person, early voting, and ballot drop off boxes.

                  Too many ballot drop off boxes can be difficult to secure. We’ve seen them destroyed by arson in Massachusetts and California. Which had people’s votes lost, when they burned.

                  1. Any failure to do as much as Democrats want is routinely construed to be the opposite of what Democrats want.

                    Democrats want voting made insanely easy? Just make it somewhat easier, and you’re engaged in “vote suppression”.

                    Democrats want bigger handouts? Any failure to make them as big as the Democrats want is “wealth transfers from the poor to the wealthy”.

                    Democrats want everybody to have government run healthcare? Anything short of that is “taking away people’s healthcare”.

          2. If you start by assuming that the point of the election is to get as many people’s votes in, then you are not a Republican. They hate it when every eligible voter actually shows up, because they lose those elections.

        2. Yes, the votes of people who we opposed being allowed to immigrate here for years. Go back to 1965 an ask the white Americans back then if they wanted to import tens of millions of mestizos, Arabs, and other third worlders.

          1. then wonder why you give a damn about what anybody in 1965 wants NOW. They wanted Johnson to be President and supported his Great Society programs. The only policy he had that appealed ot conservatives was his policy of killing Asians to prevent them from turning Communist (though now with 20/20 hindsight we know that there was no particular impact on America if all of French Indochina went over to the Commies. What they wanted was to be free of imperialism, not free of capitalism.

  27. Biden has significant advantages over Trump when it comes to immigration, trade, property rights, government spending, and maintaining relationships with liberal democratic allies.

    Government spending?

    Government spending?!?

    Good grief. I stopped reading right there.

    Government spending, really?!?

    1. He’s delusional. Trump is barely holding the line on $2m trillion additional pandemic “relief” against the Dems’ calls for twice that. Insanity.

      1. Lol, Trump keeps shifting to ask for more than the GOP Senate wants.

        1. Of course he does. He wants a win. Whatever that happens to look like. So that he can claim to be awesome.

          Just like every other day of the week. Still, I’ll take Trump’s narcissism (and overall bare minimum effectiveness) over Biden/Harris (who would be very effective, at very illiberal and anti-libertarian policies).

  28. The greatest problem with Biden is the media’s deliberate avoidance and even censorship of negative press. The Biden influence peddling scandals should have caused him to lose the vice presidency in 2008 and certainly in 2012. However, the media covered up both his sexual assaults on his own staff and the fairly poorly hidden bribery both to protect Obama and now to beat Trump.

    Would they report negatively on Biden even if he has clear and open corruption going on? Can we trust the fourth estate to start doing their job?

    We know every time Trump breathes wrong. We won’t know a thing about Biden even in the case of open crimes.

    1. We hear about 25% of Biden’s offenses, and 150% of Trump’s. And that’s before he’s in a position to start the government censorship of political speech Democrats have been demanding since the 70’s.

      1. Unless the first amendment is repealed, there’s no office Biden could occupy that would allow him to start censorship of political speech, no matter who’s demanding it or for how long.

        1. They wouldn’t repeal the 1st amendment, they’d just pack the Court, which would then rule that the 1st amendment didn’t really prohibit censorship.

          1. Political censorship is a common sense restriction.

    2. “The greatest problem with Biden is the media’s deliberate avoidance and even censorship of negative press.”

      Lol, Trump famously favors his Fox-GOP outlets.

    3. ” the media covered up both his sexual assaults on his own staff and the fairly poorly hidden bribery both to protect Obama and now to beat Trump.”

      If it was covered up, how do you know about them?

      1. He heard about it from one of the always-reliable and highly-respected Fox sources, i.e., Rudy Guiliani’s hairdresser, who heard about it from a blind computer repair guy, who heard from his brother-in-law’s mail carrier that a couple of Tajiks claim that some high school kids in Kazakstan discovered confidential Biden family emails on a laptop that they found in the bathroom of a Starbucks in Almaty. What hasn’t been reported yet is that the laptop also contained detailed blueprints that allow Democrats to build their own ballot-printing devices. The devices even create bar codes designed to fool ballot-reading machines so everyone can submit an unlimited number of ballots in all the swing states. This has all been confirmed by a QAnon friend of a cousin of a former college roommate, who told my accountant’s dog-walker that Hillary has donated millions of dollars to install replica ballot drop-off boxes all over the place so people can stuff them with their homemade ballots. The whole operation is being managed out of a pizza joint frequented by Bernie Sanders in Burlington, Vermont.

