Jesse Walker: Where the Third-Party Candidates Were Strongest

reason.com:

Yesterday’s presidential election produced the strongest showing in 20 years for third-party and independent candidates. Not all the ballots have been tallied yet, so some of the numbers below may be slightly off from the final totals. But at this point all the alternative candidates put together have received more than 5 percent of the popular vote. The leader of the second-tier pack, Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party, has (at this point in the counting) 4,012,871 votes, or 3.23 percent of the national total. That’s much less than he was polling a couple months ago, but it’s far better than any other presidential result in the party’s 45-year history. It’s also better than any other alternative candidate since Ross Perot’s campaigns of 1992 and ’96.

On the state level, we didn’t get to see some of the more extraordinary possibilities that had been tossed around before Tuesday. (No, Evan McMullin did not carry Utah.) But the second-tier candidates did do stronger in some places than others, giving us a map—multiple maps—of where our binary party system is doing the poorest job of representing the full spectrum of political opinion. Here’s how the third-, fourth-, and fifth-place finishers fared across the country:

Read full article

176 thoughts on “Jesse Walker: Where the Third-Party Candidates Were Strongest

  1. Sean Scallon

    While Gary Johnson’s 3% of the vote nationally was indeed a step forward from 1% in 2012, the biggest third party winner was Donald Trump himself.

    Making just his second run for public office with little organization and largely his own money arrayed against 17 other elected or formerly elected officials many of back by formidable organization, he largely used a string message to align himself with independent, non-Republican conservatives to basically take control of Republican Party and render its establishment impotent and subservient to him and it will take him right to the Oval Office. That’s effective extra-party action, not playing the spoiler role. When I read the “biggest” LP victory of Election Night is a city council seat in Oxnard, Calf., I just wanna puke.

    Ideally Trump would have lost decisevely and Johnson and LP could have offered an outlet of decency for Republicans looking for an alternative to nationalist, authoritarian politics its party has adopted and thus LP could have gotten a foothold. Certain the Greens could have pulled away the disaffected Left. Instead they both elected Trump. Jesse Walker other LP majordormos can say what they want but in my opinion I and many other Johnson and Stein voters (not all but many) would have voted for Clinton if I thought Trump was a threat to win if only to prevent it, not actually endorse Clinton. So much for Justin Raimondo’s theory of Johnson being a Clinton plant (William Weld excepted). He and Stein basically cost her. There are reasons for this ranging from antiwar to marijuana but result is essentially the same. And when Rudy Guliani ramps up the drug war again as Attorney General and John Bolton prepares the war machine as Secretary of State and the White House becomes, not Israeli, but Russian occupied territory, we can all look back and perhaps at the very least say, “Well at least she didn’t win.

    All well and good but our votes just elected the most authoritarian President since Nixon and Johnson there’s no way disaffected Democrats being Democrats are going to join the LP so they can endorse more Right-to-Work laws. But non LP- left libertarians could join in coalition with antiwar democrats (assuming there are still any left) supporting legalized marijuana and $15 minimum wage, as (still independent) Bernie Sanders envisioned it. That would essentially be what the flip side of what Trump and his supporters did with the GOP and far more productive and realistic than nomination a more “purist” LP member in 2020 and watch them struggle to get one percent of the vote.

    Given my disillusionment, my words at IPR end here.

  2. paulie Post author

    Jesse Walker other LP majordormos can say what they want but in my opinion I and many other Johnson and Stein voters (not all but many) would have voted for Clinton if I thought Trump was a threat to win

    I don’t think you’ve looked at the data. The remaining Johnson voters by the time the election was actually held, most Johnson voters by a large margin had either Trump or not voting as their second choice. See http://reason.com/blog/2016/11/05/if-hillary-clinton-wins-nevada-florida-n It’s true that earlier on Johnson had a good deal of support from Bernie voters and others who could have been expected to break for Clinton, as reported by polls and anecdotally, but he lost the vast majority of that support as the campaign went on. That is, those voters decided that they would vote for a duopolist or not vote. Even if we assume that Stein’s voters would have otherwise all voted for Clinton – which is also false, because at a minimum a lot of them would have not voted – there were a lot fewer of them.

    The bigger problem for Clinton is that groups who overwhelmingly voted for her when they did vote – especially black people and young people – also chose not to vote in larger numbers. As the winning candidate, Trump got fewer votes than Romney and McCain got as losing candidates, even though the number of eligible voters has grown. So instead of blaming Johnson and Stein, the Democrats need to look at themselves. Maybe it was the corrupt warmonger they chose and the way they cheated to make sure she got the nomination?

    Fundamentally, this was a change election. People were not satisfied with the establishment in any way, shape or form. Hardly anyone at the outset expected either Bernie or Trump to do nearly as well as they did in the primaries. Alt parties all over the ideological map had a lot more votes than in other recent elections. There were more write-ins than ever before. And more people stayed home and chose not to vote, despite – or maybe because of – record audiences for the debates. It’s obvious that coke and pepsi are no longer adequate choices to satisfy most of the market, even if little known alternatives haven’t quite broken through enough to be competitive yet.

    And in a change election, it’s no surprise that the guy who has never held elected office or served in the military and who throws verbal grenades at the establishment beat the gal who has relentlessly and with open, extraordinary viciousness climbed the rungs of establishment political power at any cost her whole life. I can’t even count how many people told me that they were sick of the whole system and Trump was the last chance to save the country. Many of them even said he was terrible, too, but better than the establishment’s alternatives. And what about when he fails to deliver on his grandiose promises? I don’t know – some of them looked quite ready, able and willing to fight an armed revolution to me. Some of them may just be the kind of people to shrug their shoulders and say they don’t vote because it’s all rigged for the rest of their lives.

    In the midst of all that, assuming – against all polling evidence – that the bulk of Johnson’s remaining vote would have gone to Clinton is erroneous. She did not earn those votes, any more than she earned any of the would-be voters who chose to abstain.

  3. paulie Post author

    Ideally Trump would have lost decisevely and Johnson and LP could have offered an outlet of decency for Republicans looking for an alternative to nationalist, authoritarian politics its party has adopted and thus LP could have gotten a foothold.

    They did – to the extent that there was a market for it. As did McMullin in a few states. The thing is there wasn’t much of a market. Most “Never Trump” Republicans turned into “Trump After All” Republicans, because their revulsion of Clinton “trumped” their revulsion of Trump. A few became Clinton Republicans, because it was the other way around for them. Some remained too repulsed at both of them to vote for either, but didn’t see any way for a candidate such as Johnson or McMullin to win, so they simply did not vote (which is why Trump got fewer votes than Romney or McCain, which becomes even more dramatic as a percentage of registered voters). After all that attrition, you are left with what Johnson got.

    Certain the Greens could have pulled away the disaffected Left. […] I and many other Johnson and Stein voters (not all but many) would have voted for Clinton if I thought Trump was a threat to win if only to prevent it, not actually endorse Clinton.

    You contradict yourself. The Greens tried to do just that, and succeeded to the extent that they did. They too had to fight against the centifugal forces of voting for Clinton to prevent Trump on the one hand, and saying the whole system is corrupt and not voting on the other. There was also the pull of Johnson as a better known alt party candidate who was friendly on some issues such as pot. So, fighting bravely against all of those headwinds for months, Stein managed to get the best Green Party result since 2000, the best ever for a non-celebrity, the best in a year with a bigger alt party ticket competing for the protest vote, the best the Greens could do after sore loser Democrats unjustifiedly and loudly dumped all the blame for 2000 and the wars and domestic police state of Duhbya on them. She improved greatly on her own showing from 2012. Expecting a lot more from her was unrealistic.

    ” And when Rudy Guliani ramps up the drug war again as Attorney General and John Bolton prepares the war machine as Secretary of State and the White House becomes, not Israeli, but Russian occupied territory, we can all look back and perhaps at the very least say, “Well at least she didn’t win.”

    All well and good but our votes just elected the most authoritarian President since Nixon and Johnson […]

    Every silver lining has a touch of grey….

  4. Jesse Walker

    Jesse Walker other LP majordormos can say what they want

    Just for the record: I was a member of the LP for a year in college (I think it was 1989-90) but have not been a part of the organization since then.

  5. Root's Teeth Are Awesome

    Sean Scallon: I and many other Johnson and Stein voters (not all but many) would have voted for Clinton if I thought Trump was a threat to win if only to prevent it,

    I, OTOH, prefer Trump over Clinton.

    * Trump has no base within the establishment, which will weaken his attempts to govern. Whereas Clinton — who I think is more authoritarian than Trump — has the support of the Democratic political machine, Wall Street banks, the media, academia, Hollywood, etc. She would have been able to inflict much more damage. Media, academia, Hollywood will fight Trump every step of the way, instead of enabling him as they did with Obama.

    * Trump wants peace with Russia. He want fewer foreign wars. Whereas Clinton was ready to bring us to the brink of nuclear war with Russia.

    * Trump has already made us freer in one respect — he has weakened the culture of political correctness.

    Ron Paul remains my dream candidate. But for all his faults, I much prefer Trump over Clinton.

  6. paulie Post author

    * Trump has no base within the establishment, which will weaken his attempts to govern. Whereas Clinton — who I think is more authoritarian than Trump — has the support of the Democratic political machine, Wall Street banks, the media, academia, Hollywood, etc. She would have been able to inflict much more damage. Media, academia, Hollywood will fight Trump every step of the way, instead of enabling him as they did with Obama.

    He’s a counterpuncher, so he’ll relish overcoming the opposition. Like other dictators throughout history he’ll rely on appealing directly to the people and bypassing all other centers of power. Since those other power centers won’t be supporting him they also won’t restrain him from behind the scenes. I suspect that executive orders and administrative decisions within federal agencies will largely substitute for legislation, and a national emergency – convenient or ginned up – seems likely.

    Trump wants peace with Russia. He want fewer foreign wars. Whereas Clinton was ready to bring us to the brink of nuclear war with Russia.

    People who spout this line of nonsense seem to forget that there are more countries than the US and Russia. China, Latin America, the Muslim world – how will they react to his trade wars, Muslim travel bans, torture, targeting of terrorists’ family members, monitoring of American Muslims, roundups and deportations of Latinos, and the other crazy promises he has made if he tries to implement them? Will the European Union come to see him as an enemy, if he violates international norms in these ways and stands on the side of Putin as he does the same? How would we like that…a world war with China, the mideast, Africa, Latin America and western Europe lined up against the US and Russia?

    Trump has neocon advisors like Giuliani, Bolton and Gingrich. He has promised to build the biggest military ever. He has asked, repeatedly, why we build nuclear weapons if we don’t use them. He wants to bomb the shit out of the middle east and take their oil. He has a notoriously hot temper. Does this sound like a peace president to you?

    And don’t assume he will stay friends with Putin, either. He used to be friends with the Clintons.

    Trump has already made us freer in one respect — he has weakened the culture of political correctness.

    Well, we’re certainly free to be more racist. Bullies may feel empowered to be more bullying. It may be seen more OK to make fun of people with disabilities and weight issues, and women who are not conventionally beautiful. Gropers and those who commit sexual assault may be empowered. But is that really the kind of freedom we truly lack?

  7. paulie Post author

    Yes, I feel bad that you can’t run for prez. Senator will have to do.

    You’re more likely to see me running from the cops than running for office. And with my weight and knees, you’re not exactly likely to see me running from the cops (or for any other reason).

  8. robert capozzi

    OK, PF, got it.

    Instead, after Trump has interned half of all Muslim-Americans and established a Stasi to find and deport millions of illegal (Latino) immigrants, RP2 in 2018 becomes so revulsed that he quits the Rs. In 2019, he declares for the L nomination, and names Paulie as his Chief Policy Advisor, where you — among other things — reprogram his mind in areas where he’s strayed from the Plumbline.

    Similarly revulsed, Peter Thiel renounces DJT and joins RP2 as vp.

    They win in a landslide.

    Paulie becomes the first Russia-born WH chief of staff. Thiel becomes the first gay VP. And RP2 the first doctor president.

  9. Root's Teeth Are Awesome

    Paulie: Well, we’re certainly free to be more racist. Bullies may feel empowered to be more bullying.

    Political correctness does not primarily suppress racists and bullies. They don’t care.

    Politically correctness intimidates the expression of uncomfortable facts and legitimate opinions. Oppose entitlement programs and you’re a “racist.” Criticize a woman — or just say that you’re not voting for the female candidate — and you’re a “sexist.” Oppose aid to Israel and you’re “anti-Semitic.” Discussing crime statistics can also get you branded as “racist.” Discussing male/female biological and psychological differences — yes, men and women are different — can also get you branded as “sexist” or possibly “homophobic” or “transphobic” or whatever.

    The purpose of PC is not to intimidate racists and bullies. They don’t care. The purpose of PC is to equate legitimate expressions of facts and opinions with racism and bullying, so that it becomes impossible to disagree with the prevailing PC dogma.

  10. paulie Post author

    From what I have seen, most of the whining about “PC” is by racists and other bigots who want to be free to openly discriminate, hate and tread on people on the basis on some sort of group identity. These sort of people usually have their own form of political correctness, although they don’t call it that. Anyone who violates it gets accused of being “PC” which means that their viewpoints can be just cast aside, not considered or discussed.

    Now, granted, there is a real Political Correctness phenomenon in a few places, primarily college campuses. But it’s tiny compared with the right wing labeling of anything they don’t like as “PC” (or more accurately, not PC from their side).

  11. paulie Post author

    Political correctness does not primarily suppress racists and bullies. They don’t care.

    Like most everyone else, they tend to follow the herd, and give more free expression to their ugly side when they perceive that it’s more socially acceptable to do so.

  12. paulie Post author

    Paulie becomes the first Russia-born WH chief of staff. Thiel becomes the first gay VP. And RP2 the first doctor president.

    Seems highly plausible. Do you think it will be before or after the flying saucers piloted by dolphins from outer space land on the white house lawn?

  13. William Saturn

    Paulie’s criticisms of Trump are based on conjecture and taking quotes out of context. Unlike Clinton, there is no evidence of Trump having a temper. Unlike Clinton, Trump’s judgment isn’t clouded by alcohol. Unlike Clinton, Trump is not beholden to the interests of the military-industrial complex. Unlike Clinton, Trump has not killed anyone.

    Clinton’s temper and spousal abuse of Bill is documented in a book by a former Secret Service agent with knowledge. She is believed to be an alcoholic. Furthermore, it is documented she was the most bellicose member of the Obama administration, arguing for military action in every possible situation. She cheered the murder of Gaddafi, his family, and others, used drones extensively to kill women and children in the Middle East, left 4 Americans to die in Benghazi, and joked about using a drone strike to kill Julian Assange.

    I’m sure you can site a few misstatements, unsubstantiated anecdotes, and other out-of-context things, but the election of Donald Trump has significantly decreased the chance of war.

  14. paulie Post author

    Unlike Clinton, there is no evidence of Trump having a temper.

    ROFL. That one does not merit a response.

    Unlike Clinton, Trump’s judgment isn’t clouded by alcohol.