  29. “Sadly, Trump has said he might support a $15 minimum wage, as well, though he is probably less likely to be serious about it than Biden.”

    Trump cares about exactly one job, and if he thought it would help him keep it, he’d support anything.
    Meanwhile, if you’re pro-coronavirus, your choice is clear.

  30. If you believe this I hope you enjoy the coming authoritarian jack boot that you are going to find the Dems have inserted nicely up your rear-end.

    1. Yeah. Vote Trump! That way you can be the one wearing the jackboot!

      1. Trump defends your rights.

        Biden promises to take them away

        1. Does he? He doesn’t think my right to observe a protest without being hit by rubber bullets is very important. He doesn’t think that my right to due process or to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures is very important if the officers don’t feel like arresting me and would prefer to kill me. He clearly doesn’t think my right to vote it important, unless it’s for him. He doesn’t think much of my Fifth Amendment rights to avoid self-incrimination as he has noted on multiple occasions.

          He’s a big fan of eminent domain and exclusionary zoning so I can’t say he’s strongly supporting my property rights.

          He appointed a justice who thinks Gideon was wrongly decided, so I can’t say he’s looking out for my right to counsel.

          He’s proposed ludicrous punishments for flag burning so he obviously doesn’t care about my right to free expression or my right to be free from cruel and unusual punishments.

          If I formed a social media company he wouldn’t care about my right to moderate it as I see fit.

          1. 1. He does. You have a right to protest just fine. Just not to riot, burn, commit arson, assault Trump supporters by punching them in the face, assault police officers etc.

            2. You have due process just fine. If you think you’ve been subjected to unreasonable search, you have and can enforce the right to an attorney. If you have a dangerous knife in hand, and are approaching a police officer, ignoring repeated calls to put down the knife, what do you want?

            3. You have more means and methods to vote in this election than in any other election, ever.

            —-But it you’re worried about rights…

            1. Trump defends your right to religious freedom which is under unprecendented attack in this country. Biden would not.

            2. Trump defends your right to own a firearm, which Biden would not.

            3.

            1. “Trump defends your right to religious freedom”

              The Muslim ban screams that, amirite?

              Trump just says whatever is popular with his base. Any crediting of understanding of principle over that is partisan wishfulness.

              1. The right to religious freedom applies to people in America. Not people who want to come.

            2. ” If you think you’ve been subjected to unreasonable search, you have and can enforce the right to an attorney.”

              If you can afford to pay a good one, this might even be eventually helpful.

              ” Trump defends your right to own a firearm”

              Unless it has a bump stock. or if he thinks he’ll be more popular if he drops you like a stinky sock, in which case you better hope to land in a laundry hamper.

  31. As always “America’s image in … the world”. The foreigners in your social circle are frowning at you under their masks!

    Vote for the vanity and social status of people with foreign friends! They’ve had it soooo hard the last four years.

    1. Once upon a time, the United States had foreign friends. This comes in handy from time to time, like say, when a violent mob has invaded the embassy and you’d like someone with, just as an example, a Canadian passport to fly as many of the staff out of the country on their Canadian transport jets.
      anyone want to bet on even Canadians sticking their necks out for our diplomats and their staffs with Trump protecting our special relationship with Canada with his usual skill and finesse?

  32. Yeah. The deregulation is wonderful.

  33. Baby killing, General. You forgot baby killing.
    Biden is way ahead there, too.

  34. I’m not OK with exchanging the mean guy who doesn’t want to let people onto the boat for the nice guy who’ll gladly let them on but also wants to punch holes in the hull. As for trade, Biden is personally better than Trump on that, but that’s not the way his party is trending. This isn’t the 90s heyday of the Democratic Leadership Council. These are the days of Chuck Schumer, Elizabeth Warren, and Bernie Sanders.

  35. Why can’t people be intellectually consistent.

    Biden’s immigration plan is going to save 100,000 immigrants from oppression. Really? A huge chunk of Biden’s base, along with his VP, thinks that Americans are racist as hell. You’re exposing these people to much MORE oppression.