    That’s a new one. She’s a heavy drinker?

    Unlike Clinton, Trump is not beholden to the interests of the military-industrial complex.

    BS. Who is it exactly that’s going to bomb the shit out of them so that their oil can be taken? I can’t count how many times Trump said he would build a bigger military than ever before.

    Unlike Clinton, Trump has not killed anyone.

    Both halves of that statement can be disputed. If we stipulate to the allegations of Clinton killing people*, we can then look into who all Trump has had killed. For example, Maria, a 12 year old that he allegedly raped along with another girl that was 13 at the time. According to her Maria disappeared and Trump told her the same could happen to her.

    *I’ll certainly stipulate it in the sense that she and many others share guilt for people killed by drone strikes, etc. The “Clinton Body Count” is more disputable.

    Clinton’s temper and spousal abuse of Bill is documented in a book by a former Secret Service agent with knowledge. She is believed to be an alcoholic.

    That would be rumors, not documentation.

    Furthermore, it is documented she was the most bellicose member of the Obama administration, arguing for military action in every possible situation. She cheered the murder of Gaddafi, his family, and others, used drones extensively to kill women and children in the Middle East, left 4 Americans to die in Benghazi, and joked about using a drone strike to kill Julian Assange.

    That part we agree on.

    I’m sure you can site a few misstatements, unsubstantiated anecdotes, and other out-of-context things, but the election of Donald Trump has significantly decreased the chance of war.

    Strongly disagreed, for the reasons I stated earlier.

  15. NewFederalist

    Geez… the election is over. Let’s give it a rest already. We will know soon enough just what we’ve done.

  16. NewFederalist

    Well don’t blame me Senor Capozzi… I voted for the most libertarian in the race… AND it WASN’T GJ!

  17. robert capozzi

    NF, I’ve not blamed you…not at all. You wrote: “We will know soon enough just what we’ve done.”

    What you mean “we,” white man?

  18. Andy

    New Federalist, does that mean you voted for Darrell Castle, or did you cast a write in vote for Darryl W. Perry?

  19. itdoesntmatter

    See, if only Ron Paul had been allowed to be more openly racist maybe he would have won. The LRC “empower the police to beat black thugs” crew tried to tell us cosmotarian elitists that.

  20. langa

    I think it’s impossible at this point o know for sure whether Trump is more likely to start a World War than Clinton would have been. However, it’s truly ridiculous to call either of them “peace” candidates.

    As for the “PC” issue, RTAA is right. Political Correctness (or whatever you want to call it) is not about any genuine sense of tolerance. On the contrary, it’s about silencing certain viewpoints and insulating certain groups from criticism. Furthermore, I think Trump’s rejection of it (which is literally the only good thing about him) is one of the main reasons he won. The average person is sick and tired of having to walk on eggshells, for fear that something they say might “offend” someone, and of being expected to drop to their knees and issue tearful apologies if they accidentally fail to exercise sufficient self-censorship. This is supposed to be a free country, and part of being free is being allowed to speak your mind. You should never be expected to apologize, simply because you told the truth as you see it.

    …most of the whining about “PC” is by racists and other bigots who want to be free to openly discriminate…

    Everyone should be free to discriminate on whatever basis they see fit (“racist” or “bigoted” or otherwise). It’s called freedom of association, and it’s something that libertarians believe in very strongly (of course, supporting the freedom to do something doesn’t mean you necessarily agree with what’s being done, but I shouldn’t have to explain that to a libertarian). The open scorn heaped on freedom of association by many “left” libertarians (or “thick” libertarians, or whatever) is one reason I can’t take them seriously. They’re left-authoritarians, masquerading as “libertarians”.

    Now, granted, there is a real Political Correctness phenomenon in a few places, primarily college campuses. But it’s tiny…

    Just wait. Today’s campus tyrants are tomorrow’s government tyrants.

  21. langa

    Oh, and one more thing. The “PC” thing is not about left vs. right, or black vs. white, or any of that. For example, I far preferred the old, “offensive” Ice Cube, who wrote songs like “Fuck tha Police” and other “politically incorrect” songs, to the new, “PC” Ice Cube, who makes buddy-cop movies with Kevin Hart.

  22. robert capozzi

    L, on the PC issue, you seem to emphasize the “freedom of association” angle. I prefer the “freedom of speech” angle.

    Through my lens, I submit that, yes, the PC movement has gone overboard. Civil discourse is my preferred way to approach the Public Square, and I am biased against incivility. I’m not convinced that PC-ism is much of a threat to our liberties, though on the margin it has led to some excesses.

    Of course I believe in freedom of association, but often this is code for racist and other forms of hater behavior. When politics careens into gray areas, I don’t see the point of defending haters. Defending hater associates Ls with haters…why do that?

    I sure hope that the LM doesn’t take from the DJT win that it’s a good idea to emulate his coarse vulgarian ways. Just because he won with lines like he wants to “bomb the shit” out of ISIS doesn’t mean Ls should descend to that lowest common denominator approach.

    There has to be another way to maximize liberty.

  23. langa

    L, on the PC issue, you seem to emphasize the “freedom of association” angle. I prefer the “freedom of speech” angle.

    I don’t know what gave you that idea. In fact, I am a very strong supporter of freedom of association and freedom of speech, and I view the PC tyranny that is being taught on college campuses as a serious threat to both of those important freedoms.

    Of course I believe in freedom of association, but often this is code for racist and other forms of hater behavior. When politics careens into gray areas, I don’t see the point of defending haters. Defending hater associates Ls with haters…why do that?

    First, I don’t see any “gray area” about it. The libertarian position is that anyone can choose to associate, or not associate, with anyone else, for any reason whatsoever, or for no reason at all. Plain and simple.

    Second, the reason we should “defend haters” is because “haters”* have rights, too. You claim to believe in freedom of speech. Don’t you believe that “haters” should be entitled to that right, too?

    *The term “haters” is not one I am fond of, as it (intentionally?) lumps together anyone who has any sort of prejudice, no matter how mild or how severe. There is a huge difference between someone who, for example, generally gets along well with black people, but might not be crazy about their child marrying a black person, when compared to the “white sheets and swastikas” crowd. Personally, I think both of them are being silly, but to lump them together as part of some “hater” demographic is even more silly. Now, having said that, it is important to note that even the hardcore lunatics (the true “haters”) still have the same rights as anyone else, and any libertarian worthy of the name should still defend those rights.

  24. robert capozzi

    L: Plain and simple.

    me: Plain and simplistic, I’d suggest.

    L: Second, the reason we should “defend haters” is because “haters”* have rights, too. You claim to believe in freedom of speech. Don’t you believe that “haters” should be entitled to that right, too?

    me: Yes, haters have rights. Give to the ACLU to manifest your support for that. When running for office or writing a platform plank, maybe it’s wise to not bring that subject up. Leading with “there’s a right to burn the flag” or “there’s a right to late-term abortions” is probably not bullet points to lead with. If it comes up, be very careful on how the issue is framed and answered.

    This is counter to Bill Evers’s (possible Trump Ed. Sec’y) approach, circa 1980, as he was MNR’s right-hand man. “Hold high the banner,” and “no particular orderism” was their approach. Don’t you see how damaging that is, politically?

    L: There is a huge difference between someone who, for example, generally gets along well with black people, but might not be crazy about their child marrying a black person, when compared to the “white sheets and swastikas” crowd. Personally, I think both of them are being silly, but to lump them together as part of some “hater” demographic is even more silly. Now, having said that, it is important to note that even the hardcore lunatics (the true “haters”) still have the same rights as anyone else, and any libertarian worthy of the name should still defend those rights.

    me: Yes, there are shades of haterism. I think there is rhetoric that can be used to position Ls as non-haters, but defenders of what certain behaviors we personally might not approve of. Thin NAPsterism doesn’t allow for such rhetoric, mostly because that community is still largely polluted with Rothbardian stylings.

    Pity.

  25. NewFederalist

    “New Federalist, does that mean you voted for Darrell Castle, or did you cast a write in vote for Darryl W. Perry?” – Andy

    I voted for Castle and then straight Libertarian the rest of the way. I currently live in Pennsylvania and write in votes are notoriously not counted here. One other full disclosure… I voted for a Republican (there was no Libertarian in the race) for State Senator. He was taking on an incumbent and in races like that (unless the incumbent is really good) I always vote against the current office holder. The incumbent lost.

  26. Root's Teeth Are Awesome

    The word hater is a smear, rarely used accurately, but more often in a libelous or frivolous manner. Anyone qualifies as a hater.

    I’ve been on enough threads, in enough forums, to have seen hater applied to anyone who disagrees or criticizes on any issues. A hater can be someone who says that you’re overweight. A hater can be someone who criticizes your clothes, lifestyle, poor work performance, whatever.

    Hence the demand for safe spaces, where no criticism is allowed, on any issue.

    Say you’re with a group of snowflakes. One of them mentions that she crashed her car while talking on a cell phone. You say, “Well, that wasn’t a very smart move.” She might well respond, tearfully, “Hey, no haters! If you can’t be supportive in my time of hurt, take your hate elsewhere!

    You think hater only means Nazis and Klansmen? Then you’re not paying attention. There’s not a single person on this board that hasn’t said things to qualify as a hater in today’s snowflake-infested world.

    Libertarians are sometimes over-obsessed with the state. Repression can come not only from the state, but from the free market culture. Trump is the free market’s response to the free market’s repressive PC crowd. His “vulgarian” speech has made me freer. I appreciate that.

    Because Trump “gets away” saying his stuff, we can all more easily “get away” with espousing libertarian values (which many snowflakes regard as “hate”).

  27. paulie Post author

    Trump isn’t the free market response to anything. For one thing, he is a believer in and practitioner of government-tilted markets. For another, government elections are not free markets. You may consider yourself “freer” as a result of Trump’s speech. Other people consider themselves less free – women and girls who get sexually harassed, intimidated or even raped because their harassers feel emboldened by who the president is and what he does; immigrants and American Latinos and Muslims, including children, who are more likely to hear hateful statements because some people now feel it’s more OK to make them; and so on.

  28. paulie Post author

    Everyone should be free to discriminate on whatever basis they see fit (“racist” or “bigoted” or otherwise). It’s called freedom of association, and it’s something that libertarians believe in very strongly (of course, supporting the freedom to do something doesn’t mean you necessarily agree with what’s being done, but I shouldn’t have to explain that to a libertarian).

    Yes, they should be free to discriminate. It doesn’t make it a good thing when we encourage them by electing a bigot. It’s not a good thing to elect a guy who believes it’s OK to grab women because he’s a VIP, and practices doing so. It’s not a good thing to elect a guy who constantly refers to women as slobs, dogs, Ms. Piggy, Ms. Housekeeping, etc., or suggests they must be menstruating if they ask him a question he doesn’t like. “I’m not PC” is not a legitimate answer to every shitty thing someone gets rightly called out for saying.

    And don’t imagine for a second that this “freedom to associate” will be limited to the free market or voluntary association. Trump is 100% on the side of the police amidst a growing wave of protest against their out of control brutality, racism and militarization. Do you think that bully, racist cops and prison guards won’t take it as a signal that they can get away with even more now that the president will be someone who is just like them and fully behind them no matter what? What about school employees, and other government employees of various kinds – you don’t think they will feel more free to be “not PC” in their official capacities, to actually use the force of the state to discriminate against people? And, sure, people should be free to associate freely… but if that means treating other people like shit on the basis of group identity it doesn’t make it a good thing when they choose to do so.

    Just wait. Today’s campus tyrants are tomorrow’s government tyrants.

    That may be a problem in a few decades. If we make it that far. For now, I’m more worried about today’s government tyrants, such as a growing occupying army of well-armed, privileged, bigoted police that’s about to get a major boost from on high, a vastly expanded border patrol (which will patrol a lot more than the border), a myriad of armed federal agencies… oh, and a temper tantrum prone, 70 going on 2 man with his finger on the button, surrounded by other tyrannical types such as Giuliani, Christie, Bannon, Gingrich, Bolton, Coulter, et al.

  29. paulie Post author

    I think we all realize I’m talking about a lot more than violence that has resulted thus far from the election. See @14:31 for the bigger picture. But, if we want to focus on the trees rather than the forest, you could start with things like Trump supporters burning down a black church in Mississippi and beating a Mexican-American (who, as it turned out, was not in fact an illegal immigrant) in Boston. And while little kids being told “we’ll deport you and your family when Trump becomes president” is merely free speech, what makes it ugly is that it’s backed up by a credible threat of violence. So is sexual harassment, even when it is just speech. The intimidation factor comes from knowing that it can quickly turn into more.

  30. Root's Teeth Are Awesome

    paulie: Trump isn’t the free market response to anything. For one thing, he is a believer in and practitioner of government-tilted markets.

    Doesn’t matter what Trump believes. We all act in the context of a reality that blends state and market. We are all responders, to some extent. Our actions and reactions respond to the social forces buffeting around us.

    Trumpism is the market’s reaction to the market’s PC repression. A backlash that was going to happen, through one channel or another.

  31. paulie Post author

    Trumpism is the market’s reaction

    No, once again, government elections are not markets. That’s libertarianism 101.

  32. robert capozzi

    ws: There’s no right not to be offended by speech.

    me: Stipulated. You and Teeth may feel a sense of liberation now that we have a potty-mouthed prez, but I do not. DJT cross-validates on every level — policy and style — that he is profoundly unfit to be president. I fail to see or hear any sort of wisdom coming from his camp. He’s an embarrassment.

    He’s a white President Comacho from IDIOCRACY.

    Now we have to deal with this menace. Heaven help us.

  33. William Saturn

    I thought we were talking about actions as a result of the election of Donald Trump. The stories you told, unfortunately, happen all the time and always have. Violent people act violently. The stories are just as plausibly the result of Clinton supporters trying to make Trump supporters look bad before the election. I’m much more concerned about protesters protesting to restrict the freedom of speech and making people afraid to express themselves.

  34. Root's Teeth Are Awesome

    Paulie: So is sexual harassment, even when it is just speech. The intimidation factor comes from knowing that it can quickly turn into more.

    I think that for too long, the pendulum has swung too far in the anti-male direction.

    We live in a misandrist society in which a man can be accused of sexual harassment, or even rape, based on nothing. PC thugs insist that the mere accusation of rape means that the man is guilty. No “innocent until proven guilty.” The man is immediately treated as a criminal by the media, by his employers, by his college (if he’s a student or professor). Feminist haters hold marches to destroy his life, to spread his name and photo across the internet.

    If the man is found innocent in court, his career, his reputation, his life remains destroyed.

    If the woman is found to have lied, there are no consequences. No criminal charges. Often she remains anonymous. She receives only displays of sensitivity and understanding. Feminists insist that even if the woman lied, she is the victim. The victim of “rape culture,” or sexist concepts of “objective truth,” or whatever.

    There is a lot of anti-male, anti-white hate out there — and it’s backed by the powers of the state, academia, media, etc.

    If you’ve read my past posts, you’ll see that I’ve often defended minorities, including Muslims, against bigotry and hate. But as a white man, I too am entitled to have my rights and dignity — as a white and as a man — defended when it’s under assault.

    I feel that our dominant PC culture has painted me as a villain just for being who I am, and for that I welcome the Trump backlash.

  35. paulie Post author

    DJT cross-validates on every level — policy and style — that he is profoundly unfit to be president. I fail to see or hear any sort of wisdom coming from his camp. He’s an embarrassment.

    He’s a white President Comacho from IDIOCRACY.

    Now we have to deal with this menace.

    Very true.

  36. robert capozzi

    Not sure this is the right place, but in retrospect, I’m starting to think the TeamGov should have shaded more right than left in this election. 20/20 hindsight, but July and August were more about establishing a more center-left-tinge. Perhaps they would have done better appealing to R voters and leaners.

    Just a sense I have….

  37. Root's Teeth Are Awesome

    Paulie: No, once again, government elections are not markets. That’s libertarianism 101.

    Trumpism is more than an electoral phenomenon. It’s a cultural phenomenon.

  38. paulie Post author

    If the woman is found to have lied, there are no consequences. No criminal charges.

    Untrue. A number of criminal charges and convictions have been obtained against those making false accusations.

    There is a lot of anti-male, anti-white hate out there — and it’s backed by the powers of the state, academia, media, etc.

    If you think that white males face more discrimination than everyone else, you’re out of touch with reality. Old boy networks, glass ceilings, and other such things are still very much a reality, even after a couple of generations of civil rights laws and the “PC movement.”

    I feel that our dominant PC culture has painted me as a villain just for being who I am, and for that I welcome the Trump backlash.

    Don’t kid yourself. The “PC culture” is far from dominant. Someone who is considered nonwhite is still a lot more likely to face discrimination in housing and employment, regardless of what the laws are. They’re far more likely to be mistreated by the police and the courts. In fact, if so many disproportionately “nonwhite” people hadn’t been deprived of voting rights, or falsely led to believe they had been, due to past criminal convictions, Trump would not have been elected. Women still deal with far more harassment, assault and rape than ever gets reported. And now this “Trump backlash” is going to make all of this worse; potentially, much, much worse.

  39. paulie Post author

    Trumpism is more than an electoral phenomenon. It’s a cultural phenomenon.

    Yes, fascism is never just a government phenomenon; it is, nevertheless, an ugly thing, even in its “free market” component.

  40. paulie Post author

    I thought we were talking about actions as a result of the election of Donald Trump.

    We are, but naturally most of those haven’t happened yet since he has not yet assumed office. We are mostly talking about what to expect when he does. As part of the discussion, we are also covering bullying that takes place already because bigots feel emboldened by his election.

    The stories you told, unfortunately, happen all the time and always have. Violent people act violently.

    In some places and times more so than others.

  41. Jill Pyeatt

    you could start with things like Trump supporters burning down a black church in Mississippi

    There were four videos put out by a group call Project Veritas which recorded Clinton campaign workers talking and laughing about some of the things they were doing which many listeners would consider, if not illegal, at least unethical. For example, The Clinton folk were paying mentally ill people to go to Trump campaigns to disrupt them. I understand that there were questions re: the credibility of the maker of the videos, John O’Keefe, but the results of the video releases were apparently true enough that one campaign worker resigned, and another was fired.

    And, of course, we all know that Donna Brazile was fired from CNN for leaking questions to Hillary.

    Is it really a stretch that Hillary supporters burned the church down to make Trump supporters look bad? It isn’t for me.

    Apparently, Trump supporters organized soon after the burning of the church to raise enough money to rebuild the church.

    In other words, I’m of the opinion that much of the nastiness supposedly done by Trump supporters was really done by Clinton folks (and is still happening).

    There was a report yesterday of a Muslim women being accosted by supposed Trump supporters in a parking garage at my alma mater, San Diego State. She was even interviewed by the news.

    A couple hours later, officials announced she had made the whole thing up.

  42. paulie Post author

    Is it really a stretch that Hillary supporters burned the church down to make Trump supporters look bad? It isn’t for me.

    Is it really a stretch to believe that it was done by Trump supporters? Everyone from the KKK to various nazi and white supremacist groups enthusiastically endorsed Trump. Did Clinton supporters manufacture all of that? Did they manufacture the Trump supporters who beat up the homeless man in Boston? Or the kids that tell other kids they will get deported? I mean kids watch this crap… what did you think they’d learn from it? You don’t think there will be a bunch of little girls getting grabbed by boys in school because the president said it’s OK? You don’t think that cops who are racist and brutal will feel even more free to act on their desires to be so, knowing that the federal Justice Department will be 100% behind them? Come on.

  43. Jill Pyeatt

    Is it really a stretch to believe that it was done by Trump supporters?

    No, it isn’t a stretch at all to think it was done by Trump supporters. We really don’t know who did it, though, which is my point.

  44. Just Some Random Guy

    @ paulie

    Don’t kid yourself. The “PC culture” is far from dominant. Someone who is considered nonwhite is still a lot more likely to face discrimination in housing and employment, regardless of what the laws are. They’re far more likely to be mistreated by the police and the courts.

    I’m sure this is news to Asian Americans, who have (on average) a higher income than whites, a lower unemployment rate than whites, and a lower incarceration rate than whites.

  45. paulie Post author

    Asian-Americans get discriminated against too, in a variety of ways, and I’m sure that will also go up as Trump ramps up a trade war (and maybe much more) with China. And it’s certainly not news to black and Hispanic Americans, American Indians and American Muslims. It’s also not news to those of us who are sometimes mistaken for Hispanic or Muslim based on appearance. It does impact how cops, among other people, have interacted with me.

  46. Jill Pyeatt

    I’ll personalize it, then: In my town of Monrovia, which is usually a delightful suburb of Los Angeles, my observation is that the Clintonites have, by far, been much nastier and more unreasonable than Trump supporters. Since I have been neither a Trump or Clinton supporter, I would have no particular reason to make this up.

    Since the election, my personal observation is that the Clinton supporters in and around my town have gone nuts. Normally reasonable people, such as a man who owns a successful accounting business, are calling for continued protests throughout the entire term of Trump being in office, even if it leads to violence throughout the term. Even though I have not supported Trump nor voted for him, it’s apparently my fault Trump won, as I’ve been told by several people on the Monrovia Politics FB page.

    Whatever. Everyone’s mileage will vary.

  47. paulie Post author

    The vast majority of what I am talking about, once again, is not the specifically election-related stuff but the larger cultural context I discussed earlier.

  48. William Saturn

    In a cultural context, anti-Trump people are lashing out violently and believe they are justified because the media has created a certain image of Trump. That image is inaccurate. And even if it was accurate, it does not justify violence of any kind.

  49. paulie Post author

    Trump created an image of himself, and of the country and world he wants. It’s a very dangerous and disturbing image. He has backed it up with the way he has conducted himself in business and life and in his campaign. For details, see my prior comments. I think I laid it out well enough above.

  50. robert capozzi

    ws: hysterical pile of hyperbole based on the corporate media’s presentation of Trump

    me: I see. So Trump never said Mexicans are rapists and murderers. He never said he wants to ban Muslims from immigrating. He never said he wants to bomb the shit out of them. His long list of misogynistic statements…all fabrications?

    Is that what you are saying?

    Did the media get a body double of DJT to say those things?

  51. Root's Teeth Are Awesome

    Watched the rioting in Seattle and Portland on YouTube. I was thoroughly disgusted by these animals, vandalizing property and even occasional street brawls. A police officer was reportedly beaten by L.A. protestors.

    TV newscasters blamed the rioting on “anarchists.” One newscaster said the protests were initially peaceful, until “anarchists” joined the protests and began instigating violence. The newscasters, in turn, might have gotten that spin from police.

    I suppose the perpetrators of violence likewise call themselves “anarchists.” Probably wear a lot of black and spray paint the Circle A onto buildings.

    They’ll accomplish two things: 1. Turn more Americans against “anarchism,” and 2. Turn more Americans in favor of Trump.

    Nice going, street thugs.

  52. langa

    Yes, they should be free to discriminate. It doesn’t make it a good thing when we encourage them by electing a bigot. It’s not a good thing to elect a guy who believes it’s OK to grab women because he’s a VIP, and practices doing so. It’s not a good thing to elect a guy who constantly refers to women as slobs, dogs, Ms. Piggy, Ms. Housekeeping, etc., or suggests they must be menstruating if they ask him a question he doesn’t like. “I’m not PC” is not a legitimate answer to every shitty thing someone gets rightly called out for saying.

    This might be an IPR record for straw men in a single paragraph. First, when did I ever say it was a “good thing” that Trump was elected? I wouldn’t have voted for him with a loaded gun to my head.

    Second, there is a huge difference between words and actions. Touching women (or men) without their consent is a form of assault and should obviously be opposed by anyone, particularly by any libertarian. On the other hand, when it comes to calling people names or mocking their appearance, pardon me while I get my tiny violin. Why does no one complain when men are called names or mocked about their appearance? In fact, Trump himself was called every name in the book, and numerous aspects of his appearance (e.g. his hair, his complexion, his weight, etc.) were mocked relentlessly and viciously. But did anyone suggest that such mocking was “out of bounds” or evidence of misandry, or anything of the sort? Of course not. Because they rightly realized that Trump is a grown man, and like any adult, should have a thick enough skin to ignore such jibes. The idea that men are tough enough to take such insults, but women are weak little babies who can’t take it, is patronizing, sexist, and absurd. If it’s OK to call men names and mock their appearance, it’s equally OK to do the same thing to women.

    And don’t imagine for a second that this “freedom to associate” will be limited to the free market or voluntary association. Trump is 100% on the side of the police amidst a growing wave of protest against their out of control brutality, racism and militarization. Do you think that bully, racist cops and prison guards won’t take it as a signal that they can get away with even more now that the president will be someone who is just like them and fully behind them no matter what? What about school employees, and other government employees of various kinds – you don’t think they will feel more free to be “not PC” in their official capacities, to actually use the force of the state to discriminate against people? And, sure, people should be free to associate freely… but if that means treating other people like shit on the basis of group identity it doesn’t make it a good thing when they choose to do so.

    More straw men. When people cross the line and violate the NAP, of course libertarians should oppose that. However, that doesn’t mean that we should oppose anything that could theoretically lead to such actions. For example, many people claim that violent movies, violent song lyrics, violent video games, and so on, lead to actual violence, and perhaps in the case of some mentally unstable people, they are influenced by those things. Should libertarians therefore call for censorship (even of the voluntary kind) in all those areas?

    That may be a problem in a few decades. If we make it that far. For now, I’m more worried about today’s government tyrants, such as a growing occupying army of well-armed, privileged, bigoted police that’s about to get a major boost from on high, a vastly expanded border patrol (which will patrol a lot more than the border), a myriad of armed federal agencies… oh, and a temper tantrum prone, 70 going on 2 man with his finger on the button, surrounded by other tyrannical types such as Giuliani, Christie, Bannon, Gingrich, Bolton, Coulter, et al.

    It won’t take anywhere close to “a few decades” for the extreme PC to fully manifest itself. I was in college less than 20 years ago, at a liberal arts college, and there were a lot of people there who were considered to be very PC by the standards of those days. Yet not a single one of them ever suggested anything as ridiculous as demanding apologies for indisputably true and totally innocuous statements (e.g. “All lives matter.”). Now, such demands are given credence by even the most mainstream sources. The same will soon happen with demands for “safe spaces” and “trigger warnings” and other such BS, which of course, has nothing to do with “tolerance” and everything to do with silencing opposing views. How long will it take before basic libertarian ideas are declared as “hate speech” and banned from public expression? And by then, it will be too late to do anything about it, as the people in charge will be the graduates of today’s indoctrination factories.

  53. Andy

    Eoor’s Teeth Are Awesome said: “TV newscasters blamed the rioting on “anarchists.” One newscaster said the protests were initially peaceful, until “anarchists” joined the protests and began instigating violence. The newscasters, in turn, might have gotten that spin from police.

    I suppose the perpetrators of violence likewise call themselves “anarchists.” Probably wear a lot of black and spray paint the Circle A onto buildings.

    They’ll accomplish two things: 1. Turn more Americans against “anarchism,” and 2. Turn more Americans in favor of Trump.”

    Stefan Molyneux Why The Left Calls Communists Anarchists

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

  54. George Dance

    The night after Election Night, I saw a tweet from Cher. It was just one of the “Libertarians elected Trump” things going around, but it was notable for the last line, which stuck in my head:

    “William Weld, why didn’t you save us?”

  55. William Saturn

    RC said: “I see. So Trump never said Mexicans are rapists and murderers. He never said he wants to ban Muslims from immigrating. He never said he wants to bomb the shit out of them. His long list of misogynistic statements…all fabrications?”

    Context is important. Trump said Mexico sends rapists and murderers into the US and that perhaps some illegal aliens are good people. He did not say all Mexicans are rapists and murderers. The dishonest media took the statement out of context to rile up people.

    The Muslim ban was never workable. The idea morphed into the ban on immigration from nations with a history of terrorism, which Rand Paul originally proposed. I’ll agree the original ban was a mistake but that was not nearly as much a motivator of protesters as the supposedly anti-Mexican comment. Let’s be honest. The bombing comment was about ISIS not Muslim immigrants as you suggested.

    Misogynist statements (which were mostly tongue-in-cheek) were made in a private conversation 11 years ago. Perhaps if we went through your record of private conversations we wouldn’t find anything but Puritanical niceties but that is not true for most of us.

  56. Chuck Moulton

    Robert Capozzi wrote:

    Not sure this is the right place, but in retrospect, I’m starting to think the TeamGov should have shaded more right than left in this election. 20/20 hindsight, but July and August were more about establishing a more center-left-tinge. Perhaps they would have done better appealing to R voters and leaners.

    Just a sense I have….

    Not sure this is the right place, but in retrospect, I’m starting to think the TeamGov should have shaded more libertarian than centrist in this election. 20/20 hindsight, but July and August were more about establishing a more scatterbrained-establishment-tinge. Perhaps they would have done better appealing to L voters and leaners.

    Just a sense I have….

  57. robert capozzi

    cm: Perhaps they would have done better appealing to L voters and leaners.

    me: Do you mean to say you prefer 1MM votes to 4MM? 😉

    To non-cult-challengers, Ls sometimes sound leftish and sometimes sound rightish, depending on the issue, yes? This is one of the attractions of L thought for me, but it’s also a electoral and ideological challenge, too. J/W tended to tip the messaging balance a bit leftish. I wonder if they might have done better with a rightish balance.

    Or do you reject the premise…that Ls sometimes sound leftish and sometimes rightish?

  58. robert capozzi

    Ws: Context is important.

    Me: 100%. As is interpretation.

    You apparently interpret THIS statement benignly: “When Mexico sends it people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people,”.

    Look at the phrasing. Mexicans being “sent,” to which I ask, “Sent BY WHOM?” By “Mexico”? I guess he means the Mexican government here. “Lots of problems” say to me that Trump is saying most (or at least a large percentage) illegal immigrants from Mexico have “problems” which he later says are “drugs,” “crime,” and “rapists.”