    And you’re worried about the condemnation of land related to the wall? Solar and wind energy are the least efficient forms of energy in terms of generation vs land usage. The land taken for the NGD will dwarf that taken for the wall. But we don’t care about that – those folks can pound sand. Literally.

    Also, BTW, we’re about to have an administration with no checks. We’ll have damn near a state run media. No problem there either. Ilya, I hope you don’t get caught by the Truth Commission.

    I’ve already voted for this election, and as in 2016 I didn’t vote for Trump. But no Biden either.

    1. “we’re about to have an administration with no checks. We’ll have damn near a state run media. ”

      Fox News will remain private. As will OAN, and Sinclair Broadcasting.

      1. FOX News is in the process of joining the lamestream media. Even in 2016 they only looked right-wing because they were less hostile to Trump than the rest of the media, not because they were actually partial to him. They’re not even non-hostile these days.

        A revived Fairness Doctrine would deal with OAN and Sinclair.

  36. If one agrees with Ilya’s priorities, his reasoning is sound. If one simply considers which candidate will put more wind in the sails of those promoting critical race theory, speech codes, fighting due process, tacitly encouraging civil unrest, fighting the right to self defense, undermining election integrity, advocating more militant global intervention while returning us to a state of energy dependence on the Middle East, I think the choice is clearly in favor of keeping Trump in office.

  37. We’re making this way too complicated. Trump is an unethical, racist, misogynistic, dishonest, bullying, immoral, lying, tax-cheating fraud. Those things are reason enough to deny him a second term.

    1. And Biden and his party are evil leftists who seek to destroy America. Quite a Faustian bargain you’ve made.

      1. No bargain was made; it was an easy choice. I’ll vote for the guy who is not an unethical, racist, misogynistic, dishonest, bullying, immoral, lying, tax-cheating fraud.

        1. You forgot incompetent and ineffective.

    2. Agreed. Whatever good points the Trump administration has are like do to others and not Trump. There were a lots of Republicans in 2016 that could have done as good or better than trump.

  38. This reminds me of a used car sales pitch for the lousier of two bad models, because, even though the salesman admits one of them is worse, it’s easier to find a mechanic that can fix it, until it breaks down again…if I hadn’t already voted, I would see no reason to leave my house on Election Day, unless I run out of beer

  39. Biden will do whatever he is told to by the party leadership. He’s been lurking around since 1988 and they finally agreed to let him in. There is the left who will be ramming social policies down his throat and spurned neocons ramming wars up his butt, it’s gonna be downright hideous. But no worries, he will always be seen as the Mr Rogers nice guy who got rid of that big meanie Trump.

    1. Kicking the Oompa-Loompa twit to the curb would be a major advance for this country.

  40. Prof. Somin does not mention Biden’s corruption. His blind obsessive ideology would not allow him to address the 800 pound gorilla in the room. With Biden in the WH, the entire US would be for sale to the highest bidder. Blind ideology is the biggest enemy of reality as the birthplace of prof. Somin demonstrated for a very long and bloody 70 plus years.

    1. ” With Biden in the WH, the entire US would be for sale to the highest bidder.”

      But with Trump, the highest bids will be lower. Because he isn’t smart enough to get top dollar.

  41. Oh yeah comprehensive immigration controls is not some form of oppression. It is the proper use of authority executed by every single sovereign state in the course of history and in the world today.

    1. When you were ten, and you got in trouble for doing something you should have known better to be involved in, did you mom let you off the hook when you explained that “everybody else was doing it, too!”

  42. How different libertarianism is from what it was in the 1980s! An article comparing two candidates without mentioning their positions on abortion, and condemning the efforts to criminalize it, would have been unthinkable.

    1. The libertarian movement is a sad parody of what it was in the 80’s. That’s because when the major parties brought down the campaign ‘reforms’ to stop third parties from getting anywhere, the sensible people moved on.

      What you’ve got now are cranks, grifters, and left-wing moles. The main function of the LP, (And they were explicit about it 4 years ago!) is to split the conservative vote so that the liberal can win.