    This is untrue. Crime rates among illegal aliens is lower than the general population. My most forgiving interpretation is he wildly overstated for effect.

    And then there’s the “…I assume, are good people.” This is him saying “Most Mexicans are bad people, but I Donald Trump admit some of them are good, although I don’t know that for a fact.”

    If you don’t read this as hater code, then you don’t.

    I do.

    Yes, on Muslims, his clarified position was at least reasonable.

    As for misogyny, he made many public misogynistic statements. Weren’t you paying attention?

    Yes, I’m sure there are things I’ve said that would be embarrassing. Of course, I’m not running for president! In fact, I recall in college I wrote about abortion, and I took the Rothbardian view then that fetuses are parasites. I’d not thought that one through at the time, that IF we view fetuses as parasites, then everyone is a former parasite.

    You seem willing to overlook a lot of hater code from Trump. My current view is, in a sense, semi-benign in that it’s possible the DJT isn’t actually a hater, but he used hater rhetoric to stir up the haters and hater leaners to secure the R nomination and now the presidency. His candidacy was a scam, IOW.

  59. langa

    Or do you reject the premise…that Ls sometimes sound leftish and sometimes rightish?

    Well, some “libertarians” attempt to mimic the left and some “libertarians” attempt to mimic the right. However, in both cases, such attempts are foolish. If someone self-identifies as a leftist, they will either vote for the Democrats or (possibly) the Green Party. If someone self-identifies as a rightist, they will either vote for the Republicans or (possibly) the Constitution Party. They won’t vote for an LP candidate who “sort of” agrees with them on a few issues here and there.

    A better strategy is to explain that the Left supports Equality At Gunpoint, while the Right supports Morality At Gunpoint. Meanwhile, we Libertarians support freedom, and leave the equality and morality to the marketplace to sort out. If someone finds that message unpalatable, they are unlikely to ever embrace libertarianism, no matter how much we soft-pedal it.

  60. robert capozzi

    L: Well, some “libertarians” attempt to mimic the left and some “libertarians” attempt to mimic the right.

    me: Not how I see it. Ls tend to *sound* rightish on economics to non-Ls and leftish to non-Ls on civil liberties and foreign policy.

    You don’t see that, really?

    If you don’t, you might consider putting your personal ideology aside for a bit. Say to some random people: I’m for lower taxes and cutting spending and ask them whether that sounds right or left. Then say to another random group I’m for legalizing drugs and ending US involvement in wars in the ME. Ask them whether that sounds right or left.

    I’m highly confident that most will say “right” and “left,” respectively.

  61. langa

    Ls tend to *sound* rightish on economics to non-Ls and leftish to non-Ls on civil liberties and foreign policy.

    Only if they explain their ideas poorly.

    Say to some random people: I’m for lower taxes and cutting spending and ask them whether that sounds right or left. Then say to another random group I’m for legalizing drugs and ending US involvement in wars in the ME. Ask them whether that sounds right or left.

    How about this? Tell some people that you are against corporate subsidies and intellectual property, and ask them if that sounds left or right. Then tell some other people that you are against gun control and hate speech laws, and ask then if that sounds left or right.

  62. Robert Capozzi

    95% or so probably don’t know what IP is. And I don’t know if the issue is settled even among NAPSTERS.

    Tea Party types oppose crony capitalism and so do some progressives, so your results will likely be murky.

    Your link above is beside the point. Whites are not all racist. Most are not. Some may be more likely to overlook bigoted code, though. DJT employed lots of such code to secure the nomination. He backed off the code in the general, and HRC’s corruption became very evident.

    What would be more interesting is the demographics of the vote in WI, MI, and PA. Did DJT’S haterade attract those states to swing R, or did they overlook his hate. Or was it more that Ds stayed home proportionally more in those states?

  63. Matt

    “Oh, and for what it’s worth, the numbers don’t bear out the claim that Trump won by appealing to “racist” voters, at least no more so than any other recent GOP candidate.

    See here: https://twitter.com/ThaddeusRussell/status/797972457932005376

    The tweet says nothing whatsoever about racist voters. It talks about what percentage of the white vote Trump, Romney et al won. It’s entirely possible and even likely that Trump made up for losing some less racist NeverTrump Republicans by increasing his share of the vote among more racist whites previously either stayed home or voted Democratic due to lifelong or family loyalty, union endorsements, etc. Certainly, the organized racist movement and the openly racist blogosphere/commentariat/social media world was a lovefest for Trump, in a way that it never was for candidates like Romney and McCain. And he sent some of that love back by repeatedly retweeting from openly racist sources, having as a close advisor Steve Bannon who is neck deep in white supremacist associations, hesitating to denounce David Duke, sharing their affection for Putin, and sharing their positions on immigration and trade. Among other things.

    Voting also doesn’t capture intensity of support. Whether you’re a reluctant Trump voter who disliked both Clinton and Trump but in the end was more worried about Clinton’s emails than Trump’s groping of women, or an out of work former assembly line worker with a Make America Great Again hat and a big Send ‘Em Back button on your Trump That Bitch t-shirt above your confederate belt buckle in a yankee state, your Trump vote counts as one vote and is reflected equally in the stat cited by Thaddeus Russell and langa.

    “What would be more interesting is the demographics of the vote in WI, MI, and PA. Did DJT’S haterade attract those states to swing R, or did they overlook his hate. Or was it more that Ds stayed home proportionally more in those states?”

    Probably some of all of those.

  64. langa

    95% or so probably don’t know what IP is. And I don’t know if the issue is settled even among NAPSTERS.

    Tea Party types oppose crony capitalism and so do some progressives, so your results will likely be murky.

    Precisely my point. Trying to define libertarians as a cross between conservatives and progressives will, at best, paint a very “murky” picture of what it is that libertarianism is actually about. It’s similar to trying to describe a cat to someone who has never seen one. You could tell them that it’s like a bear, since they both have warm blood and fur. You could also tell them that it’s like an alligator, since they both have four legs and a tail. But none of that would tell them what a cat is really like, because a cat is not a cross between a bear and an alligator. It’s a unique species that must be understood on its own terms. The same is true for libertarianism, which can never be accurately summarized as some cross between other ideologies, or by any “fiscally conservative, socially liberal” bumper sticker-style slogans.

  65. langa

    It’s entirely possible and even likely that Trump made up for losing some less racist NeverTrump Republicans by increasing his share of the vote among more racist whites previously either stayed home or voted Democratic due to lifelong or family loyalty, union endorsements, etc.

    Possible? Yes, it’s theoretically possible that’s what happened. It’s also theoretically possible that hordes of straight women and gay men, despite strongly disagreeing with Trump’s positions, found his weird hair and orange skin to be absolutely irresistible, and voted for him not because of any logical reason, but simply because they were infatuated with him.

    Likely? I don’t think your hypothesis or mine are very likely, given that there is basically zero evidence to support either of them (and no, citing anecdotes about the minuscule “organized racist movement” isn’t evidence). Occam’s Razor, as well as what evidence we do have, suggests that Trump won because he won most of the traditional GOP base, and a fairly high percentage of independents, who decided that he was the “lesser of two evils” when compared to Hillary. What percentage of either of those groups is “racist” is anybody’s guess, barring some evidence that sheds more light on the subject.

    To me, it doesn’t really matter one way or the other. Even if it could be conclusively proven that every single person who voted for Trump was a hardcore racist, so what? Would that somehow invalidate the election? Should bigots be prohibited from voting?

  66. robert capozzi

    L: Trying to define libertarians as a cross between conservatives and progressives will, at best, paint a very “murky” picture of what it is that libertarianism is actually about.

    Me: You are missing my point, apparently.

    What L-ism is FOR YOU is your business, of course. In a political context, how L candidates are PERCEIVED BY OTHERS is very, very likely to be different from your understanding of L-ism. You (and at one point I) were steeped in a VERY different paradigm and worldview, so you (and to some extent I) react to specific political situations quite differently than the vast preponderance of humanity.

    I suspect on most MAJOR (by the general public’s standards) political issues of the day, it seems extremely likely that when Ls discuss economic issues, non-L-Kool-Aid-drinkers will associate a L perspective as “right.” Social and f.p. Issues, “left.”

    Do you deny this?

    It’s important to me that we’re on the same page on this basic point. If we’re not and you have a different perspective, I’d like to hear it.

    Now, you may not care about how the general public generally comprehends and processes issues. You may not care so much about the issues of the day, perhaps because you want to convert them to the idea the all political dysfunction is due to the cult of the omnipotent state. Or perhaps you prefer Ls to campaign with a chalkboard on which the candidate can “derive” the moral supremacy and “flawless” logic of the NAP. Or something else.

    I would say, though, that RP1, for ex., often sounds to MOST PEOPLE as rightist on economics, and leftist when he called for legalizing heroin and ending the Iraq War.

    Do you have a different take?

  67. langa

    I suspect on most MAJOR (by the general public’s standards) political issues of the day, it seems extremely likely that when Ls discuss economic issues, non-L-Kool-Aid-drinkers will associate a L perspective as “right.” Social and f.p. Issues, “left.”

    Do you deny this?

    It really depends on the specific arguments they choose to defend their positions. For example, when discussing economics, if they focus on cutting taxes and talk about how it’s not fair to force the rich, productive class to subsidize welfare parasites, that sounds like something a typical Republican might say. On the other hand, if they emphasize the need to cut spending, and talk about how government programs lead to economic distortions and benefit politically connected corporations, that sounds unique. It doesn’t sound like anything that you would typically hear from the left or from the right.

    I would say, though, that RP1, for ex., often sounds to MOST PEOPLE as rightist on economics, and leftist when he called for legalizing heroin and ending the Iraq War.

    Do you have a different take?

    Yes and no. On the one hand, he did tend to emphasize different issues, depending on whether he perceived his audience to be more left or right. Specifically, he always talked about certain things, like the wars, the Fed, and so on. But he was more likely to talk about the Drug War if he was addressing an audience that included a lot of left-leaning types, while he was more likely to talk about, say, gun rights if he was talking to a more right-leaning audience. However, when he talked about any particular issue, I think he did it in a fairly unique way, that didn’t really sound like any other politician, either left or right.

    Really, the one thing I thought he always did that made him sound like a typical (Republican) politician was when he would go into “Constitution” mode. Usually, when asked about particular programs that he opposed, he would give good, solid arguments about how they were immoral and/or impractical. However, he would sometimes abandon that, and when asked why he opposed a certain program, he would just say, “Well, it’s not authorized by the Constitution.” I greatly preferred the former approach, since the latter sounded like a typical Republican, using Constitutional rhetoric as window dressing.

  68. robert capozzi

    L, OK, so it sounds like we have agreement that L pols can sometimes sound TO THE AUDIENCE left or right, depending on the issue. Some L pols might be more skilled or more unique, but until there’s a paradigm shift (e.g., lessarchist vs. morearchist), L political activity will COME ACROSS a certain way to voters.

    What set this off was that I think J/W came across more left than right, on balance. That’s my sense, which I don’t think is especially controversial, even with NAPsters. The issues they chose and the way they presented those issues probably alienated more conservatives, and appealed to self-identified moderates.

    As the campaign unfolded, this moderate, slight-left positioning caused the Ds and the media to realize that GJ was taking more votes from HRC than DJT. They openly attacked DJT; they took a near-open-borders stance; they emphasized pro-choice with no mitigation; they really emphasized legalizing marijuana, and with GJ’s weed business background, that really lent weight to that stance.

    This, again, is about the soundbites, not the more detailed positions they held.

    Of course, running for office necessarily means that not all voters will agree with you on all issues. The idea of TeamGov was to present a compelling narrative to voters that they offered a better path.

    So, with that, I’m starting to think that there the overall positioning might have worked better with a more moderate to right lean, with of course some positions that sounded left leaning. I think they didn’t get the mix quite right, IOW. This is more of a technical, political strategy and tactics observation, not an ideological one, per se.

    The results of the experiment as run was probably a B+, in part because of this positioning (which worked but was not optimized). In part due to poor candidate prep. In part possibly due to a poor ad strategy, if we’re to buy Be Rational’s critique.

    I get that you reject this approach, that you prefer to see L candidates hold high the banner. But that’s a different conversation.

  69. langa

    RC, perhaps I misunderstood your original point. I do agree with you that Johnson and Weld were trying to appeal to the left. (In fact, besides the issues you mentioned, there was also Johnson’s position on bakery slavery, which was to the left of almost everyone, and Weld’s no-fly list/gun control position, which was also to the left of almost everybody.)

    Where I disagreed was with the idea that they should have tried to appeal more to the right. Personally, I would like to see future LP tickets appeal more to all the people who despise both major parties, instead of trying to peel voters away from one or the other of them. But, as you said, that’s a different discussion.

  70. robert capozzi

    L: Personally, I would like to see future LP tickets appeal more to all the people who despise both major parties, instead of trying to peel voters away from one or the other of them.

    Me: Interesting. That sounds like to me that you believe that the pitch should be to NON-voters. That’s a tough one, since non-voters generally don’t vote, and probably tune out the news and politics, for the most part. The good news is there’s a LOT of them. The bad news is they don’t vote, so it would be very difficult to get them TO vote L.

    My sense is that, among voters, there are moderates who tend to lean right or left. They may well vaguely associate with the Rs and Ds, but mostly my sense is that very large percentages may not quite “DESPISE” the majors, but it’s pretty safe to say that most are at least leery of Rs and Ds.

    By the very nature of NOT being a major party, L candidates automatically appeal to those who truly do not associate with the Rs and Ds, as well as non-voters. Sound bites aimed at them are pretty easy to come up with, and for the most part, TeamGov did so.

    It’s mostly a matter of emphasis. GJ’s topline pitch skewed slightly left. If the topline pitch had maybe one more issue that was right-tinged, I think they would have produced better results.

  71. langa

    RC, I think this is one case where we’re not that far apart. When I said voters who “despise” the major parties, I was referring to those who don’t vote, but also to many of those who “hold their nose” and vote for one of the majors, either out of a feeling that they have a “duty” to vote, or that they don’t have the “right” to complain if they don’t vote, or whatever. The key is that they consider the two major parties to be fairly equal. If a voter views one of the major parties as significantly better — or significantly worse — than the other, it’s a waste of time and money to try to convince them otherwise.

  72. robert capozzi

    L, apparently there’ve been studies about Congress’s approval rating where huge majorities disapprove of Congress BUT they approve of their MC. S/he is the exception.

    Why is this? I suspect that so much of politics is not about policy and positions, but likeability and positioning. Since congressional districts tend to include large numbers of reasonably like-minded people, the MC can position him- or herself in ways that curry favor with the profile of the district’s population.

    I heard many non-Ls suggest that WW should have been at the top of the ticket. Why? Because he was far more comfortable in front of the camera. GJ has his likeable side, too, (see the early Samantha Bee vid) but he tended to freeze and become robotic when laying down his rap. He had a hard time pivoting when the interviewer threw him a curveball…Aleppo being Exhibit A.

    Deontologists tend to not care about these issues of style, marketing, and positioning, but they are vitally important IF one wants to persuade.

  73. paulie Post author

    You laid out a hysterical pile of hyperbole based on the corporate media’s presentation of Trump, which was meant to maintain the status quo.

    The corporate media is far too friendly to and easy on Trump. They gave him $4 billion worth of free advertising during the campaign, compared to $2 billion for Clinton. Nothing I laid out was hysterical; it was all entirely accurate and supported by facts, and by Trump’s own words which he repeated numerous different times.

  74. paulie Post author

    BOOM! Soros Behind Busing In ‘PAID PROTESTERS’ for Nationwide Anti Trump Protests

    Even if that’s true, so what? There are lots of people who are not on board with Trump’s fascist agenda. Some of them feel moved to protest against it. If I felt it would do any good I might join them. If I happened to be in the vicinity of a protest I might well join. Consider the fact that someone jumping in front of a parade doesn’t mean that the parade wouldn’t be there without them.

  75. paulie Post author

    These people are “useful idiots” for the Marxist agenda

    Why does opposition to fascism and authoritarianism and misogyny and racism as represented by Trump have to be “Marxism”? Yes, some Marxists are involved, but so are a lot of other people. For that matter, Libertarians should get more involved in joining anti-Trump protests.

  76. paulie Post author

    Incidentally, even though it was a tangent further above from the much larger issue of widespread hatred that is coming under Trump’s coming reign of terror, there have been hundreds of reported incidents of election related hate crimes, and doubtless far, far more that have not been reported. According to one story I saw Anti-Muslim hate crimes are up 66%. And, of course, this is just the very beginning; not even the tip of the iceberg yet.

  77. paulie Post author

    This might be an IPR record for straw men in a single paragraph. First, when did I ever say it was a “good thing” that Trump was elected? I wouldn’t have voted for him with a loaded gun to my head.

    The straw men here are yours, as I neither said nor implied that you did.

  78. paulie Post author

    Second, there is a huge difference between words and actions. Touching women (or men) without their consent is a form of assault and should obviously be opposed by anyone, particularly by any libertarian. On the other hand, when it comes to calling people names or mocking their appearance, pardon me while I get my tiny violin. Why does no one complain when men are called names or mocked about their appearance? In fact, Trump himself was called every name in the book, and numerous aspects of his appearance (e.g. his hair, his complexion, his weight, etc.) were mocked relentlessly and viciously. But did anyone suggest that such mocking was “out of bounds” or evidence of misandry, or anything of the sort? Of course not. Because they rightly realized that Trump is a grown man, and like any adult, should have a thick enough skin to ignore such jibes. The idea that men are tough enough to take such insults, but women are weak little babies who can’t take it, is patronizing, sexist, and absurd. If it’s OK to call men names and mock their appearance, it’s equally OK to do the same thing to women.

    You missed the point entirely. Trump’s attitudes are generally “punching down” against people who are not in a position of power, or who he is in a position of power over. It isn’t Hillary Clinton that his mocking remarks rankle against, but much less powerful people such as a reporter with a disability, a beauty contestant, etc. It’s his general attitude towards people with less power that serves as a bad example to his followers, and to children especially, now that he will be in a position that is taken as a role model by many. He’s a terrible one, and it will have very bad consequences for a lot of people.

    When you say there’s a huge difference between words and actions, though, you are missing the bridge between them. Sometimes words are not just words; they may be harassment, or intimidation. They may help form a climate where some actions that would otherwise not be acceptable, become acceptable. There’s a whole spectrum there and just because libertarians don’t want to involve the government before those hostile words cross over into actions it doesn’t mean that we can’t express strong disapproval at those words. You don’t have to agree, but it doesn’t make me complicit in censorship if I disapprove of those forms of expression, and it doesn’t make the people who merely grumble their hatred or shout slurs at people heroic or even OK just because some other people want to censor them. You may think that the greater threat comes from those who want to censor them, but I see a much greater and more immediate threat from bigoted mobs turning into lynch mobs, or into support systems for bigoted bullies employed by government, or ones who get to make government policies.

  79. William Saturn

    You obviously ignored the videos posted above about violence against Trump supporters. Children, indoctrinated by their professors and the corporate-run media, which has covered Trump heavily, albeit in a very negative and misleading manner; and paid thugs; are out protesting to protest while damaging property.

    A good example of the media hysteria over Trump is the reaction to the selection of Steve Bannon as chief strategist. Bannon has been called every name in the book. He’s been branded as a white supremacist and anti-Semite even though there is no record at all of him espousing those particular ideologies. It just adds fuel to the fire of the low information types who take things at face value rather than investigating further.

  80. paulie Post author

    However, that doesn’t mean that we should oppose anything that could theoretically lead to such actions. For example, many people claim that violent movies, violent song lyrics, violent video games, and so on, lead to actual violence, and perhaps in the case of some mentally unstable people, they are influenced by those things. Should libertarians therefore call for censorship (even of the voluntary kind) in all those areas?

    Different libertarians are free to call for whatever voluntary actions they wish – it’s the very “freedom of association” that you hold up, which includes freedom of dissociation. So, no these are NOT strawmen:

    And don’t imagine for a second that this “freedom to associate” will be limited to the free market or voluntary association. Trump is 100% on the side of the police amidst a growing wave of protest against their out of control brutality, racism and militarization. Do you think that bully, racist cops and prison guards won’t take it as a signal that they can get away with even more now that the president will be someone who is just like them and fully behind them no matter what? What about school employees, and other government employees of various kinds – you don’t think they will feel more free to be “not PC” in their official capacities, to actually use the force of the state to discriminate against people? And, sure, people should be free to associate freely… but if that means treating other people like shit on the basis of group identity it doesn’t make it a good thing when they choose to do so.

    These are all real issues, and they will be big issues with Trump’s “anti-PC backlash.”

  81. paulie Post author

    It won’t take anywhere close to “a few decades” for the extreme PC to fully manifest itself. I was in college less than 20 years ago, at a liberal arts college, and there were a lot of people there who were considered to be very PC by the standards of those days. Yet not a single one of them ever suggested anything as ridiculous as demanding apologies for indisputably true and totally innocuous statements (e.g. “All lives matter.”).

    Context matters, as we are discussing on another thread.

    Now, such demands are given credence by even the most mainstream sources. The same will soon happen with demands for “safe spaces” and “trigger warnings” and other such BS, which of course, has nothing to do with “tolerance” and everything to do with silencing opposing views. How long will it take before basic libertarian ideas are declared as “hate speech” and banned from public expression? And by then, it will be too late to do anything about it, as the people in charge will be the graduates of today’s indoctrination factories.

    Nah. Long, long before all that comes to pass, you’ll have Trump mobs, Trump militarized police and Trump federal agents attacking immigrants, protesters, religious and ethnic minorities, anyone who disagrees with them, etc.. cracking lots of heads, dragging lots of people off to labor camps, destroying and stealing property on a much larger scale than the anti-Trump protesters are doing. Along the way, Trump will probably emulate his hero and role model Putin, and outlaw “promoting” homosexuality and “promoting” drugs (which includes advocating legalization). Maybe even “promoting” Islam and “promoting” immigration will be made illegal. There will be lots of robocops and cameras everywhere, drones, snitches, tracking devices…you name it. And you won’t have to wait for the college “PC” crowd to grow up to experience it all in full blown totalitarian glory.

  82. paulie Post author

    Trump said Mexico sends rapists and murderers into the US and that perhaps some illegal aliens are good people.

    The statement is so ridiculous on so many levels, and one of so many other ugly things he has said, there’s no “context” that covers it up.

    The Muslim ban was never workable. The idea morphed into the ban on immigration from nations with a history of terrorism, which Rand Paul originally proposed.

    It doesn’t matter who proposed it, it’s authoritarian shit. And he has said lots of other things about monitoring American Muslims, torturing detainees, killing their families, etc, etc.

    Misogynist statements (which were mostly tongue-in-cheek)

    No, they were not tongue in cheek.

    were made in a private conversation 11 years ago.

    There were many, many misogynist statements, public and private, over many years.

    Perhaps if we went through your record of private conversations we wouldn’t find anything but Puritanical niceties but that is not true for most of us.

    An often repeated, nonsensical canard. Bragging about sexual assault goes far beyond “anything but puritanical niceties” and that’s far from the only creepy thing he has said…or done.

  83. paulie Post author

    there is basically zero evidence to support either of them

    There’s plenty of evidence for Trump receiving racist support. The organized racist movement is tiny compared to those who hold some racists attitudes, and Trump was sending pretty obvious dog whistles to all of them.

    Occam’s Razor, as well as what evidence we do have, suggests that Trump won because he won most of the traditional GOP base, and a fairly high percentage of independents, who decided that he was the “lesser of two evils” when compared to Hillary. What percentage of either of those groups is “racist” is anybody’s guess, barring some evidence that sheds more light on the subject.

    It’s not a complete mystery. Black turnout was lower, and Trump did better among blue collar white voters who usually skew more Democratic than they did this year. Otherwise, the results were very close to what they were in other recent elections. Suburban, mostly white voters who usually vote Republican voted in about the same numbers and about the same percentage Republican as usual, but probably more as a “lesser evil” vote than anything else. The third party/independent and write-in vote was higher across all ideological lines, and a larger percentage of non-duopoly voters said they would have otherwise not voted at all than in past recent elections.

    To me, it doesn’t really matter one way or the other. Even if it could be conclusively proven that every single person who voted for Trump was a hardcore racist, so what? Would that somehow invalidate the election? Should bigots be prohibited from voting?

    I don’t believe anyone here has said anything close to any of that.

  84. paulie Post author

    You obviously ignored the videos posted above about violence against Trump supporters. Children, indoctrinated by their professors and the corporate-run media, which has covered Trump heavily, albeit in a very negative and misleading manner; and paid thugs; are out protesting to protest while damaging property.

    You’ve obviously ignored that that’s a drop in the bucket compared with the pro-Trump thuggery and hate crimes and the crackdowns that will be coming when Trump comes to power.

    A good example of the media hysteria over Trump is the reaction to the selection of Steve Bannon as chief strategist.

    It’s not hysteria, and it’s completely 100% justified.

    Bannon has been called every name in the book. He’s been branded as a white supremacist and anti-Semite even though there is no record at all of him espousing those particular ideologies.

    That’s false. He’s publicly stated that Breitbart is/was a platform for the alt right, and it regularly published all sorts of hate in its headlines. Anecdotally, although the statements were made privately, multiple people attest to the fact that he is in fact a racist and anti-semite. He is a piece of shit who should be nowhere near an administration, and it’s very troubling that he has a high profile role. The same is true of the other people named to the Trump team so far, and no doubt will be true of the ones yet to be named – a despicable cross-section of racists and warmongers. Sessions has a long history of racism; Flynn has called for a global war on Islam and has ties to the authoritarian Putin and Turkish regimes; Pompeo has called on killing Snowden; and on and on. But, that’s what is to be expected of a Trump gang. The fish rots from the head.

  85. Jill Pyeatt

    Occam’s Razor, as well as what evidence we do have, suggests that Trump won because he won most of the traditional GOP base, and a fairly high percentage of independents, who decided that he was the “lesser of two evils” when compared to Hillary. What percentage of either of those groups is “racist” is anybody’s guess, barring some evidence that sheds more light on the subject.

    It also might have been that Wikileaks brought to the attention of millions of people the criminal, unethical and downright despicable behavior of Hillary and the people surrounding her.

  86. paulie Post author

    It also might have been that Wikileaks brought to the attention of millions of people the criminal, unethical and downright despicable behavior of Hillary and the people surrounding her.

    That’s certainly part of it. Too bad they ignored the same regarding Trump and the people surrounding him.

  87. natural born citizen

    The “reporter with a disability” was a lying scumbag that deserved to be mocked. Children need to learn that lying scumbags need to be opposed, called out, and mocked when appropriate. Mr Trump taught our children a great lesson by using his free speech to call out that lying scumbag.

  88. William Saturn

    The truth of the matter is that Trump mocked others the same way during and before the speech. He didn’t even know the reporter was disabled. This was just another media-created scam.

  89. Andy

    Paul said: ” Anecdotally, although the statements were made privately, multiple people attest to the fact that he is in fact a racist and anti-semite. ”

    OK, so let’s get this straight. Donald Trump’s daughter, Ivanika, is married to a Jewish guy, and she converted to Judaism, and she is raising her kids Jewish. Donald Trump’s other kids, except for his youngest son Barron, who is only 10, are either dating Jews, or are married to Jews. Donald Trump has several Jewish business associates, and he had several Jews who worked on his campaign, such as Steve Mnuchin, who was the finance chair of Donald Trump for President. Donald Trump went to the AIPAC conference and pledged his support for Israel. Donald Trump speaks to Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and recently invited him to visit the USA.

    Now you are telling us that Donald Trump nominated a guy who indiscriminately hates Jews to a high level position in his administration.

    This makes a lot of sense….NOT.

    Donald Trump invites Benjamin Netanyahu to US after Prime Minister congratulates ‘true friend of Israel’

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-elections/donald-trump-israel-palestinians-benjamin-netanyahu-invite-meeting-settlements-jerusalem-capital-a7409701.html

  90. langa

    The straw men here are yours…

    I originally said that, “…Trump’s rejection of [PC] (which is literally the only good thing about him) is one of the main reasons he won.” Obviously, that is not the same thing as saying that I think it was good that he won. You then responded by listing a bunch of reasons why it is not good that he won. But I never said that it was. To be clear, I think it is very bad that he won. I was just pointing out that every cloud has a silver lining, and the silver lining to the Trump cloud is that it shows that many people have had enough of being shushed and scolded every time they dare to disagree with the self-appointed gatekeepers of allowable opinion. If so, that is a positive development.

  91. Andy

    “paulie Post author
    November 21, 2016 at 19:33
    ‘Stefan Molyneux’

    Is a racist Trump bootlicker”

    Molyneux puts out a lot of great material. I disagree with him sometimes, but I agree with him a lot more than I disagree with him. I don’t think that there is anybody who I agree with all of the time.

    I never jumped on the Trump bandwagon, but I can see why some people did. Hillary Clinton was a nightmare of a candidate. The Libertarian Party completely dropped the ball in nominating the horrible Johnson/Weld ticket. Rand Paul failed to build on what his father did in the Republican primaries, and he ended up dropping out early. Darrell Castle only made it on the ballot in 24 states and his campaign was basically a blip on the radar screen. There was really nobody else for whom to vote.

    While there were certainly some problems with Trump (as everyone from the libertarian community who supported Trump has admitted), the problems with Trump did not appear to many to be as bad as the long record of supporting big government policies and engaging in blatant corruption as Hillary Clinton.

    I NEVER jumped on the Trump bandwagon myself, but I can see why some people did.