      1. Members of the LP are Republicans who want to smoke weed.

      2. Have you ever noticed that you’re delusional? Rather than going with Occam’s Razor — that people oppose Trump because he’s a sociopath with no redeeming qualities — you have convinced yourself that the majority of Republicans are RINOs, that the libertarian party are leftists, that Rupert Murdoch is leftist…

  43. Apart from the fun of the “horse race” angle of trying to predict and bet on outcomes (my prediction is that Biden knocks down 319 electoral votes to Trump’s 219; my bet at PredictIt is on “Biden by 100-149 electoral votes”), I’ve been struggling to see an up side to either one of these creepy, handsy, senile, corrupt septuagenarians winning.

    I do hope that there’s no House/Senate/White House trifecta. Divided government and gridlock aren’t what they used to be, but either party having the whole shebang would probably be worse.

    1. The upside of Trump winning is that, unless you’re trying to sneak across the border in defiance of our laws, or set buildings on fire in peaceful protests, he’s largely going to leave you alone.

      For conventional, not libertarian, values of “leave you alone”, of course.

      Granted, that’s more a case of the downside being limited, than an upside, but it’s more than you’ll get from Biden.

  44. Oops, Somin forgot to mention freedom of speech, the *most* important civil liberty and the foundation for all the others.

    Biden and the entire Democratic party are suborning and engaging in an orgy of censorship, and that will only get worse if Biden is elected. Big-tech censorship is only the start, Elizabeth Warren wants to pass laws to make big-tech censor speech that counters established Democratic Party narratives.

    Somin’s piece here is dishonest.

    1. ” Elizabeth Warren wants […]”

      Unless Professor Warren can get 50 other Senators onboard, plus half the House, it doesn’t matter what she wants.

  45. A better title for this would be, “Ilya Somin outrages the mouth-breathing, hate America Trump sheep who have infested Reason’s comments section.”

  46. Seems that the value of American citizenship has been set to ZERO for this diatribe to make sense. Discounts all the people risking their lives to come join us, sets their efforts as irrational, at best. Shame on you, Ilya!

  47. “it’s unpopularity”

    But –

    “Its is a possessive form of the pronoun it, meaning belonging to it.

    “It’s is a contraction of the words it is or it has. (Interestingly, we don’t really contract it was into it’s.)”

    https://www.dictionary.com/e/its-vs-its/

  48. Trump is bad about a bunch of things but somehow good with judges though he again is bad about a bunch of policy things which will factor into the judicial picks. Seems more about being selective about what you care about there, I guess.

    One of the few things people who are honest with themselves say about Trump here is that he is better on the Second Amendment. I’m not even sure about THAT given his disrespect for equality alone (which will burden the 2A rights as understood by many here) will in the long run affect gun rights. And, that isn’t the only problem one can cite there.

    Putting aside that even AOC these days grants an individual right to own firearms. What are we even talking about here at the end of the day, especially with state constitutional rights on the subject? Again, Trump isn’t even going to be truly libertarian — for everyone — on guns anyway.

    Anyway, I respect the basic stance of the author here though on some level he got so much already judge-wise it isn’t THAT painful.

    1. AOC does not grant an individual right to own firearms.

      1. “AOC does not grant an individual right to own firearms.”

        Neither does anyone else. For the simple reason that this is not a power that can be granted (or denied) by any single person. Duh.

        1. I don’t understand what you get about stupid pedantry like this. It’s not even right, and it adds nothing to the discussion. Not that there’s any reason to respond substantively to Aktenberg, but you do the same thing in response to a wide variety of commenters.

    2. “Trump is bad about a bunch of things but somehow good with judges though he again is bad about a bunch of policy things which will factor into the judicial picks. Seems more about being selective about what you care about there, I guess. ”

      Trump doesn’t pick good judges. Trump signs off on which judges are picked for him. As long as you’re sure whoever’s actually doing the picking will be able to continue to do so, Trump will continue to be your guy. I don’t think I’d bet on that. Sooner or later, he’ll find a way to screw it up.

      1. And, how exactly is it that no previous Republican President decided to delegate initial judge selection to the Federalist society? It would have been a popular move for any Republican President, not just Trump.

        Why did previous Republican Presidents give us justices like Souter? Did those picks say nothing about them?

        See, this is the upside of Trump being largely non-ideological: Previous Republican Presidents had ideological reasons for screwing over their voting base. Trump doesn’t, so he’s willing to do what his voting base wants. He’s been willing to “Dance with the one what brung him”, to use an old saying in politics.