    Was this a sound strategy? Maybe, or maybe not (I lean towards thinking that it was not), but it really can’t be understated how terrible a candidate Hillary Clinton was. Yes, Trump MIGHT end up being as bad as Hillary. Could he be worse than Hillary? Maybe, but I have a hard time seeing anyone being worse than Hillary Clinton. We will probably never know for sure as to whether or not Hillary is worse than Trump, but I see worst case scenario that Trump is no worse than Hillary.

    Some people from the pro-liberty community saw Hillary Clinton as such a great threat to freedom, that she had to be stopped. Donald Trump was seen as the anti-establishment guy who could stop Hillary. There were no other viable options. This is why Stefan Molyneux got behind Trump, and the same goes with Alex Jones (and note that Alex Jones was very instrumental in Ron Paul 2008 and 2012 reaching the level of success that it reached, and note that Alex Jones has supported Libertarian Party candidates in the past such as Michael Badnarik, and he also endorsed Gary Johnson in 2012, and he might have endorsed him again if Johnson had not turned out to be such a butthead), Walter Bock, L. Neil Smith, and etc…

    Maybe it will turn out that Trump will get into office and do a lot of bad things, and maybe these folks from the pro-liberty community who got behind Trump will end up regretting it.

    Should these people coming out in support of Trump take away from everything else that these people have done for the cause of liberty? I don’t think so. Why? Because I think the people that I mentioned above have all done a lot of great things for the cause, so even if they made a wrong headed decision here, the good they have done over the years far outweighs this.

    I think that supporting Gary Johnson/Bill Weld was a terrible strategy. It was in a lot of ways even worse than voting for Trump. I am not saying that Trump is necessarily any better Johnson/Weld (he may or may not be), I’m saying that I expect a lot more out of people who run as Libertarian Party candidates. I expect Republicans to suck, but I have higher standards when it comes to Libertarians, and Johnson/Weld do not even come close to cutting it as Libertarians by my standards.

    If you are going to condemn self proclaimed libertarians for supporting Donald Trump, then you should also condemn self proclaimed libertarians for supporting Gary Johnson and Bill Weld.

    VOTING FOR JOHNSON/WELD WAS NOT A PRINCIPLED THING TO DO AT ALL. Johnson/Weld were a counterfeit Libertarian ticket. They were LINOs (Libertarians In Name Only). They were basically Mitt Romney 2.0.

    So if you are going to attack Trump voters you really should attack Johnson/Weld voters with equal zeal. Actually, you should attack Johnson/Weld votes in a more harsh manner if anything because there should be higher standards for Libertarian Party candidates than for Republican candidates. We ALREADY KNOW that Republicans suck. That’s what we expect from Republicans.

    If any Libertarian out there thinks that I am exaggerating or being too harsh, then you really do not understand what happened this year. You are Johnson/Weld Kool Aid drinkers.

    Gary Johnson and Bill Weld are NOT libertarians. I will gladly debate anyone on this subject. I will use Gary Johnson and Bill Weld’s own words and records to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that neither of them are libertarians.

  92. langa

    You missed the point entirely. Trump’s attitudes are generally “punching down” against people who are not in a position of power, or who he is in a position of power over. It isn’t Hillary Clinton that his mocking remarks rankle against, but much less powerful people such as a reporter with a disability, a beauty contestant, etc.

    First, so what? People deserve to be treated with the same amount of respect, no matter how much or how little power they have. If it’s OK to say something about the CEO of a Fortune 500 company, then it’s OK to say the same thing about a homeless person, or vice versa.

    Second, even if you disagree with me about that, it’s still false that Trump has only directed his supposedly “misogynist” comments at powerless women. You examples prove that. Since when is a beauty contestant powerless? Like it or not, physical appearance is a huge source of power in our society, and people who are considered physically attractive (like a beauty contestant, for example) are generally treated much better than less physically attractive people. And what about Megyn Kelly, or Rosie O’Donnell. Trump has been accused of making “misogynist” comments about them. Do you consider them to be “powerless” women?

    When you say there’s a huge difference between words and actions, though, you are missing the bridge between them. Sometimes words are not just words; they may be harassment, or intimidation. They may help form a climate where some actions that would otherwise not be acceptable, become acceptable. There’s a whole spectrum there and just because libertarians don’t want to involve the government before those hostile words cross over into actions it doesn’t mean that we can’t express strong disapproval at those words. You don’t have to agree, but it doesn’t make me complicit in censorship if I disapprove of those forms of expression, and it doesn’t make the people who merely grumble their hatred or shout slurs at people heroic or even OK just because some other people want to censor them. You may think that the greater threat comes from those who want to censor them, but I see a much greater and more immediate threat from bigoted mobs turning into lynch mobs, or into support systems for bigoted bullies employed by government, or ones who get to make government policies.

    Sure, words can hurt people’s feelings, but they are still just words. They have no power, beyond what the person they are directed at gives them. They can’t “make” anyone do anything. For example, there are no words that could ever “make” me commit rape, or torture an innocent person, or any of dozens of other horrible actions. Are there words that could “make” you do those things? And even if words are worthy of condemnation, that doesn’t mean they should be silenced. Wouldn’t you rather know where a person stands? As I said on the other thread, if someone says something you don’t like, either ignore it or refute it. But don’t try to silence them. That won’t change anybody’s mind. All it will do is breed resentment and tyranny, and make people afraid to express themselves. That kind of atmosphere is incompatible with freedom.

  93. langa

    Different libertarians are free to call for whatever voluntary actions they wish…

    Sure, you are free to do so. But, as you point out, having the right to do something doesn’t mean it’s a good idea. And if you’re interested in a free society, I don’t think responding to objectionable views with the old Archie Bunker line (“Stifle yourself!”) is wise, nor is cheering on others who take such an approach.

  94. langa

    Trump will probably emulate his hero and role model Putin, and outlaw “promoting” homosexuality and “promoting” drugs (which includes advocating legalization). Maybe even “promoting” Islam and “promoting” immigration will be made illegal.

    He very well might do those things, and if he did, it would prove the point I’ve been trying to make here: that once you start suppressing speech that some people find objectionable, you embark on a slippery slope that leads to the eradication of free speech. And of course, the real irony is that these sorts of laws would probably be justified by appealing to the same “bad words lead to bad actions” rhetoric that you have been employing on this very thread.

  95. langa

    There’s plenty of evidence for Trump receiving racist support.

    Perhaps so. As I said, I really don’t care why people voted for Trump. Whatever their reason was, it was a bad one.

  96. Andy

    This is a great video where Stefan talks about his frustrations in dealing with some people in the libertarian community. He discusses the failure of libertarians to adopt and promote on a wide scale peaceful parenting, the hypocrisy of free market economists who work for governmetn institutions, and libertarians who naively believe that we can achieve and maintain a libertarian society while at the same time importing unlimited numbers of people from other countries who hold Marxist and/or theocratic political ideologies into the society in which we live, even though they can collect welfare and become registered voters after they obtain citizenship, where the statistic show that a large percentage of them vote in favor of socialist programs and gun control.

    Having been involved in the Libertarian movement for over 20 years now myself, I can see where Stefan is coming from with feeling frustrated in dealing with some libertarians.

    Stefan Molyneux: Why I Was Wrong About Libertarians

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZzeC06hVvA

  97. Andy

    Molyneux and Jones think that Hillary Clinton was about to start World War III. Could Trump end up getting the country into a world war? Maybe. This remains to be seen.

    I do not know if Jones and Molyneux are correct here. I am just posting this for informational purposes, as in giving people here are chance to hear them make their case.

    Trump’s Victory Averted World War III | Alex Jones and Stefan Molyneux

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9OxLZz_IjD8

  98. William Saturn

    On YouTube, if you click “share” and then “embed”, a code starting with “iframe width” will pop up, and if you copy the code and post it here, it will embed the video in the comment.

  99. Andy

    Stefan makes an excellent point here about how large numbers of immigrants who hold Marxist and/or theocratic views are creating not only a democraphic shift, but also a political shift in this country, which favors more socialism and more gun control laws.

    I’ve been bringing up these points for years myself.

    Stefan Molyneux: The Truth About America’s Survival | Demographics and the 2016 Election

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GN_FOCF3vIQ

  100. clesiakcrusader@gmail.com

    Okay so Andy here’s the thing:

    There’s a video on YouTube “alleging” (LOL!) that Trump is a Jehovah Witness.

    Trump is NOT a Jehovah Witness, I just want to make that clear. I am not baptized and I am not even an unbaptized publisher, but here is the thing:

    Jehovah’s Kingdom will come about, and we will know when it will happen, and thankfully, Jehovah God gave us his word, The Bible, which has many translations, but here’s the thing:

    Objectively speaking, The New World Translations are the most accurate. I’ve spent LITERALLY dozens of hours trying to “debunk” Jehovah Witnesses. There’s nothing to debunk = they are an organization made up of imperfect people! But they are not judgmental, they welcome everything, and all their magazines and Watchtower magazines as well as Awake!

    JW.org and you can look up your local Kingdom Hall and attend. I very highly recommend it!

  101. Andy

    Here’s something for those who think that demographics are not important, or that it is “mean” or “racist” to talk about demographics.

    I’ve posted links about this here before, but here’s a new one I recently discovered.

    Now let’s say that white men, and not just white men, but American born white men (white men from other countries tend to be pretty worthless when it comes to the right to keep and bear arms), end up becoming a minority of the population. Do you think that we’d still have the right to keep and bear arms?

    When you break down support for gun rights by race, the only group that has a majority support in favor of gun rights is whites, but it is not that big of a majority, as surveys indicates that it comes out to about 57%. If you narrow the field down to whites who live in rural areas, it goes up to around 70-75% in favor of the right to keep and bear arms. If you narrow the field down further to only include white natural born Americans who’d be classified as being “rednecks” or “hillbillies” or “cowboys” support for gun rights goes up a lot higher than that.

    Yes, I understand that there are certainly exceptions to this you can find at least some gun rights supporters from all backgrounds, but I’m talking averages here.

    Now consider this: If we lose the right to keep and bear arms, then we will lose everything else.

    A combination of big city “liberals” and foreigners could end up being the death sentence for the right to keep and bear arms in this country.

    Who owns guns in America? White men, mostly.

    http://www.vox.com/2015/12/4/9849524/gun-race-statistics

  102. Andy

    So are we just supposed to sit back and allow demographic shifts to take place that are DESTROYING the right to keep and bear arms, and pushing us into even more of a socialist state than we’ve already got?

    The NRA will fall. It’s inevitable.
    Just look at the demographics.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/10/19/the-nra-will-fall-its-inevitable/?utm_term=.4427a5016331

    From the article: “The fastest-growing minority group in America is Latinos. Between 2000 and 2010, the nation’s Latino population grew by 43 percent. Hispanics, which make up 17 percent of the population today, are expected to grow to 30 percent of the population in the coming decades.

    Gun control is extremely popular among Hispanics, with 75 percent favoring gun safety over gun rights.

    Asian Americans also represent a growing anti-gun demographic. Although only about 5 percent of the population today, the Asian American population is predicted to triple over the next few decades. A recent poll of Asian American registered voters found that 80 percent supported stricter gun laws.”

  103. Krzysztof Lesiak

    Andy,

    Keep up the good fight! You are one of the very few beacons on IPR who understands that racial, cultural and ethnic identity is very important to a human being! Facts cannot be racist!

    For example, let’s get VERY basic here, okay? Hypothetical scenario: A Bulgarian guy in Bulgaria wants to marry a Bulgarian girl. However, the Bulgarian guy was born in, let’s say, Des Plaines, Illinois, which has a Bulgarian Orthodox cathedral, a restaurant called the Eagle Restaurant that has Bulgarian cuisine and another Bulgarian restaurant on Manheim Rd next to the Illinois state (fictional entity!!) Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). There’s also a Bulgarian supermarket somewhere in downtown Des Plaines, which is right next to Mount Prospect, Illinois, where I have lived since 1999.

    This Bulgarian fellow meets the Bulgarian woman of his dreams. Matchbook, fairtaile, he says to himself, this is the one. I’ll marry her someday. Love at first sight. Real . Real. Nothing has EVER been more real to him.

    The problem is this Bulgarian girl lives in Bulgaria, and she met him online, through Facebook, in a group let’s say that has ties to Volen Siderov, the leader of the Bulgarian nationalist (OH NO! Nationalism is an evil word! It’s worse than rappers who lace their songs with profanity that teach young men, black, white hispanic, etc to degrade women and abuse drugs and alcohol!) party Attaka, which has been described as nationalist and chauvinist by some. I am unfamiliar with Bulgarian history so I really do not know how to answer such charges.

    However, this guy is so madly in love with this beautiful Bulgarian girl = you know, he was born in the United States, and he is gulity for some reason, he was born in the wrong country, he wishes, oh God , he prays , maybe not prays, but well okay let’s look at it like this = he feels that no matter what he does, she is so pure, and he’s unpure (drug addiction, pornography addiction, he disrespected his mother, grew up without a father figure in his life, heck, maybe he didn’t even excell in high school, maybe he even didn’t graduate =—–all this is in his past, and there were times when he didn’t even think his identity mattered because the public concentration camps known as high schools in the Masonic United States of America.

    Yet he’s in love with this girl. It’s a feeling he doesn’t let go.

    Then he enters a Kingdom Hall for the first time and he really starts thinking.

    Plot twist, what do you say?

    Is there something wrong with that?

    Cheers!

  104. Andy

    A Michael Bloomberg gun control initiative just narrowly passed in Nevada. It lost by a pretty wide margin in every county, accept for the most populated county, which is Clark County. It passed in Clark County and this was enough to swing the rest of the state.

    What is different about Clark County as compared to the rest of Nevada? Clark County has a higher percentage of foreigners and big city liberals than the rest of Nevada (many of whom moved in from California).

    This initiative never would have passed in the once “cowboy” state of Nevada if not for the radical shift in demographics that has taken place there.

    Nevada narrowly approves Question 1

    http://www.guns.com/2016/11/09/nevada-narrowly-approves-question-1/

  105. Andy

    “Krzysztof Lesiak
    November 22, 2016 at 06:15
    Andy,

    Keep up the good fight! You are one of the very few beacons on IPR who understands that racial, cultural and ethnic identity is very important to a human being! Facts cannot be racist!”

    I think that it is possible for people from other countries/races/ethic groups to adopt different ideologies. Current LP Chair of Colorado, Lily Tang, originally from China, is one such exception. Lily Tang is a strong supporter of the right to keep and bear arms and individual freedom in general.

    There are of course white natural born Americans who are not in favor of gun rights.

    I am talking about averages and statistics, both of which clearly illustrate that large numbers of foreign people entering the land mass known as the USA under current conditions is having a detrimental effect on freedom in this country.

    Are there things that could be done to fix this situation that does not include shutting out all immigrants? I believe that there are, but unfortunately I am not in a position to do much of anything about it.

  106. paulie Post author

    The “reporter with a disability” was a lying scumbag that deserved to be mocked.

    Bullshit, he accurately pointed out that Trump was lying about the supposed thousands of Muslims celebrating 9/11 in NJ. The lying scumbag in this instance was, of course, Trump. And mocking the man for his disability would have been an incredibly shitty thing to do and a very bad role model even if Trump had not been the liar in the situation.