        Less pragmatic Republican Presidents routinely ditched the ones what brung them.

        1. You’re babbling.

        2. He’s been willing to “Dance with the one what brung him”

          No matter who they are. Now he’s dancing with those people in Texas who tried to run a Biden campaign bus off the road.

          Typical Trumpist assholes.

          1. It is pretty funny. It’s just too bad they didn’t blow it to kingdom come.

        3. And, how exactly is it that no previous Republican President decided to delegate initial judge selection to the Federalist society?

          Because Harry Reid hadn’t blown up the filibuster for the benefit of previous Republican presidents, so they had to pick people who could attract bipartisan support.

  49. I don’t want to paint a rosy picture here. Regardless of who wins, there are likely to be major spending increases, and an exacerbation of our already severe fiscal crisis.

    You may want to discuss this with some non-GMU economists. Here’s a clue: 10-year treasuries are at about .9%

  50. Suffice to say that I am not as confident as many Biden supporters that his policies will work better than Trump’s. At the same time, they can hardly be worse than that of a president who often tries to deny the problem even exists.

    Really? I don’t see Biden holding spreader events like Trump routinely does.

    I don’t see Biden calling knowledgeable medical experts idiots, or relying on someone who doesn’t understand epidemiology as his chief advisor.

    More important, the pandemic tells us how Trump will handle the next crisis that comes up, whatever it is. Incompetently. He will bungle from the beginning, and then claim he did a great job.

    1. Biden will probably at least show up to a few meetings of the task force.

    2. You really should read Thomas Sowell’s book “Intellectuals and Society.” The so-called experts you talk about and people like Ilya Somin are exactly the kind of people Sowell describes because they pay no price for being wrong yet are put in charge of or influence policy.

      1. “So-called experts.” Right, because hey, Trump is a stable genius who understands epidemiology and virology better than Fauci or anyone.

        We’re “turning the corner.” Yeah, to face a giant truck coming at us.

        Stop talking like an idiot.

  51. Harris/Biden is the lawyer employment candidate – because the candidate is Harris. Biden is the Manchurian candidate – just a vehicle to get Harris, reviled by Democrats and Republicans alike is not electable on her own. The proper comparison is Trump/Harris or perhaps Pence/Harris, and in these regards Trump is a Libertarian saint.

    1. “in these regards Trump is a Libertarian saint.”

      Not eligible for sainthood because still alive.

  52. To try to make a choice here based on policy issues, to weigh this tax plan against that one, is a mistake. It assumes that the election is about those chpices. Yes, Biden is far superior on policy, but there is a broader, more important issue.

    Trump is, bluntly, one of the most contemptible human beings I’ve ever heard of. He’s a narcissistic fool who cares only about himself and his public image. he lives in an alternate universe with “alternative facts,” and cares nothing about any reality that doesn’t glorify him. He damages the country in so many ways.

    The catalog is too huge to list, but it takes willful blindness not to see what a walking disaster this man is.

    1. Trump is, bluntly, one of the most contemptible human beings I’ve ever heard of.

      I hear he’s literally Hitler!

      1. Nope. Not Hitler. But pretty damn contemptible on the non-mass murderer scale.

    2. “one of the most contemptible human beings I’ve ever heard of. ”

      Have you heard of George Washington or Thomas Jefferson? They were slave owners. Trump is not.

      Of course Trump is contemptible. All politicians are. But he is a far better human being than these scum. Plus, Jefferson has the whole “serial slave child rapist” thing. That puts him even below Washington. Washington of course is far below Trump.

      1. Have you heard of George Washington or Thomas Jefferson? They were slave owners. Trump is not.

        That you know of.

  53. I find it to be the height of hypocrisy he would point to Biden’s support of immigration as one of the reasons to support him over Trump. Does he really think outlets like Reason will still be able to continue to exist under a Biden Administration? How about America’s energy sector? He is exactly the kind of intellectual Thomas Sowell describes in his book “Intellectuals and Society.”

    During one of the debates with Trump, Biden was quoted saying “Inshallah” which is Arabic for “Allah willing.” Biden will copy Obama’s refugee and immigration policy urging more Muslims to move to the U.S. and that means more bombings, stabbings, be-headings, shootings, including beatings of gays, women, and even Jews (like himself).