  107. paulie Post author

    He didn’t even know the reporter was disabled.

    Another Trump lie. There are multiple records of Trump being very familiar with that reporter. Yet another Trump-created scam. Trump is a scumbag.

  108. paulie Post author

    OK, so let’s get this straight. Donald Trump’s daughter, Ivanika, is married to a Jewish guy, and she converted to Judaism, and she is raising her kids Jewish. Donald Trump’s other kids, except for his youngest son Barron, who is only 10, are either dating Jews, or are married to Jews. Donald Trump has several Jewish business associates, and he had several Jews who worked on his campaign, such as Steve Mnuchin, who was the finance chair of Donald Trump for President. Donald Trump went to the AIPAC conference and pledged his support for Israel. Donald Trump speaks to Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and recently invited him to visit the USA.

    Now you are telling us that Donald Trump nominated a guy who indiscriminately hates Jews to a high level position in his administration.

    This makes a lot of sense….NOT.

    So what? Maybe Trump’s feelings about Jews are …complicated. He believes that Jews control the world and that you have to deal with Jews to get certain things done. The same person can harbor resentment and hatred towards Jews. It happens. Or maybe Trump doesn’t have a problem with Jews at all, but finds common ground with Bannon on hating Muslims, non-“Whites”, feminists, etc, etc.

  109. paulie Post author

    I originally said that, “…Trump’s rejection of [PC] (which is literally the only good thing about him) is one of the main reasons he won.” Obviously, that is not the same thing as saying that I think it was good that he won.

    No, but you are saying his “rejection of PC” is a good thing, whereas in reality it’s just an embrace of bigotry on his part. I’ll agree, however, that it’s one of the reasons he won.

    To be clear, I think it is very bad that he won.

    I’m glad we agree.

    I was just pointing out that every cloud has a silver lining, and the silver lining to the Trump cloud is that it shows that many people have had enough of being shushed and scolded every time they dare to disagree with the self-appointed gatekeepers of allowable opinion. If so, that is a positive development.

    I don’t see it as a positive development. More like pandora’s box being opened. There’s a whole lot of ugliness under that rock.

  110. paulie Post author

    he problems with Trump did not appear to many to be as bad as the long record of supporting big government policies and engaging in blatant corruption as Hillary Clinton.

    Also disagreed. I guess a lot of people missed Trump’s long record of supporting gigantic government policies and engaging in blatant corruption as well.

  111. paulie Post author

    Was this a sound strategy? Maybe, or maybe not (I lean towards thinking that it was not), but it really can’t be understated how terrible a candidate Hillary Clinton was.

    It can’t be overstated how terrible Trump was and still is.

    Yes, Trump MIGHT end up being as bad as Hillary. Could he be worse than Hillary? Maybe, but I have a hard time seeing anyone being worse than Hillary Clinton.

    Then you should open your eyes.

    We will probably never know for sure as to whether or not Hillary is worse than Trump, but I see worst case scenario that Trump is no worse than Hillary.

    A lack of vision is a terrible thing.

  112. paulie Post author

    This is why Stefan Molyneux got behind Trump

    No, it’s not. The reason Molyneux got behind Trump is that Molyneux, like Trump, is a white nationalist and a racist. Molyneux didn’t even support Ron Paul, because supposedly Molyneux was too pure for voting and politics. So much for all that.

  113. paulie Post author

    Maybe it will turn out that Trump will get into office and do a lot of bad things, and maybe these folks from the pro-liberty community who got behind Trump will end up regretting it.

    When they do it will be a bit late. But then some of them may turn out to be opportunist fascist bootlickers to the very end.

  114. paulie Post author

    Should these people coming out in support of Trump take away from everything else that these people have done for the cause of liberty? I don’t think so. Why? Because I think the people that I mentioned above have all done a lot of great things for the cause, so even if they made a wrong headed decision here, the good they have done over the years far outweighs this.

    Getting on board the train for a fascist dictator in the making pretty much proves conclusively that anyone’s past advocacy for liberty was at best coincidental. In the case of some of these people, such as Molyneux, there were signs all along that this is where they were headed, and the Trump fascist movement and their involvement in it is just further proof of what was already in evidence.

  115. paulie Post author

    If you are going to condemn self proclaimed libertarians for supporting Donald Trump, then you should also condemn self proclaimed libertarians for supporting Gary Johnson and Bill Weld.

    No, Johnson and Weld were never any danger of coming to power and creating a fascist state. Unlike Trump. I don’t care about defeated candidates in an election that’s already over. I care that a fascist dictator in the making is being transitioned to power in this country. President Biff Tannen is about to become a reality. Hitler with nukes. Focus on that. The “libertarian” enablers are just the cherry on top of the giant cake of fascist shit.

  116. paulie Post author

    First, so what? People deserve to be treated with the same amount of respect, no matter how much or how little power they have. If it’s OK to say something about the CEO of a Fortune 500 company, then it’s OK to say the same thing about a homeless person, or vice versa.

    Punching down is a real thing. If you don’t get that, maybe other people here will.

  117. paulie Post author

    Second, even if you disagree with me about that, it’s still false that Trump has only directed his supposedly “misogynist” comments at powerless women. You examples prove that. Since when is a beauty contestant powerless?

    Since he was her boss and forced her to humiliate herself in public.

    Like it or not, physical appearance is a huge source of power in our society, and people who are considered physically attractive (like a beauty contestant, for example) are generally treated much better than less physically attractive people. And what about Megyn Kelly, or Rosie O’Donnell. Trump has been accused of making “misogynist” comments about them. Do you consider them to be “powerless” women?

    In a relative sense, he was taking power away from them and from women in general with his comments.

  118. paulie Post author

    Sure, words can hurt people’s feelings, but they are still just words. They have no power, beyond what the person they are directed at gives them.

    They are justified in giving them power, in some respect. A few shouted or grumbled slurs here and there may not be a big deal, but in some cases they are the prelude to physical attacks, or a reminder or physical attacks or both. In other cases they just contribute to making some people see their way to acting out on those words. In some cases they just make people feel unsafe, which is exactly the intent.

    They can’t “make” anyone do anything. For example, there are no words that could ever “make” me commit rape, or torture an innocent person, or any of dozens of other horrible actions.

    That’s good. Other people are more marginal. They can be led by a crowd to come to see some actions as OK because the targets were first dehumanized in the larger culture with mere words.

    Are there words that could “make” you do those things?

    I hope not, but I’ve been “peer influenced” to do some very shitty things before. I would rather not get into specific examples, but yes, I know from first hand experience, as both victim and victimizer, that it does happen.

    And even if words are worthy of condemnation, that doesn’t mean they should be silenced.

    I agree. Just because I’m not for normalizing certain kinds of expression, or electing a leader who engages in them himself and/or makes people who do feel like it’s OK because of him, doesn’t mean that I favor using force to silence them; I don’t.

    Wouldn’t you rather know where a person stands? As I said on the other thread, if someone says something you don’t like, either ignore it or refute it. But don’t try to silence them.

    Expressing disapproval in strong terms and using freedom of dissociation are acceptable responses.

  119. paulie Post author

    And if you’re interested in a free society, I don’t think responding to objectionable views with the old Archie Bunker line (“Stifle yourself!”) is wise, nor is cheering on others who take such an approach.

    It’s OK for us to disagree on what responses are best towards which people and/or viewpoints. I agree with you that force isn’t what I call for as a response to any viewpoint, per se.

  120. paulie Post author

    This is a great video where Stefan talks about

    Contradiction in terms.

    importing unlimited numbers of people

    There you go again. People don’t get “imported” or “exported.” They are not products that get shipped from a factory to a store. They are people. They move, for their own reasons, usually economic, sometimes seeking freedom or escaping persecution or to enjoy greater civil liberties.

  121. paulie Post author

    Could Trump end up getting the country into a world war?

    Absolutely, and I’ll be pleasantly surprised if it does not happen. Jones and Molyneux are pushing Trumpist-Putinist fascist propaganda.

  122. Krzysztof Lesiak

    Paulie,

    Here’s the thing.

    I’m not a nationalist anymore BECAUSE I go to JEHOVAH WITNESS meetings

    JW.org

    However, the Polish community in Chicago was ROCK SOLID behind Trump. I didn’t vote, in fact I NEVER VOTED IN MY LIFE, not once. I’m 20 years old, March 7th, 1996.

    Engage, nigga, come on please,…..hold up:

    The ENTIRE Eastern European community was behind Trump. Rock Solid. Trump won at least 70% of the Polish American vote in my opinion, though many Polaks like myself follow politics closely but don’t vote or get in for the money, cuz it sucks man.

    You speak Russian Paulie?

    Do you know what the word zydokomuna means?

    Do you even TRY TO UNDERSTAND EASTERN EUROPEAN WHITE CHRISTIAN culture, or are you a complete cultural marxist.
    ???

    Don’t take this as an assault, okay!!! I respect you gr eatly = you are the only IPR contributor I’ve met in person and it’s clear to me at least that you are doing your petitioning work because you genuinely care about the libertarian cause, even if you self=identity as a left-libertarian , fine, your a human being first, Jehovah made you just like he gave life through to EVERY SINGLE human being on the planet.

    However, why won’t you take the time to realize that us REAL Polaks, the real Polaks, we believe in Bog HOnor Ojczyzna and us Eastern European Christians who are white, coincidentally:

    1) We believe marriage is one man and one woman
    2) We love our women
    3) We are proud to be Polish

    What the heck do you NOT understand about that, Paulie? Seriously>?!?!?!

  123. paulie Post author

    So are we just supposed to sit back and allow demographic shifts to take place

    Yes. Yes you are. And I’ve already debunked your bogus statistics about immigrant groups and gun rights on past threads; I don’t feel like looking it up again.

  124. paulie Post author

    Keep up the good fight! You are one of the very few beacons on IPR who understands that racial, cultural and ethnic identity is very important to a human being!

    Well, now there’s a back handed compliment if I ever saw one. Andy should be concerned that people think this about him. To be fair, I don’t get this impression from Andy in person, but it should make Andy pause and think about how he is coming off with this drivel that he is parroting here.

    BTW, nice autobiographical story Chris… you could have just said Poland, rather than Bulgaria.

  125. paulie Post author

    What is different about Clark County as compared to the rest of Nevada? Clark County has a higher percentage of foreigners and big city liberals than the rest of Nevada (many of whom moved in from California).

    So it’s really true, you are calling for immigration controls between different states, cities and counties! Right? A wall and border patrol and identity paper checks at every jurisdiction’s boundary?

  126. paulie Post author

    I’m not a nationalist anymore

    So that’s why you posted “14/88” and Daily Stormer links to your Jewish congresswoman? I have screenshot.

    I didn’t vote, in fact I NEVER VOTED IN MY LIFE, not once.

    Keep up the good work. Although, it probably doesn’t matter anymore.

    You speak Russian Paulie?

    Yes, I’m conversational.

    Do you know what the word zydokomuna means?

    That’s not Russian, but close enough. “Kike-communism,” basically. It’s the mirror image for the slur “islamofascism.”

    Do you even TRY TO UNDERSTAND EASTERN EUROPEAN WHITE CHRISTIAN culture, or are you a complete cultural marxist.
    ???

    Ah, there’s that bullshit phrase “cultural marxism.” I’m not a marxist of any sort, but I was born in the USSR and saw what real cultural Marxism is actually like, unlike the reich wing’s crazy fantasies. On that topic:

    Brian W. Ryman
    20 hrs ·
    Whence Cultural Marxism?

    In the past couple of weeks my attempts to address real and confounding societal issues have been rebuffed by people accusing me of “Cultural Marxism”. Since my solutions to the problems were rooted in voluntary individual action and not compulsion by a centralized governmental authority, I was taken aback by the criticism. This led me to desire to understand what my detractors meant by the term “cultural Marxism” and why they choose to use it where it wasn’t warranted.Following are some of my discoveries.

    By the late 1990’s the term “political correctness” had lost some of its incendiary luster and was falling from favor among those with a pyrotechnic inclinations. They wanted something that more clearly vilified and seared their opponents. Enter Paul Michael Weyrich with a new term and a conspiratorial back story to support it. Weyrich was one of the founders of the Moral [sic] Majority and the Heritage Foundation. He was a religious conservative that bemoaned the fact that “politics has failed because of the collapse of the culture. The culture we are living in becomes an ever-wider sewer. In truth, I think we are caught up in a cultural collapse of historic proportions, a collapse so great that it simply overwhelms politics.” The cultural loss that he was lamenting was that of “our traditional, Western, Judeo-Christian culture”. To him any thing else was “an alien ideology, an ideology bitterly hostile to Western culture” and was the cause of “cultural disintegration”.

    Weyrich wove a story of Marxists intent on bringing down western civilization by degrading our traditional values and encouraging sexual deviance as a means to get the seeds of their ideology planted in composed ground. He, with the help of William Lind, traced their conspiracy back to 1923 where a group of Germans formed the Frankfort School, that set in motion a plan to use “a coalition of blacks, students, feminist women and homosexuals” to implement their war on Western Civilization. This conspiracy was known by the enlightened few as “Cultural Marxism”.

    It is easy to see why the alt-right, with their xenophobic outlook and repressed sexuality would come to embrace the term coined by these troglodytic-conservatives. It is baffling to hear people who frequent libertarian circles and espouse a belief in libertarian principles use it.

    If you feel that my posts regarding my concern about social ills is cultural Marxism, then you are a part of the problem. There are real, libertarian, voluntary actions that can be taken to solve problems facing our society. This is why I entered the movement. I am a Libertarian BECAUSE I care about others and want to elevate our society by making it more prosperous and free!

    Back to Chris:

    However, why won’t you take the time to realize that us REAL Polaks, the real Polaks, we believe in Bog HOnor Ojczyzna and us Eastern European Christians who are white, coincidentally

    Depends who you ask. Some nordicists claim that East Europeans are more Asian than Caucasian due to all the waves of invasions from the central asian steppes e.g. Goths, Huns, Bulgars, Mongols etc over the centuries. As for the actual Caucasians, from the Caucasus, they are ironically enough not considered white in Russia. Me? I’m mostly Jewish ancestry, part Russian, part Mongol, part various ethnicities from Eastern and Western Europe and Central Asia. If I’m not infertile I have biological progeny of all the so-called races. If you believe the bible, I had ancestors who were slaves in Africa. Slavs were used as slaves so often in Europe and Asia that our word slave comes from it. I had a Mexican-American wife and I have often been mistaken for Latino (even though I am no part Latino), Middle Eastern/Muslim, a few times when I was tanned and had my clothes and hair a certain way I had people who though I was mixed race white/black. I grew up having friends of all so-called races and lived in all kinds of different neighborhoods – many that were mostly or even overwhelmingly so-called “non-white.” I’ve been to a lot of countries and a lot of parts of this country. So, given my background, you might have a clue why I find all racial and ethnic prejudice to be disgusting and stupid.