    Lastly, as to his and other libertarians reeling against nationalism, I would remind him and you all of what Ayn Rand said:

    “Championed and propagated by ‘liberals’ for many decades, internationalism is collectivism applied to the relationships of nations. Just as domestic collectivism holds that an individual’s freedom and interests must be sacrificed to the ‘public interest’ of society – so internationalism holds that a nation’s sovereignty and interests must be sacrificed to a global community.”

  54. I find it curious that Somin does not mention environmental issues at all.

    There again, Trump is a disaster.

  55. More TDS from Somin. He even thinks Trump is corrupt…while providing zero evidence for the claims. Very much a one sided editorial without even a serious look at the facts on both sides.

    Hey Somin, are you ignoring how Trump got UAE & Sudan to officially recognize Israel (he’s up to 3 Nobel Peace Prize nominations…for actually doing something). You falsely claim corruption by Trump (zero evidence) while ignoring the Biden’s.

    On Authoritarianism, Trump had the perfect excuse with Kung Flu to impose any authoritarian measures he wanted …. and he turned the other direction. Meanwhile Biden has been arguing for authoritarian lockdowns and control over who gets to work.

    You really need to get over your TDS, Trump is going to be re-elected.

    1. “He even thinks Trump is corrupt…while providing zero evidence for the claims. ”

      Trump IS corrupt. The evidence is so abundant that there is no need to rehearse it here.

      But so is Biden.

      This election is not about looking at a pair of disgusting politicians and deciding one is a moral paragon. Elections are never about the moral quality of the candidates.
      We are not electing a pastor or prophet.
      We are electing a chief administrative officer of the executive branch of the federal government.
      No decent human would accept such a job, let alone seek it.

      This election is not about who is more despicable. That would be an interesting debate but it has nothing to do with the election.

      The election is about the economy and, most importantly TAXES.

      If you want taxes to go up, then vote for the despicable person who will work to get passed and then sign a bill raising taxes.
      If you do not want taxes to go up, then vote for the despicable person who will work against and veto a bill to raise taxes.

      You get a disgusting excuse for a human either way. One brings tax increases, one does not. Simple.

      1. Trump raised taxes.

  56. “If you’re a libertarian like me”

    Well, you’re more like an Artie liberal-“libertarian”. Maybe a deacon in the church of exalted “reason”.

    How can anyone say, with a straight face, “As a libertarian, I think Biden is better than Trump”? Orangemanbad

    1. No one is a libertarian like Somin, because Somin isn’t a libertarian. He’s a far left nutter.

    2. How can anyone say, with a straight face, “As a libertarian, I think Biden is better than Trump”?

      Because he objectively is, to libertarians.

  57. You’re really upsetting the fascists on here..

  58. This election like most Presidential elections will be a referendum on the current occupant of the White House. The fact that we see such a broad support for replacing the President suggest that he has not done a good enough job to continue. I have seen progressives, centrists, libertarians to conservatives say it is time for Trump to go. The fact is that any thing that would support Trump continuing could be had by a better candidate. This is not so much the lesser of two evils as getting rid of a dead weight. Trump is a employee of every American, he has done a poor job and is unlikely to do any better, so it is time to fire him.

  59. The author argues that President Trump is authoritarian in reaction to the coronavirus pandemic, which is a strange argument, as it is largely inaccurate. On the contrary, Trump is often criticized for not wanting to restrict the populace enough and for wanting to open up the economy. Trump has strongly criticized Democrat mayors and governors for their authoritarian measures, since it is Democrats who have used the situation to be authoritarian. They don’t want a good crisis to go to waste.

    The one point he has is that Trump has used the situation to limit immigration, but those immigrants are not American citizens and don’t have a right to come to this country. Trump’s restrictions are not on American citizens.

  60. This article is written by a communist!!

    They’ll let any lefty write here, i guess! i need to find a place for REAL libertarians!

  61. The tpp is a bad deal and a horrible and if you think that biden is gonna change this country for the better think again.

  62. Thanks admin for giving such valuable information through your article . Your article is much more similar to https://peg.bocsci.com/ word unscramble tool because it also provides a lot of knowledge of vocabulary new words with its meanings.

Please to post comments