    However, why won’t you take the time to realize that us REAL Polaks, the real Polaks,

    It’s not that I realize or don’t realize or understand or don’t understand; it’s just not that much of a concern to me. There are small minded bigots and blind traditionalists among all ethnicities. Still, it’s somewhat ironic given the history between Poland and Germany during that era that you were posting “14/88” and dailystormer shit. I don’t need to tell you that you have an irrational side; you already know.

  127. Krzysztof Lesiak

    Yeah man, for sure.

    Thanks for your response, Paulie. I’ll read it in detail later.

    I have to do some reading /Bible Study, walking etc….. before I read your comment in detail. I remember the name Brian W. Ryman. I posted one of his articles to IPR.

    Yes I do have an irrational – LOL the Big Pharma cartel would call it “schizophrenic” or “bipolar manic depression or whatever.” Yes. I’ve been in enough psyche wards , well 12 times. One time I was in the Highland Park psyche ward. Looking back, Highland Park is a Jewish community, and once I said something to the effect of “keep living your hedonistic and immoral lifestyle ” to a lady I thought was Jewish because she was so rude to me when I was just doing my job for Weed Man Lawn care.

    Also, Schakowsky is a communist. And Schakowsky’s husband is a criminal. However, she’s a woman, and she deserves more respect than that from someone that used to live in her district and literally lives across the street from it.

    However, Jan Schakowsky’s husband Robert Creamer was caught with bribes, paying people to disrupt and cause violence at Trump rallies.

    Guess what. I met Willis Carto, Michael Collins Piper and Eustace Mullins at American Free Press office. I’ve actually been to the place that the man who founded the most dangerous organization in America works for, you get the point, please don'[t except word perfection. When I was 14 years old, American Free Press published my letter to the editor in their newspaper, it had to do with the Polish plane crash. Yes, I brought up Polska Partia Narodowa and the Liga Polskich Rodzin.

    Honestly, I love following Polish politics. It’s so intriguining.

    There’s a Polish politian named Janusz Korwin Mikke who is either Jewish, Mormon, Christian, Catholic, None of the Above or everything in between and above and cross and over and whatever, he’s interesting, has interesting things to say.

    Post scriptum EDIT EDIT EDIT EDIT

    Yes, I can see why you abhor ALL KINDS of racism and I do realize that in order for me to at some point get baptized as a Jehovah Witness I HAVE to stop with that race baiting Daily Stormer garbage.

    I was the campaign manager for black congressional candidate, David Earl Williams III< who intends on seeking and winning the Libertarian Party of Illinois' 2018 presidential election.

    One of my FORMERLY good friends was a Latin King, he was Mexican, he was born in the US, but he spoke Spanish fluently and even taught me some gems like the definition of "pendejo" and gordita and chorizzo, Mexican cuisine. Good person.

    So yes, I can see why you get frustrated seeing me post 14/88 "Gas the kikes" Daily Stormer links.

    I'm sure you understand that the reason I spent so much time on the Daily Stormer's website is because it was an outlet for me. I read David Duke's book, but David Duke is a SCUMBAG based on what I've read about him from an ACTUAL WHITE NATIONALIST named John De Pitro who knows Duke. David Duke certailnly appeals to someone like myself in that he says the truth, he exposes the Zionists…however, David Duke is a sleazebag and fcks people over, and hits on women of every stripe.

    John De Pitro or something. There was also a book written about Duke.

    Duke is a classical narcissist with a Messiah complex.

    However, he could also be a victim of MK Ultra.

    Two wrongs don't make a right.

    David Duke says a lot of good stuff but his character discredits him a lot.

    He's not liked by some seasoned white nationalists. I do have a stormfront account, skier137, which is the same name as my YouTube channel that I no longer use.

    Peace out IPR community. I have to go READ THE BIBLE! New World Translations, you know the one put out by Jehovah WItnesses, the only group of Christians that DON"T JUDGE YOU BASED ON WHERE YOU HAVE P R E V I O U S L Y B E E N IN LIFEE!!!!

    Peace out.

  128. Krzysztof Lesiak

    Look, I don’t hate Jews, I’m just opposed to Zionism, I’m a ferocious anti-Zionist, that’s really what it comes down too.

    Jill Pyeatt is anti-Zionist as well, though – —- she’s diplomatic with it, I”m crazy off the deep end, and I know I should stop.

    Really I just ….damn it, I want to marry this girl. That’s all that matters.

    I’ll read through IPR later tonight, I n eed some walking, physical excercise, I plan on going to the library.

  129. Krzysztof Lesiak

    LAST COMMENT FOR NOW:::::;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

    I made some anti – Semetic comments in the Castle 2016 group. I like the fact that Darrell Castle received over 190,000 votes last time I checked Dave Leip’s Atlas.

    Darrell Castle was perhaps the best candidate in the history o the Constitution Party. I’ll explain later.

    I might listen to some Louis Farrakhan later in the day. Who knows.

    By the way THE FIRST RAPPER I EVER LISTEND TO WAS the guy from Peru, Immortal Technique. I have mad respect for Immortal Technique. His lyrics have such a powerful message, Techinque is pure talent.

    His interview with Alex Jones from Opublikowany 23.02.2013

    Immortal Technique (Felipe Coronel) is a revolutionary. Born in Peru, he immigrated to Harlem, NY and eventually ended up in prison. He left with a new focus on music. His aggressive style gained him instant notoriety as a battle rapper, and his first album was a word-of-mouth sensation. Unwilling to change his message for mainsteam, he remained completely independent. His subsequent projects have permanently found their way into the hearts and minds of truth seekers worldwide. Going behind the scenes, The (R)evolution of Immortal Technique is an exploration of one man’s global journey to fight injustice through music.
    http://viperrecords.com/index.php/art

    PEACE.

  130. Andy

    “paulie Post author
    November 22, 2016 at 12:47
    ‘What is different about Clark County as compared to the rest of Nevada? Clark County has a higher percentage of foreigners and big city liberals than the rest of Nevada (many of whom moved in from California).’
    So it’s really true, you are calling for immigration controls between different states, cities and counties! Right? A wall and border patrol and identity paper checks at every jurisdiction’s boundary?”

    If the Libertarian Zone concept were to be implemented, as in private, voluntary cities/territories/zones, then I would say yes.

    Just in case anyone here is not familiar with the concept, read about it here:

    http://independentpoliticalreport.com/2014/07/andy-jacobs-the-libertarian-zone/

    There is actually a project being undertaken right now by libertarians in Norway to create a private city that would be for libertarians only. It is to be called Liberstad. I had an email exchange with one of the people behind Liberstad about my Libertarian Zone concept, and this person said that they agreed with me.

    Given our present system in our present society, I would say no.

    What could be done?

    1) Stop enticing foreigners with welfare programs.

    2) Make it more difficult to become an American citizen. I have suggested this here before, but for those who missed it, the Naturalization class should require extensive understanding of the Declaration of Independence and US Constitution, a class in free market economics, and a class on the right to keep and bear arms (which would include trips to a firing range). Immigration contract provisions should also include prohibitions against accepting welfare, or working as a lobbyist for a foreign nation.

    There are plenty of problems with the domestic population as well, but this is a longer discussion.

    There really should have been a provision in the Constitution that prohibits people who work for or contract with the government, or who receive government welfare, from voting, or from donating to political campaigns.

    If voting and taking part in politics were only limited to people who do not directly receive anything from government, I’d be willing to bet that we’d have a lot more freedom right now.

  131. natural born citizen

    I’ve noticed “all sorts of hate” in the headlines at IPR.

    “Why Hillary and the corporate cabal lost” — “Cabal?” Sounds like an anti-semitic conspiracy theory!!!

    “Your tears are delicious.” – Pretty hateful to feed off the pain of others!

    I’ve also noticed a lot of hate speech on this page from the author.

    “Despicable” — From “despise,” which of course means “hate.”

    Calling someone a “piece of shit” is also very hateful.

    Why is IPR giving a platform to this kind of hate speech?

  132. Andy

    Check out the Liberstad project in Norway:

    http://www.liberstad.com/

    “Liberstad is a project which aims to establish Norway’s first private city. In a private city all property is private and all services are performed by private actors. Liberstad will be a city built on the philosophy of anarchism, the non aggression principle and private property rights.”

  133. natural born citizen

    mr paulie 16:14 11-11 —

    Thanks for admitting you were talking out of your ass when you asserted “Trump supporters,” with absolutely no evidence, had burned down a church. That was big of you. I’d encourage you, moving forward, to stop posting false “facts” in the first place. We wouldn’t want IPR to become a haven for #FakeNews.

  134. paulie Post author

    Or you could learn to read, but whatever. I don’t care. They probably did, but if not that particular time, there’s a whole lot of that coming.

  135. Andy

    “paulie Post author
    November 22, 2016 at 12:39
    ‘So are we just supposed to sit back and allow demographic shifts to take place’
    Yes. Yes you are. And I’ve already debunked your bogus statistics about immigrant groups and gun rights on past threads; I don’t feel like looking it up again.”

    My arguments are not statist. If anything, THEY ARE WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF GOVERNMENT DID NOT EXIST.

    The statist line of thinking is mass subsidized government migration of NON-PEACEFUL people into a society where they can take part in various welfare programs and register to vote, and where it it ILLEGAL for anyone to discriminate against any of these people.

    Unfortunately, some libertarians have been so indoctrinated into this STATIST line of thinking that says that mass immigration is always a good thing, never mind whether the immigrants are peaceful or not, that they appear to not listen to any rational arguments or look at any data and prefer to stick their fingers in their ears and shout “racist” or other mindless slogans like a bunch of politically correct Social Justice Warriors.

    Here is the bottom line, IF GOVERNMENT DID NOT EXIST, THE STATIST MIGRATION THAT WE SEE TODAY WOULD NOT HAPPEN.

    So any libertarian who acts like the current statist migration that we see has anything to do with libertarianism is not being intellectually honest.

    The ideology of the people that you live around is important. We don’t have a libertarian society now because most of the people that we live around do not want a libertarian society. This is the entire point of the Free State Project, and of Liberland and Liberstad.

  136. Andy

    Lew Rockwell DESTROYS the bogus arguments put forth by “open borders” libertarians (who really promote STATIST MIGRATION).

    I consider “open borders” to be kind of like private prisons. Private prisons is not a great libertarian reform in a country where people are prosecuted for victimless crimes, and where private prisons are funded via taxation, and where private prisons can donate to political campaigns, and where politically connected people buy stock in private prisons.

    Libertarians are not, or at least should not, really be in favor of “open borders,” libertarians should support LAND PRIVATIZATION (and when I saw privatize land, i do not mean to just turn it over to the politically connected), and then allowing individual land owners, or groups of land owners working in voluntary associations, to set their own migration and immigration policies. THIS IS THE TRUE LIBERTARIAN POSITION ON THE ISSUE.

    This is also like the gay marriage issue. Lots of libertarians celebrated the decision that said that gays should be able to get state marriage licenses. I see this as only being an interim solution to the problem, because the REAL libertarian position on the issue, is that government should not be in the business of licensing marriage at all.

    It is funny how politically correct libertarians will recognize that private prisons under our present conditions are not really a libertarian reform, and most politically correct libertarians will admit that gays getting state marriage licenses is not the true libertarian reform, because the true libertarian reform is to get the government out of marriage licensing, but these same libertarians stick their fingers in their ears and turn a blind eye when anyone points out that current immigration is NOT an example of the free market, but is rather STATIST MIGRATION, and there are negative consequences from it.

    Open Borders: A Libertarian Reappraisal | Lew Rockwell

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5wZjdEl9F8

  137. paulie Post author

    And I’ve already debunked your bogus statistics about immigrant groups and gun rights on past threads; I don’t feel like looking it up again

    My arguments are not statist.

    I said bogus statistics. I know you know what statistics are.

    But, yes, as also previously explained to death on other threads, the regime is not a legitimate owner or part-owner of all property in this part of the globe, so it’s not analogous to your hypothetical libertarian zone and any time the regime uses force to deport people from property sold to them by willing sellers, or rented to them by willing landlords, and jobs given to them by willing employers, it is the regime which is initiating force.

    You’ve also been given more than enough links proving why your statistics (there’s that word again) about immigration are false and/or misleading when it comes to everything from welfare to crime to political attitudes. You showed no signs of reading or understanding them then, so there would not be a point in looking them up again now, beside the point that I just don’t feel like it.

    And for the umpteenth time, stop it with the ALL CAPS already. It’s rude, is considered yelling in internet conversations and it’s not welcome here.

    If you want to go join or start a liberland or libertarian zone or whatever, go do that, and stop pretending it has anything to do with US immigration policy today. And as for how immigrants vote… even if that were relevant to the right to emigrate, and the right to immigrate without which no right to emigrate would have any meaning, it wasn’t primarily immigrants that just voted for a fascist dictator in the making, Donald Trump. It was disproportionately so-called white, native born Americans. Maybe they should all be deported to Europe, before they turn the US into something like the European fascist regimes of the 20th century? Of course, the regime should not have the power to deport them either…but if we were to grant the regime such a power, that would be a great place to start using it.

  138. paulie Post author

    Lew Rockwell DESTROYS

    In your imagination. In reality, his strained and laughable argument destroys only itself.

    I consider “open borders” to be kind of like private prisons.

    In no way, shape or form. Open borders are what naturally occurs when statist regimes don’t start using money that they take under duress in the form of taxes to hire thugs to get in the way of people crossing regime lines in the sand. We have open borders now between states, cities, counties, etc. The US had an essentially open border with Mexico before Nixon’s drug war and a much more open border with Canada before the Bush global war of terror. Open borders are the norm; closed borders happen only when statist regime gangs get oppressive enough, usually under hyped up fears of drugs or terrorism or due to racist and/or economically ignorant dogwhistles about foreigners “taking our jobs” or mixing the races or taking over the country, all of which is crap and all based on collectivism rather than treating people as individuals.

    Private prisons are paid for with tax coercion and a supply of slaves who are kidnapped and forced into labor for the private prisons by regimes, using regime coerced funds, for breaking regime laws (which in many cases are not real crimes with real victims). This is in no way analogous to the naturally occurring phenomenon of open borders. Borders are not property lines, so crossing them is not trespass. If it were, regimes would have all the other customary rights of property owners, which would be a scary thing indeed and far more totalitarian than what we have now, much less any libertarian fantasy world. They haven’t earned the right to be part-owners of all property within the borders they claim, since regimes don’t produce anything, and thus can’t mix their labor with anything to legitimately acquire property. They can only take or coerce, and by no means should libertarians favor the idea that regimes are legitimate co-owners of everything within their borders. I am of course talking about existing regimes; what you do by a real contract with anyone who wants to go in on a “libertarian zone” with you is between you and them. The social contract is a fiction, and so is any legitimacy to regime co-ownership of all property which would make crossing their borders without their permission any kind of trespass.

    All of these arguments are repetitive and unnecessary since everything about the immigration issue is already addressed at length at http://openborders.info/ ( http://openborders.info/sitemap/ ) and ALL CAPS don’t make your incredibly bad arguments any less ridiculous.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *