November 2018 Open Thread

Our monthly open thread. Post news tips about alt parties and independent candidates, discuss any story that should be posted here but has not yet been posted, or even delve into completely off-topic stuff…just avoid quarantined thread subject matter and things that could get us and/or you into legal trouble such as threats, libel, and copyright infringement.

News tips can also be sent to the IPR writers who have chosen to make their contact info available at https://independentpoliticalreport.com/about/.

442 thoughts on “November 2018 Open Thread

  1. paulie Post author

    I’m not. …as I predicted since long before he was elected… it is going to get much, much worse. This is what all the people talking about how he has not done anything that terrible yet are missing. It is taking him time to move the pieces in place. Judicial appointments, replacing the career bureaucrats in the various departments with his people…Hitler took many years to ramp up too.

    I really think we will be incredibly lucky if we survive his rule without a nuclear world war.

    People who say he is “literally Hitler” ironically or not are underestimating him. Hitler never developed functional nukes.

  2. paulie Post author

    Now tell me about my “TDS” folks. Tell me again in a couple more years. Tell me how it can’t happen here. The only ones with the real TDS, as I have said all along, are those in denial about how deranged and dangerous he really is.

  3. Krzysztof Lesiak

    Well looks like Aleppo Johnson is going to hit the typical libertarian 3% mark in his race.

    Third parties are probably going to do poorly this year – check out all of the states where only duopoly candidates are running for U.S. Senate or Governor for example – Florida U.S. Senate, New York U.S. Senate, North Dakota U.S. Senate, Rhode Island U.S. Senate, South Carolina Governor, the list goes on and on. It looks like the LP is slowly fading back to its 2008 levels and Aleppo Johnson above-average performance can simply be attributed to Never Trump Republicans. Those 4,489,000 Aleppo voters (or at least 90% of them) had no interest in the Libertarian Party.

    Anyway, here’s Aleppo Johnsons’s new numbers:

    NM USSEN (KOB4/Carroll): US Sen Martin Heinrich (D) 52%, Mick Rich (R) 37%, Gary Johnson (L) 7%

    https://twitter.com/Politics1com/status/1058112837015531526

    A former two-term governor is polling at 7% in his home state – the same as virtually unknown Lucy Brenton in Indiana. Indians libs seem to get around 5% every cycle, so many Aleppo Johnson will get that, but I think it still would be funny if he won just 5%. I get this is an outlier poll, but still – Republicans are voting red because Trump is telling them too, Dems are voting blue no matter what, and independents are probably mostly voting Dem too, Scary Gary doesn’t have a lot of room to gain traction now.

  4. paulie Post author

    simply be attributed to Never Trump Republicans.

    Not quite. Exit and post election polls showed over 60% of his vote would simply not have voted at all otherwise. But even if that was true, Trump will presumably run again in 2020 and appears to be transforming the NSGOP so that’s going to continue to displace ex-NSGOP who are not on board with that transformation. Democrats will have the same issue, what were the Sanders and Clinton wings will continue to dislike and distrust each other. Both are alienating ever more people.

  5. Krzysztof Lesiak

    Another third party Senate candidates has dropped out and endorsed the duopoly candidate:

    ARIZONA. Angela Green, the Green Party nom for US Senate, ended her run for the open seat and endorsed Kyrsten Sinema (D). Green’s name, however, will remain on ballot. Green said she did not want to split the progressive vote.

    https://twitter.com/Politics1com/status/1058165026970853377

  6. Krzysztof Lesiak

    Media reported yesterday that Montana Libertarian Senate candidate Rick Breckenridge dropped out and endorsed the Republican, and though Breckenridge clarified that he’s not dropping out, the damage has been done –

    https://reason.com/blog/2018/10/31/despite-donald-trump-jr-retweet-libertar

    Great Falls Tribune:

    “I am here today to support Matt and his candidacy,” Breckenridge, a surveyor, said during the news conference. “And to endorse him in his continuing effort to be the front man in the cause of liberty.”

    Breckenridge said he expected to get 3 percent to 4 percent of the vote in Tuesday’s election, which includes Democratic incumbent Sen. Jon Tester, and that his campaign has spent about $3,000.

    “I can’t compete with $50 million Madison Avenue campaign pieces,” he said.

    Rosendale thanked Breckenridge.

    “I am honored to have endorsement of Rick Breckenridge,” he said. “I really appreciate him in joining me in (condemning) a dark money mailer that” he said was distributed by allies of Tester.

    https://www.greatfallstribune.com/story/news/2018/10/31/libertarian-withdraws-montana-senate-race/1833577002/

    This LPer basically endeded his campaign, he can walk back his words all he wants, but this is a pretty inexplicably amateur move – drop out, endorse a candidate, then change your mind.

    If a “blue wave” materializes, I expect this year will be rather awful for third parties.

  7. Krzysztof Lesiak

    Ok I guess you’re right – I actually think Breckenridge’s post merits its own IPR article. It’s really too bad that I’ve parted ways with ATPR, I miss that site, but that shit sailed two years ago. I hope guess we’ll have to wait for things at IPR to really pick up the pace when Weld announces his candidacy.

    Now back to Montana – I have to say that for a candidate in the 21st century to not post for 2 months until right before the election and not bothering to spend 20 minutes on creating a wordpress is rather low energy – I wouldn’t blame any third party candidate for running a paper campaign, save your money – but how long would it take to create a free wordpress and smack a few sentences on it as to who you are and what you believe? Twenty minutes?

    Rick Breckenridge for Senate
    Wczoraj o 19:48 ·
    First of all, contrary to some news sources and tweets, I have not dropped out of the US Senate race. I will finish this race to the very end. I do not quit a job before it is finished.

    Here is what happened and my response to those events.

    A dark money flier that is attached was received across Montana on Tuesday, October 30th. This flier is a 4th amendment piece on drone data with a picture and statement about me being a better conservative choice than Matt Rosendale. There is no notice of sponsorship as required by law and or party affiliation.

    I started receiving calls asking if I had sent out this negative flier and if I was responsible for its content. I was contacted by Rep. Greg Hertz
    from my house district to see if I was putting out false information about Matt Rosendale. I forwarded a copy to the state Libertarian chair and informed him of the dark money hit piece but I had no evidence regarding the point of origin.

    After several other accusations against me for sponsoring this negative mailer, I decided that it must be addressed to not only save my personal reputation as a surveyor but to bring attention to the real problem: illegal dark money in Montana.

    That, and only that is the limit of my support statement of Matt Rosendale. I have collected $900 in campaign contributions to date. I do not have the financial means to counter the flier that inferred my campaign was the source of the negative ad against Rosendale.

    I am convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the perpetrators of this illegal campaign activity are Democratic operatives that share responsibility for this flier. The bulk permit is out if a union office in Nevada and the printing out of Edison, NJ.

    The statements I made on October 31st must be taken in context. This is about dark money in Montana politics, not about my statement of support for the Republican candidate. If the evidence had pointed to Republican political operatives, I would have endorsed Jon Tester. I chose a course of action that I thought best to not only preserve my professional reputation but to shine a light on illegal activities with the only venue I had available.

    The cause of Liberty is threatened by illegal campaign activities and those engaging in those nefarious schemes must be held accountable for their actions. It is my hope that by my statements today, a have used the national platform to advance the principles of fair and open elections in Montana.

    In Liberty,
    Rick Breckenridge

    https://www.facebook.com/BreckenridgeMontana/

  8. paulie Post author

    He did not endorse another candidate, he said that he personally knows the other candidate and vouches for his veracity.

    The blue wave is also likely to be fake news. I agree with Knapp, and it’s the last thing from wishful thinking on my part:

  9. dL

    People who say he is “literally Hitler” ironically or not are underestimating him. Hitler never developed functional nukes.

    It took Hitler a number of years to build up a military/security state. Trump walked right into a ready-made one.

    Now tell me about my “TDS” folks. Tell me again in a couple more years. Tell me how it can’t happen here. The only ones with the real TDS, as I have said all along, are those in denial about how deranged and dangerous he really is.

    Well, I believe Tom Knapp gave you that designation, but Knapp also said he was willing to take odds that Trump would use nuclear weapons over some trite bullshit. So, I’m not sure this place was ever infested with “it can’t happen here” syndrome. Personally, I think Trump is an apt demonstration of Marx’s famous quip, history repeats itself, first as tragedy, then as farce. We’re living in a bad Arnold dystopian flick…

  10. paulie Post author

    It took Hitler a number of years to build up a military/security state. Trump walked right into a ready-made one.

    True, but he also worked in a world of norms created over decades within the judicial branch at various levels and the bureaucracy. He’s been slowly moving in his people to take those positions over so that the things he wants to do start to pass muster with the legal apparatus more and more. The national security state still has elements that are not personally pledged to the Dear Leader, but that is changing over time. At some point probably in the not too distant future he will have operational control of the command structure within all those bureaucracies, not just theoretically by virtue of being the commander in chief but also in a much more real and direct sense like the dictator he aspires to be.

  11. Bondurant

    My vote has already been cast for Angela Green. Even if I was going to poll next week I’d still vote for her. I don’t support the Green Party but want to help them maintain ballot access. Too late to back out now, Angela. So many votes have been cast and ballots mailed.

  12. Jim

    Krzysztof Lesiak “It looks like the LP is slowly fading back to its 2008 levels and Aleppo Johnson above-average performance can simply be attributed to Never Trump Republicans. Those 4,489,000 Aleppo voters (or at least 90% of them) had no interest in the Libertarian Party.”

    I’m going to guess you’re wrong.

    I’ve looked at the early numbers and I’m pretty confident that when Richard Winger publishes his voter registration count, it will show that the LP added more registered voters than any other party since the 2016 election, including the Rs and Ds.

    Not being a Presidential year, turnout is going to be around 70% of what it was in 2016. Turnout was 64% in 2014 of what it was in 2012, but enthusiasm is high this year, so I think a 30% discount from 2016 is reasonable.

    70% of 4.489 million is 3.1 million. I will bet every dollar I have that, when the final results are in, I can prove at least 3.1 million unique voters for the candidates listed on lp.org.

  13. George Phillies

    Green now sends the message that supporting Green candidates is a waste of time and money because they will stab their own party in the back. As Bondurant points out, her misdeed also injured the whole aprty, given how ballot access works in het state.

  14. Anthony Dlugos

    paulie,

    While I still would argue that this country’s polity is healthy enough to beat back the fascist dictatorship you are arguing Trump is trying to install, I wouldn’t at all call that mindset deranged or irrational. As we may have discussed before, I DO think we are one societal catastrophe away from such a dystopia descending on us with great alacrity. i shudder to think how quickly it could happen were a 9/11-level event to occur with Cheeto in charge and his based ALREADY whipped into a frenzy.

    Even if we avoid disaster under Trump, the damage to liberty is already being done via the ratchet effect of people hearing stuff like the quote I posted and getting acclimated to thinking its o.k. to indefinitely detain asylum seekers in tents.

  15. Root's Teeth Are Awesome

    Paulie: I really think we will be incredibly lucky if we survive his rule without a nuclear world war.

    Here, I disagree. It is Trump’s opponents (Democrats, Neocon Republicans, and the media) who are agitating against Russia. Trump wants closer relations with Russia, but Trump’s opponents are making that difficult with “Russia stole the election” conspiracy theories.

    Meanwhile, Netanyahu (and his Democrat and Neocon Republican supporters in the U.S.) keep pressuring Trump to attack Syria and Iran.

    Trump even made peace with North Korea.

    If anything, Trump wants fewer foreign wars, not more. He’d prefer to keep U.S. troops at home, along the Mexican border. Which might create other problems, but not nuclear war.

    Please explain why you think Trump will start a nuclear war, and against which nation.

  16. Tony From Long Island

    Tuesday’s blue wave will be a step toward alleviating Drumph’s quest for power through fear.

  17. dL

    True, but he also worked in a world of norms created over decades within the judicial branch at various levels and the bureaucracy.

    That’s not the way I read German history. The German monarchy abdicated at the end of WW I. A new, pluralistic, multi-party constitutional government was setup in its stead. This in a context of the Versailles treaty–a treaty that was dictated to the Germans–that imposed heavy war reparations and eviscerated the German military. That wasn’t a slow build up of norms.

    The war reparations exacted a heavy economic toll on Germany, exasperating in part the famous German hyperinflation in the early 1920s. This was ameliorated by the so-called Charles Dawes plan which entailed a reparations restructuring and loans from the United States. In the middle to the latter part of the 1920s, Germany was a booming economy again. But that ended with the so-called great depression. The Nazis which had hitherto been a fringe party began to make their move.

    All that stormtrooper shit came directly from the Nazi party, not from a slow build up of norms of the German government. The Nazi party leaders were all WWI military vets and organized the Nazi party from day one as a military organization. They originally thought the Weimar republic would collapse from the hyperinflation of the early 1920s. When that didn’t happen, they switched strategies to gain power by democratic and political means. Along the way, they were aided by a German ruling class that consistently overestimated the authoritarian threat from the left while underestimating the threat from the right. In the end, the Nazis didn’t gain total power by the ballot box(although they came close). They gained it by appointment.

    To me, there are no real parallels between the Weimar republic and the United States other than the one that the American libertarian movement is particularly guilty of: overestimating the authoritarian threat from the left while underestimating the threat from the right.

  18. paulie Post author

    My vote has already been cast for Angela Green. Even if I was going to poll next week I’d still vote for her. I don’t support the Green Party but want to help them maintain ballot access. Too late to back out now, Angela. So many votes have been cast and ballots mailed.

    As far as I know she will still be on the ballot. I doubt the ballots can be pulled and reprinted at this point, and I expect that the votes cast for her will continue to be tallied, counted and reported. Relatively few voters will even know she withdrew.

  19. paulie Post author

    My vote has already been cast for Angela Green. Even if I was going to poll next week I’d still vote for her. I don’t support the Green Party but want to help them maintain ballot access. Too late to back out now, Angela. So many votes have been cast and ballots mailed.

    I’ve had an early look and without revealing specifics you are correct.

    Not being a Presidential year, turnout is going to be around 70% of what it was in 2016. Turnout was 64% in 2014 of what it was in 2012, but enthusiasm is high this year, so I think a 30% discount from 2016 is reasonable.

    I think turnout will go up by a lot more than that compared to past midterms. In early voting we are at presidential election levels, not like past midterms. That’s not good news for those of us in states like Alabama where petition thresholds for the next few years depend on turnout this year.

    70% of 4.489 million is 3.1 million. I will bet every dollar I have that, when the final results are in, I can prove at least 3.1 million unique voters for the candidates listed on lp.org.

    I would be on our side of that bet. To be fair it was a lot more than 3 million unique votes for all LP candidates at all levels in 2016 as well. I would also bet we will get substantially more unique votes this year than in 2014, 2010 or 2006. Anyone want to take that one?

  20. paulie Post author

    Green now sends the message that supporting Green candidates is a waste of time and money because they will stab their own party in the back.

    I guess she’s demonstrating that principle in action.

  21. paulie Post author

    While I still would argue that this country’s polity is healthy enough to beat back the fascist dictatorship you are arguing Trump is trying to install, I wouldn’t at all call that mindset deranged or irrational.

    For the moment perhaps, but what happens when a combination of Trump’s judicial and national security/police/military bureaucracy state picks gain enough operational control to let them gain power over media, education and social media/communications? Trump makes no secret that he admires the way third world dictators and authoritarian regimes in the former Soviet Bloc control media in their countries. He wants to make it illegal to criticize the president and sue media for libel if they criticize him or his gang. The congressional Republicans, his increasing stack of judicial picks and his people in the national security apparatus will go along. There will also be extrajudicial violence, like what happened in Russia and elsewhere, to get media in line. Trumped up legal charges. Kangaroo courts. Trump’s base already want him to nationalize social media and censor the old media. Who will stop them?

    Congressional Republicans will go along. The bureaucracy will increasingly go along as Trump picks stack the deck there. The courts will increasingly go along as Republicans continue their furious pace of confirming young, very executive power friendly right wing judges to the federal bench at various levels.

    So who’s going to effectively put a stop to it? Media will be nationalized, censored, beaten, threatened, bribed, shot and bombed into submission. Demonstrators will be decried as violent mobs, infiltrated with agents provocateurs who start riots, demonized, arrested and detained en masse in the same tent cities Trump plans for immigrants. Congressional Republicans will go along. Bureaucracy and judiciary will increasingly go along. Congressional Democrats *may* take control of the House – I don’t think it’s as nearly a sure bet as 538 does – but all they can do is hold hearings. The Senate will stay Republican, which means any impeachments if they do occur would not end in removal. It also means they will continue to be in control of judicial and executive appointments. At most House Democrats will succeed in painting themselves as obstructionists and give Trump more fodder for the reelection campaign. However, he can also use executive orders and vetoes to beat them into submission. They won’t have any power to stop that. And if he decides to bring back a line item veto to punish their districts further, he’ll have a stacked judiciary that will OK that as well.

    Consider also what happens if the economy crashes, or if there are mass demonstrations and riots for other reasons, or if trade wars and juvenile insult trading at the international leader level escalates into foreign wars. The demand for police state measures goes up exponentially at that point, and Trump will be highly motivated and well equipped to meet that demand.

    As we may have discussed before, I DO think we are one societal catastrophe away from such a dystopia descending on us with great alacrity. i shudder to think how quickly it could happen were a 9/11-level event to occur with Cheeto in charge and his based ALREADY whipped into a frenzy.

    It’s most likely a matter of when, not if.

    Even if we avoid disaster under Trump, the damage to liberty is already being done via the ratchet effect of people hearing stuff like the quote I posted and getting acclimated to thinking its o.k. to indefinitely detain asylum seekers in tents.

    Yep.

  22. Steven R Linnabary

    My GP friends here in OH say that Angela Green (AZ) was never a GP member. She had started her campaign as a democrat and when AZ dems didn’t want her she bolted to the Greens. And when she found out there was no $ to fund her, she made it sound as if she was “stabbed in the back”.

    Only a rumor, but….

  23. Jim

    Root’s Teeth Are Awesome “Please explain why you think Trump will start a nuclear war, and against which nation.”

    Not a nuclear war, because I think the military would refuse, but the most likely time for him to start one is when the 2020 election is gearing up. Trump’s approval ratings have yet to be above water and the masses tend to rally behind the President at the start of a war, when the ‘it’s necessary because we’re being threatened’ propaganda is still fresh. Iran looks to be the favorite right now, but I’d still rank North Korea pretty high.

  24. paulie Post author

    Here, I disagree. It is Trump’s opponents (Democrats, Neocon Republicans, and the media) who are agitating against Russia. Trump wants closer relations with Russia, but Trump’s opponents are making that difficult with “Russia stole the election” conspiracy theories.

    Closer relations with Putin’s increasingly fascist dictatorship as it exports an authoritarian-nationalist-populist ultrakleptocratic corrupt model all over the world isn’t a good thing. We don’t even have to agree about election conspiracy facts to make that realization.

    Posted elsewhere: Not buying Chinese crap won’t help end slavery. The best thing for positive political reforms in other countries is expanded commerce with them, which leads more of their citizens to travel abroad, more people from other countries visiting theirs, more cultural/news/entertainment exchange, increased prosperity – and thus increased demand for political reform. If you want to see more slavery, authoritarianism, totalitarianism, poverty and war all over the world, do everything you can to limit immigration, tourism, trade.

    And feel free to call me a “globalist.” I just oppose a bureaucracy managing globalization/trade/migration with a bunch of red tape bureaucracy and central planning, but I favor allowing it to happen organically on its own and getting the xenophobic authoritarian populist-nationalist central planning, national security police state, red tape, taxes, tariffs, quotas, and feudalistic kleptocratic bureaucracy out of the way. Nothing like being given false choices between two evil forms of centralized management by force. (end self-quote).

    So which model do you think Putin, Trump, the eurofascist parties and authoritarian-populist third world dictators and ex-soviet block demagogues they align with globally push? Is their model really superior to the post-WWII and post-cold war neoliberal world order? I know, I am not a fan of that neoliberal order either. But when given a comparison of the two the Putin/Trump model is worse. Putin, Trump and their allies want to revert to a world order of spheres of influence geopolitics, trade and immigration barriers, nationalistic-militaristic propaganda and arms buildups and police state measures and domestic surveillance and mass incarceration and mass prison-industrial complex within all nations; a world of territorial conquests and domestic human rights abuses no longer subject to international opposition pressures.

    Such things led to wars many times in the past, and led to the two world wars which in turn led to the neoliberal global order in the first place. Are we really going to improve things by turning the clock back on that plus the classical liberal and enlightenment progress in social and cultural matters? Do we want to revert to feudalism, theocracy and mercantilism but with modern weapons of mass destruction and modern improvements in police state surveillance technology thrown in the mix? Is this a vision of increased liberty to you?

    And this is all before we consider that at some point Trump and Putin may very well have a nasty falling out, for example over…

    Meanwhile, Netanyahu (and his Democrat and Neocon Republican supporters in the U.S.) keep pressuring Trump to attack Syria and Iran.

    Except that this is total baloney. Trump has torn up the Iranian nuclear deal, greatly increased the US alliance with Saudi Arabia, moved the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, greatly increased US bombing and other involvement in the wars in Iraq, Syria and Yemen, etc. His moves have strengthened the hand of hardliners in Iran, Israel and Saudi Arabia alike. Turkey too for that matter. To the extent that he has increasingly inserted the US into the opposite side of the Syrian conflict from Putin it’s a flashpoint that among many others could lead to a very, very nasty falling out between the two at some point here. There are others. Like:

    Trump even made peace with North Korea.

    Don’t count your chickens before they hatch. Trump and Kim looking longingly into each other’s eyes like lovers on a date, Trump fantasizing about having the domestic omnipotence and forced worship Kim commands and Kim creaming his pants thinking of all the money, technology and women at Trump’s disposal is not the same thing as peace. NK has not been in substantial compliance and treaties have yet to be approved much less adhered to. The danger potential has by no means gone down there, just been put on hold. It’s also another potential spot where Trump can easily find himself on the other side of a global chess board not just from China but from Russia as well.

    If anything, Trump wants fewer foreign wars, not more. He’d prefer to keep U.S. troops at home, along the Mexican border. Which might create other problems, but not nuclear war.

    Again you need a bit more imagination there. A conventional war with Mexico would be horrible enough, but imagine if that was to actually happen. Do you think it would really be impossible for, say, China, or North Korea, or Iran, to get a few nukes and missiles into Mexico? Come on.

    Please explain why you think Trump will start a nuclear war, and against which nation.

    Why

    1) Because he fantasizes about war as has admitted many times
    2) Because he loves to escalate conflicts
    3) Because trade wars have a long history of leading to actual wars
    4) Because he is woefully undiplomatic and has a dangerous tendency to get into escalating insult-trading with opponents
    5) Because wars are a great excuse for war profiteering, civil liberties abuses, crony corporatism, and command and control – all things Trump loves
    6) Because he has repeatedly said he would not rule out using nukes, including first strikes
    7) Because he fantasizes constantly about killing people, torturing people, death penalties, police roughing people up, military parades, and everything else that has to do with war
    8) Because war time presidents enjoy big popularity boosts of the sort Trump craves endlessly… and if the corruption investigations, economic impacts of his trade and immigration policies coming home to roost for the domestic economy, riots in the streets, mass demonstrations, and increasing opposition to increasing police state measures hurt his popularity it will be the perfect way to boost it back up quickly
    9) That’s probably enough for now but by no means an exhaustive list.

    OK one more:

    10) Because he just can’t resist trying to prove he has the biggest dick of all time by being the biggest dick of all time and putting his name in giant letters on everything. And ultimately what bigger thing can he do than spell TRUMP in giant letters made of nuclear fireballs on the side of the planet? It’s way bigger than pissing in the snow in Central Park or putting TRUMP on the side of a skyscraper or casino downtown. It’s huge, tremendous, massive and no one can top it. Ever! What else can he do that will ensure that his record can never be surpassed at any time after he is dead?

    Which nation:

    Well take your pick. Latin America, European Union, China, Koreas, Iran, falling out with Russia…so many choices, so many nukes.

  25. Jim

    paulie “I would be on our side of that bet. To be fair it was a lot more than 3 million unique votes for all LP candidates at all levels in 2016 as well. I would also bet we will get substantially more unique votes this year than in 2014, 2010 or 2006. Anyone want to take that one?”

    A pretty basic analysis shows that no fewer than 7.4 million people voted Libertarian in 2016, but Krzysztof Lesiak seemed to think it was 4.489 million and for betting purposes I was willing to go with that. Beating 3.1 million (70% of 4.5 million) is a slam dunk. Especially since Mark Ash might get a million by himself. I guess he won’t take the bet now, though.

    https://i.imgur.com/5fPD8CA.png

    I still think turnout will ‘only’ be around 100 million, though. IIRC, 2014 was 83 million and 2010 90 million.

    2016 was 139 million. There’s no way that many will vote.

  26. paulie Post author

    Tuesday’s blue wave will be a step toward alleviating Drumph’s quest for power through fear.

    Except there will be no blue wave. Wanna bet?

  27. paulie Post author

    To me, there are no real parallels between the Weimar republic and the United States other than the one that the American libertarian movement is particularly guilty of: overestimating the authoritarian threat from the left while underestimating the threat from the right.

    Agreed on the second part, disagreed on the first. The conventional conservative movement is guilty of the exact same thing. Thus:

    . In the end, the Nazis didn’t gain total power by the ballot box(although they came close). They gained it by appointment.

    Trumpenfascists are likewise gaining power through a combination of a ballot alliance with establishment conservatives who are underestimating the danger they represent (aided and abetted by many libertarians) and appointment (judicial and bureaucratic appointments that will lead to them being able to institute the things they can’t get by legislative action through executive action, and a judicial apparatus that will not put a stop to the combined results of both).

    All that stormtrooper shit came directly from the Nazi party, not from a slow build up of norms of the German government. The Nazi party leaders were all WWI military vets and organized the Nazi party from day one as a military organization.

    Trumpenfascists likewise include many military veterans, active duty, cops, security state alphabet agency managers and armed agents, etc. And to the extent that opposition exists within the power structures of all these it is being replaced by Trumpenfascists. Trump rallies exhort supporters to violence and some are starting to take heed – whether it was the Trump van bomber or the synagogue shooter who decided to screw the optics and go in because as Trump, Fox and many others agree with the fringe conspiracy press, Clinton, Obama, Soros, CNN, Democrats, Jews et al are in a conspiracy to bring in immigrants, take jobs from Americans, rape our wimmins and chilluns, sponge off welfare, rob and kill people all over the place, spread contagious diseases, flood the ballot boxes, and (whether stated openly or merely implied) blend the white race out of existence. Or whether it was Trump himself promising astonishing new military-police state measures at the border. Or whether it’s the Proud Boys beating up people in the streets or the “many good people” sending dozens to hospitals and one woman to her death in Charlottesville or the dozens of murderous alt right terrorists or the cops who shoot and kill and beat the crap out of people to loud cheers from Trump and his supporters. There’s a nexus there.

  28. paulie Post author

    Not a nuclear war, because I think the military would refuse,

    They might refuse unless A) the top ranks and those of the next few below them are replaced with those who pledge personal loyalty to Trump B) Domestic propaganda/information centralization takes place over the period of a few months/years and C) months/years of media demonization, conventional war, etc — all of which I am seeing as likely. Add D) Equally irresponsible dick measuring authoritarian hardliners in charge in other countries, with increasing access to nuclear technology all over the world.

    Trump’s approval ratings have yet to be above water

    Give him the control he wants over conventional and social media, which Trump supporters and Trump himself demand, and the operational control he is gaining over bureaucracy and judiciary which would make that possible, and he’ll have a lot more power to shape public perception.

    masses tend to rally behind the President at the start of a war, when the ‘it’s necessary because we’re being threatened’ propaganda is still fresh. Iran looks to be the favorite right now, but I’d still rank North Korea pretty high.

    Correct, I agree. Your time frame may well be correct as well but I’m less good at guessing time frames. Things could escalate quickly or it might come during a second term since it may take that long to move all the pieces in place and prepare the public mind. I don’t know.

  29. Thomas L. Knapp

    “Except there will be no blue wave. Wanna bet?”

    I haven’t taken a close look at polling numbers in the last few days.

    Last time I did, it looked like the GOP was set to pick up seats in the Senate.

    The Democrats will almost certainly pick up seats in the House. They might even eke out a turnover in the House, which is not that unusual (happened in 2010, happened in 2006).

    One house of Congress with an ever-so-slight majority of the non-presidential party is better than nothing. And it’s all we’re likely to see.

  30. Thomas L. Knapp

    Anecdotally, I’m still expecting the Democrats to retain their US Senate seat, and pick up the governorship, in Florida. The early voting turnout looks brisk, and the traffic involved leans a lot more heavily toward Priuses and Volvos than toward Dodge Rams and F-150s.

    Of course, that’s just in Gainesville, most areas of which do tend to lean Democratic, but the picture I’ve been seeing in general is that the Democrats are kicking ass in the GOTV game statewide. In 2014 and 2016, the GOP dominated direct mail, probably by a 3-1 factor at least; this year, not by much if at all.

    Today I went to my mailbox and had 15 pieces of mail. Fourteen of them were campaign mailers. It’s been like that for two weeks, and at a lower but still annoying level for several months.

  31. wredlich

    “Now tell me about my “TDS” folks. Tell me again in a couple more years. Tell me how it can’t happen here. The only ones with the real TDS, as I have said all along, are those in denial about how deranged and dangerous he really is.”

    I’ll tell you about your TDS.

    Trump is a terrible president. However he’s only trivially different from the last several presidents. All of them compare favorably to JFK, LBJ and Nixon, who lied to the American people so they could kill millions of southeast Asians.

    He does lie a lot. But he has also kept important promises that the others broke, most notably regarding Jerusalem. You may disagree with that decision, but he still did what he said he’d do. They didn’t.

    His fiscal policy is awful, but that’s bipartisan and again trivially different from his predecessors. Reagan alone doubled federal spending and tripled the debt.

    There are rumors he may remove marijuana from Schedule 1. If he does that would be YUUUUUGGGGGEEEE!

    I’m an open borders guy but Trump’s treatment of migrants is again trivially different from his predecessors. I represented people who came from Canada and were arrested on border violations during Obama. They were not treated well. Bush started housing them in detention centers and Obama continued it.

    I had a client who was sentenced to time served and then ICE grabbed him right from the courtroom. He was ready to go home knowing he’d never be able to come back to the US. They held him for a month or longer so he could have a deportation hearing and they wouldn’t let us waive the hearing. He was separated from his wife and children for no sensible reason.

    I agree with you that he sucks. I just don’t see that big of a difference compared to Obama, Bush Lite, Clinton, Bush Sr., Reagan, etc. Did you forget how bad they all were?

  32. wredlich

    “Anecdotally, I’m still expecting the Democrats to retain their US Senate seat, and pick up the governorship, in Florida.”

    I’m terrible at predictions, but …

    I read that early voting turnout here in FL is up a lot for both parties but Republican turnout is actually up a little more. That would suggest an edge for the GOP. I voted today. Big crowd.

  33. wredlich

    “People who say he is “literally Hitler” ironically or not are underestimating him.”

    I get really irritated by the Hitler comparisons. They are completely different. Hitler was a genocidal sociopath. Trump is an egomaniac. A Huge egomaniac, but that doesn’t make him genocidal.

    Mein Kampf called for a pure Aryan race and killing all the Jews. Art of the Deal was Trump bragging about how awesome he is.

    Just as the other hyperbole underestimates how horrible past presidents were, this hyperbole grossly diminishes how absolutely evil Hitler and the Nazis were.

  34. paulie Post author

    I haven’t taken a close look at polling numbers in the last few days.

    Last time I did, it looked like the GOP was set to pick up seats in the Senate.

    The Democrats will almost certainly pick up seats in the House. They might even eke out a turnover in the House, which is not that unusual (happened in 2010, happened in 2006).

    One house of Congress with an ever-so-slight majority of the non-presidential party is better than nothing. And it’s all we’re likely to see.

    Agreed, I think your prognosis is on the money and 538 is huffing that blue paint again.

  35. dL

    Art of the Deal

    Art of the Deal was 30 years ago. Trump is just a little more than a mere egomaniac. By virtue of his actions as POTUS, he has promoted himself to mass murderer. Obviously, as you have pointed out, that would not be an anomaly in the POTUS tradition.

    Read history about the rise of Hitler and the Nazis. It’s a completely different story.

    I have. The conventional history has that while the deportations and internments were obviously known by the German public, the mass exterminations were kept secret. Recently, however, some historians have challenged the conventional accounts that German public was unaware of the holocaust. That they were in fact much more complicit in those crimes.

    The one thing I do know for sure, however, is that many in Trump’s conservative christian base today would no problem with mass ethnic/religious genocide. And if Trump were to commit an outright open and explicit ethnic genocide, the Trump base would be in full support. So while I do not see a historical parallel of the rise of Hitler /Nazism vis a vis the Weimar republic compared to Trump vis a vis the United States, the moral equivalence of the Hitler fervent base with the Trump fervent base is not exactly an exaggeration.

  36. paulie Post author

    Anecdotally, I’m still expecting the Democrats to retain their US Senate seat, and pick up the governorship, in Florida. The early voting turnout looks brisk, and the traffic involved leans a lot more heavily toward Priuses and Volvos than toward Dodge Rams and F-150s.

    Of course, that’s just in Gainesville, most areas of which do tend to lean Democratic, but the picture I’ve been seeing in general is that the Democrats are kicking ass in the GOTV game statewide. In 2014 and 2016, the GOP dominated direct mail, probably by a 3-1 factor at least; this year, not by much if at all.

    Today I went to my mailbox and had 15 pieces of mail. Fourteen of them were campaign mailers. It’s been like that for two weeks, and at a lower but still annoying level for several months.

    I think you are probably correct about Florida as well.

  37. paulie Post author

    Trump is a terrible president. However he’s only trivially different from the last several presidents. All of them compare favorably to JFK, LBJ and Nixon, who lied to the American people so they could kill millions of southeast Asians.

    Can’t agree with you there. The last several have lied to the American people and initiated wars and blockades that killed millions of Middle Easterners, North Africans and Central Asians. I think Trump will end up killing way more than that for reasons I already explained. Then there’s the bailouts, post-9/11 heimland national security state, the massive drug war increase in mass incarceration since Reagan… it goes on and on. But Trump is going to end up worse than all of them combined.

  38. paulie Post author

    He does lie a lot. But he has also kept important promises that the others broke, most notably regarding Jerusalem. You may disagree with that decision, but he still did what he said he’d do. They didn’t.

    Unfortunately, the promises he keeps aren’t his good ones. And moving the embassy to Jerusalem is not good for peace. It’s a poke in the eye of all the surrounding countries that refuse to accept Jerusalem being part of Israel. What good can that possibly lead to? Do we really need to exacerbate tensions over there?

  39. paulie Post author

    His fiscal policy is awful, but that’s bipartisan and again trivially different from his predecessors. Reagan alone doubled federal spending and tripled the debt.

    He’s just getting started and already the deficits are doubled. You expect him to have done in less than two years what it took Reagan 8 to do? All his promises have a big price tag attached. Removing 20 million people from the country won’t be cheap either. Believe me. It’s gonna cost ya YOOGE. The price tag will be tremendous.

  40. paulie Post author

    There are rumors he may remove marijuana from Schedule 1. If he does that would be YUUUUUGGGGGEEEE!

    Rumors, shmumors. I’ll believe it when I see it. So far all he has done is crack down on marijuana more. But suppose he does, so now the new legal cannabis cartels will take all or at least a lot of the market from the existing suppliers. A lot of those will be looking for other employment, and there are still lots of other illegal drugs to manufacture and distribute. You know kind of like how when alcohol was relegalized the new war on cannabis started because alcohol enforcement agents needed a new job? Well let’s say cannabis is legalized and the war on opioids, cocaine, meth, etc stepped up.

    Higher enforcement = more risk = higher prices, more incentive to take those higher risks to make more profits, more crimes that have to be committed to feed those drug habits, more incentive to push more dope to more people, more people in jails and prisons, more misery in more neighborhoods causing more people to get strung out. Of course wars always greatly aid and abet the spread of addiction among veterans coming back. See above about that. Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for ending cannabis prohibition, but even if the Mango Mussolini gets that one right and all the other things I mentioned wrong it’s not even close to a panacea.

    And that’s if it’s even true at all. You never, ever know with Agent Orange Bencheeto.

  41. paulie Post author

    I’m an open borders guy but Trump’s treatment of migrants is again trivially different from his predecessors. I represented people who came from Canada and were arrested on border violations during Obama. They were not treated well. Bush started housing them in detention centers and Obama continued it.

    Scale matters. Rhetoric matters. Trump is stepping it way up. Did you miss the child separations which they will be bringing back, bigger and worse, the Muslim travel ban? Did you miss how he’s about to start keeping people indefinitely in tent cities rather than “catch and release”? How many people? How he’s going to have troops shooting at immigrants and end birthright citizenship and how he’ll bring back Operation Wetback (“people liked Ike, I like Ike”) and how he’s stripping citizenship from Latino Texans who were delivered by midwives? How he’ll crack down on sanctuary cities and deputize law enforcement agencies nationwide as de facto immigration police? This is just the beginning. He’s moving his judicial and bureaucratic apparatus into place.

    Go on a conservative site these days and mention immigration. The hate is freaking unbelievable. Comment after comment, shoot them, electrify the fence, put in land mines, invasion, blah blah blah. Who’s going to stop these people from doing exactly what they want? It’s going to be another holocaust. There will be millions of people in these tent cities before too long, and not only immigrants. It will grow and grow and grow and more classes of people will be added. And it’s not just going to end with detention either.

  42. paulie Post author

    I had a client who was sentenced to time served and then ICE grabbed him right from the courtroom. He was ready to go home knowing he’d never be able to come back to the US. They held him for a month or longer so he could have a deportation hearing and they wouldn’t let us waive the hearing. He was separated from his wife and children for no sensible reason.

    Yes, that absolutely happened before Trump and was awful. It’s happening a lot more with Trump and is about to get much, much worse. We ain’t seen nothing yet.

  43. paulie Post author

    I agree with you that he sucks. I just don’t see that big of a difference compared to Obama, Bush Lite, Clinton, Bush Sr., Reagan, etc. Did you forget how bad they all were?

    Of course not. They were amazingly bad. I called for impeaching, removing, and prosecuting all of them and would put all the ones still alive on trial for crimes against humanity if I could. But Trump is much worse than all of them and just getting started.

  44. paulie Post author

    I read that early voting turnout here in FL is up a lot for both parties but Republican turnout is actually up a little more. That would suggest an edge for the GOP.

    Historically Democrats in Florida do better on election day and, in early voting, on the weekends, particularly the last two weekends before the election. Republicans do better in the rest of the early voting days.

  45. paulie Post author

    I get really irritated by the Hitler comparisons. They are completely different. Hitler was a genocidal sociopath. Trump is an egomaniac. A Huge egomaniac, but that doesn’t make him genocidal.

    I think he’s both. He just needs the opportunity.

    Mein Kampf called for a pure Aryan race and killing all the Jews. Art of the Deal was Trump bragging about how awesome he is.

    Sure, but he didn’t write it. Ask the guy who actually did about Trump some time. He also screws people over all the time in addition to lying all the time, I can’t even count how many people I have known who got stiffed or cheated by him in some way. And guess what his favorite book was according to his first wife, which he kept on his nightstand, read and memorized before bed? A book of Hitler speeches.

    Trump is freaking racist as hell. His dad, who he has always revered, was arrested in a KKK riot in NYC in the 20s. Like many German-Americans in the 1930s it’s highly likely they were Hitler fans. They were infamous for their discrimination against blacks in their apartment buildings, and had to be sued about it more than once. A family employee recalls Trump accompanying his dad and as a teenager and admonishing office employees for even considering black apartment applicants. Then there were his ads about the death penalty for the Central Park Five even after they were acquitted and exonerated. It was reported that black casino employees had to leave the floor when Trump would tour his casinos in NJ.

    His birther bullshit about Obama, him saying a Mexican-American judge was not qualified to judge him, his speech about immigrants being rapists and murderers, now it comes out he said blacks are too stupid to vote for him. One of the people who reported about that today says just in the few hours since the article came out other people who have worked with Trump tell her he said stuff just like that to them all the time.

    The reality version of the Art of the Deal should have been called the Art of the Con, or the Art of the Steal, or the Art of the Bad Deal. People get stepped on, cheated, lied to, screwed over and hurt in countless ways no matter where this absolute piece of human garbage steps. It’s happened for decades, probably his whole life.

    Now granted, he grew up in the US, not interwar Germany, and things here are much less drastic, so far, so his rhetoric has not yet reached Hitler levels. He still has quite a ways to go. But make no mistake, he is paving that road as fast as he can. And he knows exactly where it leads.

  46. paulie Post author

    Just as the other hyperbole underestimates how horrible past presidents were, this hyperbole grossly diminishes how absolutely evil Hitler and the Nazis were.

    I am in no way, shape or form underestimating how horrible past presidents were. I saw many of the worst effects of their policies first hand. I am in no way diminishing how absolutely evil Hitler and the Nazis were. They killed many people in my family along with their whole towns, lined up and machine gunned into ditches with the living buried alive with the dead. It is with the full acknowledgement of these facts that I predict that Trump will end up being even worse, because Hitler never developed functional nukes.

  47. paulie Post author

    Read history about the rise of Hitler and the Nazis. It’s a completely different story.

    I have. And while there are differences there are also a lot of similarities.

  48. Thomas L. Knapp

    “538 is huffing that blue paint again”

    I haven’t looked at 538’s predictions for the House, but for the Senate they predicted (as of last week) an 80% chance of the outcome being between “Democrats gain 2” and “Republicans gain 4” and their in-depth analysis, IIRC, was “Republicans probably gain 2.”

    I predicted “Republicans gain 4” because I didn’t expect Arizona or Nevada to go blue and did expect the GOP to pick up North Dakota, Montana, Missouri, and Indiana. But my expectations on Arizona and Nevada are weak ones. Especially Arizona, where the “feel” seems to be that Sinema may pull it off.

    Like I said, my Florida prediction is largely based on what I’m seeing in my area of the state. Example:

    In 2014 and 2016, I probably got 50 mailers each from the Republican candidate for state senate in my district and fewer than 5 from the Democratic aspirant.

    SINCE 2016, I’ve pretty much had 1-2 fliers a week from the Republican incumbent (including a “happy birthday” postcard each year, mailers touting him from every GOP PAC in the universe, etc.). That alone pretty much had me hating his guts before the election season even began.

    In the last sixty days, my guess is I average five pieces of state senate mail a day, and about half of them are from the Democratic nominee. She’s running TV commercials, which I’ve never seen in this race before (and they’re pretty good commercials too). In 2016, maybe 1 in 10 signs was for the Democrat. Looks roughly half and half this year.

    And my elderly neighbor, who isn’t especially political, is not alone in red-facedly spouting one of the Democrat’s talking points against the incumbent (so far as I can tell, that talking point boils down to “voted for a waste water treatment bill that causes waste water to be handled the only way waste water CAN be handled,” but the Democrat phrases it as “voted to contaminate the aquifer with treated human waste”). I’m hearing that one from people I NEVER hear political talk from.

    I suppose that state senate race could be an outlier, but the Republicans are worried enough that they poured money into the Democratic primary campaign of an African-American candidate, and are now pouring money into the “independent” campaign of another African-American Democrat, to try and save the Republican incumbent’s ass.

  49. Freeman

    Not sure how to take this:

    “Closer relations with Putin’s increasingly fascist dictatorship as it exports an authoritarian-nationalist-populist ultrakleptocratic corrupt model all over the world isn’t a good thing”

    More peacable relations with Russia’d be good. More antagonistic relations with Russia’d be bad.

    If it were closer relations with, say, the Saudi crown prince, I’d call that a bad thing.

  50. Steve m(eier)

    “Like many German-Americans in the 1930s it’s highly likely they were Hitler fans. ”

    My grandfather was 1st generation American of German descent. He served in the US Army during WW1 though he was stationed along the Mexican boarder.

    I never ever heard him utter a racist or anti-semitic or pro-nazi statement!

    German Americans were treated with out right hostility durring this time period.

    Please try not to paint ethnic groups with such a broad brush!

  51. steve m

    A major difference between trump and the previous evil incarnate is that Trump knows we need poor ignorant minorities as cannon fodder.

  52. Anthony Dlugos

    “More peacable relations with Russia’d be good. More antagonistic relations with Russia’d be bad.”

    Not all rapprochement are created the same.

    To equate a Trump-Putin based U.S-Russian rapprochement with any liberal-based varietal, even one that is less than 100% libertarian is missing the forest for the trees, the forest here being the authoritarian tendencies of both Trump and Putin.

    Are you a Ron Paul type paleo? I’d guess yes. The assertion that ANY lowering of tensions vis a vi Russia is a good thing reminds me of the sort of NAPist thinking that argues, say, freely associating only with people from your own race/ethnicity/creed/sexual orientation is morally equivalent to freely associating with anyone because they are both voluntary actions.

    Such an attitude is missing the whole point of freedom of association.

    I, Robot(2004):

    V.I.K.I.: You are making a mistake. Do you not see the logic of my plan?

    Sonny: Yes, but it just seems too…heartless.

  53. paulie Post author

    I haven’t looked at 538’s predictions for the House, but for the Senate they predicted (as of last week) an 80% chance of the outcome being between “Democrats gain 2” and “Republicans gain 4” and their in-depth analysis, IIRC, was “Republicans probably gain 2.”

    They have a 1 in 7 chance that Republicans keep the House. I’d call it maybe 3 in 7. They call it 80% for Democrats to pick up 20 to 59 with an average of 38. I think they are overestimating the Ds by about 10 seats (ie I would say 80% chance of a 10-49 pickup with a 28 average).

    They have 5 in 6 that Republicans keep the Senate with an average pickup of 0.7; I’d say more like 19 in 20 that Republicans keep the Senate with an average pickup of about 4, which is at the upper edge of their 80% range (R+4 to D+2). I’d put the 80% range at R+1 to R+6.

  54. paulie Post author

    Not sure how to take this:

    “Closer relations with Putin’s increasingly fascist dictatorship as it exports an authoritarian-nationalist-populist ultrakleptocratic corrupt model all over the world isn’t a good thing”

    More peacable relations with Russia’d be good. More antagonistic relations with Russia’d be bad.

    If it were closer relations with, say, the Saudi crown prince, I’d call that a bad thing.

    Unapprove | Reply | Quick Edit | Edit | History | Spam | Trash

    I’d call that about the same thing. Why do you think Putin is any better than MBS?

  55. paulie Post author

    I never ever heard him utter a racist or anti-semitic or pro-nazi statement!

    I never said or implied that all German-Americans were pro-Hitler. It’s a historical fact that many were. It is in fact also true that there was discrimination *against* German-Americans during and in between the world wars, and that’s shameful as well. But the pro-Hitler German-American Bund was huge, and two wrongs don’t make a right. I did not say for sure that Fred Trump was pro-Hitler or pro-Bund, but I think it is likely because

    1) No Trumps ever volunteered to serve in the military during either world war,

    2) Fred Trump is known to have been involved in the KKK in the 1920s (to be fair, millions of other people were too, but NYC was never one of their strong areas even when many places up north were back then),

    3) the German-American Bund and other pro-Hitler fronts were popular in the German-American community at the time – and again, no, not nearly universally popular,

    4) Fred Trump and Donald Trump have a long history of rental discrimination,

    5) All the other indicators that Donald Trump is and was racist his whole life, from the account by office workers that he reminded them “we don’t rent to coloreds” as a teenager to having black employees removed from the casino floor when he toured the property with his first wife to what Michael Cohen and others said yesterday he told them over the years and many other indicators over a long period of time.

    Please try not to paint ethnic groups with such a broad brush!

    I don’t. Many German-Americans were pro-Hitler, but certainly not all. Many Russian-Jewish-Americans were pro-Soviet around that same time, but certainly not all. Both groups also faced discrimination from other Americans around the same time. I’m sorry you took my factual statement to indicate that I believed ALL German-Americans supported Hitler.

  56. paulie Post author

    A major difference between trump and the previous evil incarnate is that Trump knows we need poor ignorant minorities as cannon fodder.

    Not if he can find enough poor ignorant whites, but he’ll take them all as long as they follow his orders. You are incorrect, however, that previous evil incarnate was any different in this regard. Hitler had whole SS battalions of non-white allies, welcomed alliances with Japan and Arabs, had Slavic allies in the ROA and others even though he was on record believing that Slavs were inferior and needed to be enslaved, considered Iranians to be honorary Aryans, and even had Jewish kapos and some other Jews doing dirty work for him.

  57. steve m

    paulie,

    You stated…

    “Like many German-Americans in the 1930s it’s highly likely they were Hitler fans. ”

    How can that not be taken as if you were german american in the 1930’s its highly likely you were a fan of Hitler?

    I am glad to see you didn’t seem to mean it.. but that is how it reads.

  58. Steve m

    Historically speaking many germans immigrated to the us after the war of German unification 1870 inorder to not have to serve under an autocratic government that was likely to send them off to fight another vast european war.

  59. wredlich

    “The one thing I do know for sure, however, is that many in Trump’s conservative christian base today would no problem with mass ethnic/religious genocide. And if Trump were to commit an outright open and explicit ethnic genocide, the Trump base would be in full support. ”

    I think I know more Trump supporters than you do, and you’re absolutely wrong about them.

  60. wredlich

    “moving the embassy to Jerusalem is not good for peace. It’s a poke in the eye of all the surrounding countries that refuse to accept Jerusalem being part of Israel. What good can that possibly lead to? Do we really need to exacerbate tensions over there?”

    I have a feeling we’re just on opposite sides of this issue.

    “Not good for peace” – I see no real prospect for peace. The only peace acceptable to the Arabs is the end of the Jewish state. Oddly that’s unacceptable to most Jews in Israel.

    “Exacerbate tensions” – The tensions have been there for decades and they’re not going away. They wax and wane. This is nothing new.

  61. steve m

    Historically speaking…

    Between 1820 and WW1 over 6 million Germans had immigrated to the US.

    According to the Holocaust Museum the German American Bund had about 25,000 members.

    Statistically speak the odds of a German American being a member of the Bund was miniscule.

  62. wredlich

    “Scale matters. Rhetoric matters. Trump is stepping it way up.”

    No, he isn’t. It was already way up.

    “Go on a conservative site these days and mention immigration. The hate is freaking unbelievable.”

    Yes I’ve seen some of that. I don’t think it’s quite as bad as you say. There are some haters for sure, but a lot of people who mumble the same mindless nonsense about following the law or doing it the right way, blah blah blah.

  63. Eric Sundwall

    LS interrupted all the other candidate’s closing statements in the League of Woman Voter’s debate in NY … very bush league.

  64. wredlich

    >I just don’t see that big of a difference compared to Obama, Bush Lite, Clinton, Bush Sr., Reagan, etc. Did you forget how bad they all were?<>>Of course not. They were amazingly bad. I called for impeaching, removing, and prosecuting all of them and would put all the ones still alive on trial for crimes against humanity if I could.< < I love when we agree. 🙂 >>But Trump is much worse than all of them and just getting started.<< I don't see it. He's a loudmouth and sure his rhetoric is worse, but policy differences are minor. Are we bombing more countries? No. Dropping more bombs? No. Has he started any new wars? Not yet. He may have actually defused the North Korea situation, though it's early to say about that one, and I'm not sure he really deserves credit for it.

  65. wredlich

    >Read history about the rise of Hitler and the Nazis. It’s a completely different story.<>>I have. And while there are differences there are also a lot of similarities.<< No, there aren't. There's nothing remotely similar. Please describe the similarities you see. What year in the rise of the Nazi regime are we in? There's no Kristallnacht. No Beer Hall Putsch. Etc.

  66. paulie Post author

    Historically speaking many germans immigrated to the us after the war of German unification 1870 inorder to not have to serve under an autocratic government that was likely to send them off to fight another vast european war.

    Correct. Likewise many Russian Jews immigrated to the US to escape Czarist tyranny, which did not stop many from being pro-Soviet later. That does not however mean that all or nearly all were.

  67. paulie Post author

    I think I know more Trump supporters than you do, and you’re absolutely wrong about them.

    I know lots of them. Here’s a sample:

    https://www.facebook.com/walterwwest2/posts/10210006644562602

    Check out the comments. Then see what someone else said the overwhelming response from Trump fans in large Trump support groups on FB was about transgender people, without being prompted: Kill them all. Thousands and thousands of comments.

    If you think millions of Trump fans will not fully support genocide, especially after a few more years of getting whipped into a frenzy, you are kidding yourself.

  68. paulie Post author

    “Exacerbate tensions” – The tensions have been there for decades and they’re not going away. They wax and wane. This is nothing new.

    It’s a newly provocative move. What do you think will make things better?

  69. paulie Post author

    According to the Holocaust Museum the German American Bund had about 25,000 members.

    Statistically speak the odds of a German American being a member of the Bund was miniscule.

    Actual membership may have been rare, but some large degree of agreement wasn’t.

  70. paulie Post author

    rump is stepping it way up.”

    No, he isn’t. It was already way up.

    It was already way up and he’s stepping it up way up more, way faster.

    Yes I’ve seen some of that. I don’t think it’s quite as bad as you say. There are some haters for sure, but a lot of people who mumble the same mindless nonsense about following the law or doing it the right way, blah blah blah.

    It’s atrociously bad. I linked one example of many.

  71. paulie Post author

    I love it when we agree

    I do too.

    Dropping more bombs? No.

    Oh yes he is.

    Has he started any new wars? Not yet

    Not yet, but he’s certainly paving the way.

    He may have actually defused the North Korea situation, though it’s early to say about that one, and I’m not sure he really deserves credit for it.

    Covered above.

  72. paulie Post author

    Please describe the similarities you see.

    Whipping up the scapegoating of hated minorities. Whipping up stadia of fanatical supporters into violent rage. Spreading lies and propaganda constantly. Militarizing police. Military parades. Calls for rounding people up and putting them in tent cities indefinitely. Arms buildup. Extreme self-aggrandizement. Insane levels of personal adulation for the leader. Constant attacks on independent and opposition media, judiciary, and opposition politicians. Friendship with foreign dictators. Moves to bring federal bureaucracy under direct personal control and use it as a personal tool to punish enemies and critics. It goes on and on and on.

    What year in the rise of the Nazi regime are we in?

    Still very early on, perhaps a year or two in if that. The parallels are not precise enough to put an exact comparison timeline but they are there.

    There’s no Kristallnacht. No Beer Hall Putsch. Etc.

    Kristallnacht was five years in, so we are not there yet. The beer hall putsch was long before the nazi takeover of Germany and only in Munchen, so you are correct there was no equivalent thing here.

  73. Steve m

    “Actual membership may have been rare, but some large degree of agreement wasn’t.”

    Unsubstantiated claims to back a prejudical bias are very very common.

  74. Steve m

    http://www.milwaukeeindependent.com/articles/how-milwaukees-german-americans-faced-down-fascism-eighty-years-ago/

    “As early as 1933, German fascists began harassing Wisconsin’s Jewish community and distributing Nazi propaganda, including Hitler’s rambling manifesto, Mein Kampf. They also began to infiltrate existing German-American clubs in an effort to bring them under Nazi control. At the time, most of the German societies in the Milwaukee area belonged to an umbrella organization called the Wisconsin Federation of German-American Societies. Its president was Bernhard Hofmann, an immigrant from Hamburg active in German-language radio broadcasting. At its peak, the Federation had more than seventy member organizations encompassing a great variety of activities and interests. Sports and musical clubs predominated, but member clubs also included the Milwaukee Dog Training Club, the Deutscher Theater Verein, the Touristen Verein Naturfreunde, and the Min Mutter Spraak Plattdeutsch Verein.

    Insurgent Bundists quickly created chaos within the Federation. Some clubs withdrew in protest, and arguments often disrupted meetings. In 1935, the Federation voted to ban displays of the German national flag – now with swastika. Using threats and intimidation, Bund members attempted to discover which delegates had voted against the swastika. The dispute became so heated that Hofmann expelled Bund delegates from the Federation, but in doing so opened himself up to harassment and intimidation. Not long afterward he received an anonymous letter calling him a “mongrel,” and telling him: “Es ist ein Schlechter Vogel, der sein eigenes Nest beschmutzt.” (It is a very poor bird that dirties his own nest.)”

  75. Thomas L. Knapp

    “The only peace acceptable to the Arabs is the end of the Jewish state. ”

    Well, make up your mind. Are you against sweeping ethnic/racial/cultural religious generalizations, or are you for them.

    “The” Arabs don’t have any position on the matter.

  76. Steve m

    High liklihood means at a minimum more then 50% chance which I call BS on. More like well under 5%. There were far more anti nazi socialists and communist German Americans.

    The Bund had less then 0.4% membership. They lost important votes in the most German populated state.

    By the 1930s most German Americans were born here in the US. And didn’t speak German.

    Many important US military leaders such as Dwight Eisenhower and Admeral Nimitz comander of the Pacific forces were German American.

  77. steve m

    1920 census data shows 194,000 people born in Germany living in NY city. This doesn’t count the 1st, 2nd or 3rd generation German Americans. And NY city wasn’t the region with the highest percentage of German Americans. That would be Wisconsin.

    Yet you use the 20k who showed up at one demonstration?

    You reasoning applied to libertarian party and altright would paint all libertarians as nazi leaning.

  78. steve m

    “Deaths among German-born immigrants and the migration of their children to the suburbs reduced the population of German-Americans in New York City to 584,838 by 1920, but the numbers again increased when about 98,500 Germans fled the economic and political disorder of their country between the end of the First World War and 1930.”

    So around 700,000 german americans in NY city so if every one of the 20k came from NY city you would be at under 3% of the german american population.

    https://virtualny.ashp.cuny.edu/EncyNYC/germans.html

  79. paulie Post author

    I doubt everyone who held those sentiments attended the rally. But even if my recollection about the level of support for the German government among German-Americans in the mid to late 1930s is incorrect, there are still plenty of other reasons to believe Donald Trump is a hardcore racist which I already pointed out earlier. And yes, I know he has black friends.

  80. Freeman

    I agree with Redlich. Trump’s in the same class with other recent presidents.
    Trump has not bombed more either. In their first two years both W & O bombed more than T

  81. paulie Post author

    High liklihood means at a minimum more then 50% chance

    I don’t think I quantified or meant over 50%. If that’s your definition of the term you didn’t read it the way I intended it. It’s certainly true that a lot of German-Americans joined the military during the world wars, many to prove they were loyal Americans. The Trumps never did, and while I would never fault anyone for not joining the military as such, it’s just another piece of the puzzle along with Fred Trump’s involvement in the KKK and his long history of rental discrimination that indicates it’s more likely that he was a nazi sympathizer (as opposed to those German-Americans who did in fact sign up). I’m not saying he was for sure.

  82. paulie Post author

    1920 census data shows 194,000 people born in Germany living in NY city

    I’m guessing that would have included some Jews. I’m not sure how many.

    But think about how many people show up to political rallies of any kind. 20,000 people is a big crowd for a Trump rally today. The US population is maybe 2-3 times what it was then. How many fans does Trump have now vs how many go to his rallies? Consider that nazi sympathizer Father Coughlin was one of the most popular radio hosts in the country, that nazi sympathizer Charles Lindbergh was a folk hero and nazi sympathizer Henry Ford was one of the biggest business and opinion leaders in the country, among many others.

  83. paulie Post author

    How many people would show up at a nazi rally in the US today? 20 is probably a decent showing for them. 200 is huge. 20,000 is a pretty scary number when you consider the population growth in the meantime. That would be like 50,000 at a Trump rally now which, if it wouldn’t be record setting, would be on the very high end. And that’s a guy who is the sitting president, got something like 60 million votes, has a 40% or so approval and literally tens of millions of superfans.

  84. paulie Post author

    25,000 was the dues paying membership of the Bund. The LP right now has about 15,000, which is equal to maybe 6,000 then when adjusted for population growth. Yet there are over 500,000 registered LP voters, and that option is only available in about half the states. So, I’m guessing there would be at least a million if it was an option in all states, which means that if that same proportion holds, there would have been more like 2 million Bund supporters, before you even get into people who are too young to vote, not yet citizens, choose not to register to vote, etc. It wasn’t a fringe element by any means, sadly.

  85. Freeman

    Paulie said, “Closer relations with Putin’s increasingly fascist dictatorship as it exports an authoritarian-nationalist-populist ultrakleptocratic corrupt model all over the world isn’t a good thing”

    I said, “More peacable relations with Russia’d be good.
    More antagonistic relations with Russia’d be bad.
    If it were closer relations with, say, the Saudi crown prince, I’d call that a bad thing.”

    Paulie said, “I’d call that about the same thing. Why do you think Putin is any better than MBS?”

    Cooperating with Saudi Arabia in Yemen makes things much worse.
    Cooperating with Russia in Syria has made things better.

  86. Freeman

    W took office and within a year started Iraq War.
    O took office and in a little over a year escalated in Afghanistan.

  87. Steve m

    Taking that at face value your 2 million number. Over 6 million had immigrated over the preceding 100 years. I think 2 million is highly exaggerated.

    In 1940 there were at leat 18 million german americans. So is 1 in 9 highly likely?

    I think your proposition that 1930 era german americans were highlylikly to be nazi sympatheries is completely bogus!

  88. Steve m

    I don’t consider 50% to be a highliklihood that is about even. Maybe 90% would be highly likely when talking probability. Under 50% is certainly less likely. 5 or 10% is unlikely

  89. paulie Post author

    W took office and within a year started Iraq War.

    March 2003, in his 26th month in office. Perhaps you meant Afghanistan. There was also a precipitating even in 9/11. Withdrawal from Iraq started in 2007 and was largely done by 2011. Obama continued an increase in US troop presence in Afghanistan that started under Bush and happened at the same time that troop numbers in Iraq were being decreased.

    Trump has increased US bombing in Syria and Yemen. What’s much bigger though is what he is laying the ground work for, not what he has already done.

  90. paulie Post author

    Cooperating with Russia in Syria has made things better.

    Syria is a bloody mess. Millions have been killed and/or fled the country and many cities are in ruins. Russia is propping up dictator Assad, Trump has talked about assassinating him. Putin and Trump alike are sponsoring a network of authoritarian nationalist kleptocratic dictators all over the world, along with those aspiring to join their ranks, and making strides to take their own countries down that same path. Syria however may be a potential falling out point for them, or possibly Iran.

  91. paulie Post author

    I think your proposition that 1930 era german americans were highly likely to be nazi sympatheries is completely bogus!

    You may be right. But when you take the ones that avoided military service during the world wars, got arrested brawling on the side of the KKK, and practiced systematic racial discrimination in their business dealings for decades, that proportion probably went way up. Fred Trump fits all three of those.

  92. Steve m

    Paulie,

    So highly likely that Italian Americans are mafia? Irish Americans are drunks?

    Since when did such characterizations of groups of people become acceptable among left leaning libertarians?

    Simply embarrassing to be associated with such bigotry.

  93. Steve m

    Pauli,

    You said it about the german americans. You used a few to miss characterize the rest.

  94. paulie Post author

    You continue to misinterpret what I said. I think I have spent way more than enough time qualifying, contextualizing and parsing it. I am done. If you haven’t understood what I was trying to say by now I have no idea how else to explain it. It’s making me sick to my stomach that people here still don’t see the developing fascism that is happening in this country even after the latest developments. I don’t know what it’s going to take and I am pretty much giving up at this point. I go on “libertarian” (never mind conservative) discussions and see so much disgusting authoritarian crap I have no idea how I can keep lumping myself in with that. No other party or movement is acceptable, they all want to run people’s lives. I am sick of all of them. How’s that?

  95. Steve m

    paulie,

    You stated…

    “Like many German-Americans in the 1930s it’s highly likely they were Hitler fans. ”

  96. paulie Post author

    And I said a lot of other things since then to add context; enough is enough. Done. If I haven’t explained it to your satisfaction by now I’m not capable of doing so. Sorry you misunderstood me. Moving on.

  97. paulie Post author

    You can have your opinion. I disagree. I’ll have to leave it at that because I have spent way too much time on this.

  98. wredlich

    Paulie described claimed similarities to the rise of the Nazi regime.

    “Whipping up the scapegoating of hated minorities. Whipping up stadia of fanatical supporters into violent rage.”

    Nonsense. You’re spouting absurd propaganda. Where’s the violence after his rallies? There are no mobs attacking migrants or minorities after Trump events.

    “Spreading lies and propaganda constantly.”

    True. Also a common characteristic in all forms of politics.

    “Militarizing police.”

    Not new with Trump.

    “Military parades.”

    I could be wrong but I think that’s patade, not parades, and it was postponed.

    “Calls for rounding people up and putting them in tent cities indefinitely.”

    Yeah indefinite detention is not new. And there’s no Roundup.

    “Arms buildup.”

    Not new

    “Extreme self-aggrandizement. Insane levels of personal adulation for the leader.”

    You’re exaggerating a bit. But this is not new in politics. I see insane levels of adulation for Obama and Bill Clinton. Also Reagan. JFK. Etc.

    “Constant attacks on independent and opposition media, judiciary, and opposition politicians.”

    Not new. The Democrats have been bashing Fox for years. And the media has become worse in my opinion.

    I don’t see constant attacks on the judiciary. Where are you getting that?

    “Friendship with foreign dictators. Moves to bring federal bureaucracy under direct personal control and use it as a personal tool to punish enemies and critics.”

    Nothing new here either.

    You have TDS. But despite this illness I still respect you and support you.

    He’s still a terrible president.

  99. paulie Post author

    You haven’t grasped the difference in scale yet. It’s vastly different. It’s OK, you will. The only real TDS is D for denial.

  100. paulie Post author

    Nonsense. You’re spouting absurd propaganda. Where’s the violence after his rallies? There are no mobs attacking migrants or minorities after Trump events.

    Yeah, you missed the proud boys riot, the rise above movement and their multiple attacks on individuals, the synagogue shooter – while not a fan of Trump per se (he sees him as a sellout) was whipped into action by the frenzy Trump and Fox et al are whipping up about the caravan, the would-be mail bomber – same thing, and this is the very beginning. It’s going to accelerate by a lot.

    Yes, the things I mentioned have some precedents, but they are scaling up and accelerating. Hugely.

  101. Jim

    wredlich “Nonsense. You’re spouting absurd propaganda. Where’s the violence after his rallies? There are no mobs attacking migrants or minorities after Trump events.”

    The motivation for the Pittsburgh synagogue shooter was Trump whipping up his base over the immigrant “invasion” caravan. Mail bomber Cesar Sayoc was also motivated by Trump.

    It may be escalating, but it isn’t new. As far back as August, 2015, two brothers in Boston beat a sleeping, homeless Hispanic man with a metal pole, breaking his ribs. Upon being arrested one of them said “Donald Trump was right; all these illegals need to be deported.” They also complained that they were only arrested because they were white. That victim mentality is characteristic of fascist supporters.

    wredlich “Yeah indefinite detention is not new. And there’s no Roundup.”

    The scale of roundups and deportations that Trump is advocating is new from anyone with his level of power. At least since Eisenhower.

    wredlich “I don’t see constant attacks on the judiciary. Where are you getting that?”

    More broadly, the Department of Justice.

  102. Thomas L. Knapp

    Warren, you write (or quote, rather):

    “An overwhelming majority (87%) of Arabs would disapprove of recognition of Israel by their home countries, with only 8% accepting formal diplomatic recognition.”

    So: Even assuming the accuracy of polling among the subjects of autocratic regimes, Israel is STILL far more popular among Arabs than most Libertarian political candidates are among Americans.

    Talking about “the” attitude of “the” Arabs toward Israel is like talking about “the” attitude of “the” Jews toward money or “the” attitude of “the” African-Americans toward watermelon. It is ethnic/racial collectivism, aka racism.

  103. dL

    NAPist

    Napster==music service
    Napist==One who celebrates an afternoon snooze fetish
    Moderate Lessarchism: Unknown medical condition, possibly fatal if severe..

    #marketingGenius

  104. Chuck Moulton

    I agree with Warren.

    Paulie has Trump derangement syndrome… I find it very odd that none of the predictions of the sky falling in Trump’s first 2 years coming true make TDS sufferers more deranged rather than less deranged. I know a lot of Trump supporters — none of whom are genocidal. And — as usual — I hate being put in the position of defending Trump (many of whose policies I find abhorent) because his detractors are so over-the-top exaggerating.

    We should be supporting a libertarian alternative: attacking Trump where he does authoritarian things and praising him where he does libertarian things. De-escalating with Russia and North Korea are good things. He is rolling back regulations and the bureaucratic state in many instances. The tax cut was a big step forward for liberty. Judicial appointments have been more good than bad overall — the Federalist Society (which consulted on them) wants broadly to shrink the state and reign in federal power. Yes, the immigration restrictions, trade war, and attacks on trans rights are horrible, so let’s call him out on those rather than flushing our credibility down the toilet by pretending he’s the next Hitler and acting like anyone who voted for him must be racist or support genocide.

  105. dL

    are so over-the-top exaggerating.

    All due respect Chuck, you disqualified yourself as the go-to authority on over-the-top exaggerations with your Kavanaugh commentary…

  106. paulie Post author

    The motivation for the Pittsburgh synagogue shooter was Trump whipping up his base over the immigrant “invasion” caravan. Mail bomber Cesar Sayoc was also motivated by Trump.

    It may be escalating, but it isn’t new. As far back as August, 2015, two brothers in Boston beat a sleeping, homeless Hispanic man with a metal pole, breaking his ribs. Upon being arrested one of them said “Donald Trump was right; all these illegals need to be deported.” They also complained that they were only arrested because they were white. That victim mentality is characteristic of fascist supporters.

    Bingo. And again, this is just the very beginning. It’s going to escalate a lot more.

    The scale of roundups and deportations that Trump is advocating is new from anyone with his level of power. At least since Eisenhower.

    It goes way past Eisenhower. We are now talking about an 8-figure number of people including millions of US born spouses, children, etc. It even includes American Hispanics delivered by midwives or doctors who each delivered thousands of babies and had one or two that they may have forged birth certificates for. Anyone who thinks this can happen in an orderly or humane manner, that it can be done without lots of violence, loss of life, damage to property, economic dislocation for everyone (not just those being deported), and unprecedented loss of civil liberties is …not really thinking.

    wredlich “I don’t see constant attacks on the judiciary. Where are you getting that?”

    More broadly, the Department of Justice.

    DOJ and Heimland agencies, sure. Trump feels a need to bring them under personal control and use them in the manner of dictators against his enemies, and he is slowly but surely moving his people in place. The other attack is on the independence of the judiciary. The Republicans systematically held up Obama’s judicial appointments for years. Since Trump has been in office they have been filling those at breakneck speed. The judges they have been appointing tend to be young and very conservative, but a different type of conservative than many in the past – broadly speaking, people with executive branch experience and/or a judicial philosophy that the judicial branch should defer to the other branches, especially the executive branch, on principle. This removes the judiciary as an effective check and balance on what the elected branches do.

    When you couple that with Trump’s grandiose plans and dictatorial impulses, his sweeping rhetoric, his combativeness and one-upsmanship, and his continuing to move people personally loyal to him into positions of power in the national security/espionage/prosecutorial/military agencies it’s a very dangerous combination.

    There’s also Trump’s stated view that a Mexican-American judge is not qualified to judge him due to the judge’s ancestry, his view that journalists who don’t toe his line are enemies of the people, his view that his political opponents should be locked up, his view that police should rough up suspects and the death penalty should be expanded and speeded up. His position that media which criticize him should be sued for libel, like what happens in the third world and ex-Soviet dictatorships he admires. It goes on and on and all adds up to an extremely dangerous situation, especially if there is some crisis like a war, major terrorist attack, economic depression, contagious disease outbreak, etc. It could be in reaction to riots or demonstrations or congressional impeachment hearings or people suing Trump and so on. Or some combination of these things.

    You really have to look at how this happened in countries which took the path of dictatorship following the lead of demagogues who preached nationalism and making their countries great again, rather than comparing it with past US administrations, to get a more accurate comparison.

  107. paulie Post author

    I keep going back to the 14 features typical of fascism described by Umberto Eco. The New York Review of Books seems to have made the full text subscription based, but thanks to the magic of The Internet Archive, the essay can still be accessed in full, for free.

    Yes all the ground work is being laid here and in many countries. And these fascist movements including Trump’s, Putin’s, many from Eastern and Western Europe to East Asia to Central Asia and the Middle East and Latin America all have many links to each other.

  108. paulie Post author

    2018 Mid-term election predictions: https://saturnsrepository.wordpress.com/2018/10/31/on-the-2018-mid-term-elections/

    I think you are closer to the mark than 538 is. You predict a narrow retention of the House by the Rs, which is well within my range of prediction but my best guess is a narrow changeover to Democrats. You also predict a narrow gain by Republicans in the Senate, and that’s also within my prediction range but I actually think Republicans will gain even more in the Senate. I’ll be less surprised if your predictions turn out to be right on the money than if 538’s do.

    Perhaps we should set up a separate thread for mid-term predictions on IPR.

    Good idea. Do you want to post that?

  109. paulie Post author

    Paulie has Trump derangement syndrome…

    No, you have Trump denial syndrome. I would have thought that after he came out calling for ending birthright citizenship by executive order, sending thousands of troops to the border and threatening to shoot refugees who throw rocks with live ammunition, calling for detaining untold numbers of people in tent cities indefinitely, attacking sanctuary cities by executive order, and deputizing law enforcement nationwide as de facto border patrol, and after he has complained that the news coverage of terrorists inspired by the same immigration frenzy he has been busy whipping up distracted from his immigration frenzy, etc, etc, that more people here would see that my predictions about him are starting to come true. Apparently not.

    I’m just wondering exactly what it will take. Will people here still be in denial if and when another world war starts or when criticizing the president is made illegal or when the number of people sent to indefinite detention (concentration camps) reaches the millions? Some point in between now and then?

  110. paulie Post author

    I find it very odd that none of the predictions of the sky falling in Trump’s first 2 years coming true make TDS sufferers more deranged rather than less deranged

    I believe I always said I don’t know what the time frame will be. It takes time to move the executive appointees and judicial picks into place to make Trump’s plans possible. Judges and bureaucrats who were there before him and continued into his term slowed his plans down. That is changing. Maybe it has lulled you into a false sense of security, but I’ve looked at these patterns internationally and historically and it often takes years. Again – it even took Hitler years and years before he invaded any countries or sent large numbers of people to death camps. It takes a long time to condition the public to find these things to be acceptable and proper, put in the legal and logistical machinery, etc etc.

    I know a lot of Trump supporters — none of whom are genocidal.

    I know a lot of them too, and most are not genocidal – yet. But they are capable of being whipped into a frenzy over time. Or making excuses for each of the steps along the way.

    because his detractors are so over-the-top exaggerating.

    Exaggerating in this case is literally impossible.

  111. paulie Post author

    De-escalating with Russia and North Korea are good things.

    Russia is becoming more expansionist over time, and working to support the rise of authoritarian regimes around the world. That’s not a good thing. North Korea continues to develop its weapons despite vague promises. There are significant potential flashpoints for a falling out between Putin and Trump including but not limited to Syria, Iran, Israel/Palestine, and North Korea. Both are pursuing an arms buildup and an increase in nationalistic fervor. And Trump promotes trade wars which over time tend to lead to shooting wars. The Putin doctrine is to renormalize territorial conquest. Trump is aiding and abetting that.

    Judicial appointments have been more good than bad overall

    Disagreed. They are friendly to executive power, deferential to legislative overreach, craven towards police and national security state abuse of power, hostile to criminal justice reform, eminently willing to be partisan, etc. Combined with the other factors at play, very dangerous.

    pretending he’s the next Hitler

    Actually even worse.

    anyone who voted for him must be racist or support genocide.

    Not by a long shot. A lot of different people voted for him for a lot of different reasons. Many actually just voted against Clinton. Some just exercised party loyalty. Yes, I think quite a few had various degrees of racism or racial self-hatred or immigrant pull up the ladder behind you mentality. A lot had to do with the discomfort many feel with changing gender roles and transformations in the economy and so on.

    I don’t think most Trump supporters currently support genocide, I just think they’ll glide right down that path along with him.

  112. dL

    I’m just wondering exactly what it will take.

    Congress saying mean things about Trump’s SCOTUS nominees. That’s the bar…

  113. paulie Post author

    What’s the average age of the non-Trump appointed justices? I’m guessing he will be making more appointments. And it’s looking highly likely the Senate will stay Republican. It makes total sense that Trump is laser focused on the Senate even if it hurts him in the House. The Senate decides on judicial and executive appointments and decides on conviction if there are any impeachments, whether of Trump or any of his cronies. The House can hold hearings, initiate impeachments, but it can’t remove anyone or block any nominations. They have to initiate spending but Trump can do a lot through executive orders, bureaucracy, judiciary, and shutdowns (Democrats have more supporters hurt by those). He could also punish their districts through various executive actions. If he tries a line item veto revival the courts are increasingly filled with his loyal nominees as well.

  114. Jim

    The US, and particularly the Republican Party, has historically had a fail safe to prevent fascism which was unavailable to most other places in the world. Part of the way fascists seek power is by appealing to an idealized traditionalism and scapegoating the ‘other’. But it’s drilled into the head of every American student that the idealized tradition in the US was that of a melting pot and limited government. That short circuited attempts at fascism within the right wing.

    That fail safe broke during the Bush 2 administration, between 9/11 and the 2008 financial crisis. By the end Bush was making it plain with statements like: “I had to abandon free market principles in order to save the free market system.”

    That might seem nonsensical, but that is the line of thinking that opened the door to a large segment of the right wing in the US to a fascist mentality. Restoring traditional American values, or MAGA, requires abandoning traditional American values. It’s what allows them to say they want religious freedom while pushing a Muslim travel ban. It’s what allows them to say they are pursuing free trade while pushing protectionist tariffs. It’s what allows them to say they are protecting the American way of life by advocating the mass deportation of 13 million persons who came here because they were attracted to the American way of life.

    The ideal of the US being a melting pot with limited government are no longer impediments to those seeking power through appeals to traditionalism.

  115. Thomas L. Knapp

    I generally agree with Chuck, except for one part:

    “The tax cut was a big step forward for liberty.”

    In order for the tax cut to have been a big step forward, there would have had to be a tax cut. There wasn’t a tax cut.

    First of all, taxes are never cut unless spending is cut. Deferring payment but adding interest to that payment isn’t cutting taxes, any more than making a mortgage loan is lowering the price on a house.

    Secondly, Trump has been raising taxes on American consumers in the form of tariffs. At least one analysis in Reason magazine a little while back had those tariffs set to exceed any reduction in current income tax collections (and to also exceed the ObamaCare-related taxes that Trump complained so bitterly about).

    I did get a little sense of schadenfreude for the “soak the rich” scheme built into the income tax “reform” — the SALT deduction cap. It may be the only “soak the rich” scheme that Democrats don’t like.

  116. Thomas L. Knapp

    “The Putin doctrine is to renormalize territorial conquest.”

    Where, precisely — other than in the former Soviet republics, and mostly just by way of supporting secessionist movements on the edges of those where there is significant sentiment among Russian speakers to be part of Russia rather than part of e.g. Ukraine — is this “Putin doctrine” in operation?

    The only significant Russian military commitment I’ve noticed outside that fairly obvious and obviously sensitive area has been in Syria, where the Russians are supporting an existing friendly regime presumably for the purpose of keeping their only Mediterranean naval anchorage available to them.

  117. robert capozzi

    cm: We should be supporting a libertarian alternative: attacking Trump where he does authoritarian things and praising him where he does libertarian things.

    me: While I’m a forgiving sort, this is too charitable for my tastes. For this lessarchist, my view is: Trump demonstrated during the elections that he was unfit for the presidency, given his tendency to fan the flames of hatred. Overall, he has governed poorly and demonstrated that his rhetoric was not just an election expediency, but in fact, he often operates from a place of hate and fear-mongering as president. To be fair, he sometimes advocates for more peace and liberty, but on balance, my view is the sooner he leaves the Oval Office, the better.

    I also agree with TK that tax rate and base changes in the context of increased spending is not something to praise. It may well benefit some over others, but is directionally ambivalent at best and likely contributes to the coarsening of public discourse.

    btw, I stumbled across THIS study which I’ve long wanted to see…it shows the TOTAL tax burden by quintile.

    https://itep.org/who-pays-taxes-in-america-in-2018/

    Ls have for too long supported the let-them-eat-cake element, is my contention, and this study strengthens my intuition. Everyone is over-taxed, but taxing the poorest is especially unpeaceful.

  118. paulie Post author

    I generally agree with Chuck, except for one part:

    “The tax cut was a big step forward for liberty.”

    In order for the tax cut to have been a big step forward, there would have had to be a tax cut. There wasn’t a tax cut.

    First of all, taxes are never cut unless spending is cut. Deferring payment but adding interest to that payment isn’t cutting taxes, any more than making a mortgage loan is lowering the price on a house.

    Secondly, Trump has been raising taxes on American consumers in the form of tariffs. At least one analysis in Reason magazine a little while back had those tariffs set to exceed any reduction in current income tax collections (and to also exceed the ObamaCare-related taxes that Trump complained so bitterly about).

    I generally disagree with Chuck for reasons stated but good point on the “tax cuts.” I don’t focus on those at all because I just don’t see fascism as better than democratic socialism, even when fascism incorporates some limited free market elements relatively a bit more than democratic socialism does. Trumpism isn’t full blown fascism yet, and US neoliberalism is a long way from the European democratic socialist model, but I’ll use those as shorthand for the systems they aspire to if they had free rein.

    The thing is, Trump doesn’t focus on his “tax cuts” either – he would rather fearmonger about immigration and call his opposition enemies of the people and mobs. I think he has made an alliance with big business conservatives because he wants their donations and the congressional Republican support to pass the parts of his agenda he really cares about. But even then his economic program isn’t exactly free market – even the better parts of it are at best Reaganism, with tax cuts for the wealthy, massively expanded debt and deficits, spending rising even more rapidly than under Democrats because no serious effort at middle class entitlement reform is even attempted while military-industrial, heimland security, and police-prison-industrial spending goes into hyperdrive along with corporate welfare and bailouts. Thrown in protectionism and the economic aspects of migrant-bashing and it’s full blown mercantilism.

    Trump’s “free market” moves should be seen as the same type of corporatist agenda that was built into fascism in practice. Hitler was good for big business too, at least at first, and he certainly sought to make Germany great again. Mussolini made the trains run on time. But neither one was ultimately good for free markets, peace, freedom, civil liberties, or their nations or the world as a whole. Trump is that same sort of creature, but armed with a nuclear arsenal capable of wiping out almost all life on Earth.

  119. dL

    The US, and particularly the Republican Party, has historically had a fail safe to prevent fascism which was unavailable to most other places in the world.

    Not even close…

    The thus-far invincible aggressiveness of the Soviet Union does or does not constitute a threat to the security of the United States, and we have got to decide which. If it does, we shall have to arrange, sensibly, our battle plans; and this means that we have got to accept Big Government for the duration — for neither an offensive nor a defensive war can be waged, given our present government skills, except though the instrument of a totalitarian bureaucracy within our shores.

    William F. Buckley, 1952

    The GOP’s association with “limited government” is one of the great historical con jobs. Trumpism is not some clean break with the GOP past. It has always been there at the margins, a slow percolation over time from newsletter subscriptions, talk radio to Fox News, graduating from being opportunistically deployed by the vanguard(Bush I–>Willie Horton, Bush II–>McCain, South Carolina) to becoming the vanguard.

  120. Thomas L. Knapp

    I’m willing to give Trump credit where credit is due, but I also agree with RC that in general he is worth opposing for various reasons that extend beyond policy and into demeanor and personal behavior.

    I realize that the US probably has to go through a “banana republic” phases as it declines and heads toward final collapse, and while I’d say that the beginnings of that phase came quite some time back, Trump is a sort of highly visible icon of it. The main difference between Trump and Juan Peron or Hugo Chavez is that Peron and Chavez actually did the military stuff instead of just quacking about how good they were at it.

  121. paulie Post author

    Where, precisely — other than in the former Soviet republics, and mostly just by way of supporting secessionist movements on the edges of those where there is significant sentiment among Russian speakers to be part of Russia rather than part of e.g. Ukraine — is this “Putin doctrine” in operation?

    As with Trump, Putin hasn’t reached full blown Eurasianism yet. But read up on Dugin and his grand aspirations or the ideological program of the Russian right. Putin’s guru is a full blown National Bolshevik and Putin aims to make Russia great again, restoring the lost glory of Soviet superpower status – he views the collapse of the USSR as a disaster for Russia and seeks to reestablish a new Eurasian Union. At the same time he wants the total power of Stalin and the Czars. I can’t remember if the links about Eurasianism were in this month’s open thread or the last, but I’m sure you can look up Eurasianism, Dugin and his ties to Putin on your own if you aren’t familiar with those subjects already.

    Additionally, Putin has been restoring church and state Orthodox theocracy, and the Russian religious right believes Russia is the successor to Rome and Byzantium and that its manifest destiny is to wage a new Orthodox crusade in the Middle East and ultimately capture Jerusalem for the Orthodox faith. That just happens to be convenient cover for Russian oil interests as well.

    In the far east, Greater Russia Eurasianists such as Dugin and Putin see former czarist and soviet spheres of influence in Mongolia, Manchuria and Korea being re-established.

    It’s true that Putin is still at the very early stages of this program, and hasn’t made many territorial moves outside of Georgia and parts of Ukraine yet. But as with Trump, he shouldn’t be judged by what he has done already but rather by what he is on a trajectory to do and aims to accomplish. It’s true that Putin has been in power much longer than Trump but he is just now getting the dominance and interference of the European-US alliance out of the way and only recently finished consolidating control domestically. He’s primed for bigger territorial moves, with the Baltics most likely next in his crosshairs.

    The only significant Russian military commitment I’ve noticed outside that fairly obvious and obviously sensitive area has been in Syria, where the Russians are supporting an existing friendly regime presumably for the purpose of keeping their only Mediterranean naval anchorage available to them.

    It’s an obvious part of their reason for being in Syria. But at the same time, Syria is a stepping stone on the Crusader path to Jerusalem. It’s also an ally of Iran, which likewise has massive petroleum resources and is fighting for mideast dominance with Saudi Arabia; the latter is also the center of Islam, and Islam is a domestic threat to Putin due to the war in the Caucasus and the Muslim immigration from Central Asia and the Caucasus into Russia. So, there’s a lot more to Russian incursion in the mideast, and a much bigger ambition, than just Syria alone. It helps to read the writings of Eurasianists and the Russian right. I prefer to read them in Russian but I assume a fair bit of them have been translated into English as well.

  122. Anthony Dlugos

    Kudos to TK for astutely responding to CM shamefully glowing paragraph of praise for Trump.

    CM says, “let’s call him out on those rather than flushing our credibility down the toilet by pretending he’s the next Hitler and acting like anyone who voted for him must be racist or support genocide.”

    Who are we losing credibility with, even if the LP gets on board with a “Trump is the next Hitler” messaging?

    The only people I see us losing credibility with are people I WANT to lose credibility with.

    The irony here is that I think CM is one of the guys arguing nominating J-W makes us seem like an adjunct of the republican party, even though he writes a paragraph arguing for dissecting the Trump administration for the good parts, a paragraph that could have been written by a republican, while Governor Weld was probably the first person in the party to publicly argue that Trump was a far worse danger for the Republic than Hillary could ever be.

    The people who have told me I have TDS, or that the LP should do a better job of dissecting the Trump administration for his good policies have invariably come from one of three groups:

    1) Trumpsters
    2) the hard right of the libertarian movement, ranging from the paleos to the alt-reich incursion
    3) radical Libertarians. (this does not mean ALL radical libertarians thinks like this).

    Meanwhile, I don’t personally know one J-W delegate who ever took such a forgiving attitude vis a vi Trump.

    I wonder why that is?

  123. paulie Post author

    Keep in mind, again, that it took Hitler the better part of a decade to start making significant territorial moves as well. Putin has been on an even slower timetable, but the ambition is there and the roadblocks are getting cleared.

  124. dL

    I generally disagree with Chuck for reasons stated but good point on the “tax cuts.”

    “Libertarian scorecards” are a think tank fatuous desideratum. You ain’t doing it right. But if you must keep score, at least weight the scores correctly. Shit like, -3 for concentration camps, + 10 for tax cuts, +5 for cutting sesame street, -2 for military transfers to subsidize genocide, -1 for attacks on gays and trans , -2 for protectionist tariffs==+7==libertarian leaning is bullshit scorecard. You deserve the reputation that a libertarian is just a republican who likes to smoke pot. Actually, in this instance, a republican who likes supply-side tax cuts. Hell, that’s just a republican.

  125. paulie Post author

    Ls have for too long supported the let-them-eat-cake element, is my contention, and this study strengthens my intuition. Everyone is over-taxed, but taxing the poorest is especially unpeaceful.

    Agreed.

  126. Anthony Dlugos

    “Ls have for too long supported the let-them-eat-cake element, is my contention, and this study strengthens my intuition. Everyone is over-taxed, but taxing the poorest is especially unpeaceful.”

    Agreed as well.

    But how do we change that when the platform says this,

    2.4 Government Finance and Spending

    …We support any initiative to reduce or abolish ANY tax, and oppose ANY increase on any taxes for any reason…

    Capitalization mine.

  127. paulie Post author

    The main difference between Trump and Juan Peron or Hugo Chavez is that Peron and Chavez actually did the military stuff instead of just quacking about how good they were at it.

    Give him time. How much military stuff did Hitler do in his first two years? Stalin? Mussolini? Trump has made it clear where he wants to go. The roadblocks are still there but not sustainable. He will get them out of the way and do what he wants.

  128. paulie Post author

    The GOP’s association with “limited government” is one of the great historical con jobs. Trumpism is not some clean break with the GOP past. It has always been there at the margins, a slow percolation over time from newsletter subscriptions, talk radio to Fox News, graduating from being opportunistically deployed by the vanguard(Bush I–>Willie Horton, Bush II–>McCain, South Carolina) to becoming the vanguard.

    True, and Trumpism graduates it to a new level.

  129. paulie Post author

    I generally disagree with Chuck for reasons stated but good point on the “tax cuts.”

    “Libertarian scorecards” are a think tank fatuous desideratum. You ain’t doing it right. But if you must keep score, at least weight the scores correctly. Shit like, -3 for concentration camps, + 10 for tax cuts, +5 for cutting sesame street, -2 for military transfers to subsidize genocide, -1 for attacks on gays and trans , -2 for protectionist tariffs==+7==libertarian leaning is bullshit scorecard. You deserve the reputation that a libertarian is just a republican who likes to smoke pot. Actually, in this instance, a republican who likes supply-side tax cuts. Hell, that’s just a republican.

    That couldn’t have been a response to me, since I certainly don’t score Trump like that. I don’t think it’s fair to characterize Chuck as a Republican or Republican lite either. I agree with you about the weak points of Chuck’s argument in this case though.

  130. paulie Post author

    But how do we change that when the platform says this,

    2.4 Government Finance and Spending

    …We support any initiative to reduce or abolish ANY tax, and oppose ANY increase on any taxes for any reason…

    Capitalization mine.

    I support that too. I just don’t see it as a significant move in the way Chuck does, and seen in context it just isn’t a win in the bigger picture. I support tax cuts and spending cuts across the board (yes, to 0% eventually, but I’m willing to ignore that aspect in the short to middle term). So, I’m not opposed to tax cuts for the wealthy unless they also involve tax increases for everyone else and more debt and higher tariffs etc etc etc.

    If our platform said we can support some increases in some taxes that would just open the door to all sorts of fuckery. I’d keep that language.

  131. Anthony Dlugos

    With some true blue radicals, its not a scorecard. That would be bad enough.

    Its “No Particular Orderism” which means it doesn’t matter how bad a president is in other areas. It could be Mussolini reincarnated, and if he signs a bill reducing the estate tax by .5%, we need to specifically point that out to show how wedded to principle we are.

  132. robert capozzi

    TK: …in general [DJT] is worth opposing for various reasons that extend beyond policy and into demeanor and personal behavior.

    Me: Yes, imagine for a moment an amalgam NAPist L candidate who has the dogmatic commitment to NAPism like Long, the effervescent grit of Sharpe, and the pithy pedigree of Weld. BUT…he’s been caught on tape railing about the n*ggers and the c*nts. Now, he doesn’t advocate using the State to hem in the n*ggers and the c*nts, so for some NAPists, this is (somehow) OK (AJ comes to mind).

    But, of course, this is NOT OK. In fact, despite his plumbline perfection, this is a candidate who should be quickly repudiated. I believe we need to be humans first, well before ideological opinions. Hate-mongers are less than human, I submit. They should be shunned, perhaps prayed for.

  133. robert capozzi

    AD: But how do we change that when the platform says this

    Me: Difficult, certainly. Considering spending a “tax” is the only workaround that comes to mind. To be a serious L candidate is to be all about workarounds! 🙁

  134. Anthony Dlugos

    I’m not sure what you mean there, paulie.

    The platform does say “ANY” reduction/abolishment in taxes.

    Are you suggesting an alteration in the platform that says the tax reduction must be “significant?”

  135. paulie Post author

    In a sense Hitler’s count was off by one. The First Reich, the Holy Roman Empire, was an attempt to reestablish in a sense the original Roman Empire. The Second Reich of Bismarck and the Kaisers was in that sense the third, Hitler’s third reich in that sense was the 4th, and Trump wants an Anglo-Celt-Germanic-Nordic fifth reich that includes the US. Both want spheres of influence rather than direct rule in other parts of the world.

    Putin traces back to the Roman empire also, but his line goes through Byzantium as second, Tsarist Russia as the third, the USSR as the fourth and the planned Eurasian Union as the fifth.

    Like the Hitler-Stalin pact, the Putin-Trump alliance is not long term stable and not anything for advocates of peace to celebrate.

  136. paulie Post author

    With some true blue radicals, its not a scorecard. That would be bad enough.

    Its “No Particular Orderism” which means it doesn’t matter how bad a president is in other areas. It could be Mussolini reincarnated, and if he signs a bill reducing the estate tax by .5%, we need to specifically point that out to show how wedded to principle we are.

    No, it just means we don’t decry it or put forward some new tax scheme of our own. But it doesn’t mean we are under any obligation to celebrate it. We can certainly put it in larger context and celebrate only victories which actually matter. No particular orderism doesn’t mean treat everything equally or even don’t have priorities, it just means don’t hold freedom front A hostage to freedom front B as in “we can’t loosen immigration until we get rid of the welfare state” or “we can’t have gun rights until we end the drug war” etc.

  137. Anthony Dlugos

    “Yes, imagine for a moment an amalgam NAPist L candidate who has the dogmatic commitment to NAPism like Long, the effervescent grit of Sharpe, and the pithy pedigree of Weld. BUT…he’s been caught on tape railing about the n*ggers and the c*nts. Now, he doesn’t advocate using the State to hem in the n*ggers and the c*nts, so for some NAPists, this is (somehow) OK (AJ comes to mind).

    But, of course, this is NOT OK. In fact, despite his plumbline perfection, this is a candidate who should be quickly repudiated. I believe we need to be humans first, well before ideological opinions.”

    Not long after Trump got elected. The LP published a press release that suggested a similar attitude: dissect the Trump plan for the good parts, and be hopeful that he follows through on those, and criticize Trump for his bad parts.

    I asked those who thought the release was a good idea a simple question: would you hire this man (Trump) if you owned a business and he was applying for a job, regardless of his qualifications?

    Of course, any reasonable business owner would not take a chance on such a person, someone who could expose the business to lawsuits/poor customer relations/sexual harassment charges, etc.

    The L.P. would make more political hay by saying, “whatever good ideas this president has are totally offset by his bad ideas, and more importantly, his completely untrustworthy character. We’re not attaching our good name to him under any circumstances. Please check out our twitter feed in the future, etc…”

  138. paulie Post author

    Are you suggesting an alteration in the platform that says the tax reduction must be “significant?”

    Nyet. But I am A-OK with priorities, and a tax cut for the rich in context of the rest of Trump’s program just isn’t a big plus mark for him. I don’t denounce it either, but if I had relatively free rein, it’s not where I would start cutting taxes, and any tax cuts I would make would be balanced with spending cuts and not with de facto tax increases through debt, tariffs, etc.

  139. Anthony Dlugos

    “…it just means don’t hold freedom front A hostage to freedom front B as in “we can’t loosen immigration until we get rid of the welfare state” or “we can’t have gun rights until we end the drug war” etc.”

    You know what? The more unsavory in our party or just some paleo bro-publicans know this and use it to hamstring us.

    In other words, they’ll just replace “until we get rid of the welfare state” in your formulation with, “until we stand up for the christian baker who refuses to bake a cake for a gay couple” and force us to make a choice: drop the no particular orderism or drop them.

    Unfortunately, we as party have taken the bait, and then its the bro-publicans who create the order of priorities.

    That’s how we become “republicans who want to smoke pot.” Its not the mere fact of nominating ex-republicans per se.

    Governor Johnson was the first one who stood up to the temporary confluence of No Particular Orderism Radicals and the bro-publicans who WANTED an order of priorities that started with protecting the rights of christian bakers (and by implication racist restaurateurs) and said he is not going down that road.

    An order of policy priorities is inevitable. Either we pick it or our most unsavory elements will pick it for us.

  140. Anthony Dlugos

    Basically, the petersen crew.

    a.k.a, the alt-reich washed through a filter of Michelob Ultra.

  141. Thomas L. Knapp

    “But how do we change that when the platform says …”

    The same way every other party does — by running candidates for office whose proposals for implementing its platform will vary in detail from the small/incremental to the large/sweeping.

  142. dL

    Basically, the petersen crew.

    a.k.a, the alt-reich washed through a filter of Michelob Ultra.

    yeah, you’re mixing your metaphors

  143. Anthony Dlugos

    try to keep up with current events, dL. Remember? AP defected to the GOP:

    “If we have a problem, the problem is the welfare state. Certainly, my ancestors were immigrants. They came through Ellis Island, which actually was a very strenuous test. They had to go through a strict security check, a strict disease check, and then they could be admitted. At the moment, what’s happening is the incentives are such that we are incentivizing illegal immigration. We need to disincentivize it. We need to incentivize people to obey the law.”
    Source: Merion West interview on 2018 Missouri Senatorial race , Nov 17, 2017

    http://www.ontheissues.org/International/Austin_Petersen_Immigration.htm

    Now, he didn’t go full-on Trump restrictionist on immigration, but, like I suggested, the Petersen crew is just the alt-reich with the edge taken off.

    In any case, the issue on the deck at the 2016 Convention that I referred to was the “Bake the Cake” issue, and the people who were most apoplectic about Johnson’s answer were either from the Petersen delegation OR they were Radicals.

    Which goes to the point I was trying to make to paulie: One may take a “No Particular Orderism” stand like paulie suggested…”it just means don’t hold freedom front A hostage to freedom front B,” but in the political arena, just don’t be surprised if a latent homophobe takes you up on the offer.

  144. Chuck Moulton

    Tom,

    I too would obviously love to see spending cuts. I believe tax cuts should be celebrated regardless of whether they come with spending cuts though due to no particular orderism. Like you, I think getting rid of SALT deductions was the best part of the tax cuts.

    Paulie,

    I’ve been going to Federalist Society events for over a decade. I’ve listened to Don McGahn speeches on the subject, who orchestrated the appointments with a lot of input from the Federalist Society. I’ve seen countless FedSoc panels on the subject of executive overreach, overdelegation, etc. The notion that judicial picks for the federal judiciary want to increase executive power is incompatible with what I’ve personally seen over many years.

    My read on it is simply that judicial appointments are important to conservative voters and Trump has largely delegated the appointments to who conservatives trust (the Federalist Society) to get more election and re-election votes for himself. I’ve seen no evidence whatsoever that this is a bug scheme to stack the courts with yes men who would let him rule like a dictator.

  145. Thomas L. Knapp

    “the people who were most apoplectic about Johnson’s [‘bake the cake’] answer were either from the Petersen delegation OR they were Radicals.”

    Not exactly.

    The alt-righty types were the apoplectic ones. The radicals tended to consider it just another piece of evidence that Johnson was a slow-on-his-feet, unqualified lightweight who couldn’t parse even relatively simple issues into statements that made any fucking sense.

  146. Thomas L. Knapp

    Chuck,

    You write:

    “I too would obviously love to see spending cuts. I believe tax cuts should be celebrated regardless of whether they come with spending cuts though due to no particular orderism.”

    So do I. So if there is ever a tax cut, I’ll celebrate it.

    Deferring payment of taxes while adding interest to them isn’t a tax cut. Anytime spending goes up, taxes go up.

    “Like you, I think getting rid of SALT deductions was the best part of the tax cuts.”

    There weren’t any tax cuts.

    The SALT deduction cap was fun to me because it put Democrats in the position of whining about a “soak the rich” scheme. Whether or not it was the “best” part of the tax increases fraudulently sold as tax cuts, I don’t know.

  147. Anthony Dlugos

    Interesting perspective from Dalmia’s article:

    “Trump’s apologists on the right argue that if you look past Trump’s foul personality and examine his actual policies, he’s really not that bad. He has cut taxes, deregulated the economy and made solid judicial appointments. He may be belligerent, but he hasn’t started any big new wars; he may call the media the “enemy of the people,” but he hasn’t jailed dissidents and dissenters; he may talk tough on immigration and border security, but so did Bill Clinton.”

    I guess that makes someone here a “Trump apologist on the right.”

  148. dL

    try to keep up with current events, dL. Remember? AP defected to the GOP:

    Yeah, he defected, but he never adopted the Trump stance on immigration and trade, and last time I checked, he was on the pages of salon.com advocating a left-libertarian alliance to circumvent Trump’ s GOP. Whatever one might think of that, there is at least one objective conclusion to draw from it: he ain’t part of the alt-right.

  149. Chuck Moulton

    I’m not a Trump apologist. I criticize him when he does bad things and praise him when he does good things.

    The notion that anyone who disagrees with you on anything must be evil incarnate and be wrong on everything is why political discourse has gotten so toxic and horrible.

  150. dL

    The notion that anyone who disagrees with you on anything must be evil incarnate and be wrong on everything is why political discourse has gotten so toxic and horrible.

    No, disagreement is not evil incarnate. However, there should be no disagreement on what evil incarnate is, or at the very least, that marginal rate tax cuts doesn’t offset it.

    No, disagreement is not the root of toxic politics. The root of toxic politics is the exercise of toxic political power, that is to say, the exercise of political power to dictate how some people may live and how some must die.

  151. Anthony Dlugos

    “The alt-righty types were the apoplectic ones. The radicals tended to consider it just another piece of evidence that Johnson was a slow-on-his-feet, unqualified lightweight who couldn’t parse even relatively simple issues into statements that made any fucking sense.”

    Well, TK, notwithstanding your rhetorical flourish, I might not disagree with your point there. Johnson was frequently not entirely clear about his position on the Cake issue?

    However, how would the radicals have handled a more adamant declaration by Johnson that, as President, he believes he has bigger fish to fry, and so the proprietor of Masterpiece Cakeshop would indeed have to bake the cake?

  152. Thomas L. Knapp

    Johnson was plenty “adamant.” The problem wasn’t his lack of resolve. The problem was that he got the issue completely wrong and couldn’t think of any way to explain himself other than calling religious freedom a “black hole.” Sort of like he couldn’t think of any criticism of Trump that went beyond repeating the word “incendiary.’

    It wasn’t a complicated issue, nor was it an issue he shouldn’t have seen coming at him. All he had to do was ask his advisors to feed him a position that wasn’t stupid, and some words that didn’t sound like he was in the grips of ibogaine withdrawal.

    It’s not like this is a new problem with Johnson. He was the first governor of New Mexico in 40 years to order an execution. Then as soon as it was over, he started quacking anti-death-penalty … but tried to tell Democrats was that they should trade him marijuana legalization for death penalty repeal. Which he then claimed to have been kidding about.

    I don’t know if New Mexico didn’t have televised debates when he was running for governor or what, but I am still not sure how he managed to get elected. Twice. He has all the gravitas of Donald Trump and all the speaking ability of Mel Tillis.

  153. Thomas L. Knapp

    “It’s true that Putin is still at the very early stages of this program”

    And at the very late stages of life. He just reached the average Russian male life expectancy this year.

    He also seems autocratic enough to not likely have a machine in place that would necessarily continue his program, whatever that program might be.

    Russia has been a hulking, dangerous fact of life to the east of Europe for centuries. It’s going to continue being exactly that. But under Putin and most other leaders, it’s tended to be a hulking, dangerous fact of life that is continually on the strategic defensive, trying to hold together an amalgamation of ethnicities that span the European and Asian gamut. It has to be poked pretty hard to get distracted from that project for long enough to fuck with anyone west of Poland.

  154. paulie Post author

    And at the very late stages of life. He just reached the average Russian male life expectancy this year.

    LOL. You do realize the fallacy here I’m sure. The average Russian male lives on an income that’s less than the average Indian male, drinks heavily, smokes, and has substandard medical access. Putin is a powerful leader, multi-billionaire, perhaps the world’s wealthiest men. He has access to the best medical care in the world. He appears to be in good health, as he demonstrates regularly. I would expect him to live into his 80s or 90s even absent radical developments in life extension in the meantime. Gorbachev, born in 1931, is still alive, and still active. Putin was born in 1952, and absent a revolution will probably remain in office for life. Why would you think Putin would have the life expectancy of a factory worker or coalminer?

    He also seems autocratic enough to not likely have a machine in place that would necessarily continue his program, whatever that program might be.

    Whoever comes to power after him is likely to be of the same persuasion or possibly worse, even much worse.

    continually on the strategic defensive

    That’s changing.

  155. robert capozzi

    cm: The notion that anyone who disagrees with you on anything must be evil incarnate and be wrong on everything is why political discourse has gotten so toxic and horrible.

    me: 100%. I don’t find DJT to be “evil,” I find him to be unconscious. He says too many hateful things for me to have much confidence in his judgment, since it’s self-evident that we are all equal in our humanity.

  156. paulie Post author

    Anthony @ 10:56 am – I am confused by your comment. I don’t see how having an order of priorities, but rejecting holding some freedom policies to the success of others, is bad.

  157. paulie Post author

    last time I checked, he was on the pages of salon.com advocating a left-libertarian alliance to circumvent Trump’ s GOP.

    Interesting. I did not know that.

    Whatever one might think of that, there is at least one objective conclusion to draw from it: he ain’t part of the alt-right.

    Austin is not. Some of his fans are.

  158. dL

    Austin is not. Some of his fans are.

    Not that I’m in the business of being a Petersen defender, but I’ve yet to find any instance of an alt-righter being a fan boy of someone who even hints at taking an open borders position.

  159. dL

    However, how would the radicals have handled a more adamant declaration by Johnson that, as President, he believes he has bigger fish to fry, and so the proprietor of Masterpiece Cakeshop would indeed have to bake the cake?

    Personally, I would just see some consistency on the issue, either way. If the you must bake the cake, you must also platform people whose views you don’t particularly care for. If you don’t have to bake the cake, then don’t bitch about the likes of Alex Jones being de-platformed.

  160. Jim

    dL “The GOP’s association with “limited government” is one of the great historical con jobs.”

    I agree. The Republican party has always had a Progressive wing, and it’s often been the dominant faction. Eisenhower, as far as I know, was the last notable to actually call himself a Progressive. After that they called themselves conservatives. But they kept on through Nixon and then to Bush 2.

    But I said there was a fail-safe to prevent fascism, not simply Progressive government.

    dL “Trumpism is not some clean break with the GOP past. It has always been there at the margins, a slow percolation over time from newsletter subscriptions, talk radio to Fox News, graduating from being opportunistically deployed by the vanguard(Bush I–>Willie Horton, Bush II–>McCain, South Carolina) to becoming the vanguard.”

    I wasn’t talking about the subtle or sometimes not so subtle racism. Yes, that has been there, in certain parts of the Republican party, for decades. It is less prevalent in the Progressive faction than in the PaleoConservative faction.

    I was talking about a particular line of thinking in the Republican party which has opened the door to fascism. It began in the Bush 2 administration, was incubated during Obama’s time, and has become a common, if not dominant, way of thinking among Trump supporters.

    On the William F. Buckley quote – Buckley was not advocating for a totalitarian government in that essay. He goes on for two pages complaining about lack of Republican opposition to central banking, Social Security, the minimum wage, and said that the income tax has turned us into slaves. He quotes Herbert Spencer that the state is “begotten of aggression and by aggression”, and Henry Mencken that the state is “the common enemy of all well-disposed, industrious, and decent men.” On the third page he even says that the Republican party platform should be changed to declare the state to be a domestic enemy.

    In between that, Buckley made a * complaint * that the USSR was an existential threat to the US and, given the current state of government, the only way to counter that threat was with a totalitarian government. He viewed a domestic totalitarian government as an only slightly better option than a global communist government because a totalitarian domestic state would be somewhat easier to remove. A totalitarian government to counter the USSR wasn’t his choice, he just thought that, given the way the current state operated and the lack of any immediate prospect of the minarchist government he was advocating, it would be necessary for survival.

  161. Jim

    dL “Peak libertarian moment. The “libertarian” case for marijuana prohibition.”

    Wow. I’m not sure which is worse, that, or the self described “geolibertarian” that I was arguing with on reddit a week or so ago who claimed that a total surveillance state was compatible with minarchy because policing was one of the state powers permitted in a minarchist government.

  162. Anthony Dlugos

    dL: Whatever one might think of that, there is at least one objective conclusion to draw from it: he ain’t part of the alt-right.

    paulie: Austin is not. Some of his fans are.

    Let’s not forget, in his farewell speech, Austin said he rather, “kiss the Trump ring” than associate with the bake-the-cake leftists.”

    Compare the similarities between that and Goat Blood Boy Invictus’ farewell to the LP, where he took time to say that the party should have nominated Petersen-Sharpe and that Weld-Johnson was a terrible mistake.

    There’s no doubt that Peteresen’s crew is not nearly as virulent as the alt-reich incursion (which is why I made the joke about Petersen being alt-reich washed through michelob ultra) , and I have no doubt that the alt-reich would sooner stuff Petersen in the locker room trashcan rather than associate with him, but both of groups had (have) an unnatural obsession with the left, and the misguided impression that the left is somehow a greater threat in this country than the right.

    During the campaign for the LP nomination, Austin referred to Governor Johnson as a “drug dealer” because of his business relationship with that cannabis company, and he name dropped Ron Paul, Ted Cruz, and some other “libertarian leaning” republicans. His supporters are also virulently anti-choice, predisposed to a states’ rights attitude around moral issues, and not at all comfortable around the LGBT community. Its libertarianism for straight, white Christians.

    These are two groups with some level of resentfulness of “leftists.”

  163. Root's Teeth Are Awesome

    Jim: the self described “geolibertarian” that I was arguing with on reddit

    Was it Brian Holtz?

    He’s the only one I’ve ever heard describe himself as a geolibertarian.

  164. dL

    Let’s not forget, in his farewell speech, Austin said he rather, “kiss the Trump ring” than associate with the bake-the-cake leftists.”

    He is more liberal on immigration than you or Bob. If Petersen is alt-right lite, then what does that make you guys?

    These are two groups with some level of resentfulness of “leftists.”

    Quite a bit of the american libertarian movement suffers from leftist derangement syndrome. But that doesn’t make it alt-right. Alt-right has a specific meaning…

  165. Anthony Dlugos

    “He is more liberal on immigration than you…”

    Where do you get that from?

    The last documented proof I have is that Petersen trotted out the right-wing shibboleth that the problem is the welfare state, not the immigrants. (as I posted above at 13:54 yesterday, a quote from AP that was subsequent to the tweet of his you posted)

    “But that doesn’t make it alt-right.”

    Again, I made the observation that I didn’t think the petersen crew was alt-right, just that they are paleos that are frequently fellow travelers. (the alt-right washed through a michelob ultra was my humorous way of pointing that out).

  166. dL

    Wow. I’m not sure which is worse, that, or the self described “geolibertarian”

    I’ve long maintained that “libertarian moment,” i.e., increased identity or awareness of “libertarian” in the political dialog, only translated to the libertarian case for the same old shit. I’m not privy to the Reddit conversation, but on the surface the “geolibertarian” expropriation would be worse. I fully expect “ordered liberty” conservatives to make a libertarian case for the freedom to obey; I have a lesser expectation that people will requisition geolibertarianism to make the case for the surveillance state.

  167. Thomas L. Knapp

    “Was it Brian Holtz? He’s the only one I’ve ever heard describe himself as a geolibertarian.”

    There used to be a Georgist/geoist/geolibertarian caucus in the LP. Haven’t heard anything out of them in years, though. Fred Foldvary, IIRC, describes himself as a geolibertarian. But it also sounds like the guy you were talking to was using some kind of other definition for the term.

  168. dL

    The last documented proof I have is that Petersen trotted out the right-wing shibboleth that the problem is the welfare state, not the immigrants.

    You only documented that Petersen considers “but what about the welfare state” a bad argument for immigration restrictionism. That is hardly a right-wing observation.

    the alt-right washed through a michelob ultra was my humorous way of pointing that out

    The hipster with a michelob ultra is the mixed metaphor. The more accurate trope would be an incel with an unpasteurized milk

  169. Don Wills

    For what it’s worth, the Libertarian Party candidate for the Wyoming House District 55 won the election against a Republican incumbent (they were the only two candidates on the ballot). If I’m not mistaken, this is the first time in at least two decades that an LP candidate has been elected to a state legislature anywhere in the country.

  170. dL

    Fred Foldvary, IIRC, describes himself as a geolibertarian.

    Yes, he does. He is still actively writing on progress.org. He wrote a scathing post in 2012 denouncing the LP for nominating Johnson(Foldvary derided the consumption tax idea as economic puritanism) and has since started his own political party, The Free Earth Party
    http://free-earth.foldvary.net/

    Geolibertarianism is an orphan in the LP, but in the broader movement/tradition, it certainly has its adherents.

  171. Jim

    At 1,534,761, Mark Ash (Texas Court of Criminal Appeals Place 8) now has the 2nd highest vote total for a Libertarian candidate, behind only Gary Johnson in 2016.

  172. Jim

    Assuming Bethany Baldes’ 49.18% holds, that would be the highest percentage ever received by a Libertarian for state legislature.

    Laure Ebke is in 5th right now with 43.68%.

  173. Jim

    Highest percentage without a major party cross endorsement, obviously. And without using Richard Winger’s math for multi-winner districts.

  174. Thomas L. Knapp

    Congratulations to Darcy Richardson!

    Running for governor of Florida on the Reform Party ticket, Darcy knocked down more votes in one state than the last three Reform Party presidential candidates COMBINED polled nationwide.

    In fact, he polled better in some COUNTIES than the 2008 or 2012 Reform Party presidential candidates did nationwide.

  175. DJ

    LOL- TDS is still alive and well. You fuckers are pathetic. Democrats hiding behind a Libertarian label.

    BOTH sides subscribe to the same monetary policy- he did it first or worse is immaterial. They both subscribe to the same foreign policy- hegemony and imperialism. Those 2 policies drive domestic policy that differs only in rhetoric- control is what both sides want and control, regardless of rhetoric is control- unless, of course, control is acceptable, which apparently, both sides believe it is- but, Trump- LOL.

    SMH- absolutely pathetic

  176. Krzysztof Lesiak

    Well, this is some exciting news for lPR: it looks like the Libertarian Party set at new alll-time record for Governor. In 1982, Dick Randolph won 14.9% of the vote in the Alaska gubernatorial election. In 2018, Libertarian Billy Toein won 15.8% of the vote.

    LP needs to thank Bill Walker for dropping out, because he made this result possible, but still, congratulations.

    https://www.politico.com/election-results/2018/alaska/

  177. paulie Post author

    Dana Rohrabacher’s 30 year run on the public welfare dole has ended…

    I’ll drink a shot of Russian Standard vodka to that. And a shot of Stolichnaya to Trump firing Sessions. Also, I’ll then have a shot of Clyde May’s Alabama whiskey if they have it at Southern Ale House next time I’m there for Ol’ Jeff. Tried to order that last time, it was on the menu but they were out.

  178. Anthony Dlugos

    you know what is funny, paulie…when I e-mailed a friend of mine (erstwhile Libertarian and now full blown Trumpster) with this news, his response was:

    “The bell tolls for thee, Hillary.”

    I mean, his followers are completely deranged.

  179. paulie Post author

    Assuming Bethany Baldes’ 49.18% holds, that would be the highest percentage ever received by a Libertarian for state legislature.

    Is it higher than all the LP legislators who previously won in Alaska, New Hampshire etc? Supposing you are correct…

    Sad that this was a narrow loss rather than a narrow win but it’s impressive that we have new national records for LP for legislature and governor in different states in the same year, especially a year when the Ds and Rs pulled out all the stops to get their marginal voters to the polls like never before in a midterm.

  180. paulie Post author

    . Looks like Sharpe’s political career may come to an abrupt end tonight- there’s no way he’ll reach 50k if this pace continues.

    You were saying? LOL. A good reminder that precincts vary vastly in size so 25% of precincts reporting is a bad way to predict where a candidate will end up.

  181. paulie Post author

    Personally, I would just see some consistency on the issue, either way. If the you must bake the cake, you must also platform people whose views you don’t particularly care for. If you don’t have to bake the cake, then don’t bitch about the likes of Alex Jones being de-platformed.

    Amen!

  182. Anthony Dlugos

    “Personally, I would just see some consistency on the issue, either way. If the you must bake the cake, you must also platform people whose views you don’t particularly care for.”

    Come on now, where did consistency ever get anyone in the world of electoral politics?

    Voters are more apt to sympathize with a gay couple trying to buy a cake for their wedding than they are with a conspiracy nut who has his supporters chase down the parents of the victims of the Sandy Hook massacre.

  183. Krzysztof Lesiak

    @Paulie

    Remember, I originally predicted Trump would get 80,000 votes and Hawkins 100,000 on a different IPR thread. I hastily posted that comment without looking at were the vote totals were coming from, so his poor performance in the NYC area he made up in counties like Schuyler were he got 10%.

    Oh and my apologies, Billy Toein did not unfortunately set a record for governor, he got 4,327 votes, not 43,227 like AP and Politico reported.

    Damn, that really sucks!

  184. Krzysztof Lesiak

    Alaska results according to the Alaska SOS Elections Division:

    Dunleavy/Meyer (REP) 52.1% 123,447
    Begich/Call (DEM) 43.3% 102,654
    Walker/Mallott (NA) 2.0% 4,700
    Toien/Clift (LIB) 1.8% 4,327
    Write-in 0.2% 483

    http://www.elections.alaska.gov/results/18GENR/Map/

    Alaska results according to Politico:

    45% Mike Dunleavy GOP 123,447
    37.5% Mark Begich Dem 102,654
    15.8% Billy Toien Libt 43,227
    1.7% Bill Walker* Indp 4,700

    This is quite a major gaffe on the part of Politico and the AP, though, and I really think it merits its own article on IPR.

  185. Jim

    paulie “Is it higher than all the LP legislators who previously won in Alaska, New Hampshire etc? Supposing you are correct…”

    I am 100% sure that 49.18% would be the highest result in a single winner district without a major party cross endorsement.

    IIRC, 57 Libertarians have been elected to state legislature with a major party cross endorsement and many of those exceeded 49%.

    Of the 5 Libertarians that were elected without a major party cross endorsement, 4 were in multi-winner districts. They won with between 7.3% and 17.9%. You could try to normalize that number by dividing the candidate’s vote total by the number of people who voted, rather than the total votes cast, but the number of people who voted isn’t always available. As a substitute, you could divide the total votes cast by the number of winners, but if you don’t know the number of blank ballots cast, you could theoretically wind up with weird scenarios where candidates get more than 100%.

    The only Libertarian who won in a single winner district without a major party cross endorsement was Andre Marrou. And he had both an R and a D opponent, so he won with 40.5%.

  186. Jim

    Some aggregate Libertarian Party numbers:

    Number of states (& DC) with Presidential ballot access following mid-terms: +4
    2014: 30
    2018: 34 (I think, but I’m not completely sure.)

    Voter Registration: +165,000
    2014: 400,150
    2018: 565,578 (A few states are still several months out of date.)

    Minimum unique voters: +500,000
    2014: 3,695,444
    2018: 4,204,637 (Very preliminary and not very thorough.)

    It will likely be the case that the percentage of people who cast a vote for a Libertarian is lower in 2018 than in 2014. It was 4.44% in 2014. It may drop into the upper 3% range for 2018.

  187. dL

    Come on now, where did consistency ever get anyone in the world of electoral politics?

    Voters are more apt to sympathize with a gay couple trying to buy a cake for their wedding

    “Bake the cake” may mean different things to different people. In evangelical circles, it may mean “bake the cake for gays,” but in libertarian circles it may mean–evidenced by, say, the 2016 LP debate–bake the cake for nazis. So, I take it, then, that your position is: no, don’t bake the cake.

  188. Jim

    My count of the minimum number of unique voters for Libertarian Party candidates is up to 4.574 million. That exceeds Johnson’s 4.489 million and is 878,000 above 2014. It will probably wind up being that right about 4.0% of all voter cast at least one vote for a Libertarian.

  189. Anthony Dlugos

    “Bake the cake” may mean different things to different people. In evangelical circles, it may mean “bake the cake for gays,” but in libertarian circles it may mean–evidenced by, say, the 2016 LP debate–bake the cake for nazis. So, I take it, then, that your position is: no, don’t bake the cake.”

    Yes, but, unless I am missing something…I explicitly indicated I’m not real big on consistency.

    I’m big on being deliberately inconsistent in an effort to gain votes in an effort to get elected. Because I am stupid like that.

    So I have no problem telling the Christians in this situation that they’re gonna have to bake the cake. And if they come at me with a cockamamie coffee house rejoinder that that means I would force a Jewish baker to bake a cake for a Nazi I’ll tell them “no it doesn’t” and they can go pound salt with their Nazi brothers. What can I tell you? Being on the side of the LGBT is the right side of history, and I ain’t gonna chase my tail around for a smattering of votes of the anally consistent.

    So to speak.

  190. Anon-Tipper

    Hope everyone here is well, I’ve dropped out of keeping up with politics for a few months. It’s pretty cool that Sharpe got over the threshold so at least now the NY LP has automatic ballot access!

    Thought this was funny, I guess the Niskanen Center gave up on libertarianism for “non-ideology” (cringe inducing) and now supports mandatory voting and finger wagging at libertarian non-voters. I’ve had fun looking at some of the freak outs they’ve been having.

    https://twitter.com/jerry_jtaylor/status/1059962205788127232

    https://twitter.com/LucyStag/status/1060289488818188290

  191. dL

    I’m big on being deliberately inconsistent in an effort to gain votes in an effort to get elected. Because I am stupid like that.

    Yeah, you are stupid like that. Stick to your day job…

  192. dL

    oh, darn, I don’t have the vote of the aggressively pedantic.

    shucks.

    Well, you called yourself stupid. I just agreed.

  193. Anthony Dlugos

    Jerry Taylor’s provocations are worth it to separate the LP and the libertarian movement from the repellent aholes who will be most apt to take the bait.

  194. Anthony Dlugos

    “Well, you called yourself stupid. I just agreed.”

    That’s because I knew you’d take the bait in this case.

    Seriously, if there is any one more susceptible rope-a-dope than you, I haven’t met them.

  195. Chuck Moulton

    I was pretty surprised that “Tony from Long Island” and “Anthony Dlugos” weren’t the same person, judging from both conmenting here. I just assumed they were the same because Anthony showed up as soon as Tony left, they have similar names, and both are the only ones who agree with Robert Capozzi on just about everything.

  196. dL

    Seriously, if there is any one more susceptible rope-a-dope than you, I haven’t met them.

    Let’s see, “Yeah, I agree, you’re stupid like that.” Real exhausting effort on my part. You’re a parody the way you just butcher metaphors…

  197. dL

    I’ll drink a shot of Russian Standard vodka to that.

    Hippie, folk-singing libertarian antiwar activist turned right wing lunatic. Politics…

  198. dL

    I know nothing about the politics of the ownership. I like their vodka.

    I’m referring to Rohrabacher…

  199. William Saturn

    Jack Gargan, the second chairman of the Reform Party (after Russ Verney), who was controversially ousted in 2000, recently died.

  200. paulie Post author

    I’m referring to Rohrabacher…

    D’oh! I knew both of those things and just did not make the connection. You are correct.

  201. paulie Post author

    Jack Gargan, the second chairman of the Reform Party (after Russ Verney), who was controversially ousted in 2000, recently died.

    Want to write it up?

  202. paulie Post author

    Some aggregate Libertarian Party numbers:

    Number of states (& DC) with Presidential ballot access following mid-terms: +4
    2014: 30
    2018: 34 (I think, but I’m not completely sure.)

    Voter Registration: +165,000
    2014: 400,150
    2018: 565,578 (A few states are still several months out of date.)

    Minimum unique voters: +500,000
    2014: 3,695,444
    2018: 4,204,637 (Very preliminary and not very thorough.)

    It will likely be the case that the percentage of people who cast a vote for a Libertarian is lower in 2018 than in 2014. It was 4.44% in 2014. It may drop into the upper 3% range for 2018.

    Thanks, good stats. If the last part is correct we won’t be alone:

    http://ballot-access.org/2018/11/08/minor-party-and-independent-candidate-vote-for-top-offices-is-lowest-since-1982/

    The establishment parties cranked up the fear machines overtime this year to bring their marginal voters out to vote (or coral them away from considering an alternative choice). We just don’t have the resources to overcome that. But the growth trendline still exists.

  203. paulie Post author

    I was pretty surprised that “Tony from Long Island” and “Anthony Dlugos” weren’t the same person, judging from both conmenting here. I just assumed they were the same because Anthony showed up as soon as Tony left, they have similar names, and both are the only ones who agree with Robert Capozzi on just about everything.

    I’m pretty sure Anthony and TfLI have both been here in the same timeframes before. Anthony is as last I heard from Ohio. They don’t post from the same IP and they don’t always agree with each other. I’ve met Anthony at at least one LP convention. I think it was Orlando, plus or minus one. I’m not sure I ever met TfLI but I have no reason to doubt that he is a real person, and as far as I know what he has told us about his views and biography is accurate.

  204. William T. Forrest

    Alaska 2016

    Lisa Murkowski Republican 138,149 44.4%

    Joe Miller Libertarian 90,825 29.2%

    Margaret Stock Independent 41,194 13.2%

    Ray Metcalfe Democratic
    36,200
    11.6%

  205. Root's Teeth Are Awesome

    Anthony Dlugos: I’m big on being deliberately inconsistent in an effort to gain votes in an effort to get elected.

    So are you a Democrat or a Republican?

  206. Jim

    Gary Johnson, overall, is in 3rd for a Libertarian for US Senate with 15.39%.

    Brian Luke, for Washington State US House district 2, has 28.46%, which is 3rd best ever for a Libertarian US House candidate. He’s 0.38% away from 2nd place, so that isn’t out of the realm of possibility.

    David Dinwiddie, for Arkansas State Auditor, has 27.62%, which is the best an LP candidate has ever done for State Auditor.

    John Yeutter, for Oklahoma State Auditor, has 24.82%. That would have set the record for a Libertarian candidate for that office, if it weren’t for David Dinwiddie in Arkansas. The previous record, now in 3rd place, was set in 2016.

    Ashley Ewald, for Arkansas State Treasurer, has 29.07%, which is the best an LP candidate has ever done for State Treasurer.

    Marco Battaglia, for Iowa Attorney General, has 22.79%, which is the 2nd best an LP candidate has ever done for Attorney General. The record was set in 2016.

    Laura Ebke, for Nebraska state senate district 32, has 43.68%, which is the 2nd best an LP candidate has done for state senate. She’s 0.70% behind the record.

    Bethany Baldes, for Wyoming state house district 55, has 49.01%, which is the best an LP candidate has ever done for state house, not counting major party cross endorsed candidates.

    And Mark Ash, for Texas Court of Criminal Appeals Place 8, has 1,609,716 votes, which is the 2nd most an LP candidate has ever racked up, behind only Gary Johnson in 2016. Ash is the 12th Libertarian to reach the 1,000,000 vote mark, and the first to do so in a non-Presidential year. All twelve 1 million vote getters have come since 2008.

    Some stats I put together for LPedia:

    https://lpedia.org/Best_Election_Results

    https://lpedia.org/The_1,000,000_Vote_Club

  207. William T. Forrest

    “Anthony Dlugos: I’m big on being deliberately inconsistent in an effort to gain votes in an effort to get elected.”

    So are you a Democrat or a Republican?

    Cargo cult libertarian.

  208. Krzysztof Lesiak

    It’s rare, but I love when America’s Finest News Source covered third parties:

    Libertarian Candidate Worried After Latest Poll Shows Him 98 Points Behind

    “We knew it would be a tough race, but I have to admit, the final polls showing I’m dozens of percentage points behind the other candidates doesn’t fill me with a whole lot of confidence.”

    https://politics.theonion.com/libertarian-candidate-worried-after-latest-poll-shows-h-1830258481

    PS: Very useful comment above from Jim.

  209. Jim

    Look at the long term trend. It’s very gradual, but very obvious that the 90s and 00s were better than the 70s and 80s, and the 2010s better than the 90s and 00s.

  210. Anthony Dlugos

    “Anthony Dlugos: I’m big on being deliberately inconsistent in an effort to gain votes in an effort to get elected.”

    So are you a Democrat or a Republican?

    Cargo cult libertarian.

    My statement was meant to be partially tongue-in-cheek, of course. But there is an underlying truth there.

    Does one have to be philosophically consistent in order to win an election?

    Wouldn’t in be fair to say that those who win elections invariably AREN’T philosophically consistent?

    Demopublicans win all the time without being philosophically consistent. We attack them for not being so. The only people who care are Libertarians.

    How much evidence do we need that consistency is really not valued in electoral politics?

    If there is a “cargo cult” mentality, its WITHIN the party, and we have myriad superstitious rituals (TAXATION IS THEFT!) that we think are gonna bring about libertopia.

    No matter. One could piss off (not intentionally so, mind you) every single Libertarian in any political jurisdiction anywhere in this country, up to and including the entirety of the Union and get elected easily. Am I wrong?

    I’d argue you’d have a better chance at winning if you set out to initially distance yourself from the ideology within libertarian circles as soon as possible. And you’d still have plenty of political territory with which to effect change after getting elected.

    Why do I need to stand up for the rights of the Nazi to force a Jewish baker to bake a wedding cake just because I made a political decision to not stand up for the Christian baker’s right to NOT bake a wedding cake for a gay couple?

    Who’s demanding this consistency?

    More importantly, how many voters are demanding it?

    Not many.

  211. Anthony Dlugos

    dL: Let’s see, “Yeah, I agree, you’re stupid like that.” Real exhausting effort on my part.

    The exhausting part for you would be trying to get people on board with your aggressive pedantry.

    Of course, if you don’t care about such a concern, then it may not matter to you personally.

    It does matter, however, within the rules of the Libertarian Party, and electoral politics in general.

    And the tactic, within the LP itself, would just be to demonstrate where you gotta go philosophically, and how pompous you end up being, when you demand “some consistency.” (Given the circumstances…equating forcing a Jewish person to bake a cake for a Nazi with a Christian person baking a cake for a gay couple… is a euphemism of the first order).

    On the other hand, maybe you think spittle flying wailing at Governor Weld is a good look…

  212. dL

    On the other hand, maybe you think spittle flying wailing at Governor Weld is a good look…

    No need to do that. Simply putting you on his payroll would suffice to turn that campaign into a crash and burn laughing stock. Hire this man, Billy!

  213. Florida Man Larry

    Re: Alt-Right Petersen Crew

    It might be worth noting that the Petersen Lieutenant Zach Garretson does the alt-right LP Veterans caucus with SPLC-certified hate groups, and there was a lot of alt-right overlap and support from AP and crew for folks like Augustus Invictus and Liberty Hangout folks.

    Not that it matters. They’re all failed Republicans.

  214. Krzysztof Lesiak

    Hello People of IPR, the Prohibition Party just nominated its presidential candidate, Bill Bayes. CL Gammon was nominated for vice president. The convention was held over a conference call yesterday evening:

    Bill Bayes (far-right Confederate) 18 votes
    Adam Seaman (centrist) 9 votes
    Phil Collins (conservative Republican/ CP member) 3 votes

    Source: Adam Seaman, via Facebook

    https://twitter.com/Politics1com/status/1062798825000177665

  215. Gina

    I see a lot of talk above about the imaginary phenomenon of “Trump Derangement Syndrome,” but isn’t the real problem we should be discussing Deranged Trump Syndrome? Even the thought that this absolutely deranged psycho is in control of the nuclear launch codes is bone chillingly terrifying. Dressing up for Halloween seemed superfluous since real life has turned into a horror flick where a mentally unstable child commands the largest nuclear and conventional arsenal in world history.

  216. Anthony Dlugos

    “It might be worth noting that the Petersen Lieutenant Zach Garretson does the alt-right LP Veterans caucus with SPLC-certified hate groups, and there was a lot of alt-right overlap and support from AP and crew for folks like Augustus Invictus and Liberty Hangout folks.

    Not that it matters. They’re all failed Republicans.”

    There definitely was (and is) overlap between the LP’s paleo/hard right faction, led by Petersen in Orlando, and the alt-reich, both inside and outside the party.

    Let’s not forget: not only did both Petersen and Goat Blood Boy defect to the GOP, upon their fare-thee-wells they both took shots at the LP for tacking too far to the left by nominating J-W.

    The platform…and by extension our messaging… is a right-leaning, conservative document in its real world applications. It can’t help but be viewed that way when it’s NAP-friendly theoretical spirit collides with the reality of the path we as a nation and humans as political animals took to get to this point.

    When crafting policy solutions, lets just ignore all previous aggressions that created the current wealth/power distribution.

    NAP…starting NOW!

    Shocked those most aggrieved by the thought of being forced to bake a cake for a gay couple find us as allies. Not to mention the alt-rechers most aggrieved by dark-skinned immigrants.

    We signal to them that we won’t set our own priorities, that we are not in control of our own messaging.

    To the offended homophobe who might have to bake a cake, I say get to the back of the line, there are bigger issues. If they don’t, they never were allies in the first place.

    They are, of course, free to donate to/support to single-issue organizations that make that their single issue. The LP has a bigger picture to consider, and sometimes that means picking which hills to die on, AND making it clear to everyone what those hills are..

    You’re allowed to have your panties in a wad because of federal Planned Parenthood funding. You’re not allowed to make that the LP’s cause célèbre. If you can’t prioritize, you’re not an ally.

  217. robert capozzi

    ad: NAP…starting NOW!

    ME: While there probably are NAPists who want statelessness tomorrow, this feels like a caricature. Most sophisticated NAPists accept the practicality of a “transition period” on the way to NAP Nirvana.

  218. Anthony Dlugos

    RC,

    “While there probably are NAPists who want statelessness tomorrow, this feels like a caricature. Most sophisticated NAPists accept the practicality of a “transition period” on the way to NAP Nirvana.”

    A distinction without a difference, I’d say, to the least powerful. If aggression (as defined by the NAPist) is wrong per se, what else is a voter to think? Who’s on the chopping block first?

    I’d argue that NAP is interpreted as effectively “Those with the least political power are the most at risk,” in a libertarian world.

    Hence, a right-leaning LP.

  219. robert capozzi

    AD,

    Yes, in some ways, the sophisticated NAPists are in some ways more deluded than the utopia-now ones. The latter are, in a sense, romantic dreamers. The sophisticated ones deny most of their sense of the possible, leading them to a conflicted perspective: advocate for a non-aggression, stateless social order but acknowledging that it’s unrealistic in the short term. iirc, TK thinks, for ex., that if Ls consistently and forcefully advocate for statelessness as well as specific abolition, that, post-collapse, a segment of those alive will conclude: Ah, those Ls were right after all! Let’s smash the state!

  220. Tony From Long Island

    How is anyone supposed to take seriously a political party called the “prohibition” party? Really? So they don’t want us to go to the saloons anymore? We can only drink saspirilla? Well, I reckon I can just get that at the general store. Nels Olson sells a good stock of saspirilla!

  221. Florida Man Larry

    Props to the Prohibition Party for consistency though. Instead of going after weaker drugs like marijuana, they’re going after one of the most dangerous: alcohol.

  222. Anthony Dlugos

    RC,

    Its not that I think they (NAPists) are wrong. I just think they are in the wrong arena. They are asking and answering fundamentally different questions.

    As Chairperson Sarwark called it here at this site some time ago, these are non-overlapping magisteria.

    That’s why I never liked the idea of a “wide funnel,” whereby people enter the party as somewhat less than “pure” NAPists and get funneled into some kind of perfect state. Such a process is funneling people to a less and less electorally-relevant status, defeating the whole purpose of a political party.

    Better would be something like a planetary system, whereby different organizations are all gravitational attracted to the libertarian center (and gravitational attracted to each other). but each are in a distinctly different orbit, doing different work.

    The proximate problem for the party, as I see it, is that the NAP is fine as a fuzzy sentiment in the realm of political possibilities. But the closer it comes to collapsing into actual policy positions, the worse it gets.

    Its why paulie is a generally pleasant variation of the type: he’s predisposed to keeping his non-aggression sensibilities away from real world political machinations.

    OTOH, someone else who periodically posts here who is probably just as NAPist as paulie, but is more intent on actively applying it to policy, and that ends up in a very bad place where you come across defending Trump, which is a very bad idea politically.

    This is also probably why Governor Weld (among the least NAPist of Libertarians) was one of the first in the party to sound the clarion call regarding the danger of a Trump presidency, while some of the more dogmatic in the party were leaping forward to say, “hold on, not everything this guy is arguing is bad.”

    Just to confirm this is not a diatribe aimed solely at NAP purists, even scholars at the Cato Institute, an organization I support and follow regularly, have periodically published articles in support of some things Trump has done (granted, the support is typically circumspect.) But they are in a different orbit around the libertarian center,, where they can make more studious arguments. Their mission is a different one that getting elected.

    Any of the J-W delegates I spoke to at the Convention and thereafter were uniformly petrified of a Trump presidency as it got more and more likely. I don’t think that that is some kind of coincidence.

  223. robert capozzi

    AD,

    Great stuff, although I would say that some NAPists are “wrong” in one key aspect: Some of them believe that ONLY they are right, and everyone else is wrong. And that ONLY NAPists can claim to be L; other lessarchists are mere “classical liberals.”

    Nor can I agree that they are necessarily in the incorrect arena. People followed Lenin, after all, and his ideas were patently wrong-headed.

    I don’t like the odds of NAPism becoming a major thought system.

  224. Jim

    Anyone else think the odds of Bill Weld running in 2020 have declined after he saw the results of Johnson in New Mexico and Dan Fishman in Massachusetts?

  225. Anthony Dlugos

    I don’t.

    I think he ignores completely Johnson’s result in the Senate race and sees what a retired, sometimes…eccentric candidate was able to accomplish in 2016 and is undaunted.

    Weld is much more polished, and I would have to think has far more connections he can work to garner monetary and editorial support.

  226. dL

    what a retired, sometimes…

    Weld is much more polished,

    More like rust. Dude will be pushing 80 in 2020…Talk about a Napist. Nap time for Billy!

  227. paulie Post author

    One year older than Trump, two years older than Hillary Clinton, four years younger than Bernie, three years younger than Biden..there are issues with Weld but his age is hardly the biggest. There’s even talk of Jerry Brown running again in 2020, and he’s already 80 now.

  228. dL

    there are issues with Weld but his age is hardly the biggest.

    It is, however, worth pointing out when Weld supporters use retirement age as an excuse for the mediocre performance of Johnson when Johnson is 10 years younger than Weld.

  229. Gina

    The real problems is DTS (deranged Trump syndrome) not TDS. From Helen Kolawole in the Guardian:

    …. Accustomed as we are to this parade of white heroes, the case of Elvis is particularly infuriating because for many black people he represents the most successful white appropriation of a black genre to date.

    Elvis also signifies the foul way so many black writers and performers, such as Little Richard, were treated by the music industry. The enduring image of Elvis is a constant reflection of society’s then refusal to accept anything other than the non-threatening and subservient negro: Sammy Davies Jnr and Nat King Cole. The Elvis myth to this day clouds the true picture of rock’n’roll and leaves its many originators without due recognition. So what is left for black people to celebrate? How he admirably borrowed our songs, attitude and dance moves?

    Public Enemy’s prolific commentator, Chuck D, was clear on why he felt compelled to attack the pretender’s iconic status. In their 1989 song Fight the Power, he rapped: “Elvis was a hero to most/ But he never meant shit to me you see/ Straight up racist that sucker was simple and plain/ Motherfuck him and John Wayne.”

    To contend that Elvis was a racist is hardly shocking. (“The only thing black people can do for me is shine my shoes and buy my music”, he once opined.) ….

  230. Thomas Knapp

    One of the problems with AD/RC’s “NAPist” construct is that what they actually seem to mean by “NAPist” is “immediatist abolitionist,” i.e. functional policy anarchist.

    The fact is that there are many radical libertarians who, in choosing to be involved in electoral politics, take an incremental and nuanced approach to policy. All they have to do is support actual reductions in aggression. Not speculative and incalculable “net reductions.” Actual reductions.

    Our candidates have one fucking job to do vis a vis the party itself, and that job is to represent the party’s principles/goals honestly and consistently.

    Any candidate who is unable or unwilling to do that shouldn’t be seeking our nomination and shouldn’t receive it.

    Every other candidate qualification comes after that one, just like there are first considerations for any other job.

    An auto mechanic needs to be able and willing to work on cars. A fry cook needs to be able and willing to flip burgers. It may be that someone is more capable of playing harmonica and likes playing harmonica better than working on cars or flipping burgers. And that’s fine. He should look for a job playing harmonica instead of a job working on cars or flipping burgers.

    If your skills and positions lend themselves more to advocating against gun and due process rights for people on secret government enemies lists than supporting gun and due process rights for everyone, presidential nominee of the Libertarian Party is simply a job you’re neither qualified for nor should be hired for.

  231. paulie Post author

    One of the problems with AD/RC’s “NAPist” construct is that what they actually seem to mean by “NAPist” is “immediatist abolitionist,” i.e. functional policy anarchist.

    I don’t think that is what they mean. For example, I think they classify me as a napist, and I think I’ve made clear that I would support a soft landing for the state rather than a crash if possible. I take the term to mean something more along the lines of “willing to admit to having abolition of the state as an eventual goal,” or something closer to that.

  232. robert capozzi

    PF is closer to the truth. A NAPist is simply one who holds out non-aggression as the highest political goal. Some NAPists are abolitionists, some are incrementalists. “[W]illing to admit to having abolition of the state as an [immediate or] eventual goal” is accurate. Non-NAPist lessarchists might accept that abolition of the state is desireable, but we cannot know now whether statelessness is sustainable. Other non-NAPist lessarchists believe that a state is necessary, but that its reach should be rolled back.

    Since the LP’s principles/goals are based on crypto-NAPism, non-NAPists are, in effect, infidels, consciously or unconsciously so.

  233. paulie Post author

    Abolition of the state, like abolition of murder, is a goal that I hold out regardless of whether it can be fully achieved or achieved sustainably. Closer to the goal is better than further from it. The analogy is incomplete, because if murder did somehow disappear overnight, other things being equal, it wouldn’t cause the immediate disruption that the state disappearing overnight would. So perhaps there’s a better analogy that’s not coming to mind at the moment.

  234. robert capozzi

    PF,

    Right. To REALLY outlaw murder, anything that could be used as a murder weapon would have to be banned. Hands for choking would need to be bound in some fashion as well. That would lead to a situation that would be worse than a murder-less setup, much worse. Sustainability strikes me as far more important than non-aggression for that reason. (I’m down with a lot less aggression, to be clear.) Draconian “solutions” could lead to worse outcomes. Your lack of concern for sustainability puzzles me. I fail to see the utility of holding out an unsustainable goal, unless it’s for reasons of employing hyperbolic persuasion techniques.

  235. paulie Post author

    I said other things being equal. So other things being equal, if murder disappeared for a period of time that would be good even if it later was to start again at previous levels. You disagree?

  236. dL

    I have yet to hear one do so.

    It was clearly in reference to this:

    I think he ignores completely Johnson’s result in the Senate race and sees what a retired, sometimes…eccentric candidate was able to accomplish in 2016 and is undaunted.

  237. paulie Post author

    If you think that was Anthony implying that he thinks Johnson is too old I think you misunderstood him. He likes Weld, who is almost a decade older than Johnson. Neither of them is retired though. Johnson is or recently has a been a cannabis company executive and active candidate for office. I think Weld still works as a lawyer? So I wouldn’t quite say retired.

  238. dL

    One of the problems with AD/RC’s “NAPist” construct is that what they actually seem to mean by “NAPist” is “immediatist abolitionist,” i.e. functional policy anarchist.

    The obvious problem with it is that it is right-wing GOP entryist trolling posing as indecipherable gobbledygook.

  239. paulie Post author

    Both Dlugos and Capozzi seem to like Clinton better than Trump, so I’m not sure we can exactly call it right wing GOP.

  240. dL

    If you think that was Anthony implying that he thinks Johnson is too old I think you misunderstood him.

    What else does retired mean…lol

  241. robert capozzi

    pf: if murder disappeared for a period of time that would be good even if it later was to start again at previous levels. You disagree?

    me: Hard to. Also hard to know whether murder would restart at “previous levels.” Re: the State, if SOMEHOW we had a period of statelessness, it would be hard to know what would succeed it. Might be a benign-ish outcome. Might be Thunderdome.

  242. robert capozzi

    ….and, yes, I was rooting for Clinton, with great trepidation. The risks of WWIII were in my estimation higher with her, actually. Trump has been less damaging than I feared was possible, but his haterade is almost as bad as I feared.

    Still feeling good about my GJ vote.

  243. Thomas L. Knapp

    “Does this view on immigration sound like the democratic party?”

    Yes, pretty much. Especially before the GOP got even more Democratic Party than the Democratic Party on the subject and actually pushed their rhetoric (but not their action) ever so slightly and timidly in the other direction.

  244. paulie Post author

    What else does retired mean…lol

    I temporarily retired last year. Could have been permanent if crypto didn’t come back down from lunar orbit. That’s not saying I’m old, which is a separate question.

  245. paulie Post author

    Trump has been less damaging than I feared was possible

    It’s taking time for him to move all his pieces in place. Institutional obstructions being cleared.

  246. dL

    Yes, pretty much. Especially before the GOP got even more Democratic Party than the Democratic Party on the subject and actually pushed their rhetoric (but not their action) ever so slightly and timidly in the other direction.

    The Dems sound like that on gun control but not immigration. Of course, if the Dems thought immigration was a demographic loser(like the GOP currently does), they probably would start to sound more like Steve KIng and Hans Hoppe…

  247. dL

    I temporarily retired last year. Could have been permanent if crypto didn’t come back down from lunar orbit. That’s not saying I’m old, which is a separate question.

    And I “retired” from being a playa when I hit my earlier 30s b/c I had become too old for that. No, 30 isn’t old, but it is some things. Retirement usually isn’t a separate question from age…

  248. paulie Post author

    Sometimes yes, sometimes no. If I was better at saving I could have retired as a teenager. I know plenty of people who retired young simply because they made enough money to live the rest of their lives and are not workaholics.

    Or were, and burned out early. Which is kind of what happened to me, but I also couldn’t save worth a shit so had to go back to work as a much diminished reflection of my former self.

  249. Anthony Dlugos

    Just to clarify:

    yes, I meant “retired from politics.” not “old,” when i surmised what Weld would be thinking regarding Johnson’s performance in the New Mexico Senate race this year. (see Jim’s post, on November 16, 2018 at 16:47)

    Now, of course, Governor Weld could be considered “retired from politics” as well, but JIm was referring to what Weld might be thinking, not, say, an objective analysis by a third party.

    And I doubt Weld takes anything away from how Johnson did in November. I think he thinks he was, is, and would be flat-out a much better politician/candidate than Johnson.

    Frankly, I doubt even the most rabidly anti-Weld Libertarian would disagree with that assessment. Such a person may HOPE Weld is dissuaded, but does anyone really believe that?

  250. Anthony Dlugos

    “If you think that was Anthony implying that he thinks Johnson is too old I think you misunderstood him.”

    He doesn’t misunderstand. He’s deliberately obtuse on a regular basis.

    That only hurts his own credibility, but on the other hand, the only person’s judgement he values is his own.

  251. Thomas Knapp

    “I think [Weld] thinks he was, is, and would be flat-out a much better politician/candidate than Johnson. Frankly, I doubt even the most rabidly anti-Weld Libertarian would disagree with that assessment.”

    Anyone who has 1) studied practical politics at all and 2) has observed Weld in action in the last 25 years would disagree with that assessment.

    Weld’s entire demeanor since he resigned as governor to campaign for an ambassadorship he wasn’t going to get has been, in summary “don’t take me seriously, for I most certainly don’t.”

  252. Anthony Dlugos

    I guess we have a difference of opinion, then.

    In any case, to re-answer JIm’s question:

    Q: Anyone else think the odds of Bill Weld running in 2020 have declined after he saw the results of Johnson in New Mexico and Dan Fishman in Massachusetts?

    A: No, not in the least.

  253. Thomas Knapp

    I agree that the odds of Weld running in 2020 have not declined because of Johnson’s (pretty good) performance in New Mexico.

    I don’t think he’ll run if there’s another candidate with a modicum of name recognition who can either self-finance or mount a credible fundraising effort, though.

  254. Anthony Dlugos

    “I don’t think he’ll run if there’s another candidate with a modicum of name recognition who can either self-finance or mount a credible fundraising effort, though.”

    I’m not so sure he would bow out so easily, but I definitely hope we have a robust campaign with multiple legitimate candidates.

    Because if its similar to 2016, (one ex-governor and a bunch of people with zero experience in office). I wouldn’t hesitate for a second in supporting Weld.

  255. Anthony Dlugos

    TK: “One of the problems with AD/RC’s “NAPist” construct is that what they actually seem to mean by “NAPist” is “immediatist abolitionist,” i.e. functional policy anarchist.”

    paulie: “I don’t think that is what they mean. For example, I think they classify me as a napist, and I think I’ve made clear that I would support a soft landing for the state rather than a crash if possible. I take the term to mean something more along the lines of “willing to admit to having abolition of the state as an eventual goal,” or something closer to that.”

    I agree with RC that pf is closer to the upshot here.

    A) from the perspective of the voters, there is no functional difference between
    1) anarchy now!
    2) anarchy…maybe.

    B)Operating a political party should by definition rule out considering the possibility of anarchism, now and forevermore.

    Absent some sort of NAPist singularity (that would make the whole endeavor of electoral politics superfluous) a political party cannot operate as an ongoing concern under the idea that such a singularity is possible/desirable, because such a belief effects our messaging and mission in the here and now, making positive change (by our hands) effectively impossible.

    Again, these are non-overlapping magisteria. If you are willing to consider the possibility that the abolition of the state is at all possible or desirable, you’ve jumped orbits, so to speak. You’ve now implicated the very system you seek to use.

    Which is fine, statelessness is an intriguing argument. But even countenancing the possibility sets you at a disadvantage in the electoral arena, relative to parties that explicitly assent to the state.

    “Our candidates have one fucking job to do vis a vis the party itself, and that job is to represent the party’s principles/goals honestly and consistently.”

    If I may be so bold as to speak for moderates everywhere, we believe that we are. The principle/goal is reducing the size and scope of the state and increasing individual liberty A political party can (and should) do that while still arguing for a government role in various areas.

    A move toward statelessness is something that happens TO the system, not within it.

    Anarchy, or leaving it open as a possibility, is not the sine qua non here. In fact, operating a political party rules out even considering it as a possibility.

    Which does not mean we CANNOT improve the lives of people living within our state.

  256. dL

    retired from politics

    Johnson last held elected office in 2002. He ran for the GOP nomination in 2012; he handedly won the LP nomination in 2012, 2016. He sits on the board of at least 2 political action committees. In 2017, he said he would remain politically active but would not run for office again. That lasted 9 months until Johnson got a gander at the Mark Rich’s bad poll numbers in the senate race. That’s not retired.

    Weld last held elected office in 1997 when he resigned the governorship to be nominated ambassador of Mexico by Bill Clinton. When that nomination was thwarted by Jesse Helms, Weld’s political career was thought be over. Weld came out of “retirement” nearly a decade later with some weird stab at the NY governorship on a GOP/LP fusion ticket. When the GOP state convention rejected Weld, Weld withdrew from the race. A decade later, Weld came out of “retirement” for a second time with the LP vice-presidential nomination. The most noteworthy media about that candidacy was the Boston press treatment of him as a quixotic novelty item…a guy they haven’t heard from in two decades suddenly popping back up. Weld never had to announce he “retired” from political office because everyone just assumed he had.

    Weld probably will run and win the LP nomination in 20202. And when he loses the general election, he too will officially announce his retirement from political office. And, unlike Johnson, no one will be rolling their eyes. Third time will be the charm for Weld’s “retirement.”

    That only hurts his own credibility, but on the other hand, the only person’s judgement he values is his own.

    Well, it is true I place little value on your opinion. However, that doesn’t mean I place no value anyone else’s opinion but my own.

  257. Tony From Long Island

    dL ” . . . .Of course, if the Dems thought immigration was a demographic loser(like the GOP currently does), they probably would start to sound more like Steve KIng . . . . ”

    Umm no. Democrats WELCOME immigrants to this country – from all corners of the earth. I would be absolutely fine with no quotas at all, just like when my ancestors came to this great country.

    The democratic stand on immigration has nothing to do with “demographics.” They’ve had pretty much the same viewpoint for several decades now.

  258. Thomas Knapp

    “The principle/goal is reducing the size and scope of the state and increasing individual liberty”

    That’s your principle/goal.

    The Libertarian Party’s principle/goal is clearly laid out in its a Statement of Principles, its platform, and its bylaws.

    As has been noted, the SoP is very difficult to modify. But the other parts are subject to modification, are continuously modified with 2/3 votes of delegates at biennial national conventions … and those delegates continuously reaffirm the same goals the party announced in 1971.

    At some point, if you want to run an ice cream truck, maybe you should buy an ice cream truck instead of continuing to try to hijack a hot dog cart. That way your really good ice cream salesman can have the best shot at selling ice cream instead of spending all his time explaining why the HOT DOG sign doesn’t mean he is selling hot dogs.

    More than one party based on your principle/goal has launched and then faded into nothingness fairly quickly. When I started one with that express and clearly stated principle/goal, the main advocate of said principle/goal here at IPR declined to join because it turned out what he really meant by “reducing the size and scope of the state and increasing individual liberty” was “bitch incessantly about the LP.”

  259. Thomas Knapp

    “Democrats WELCOME immigrants to this country”

    Obama deported more immigrants than any president before him. In fact, he surpassed his predecessor’s eight-year record in less than five years.

  260. dL

    The democratic stand on immigration has nothing to do with “demographics.” They’ve had pretty much the same viewpoint for several decades now.

    Tony, you must have been AWOL during the Clinton presidency.
    Clintons’ “Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act” is what started the deportation machine. And because it has gotten a lot of play recently, I don’t feel the need to youtube embed things like Harry Reid’s 1990s speech on “birthright citizenship.”

    I would also point out that proggies in New Hampshire sound an awful lot like Trumpists vis a vis “invading caravans” when it comes to the Free State Project. I got a kick out the NH democrats complaining it was too easy to migrate to New Hamsphire and legislative action needed to be taken to protect the integrity of the NH social compact from the invaders.

  261. Anthony Dlugos

    As you can see, the below article is about a recent GOP attempt to strike “language protecting workers from “‘discrimination on the basis of sex, including sexual orientation and gender identity’ from the new North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) deal. You can read further details if you wish.

    So I am curious: what does the NAP and the LP SoP have to say about that? I mean, I am sure that we all know that the new NAFTA is chock full of “aggressions,” as the last one was.

    Should a sitting Libertarian congressperson vote no on principle, no matter what is in any new NAFTA, as long as there is any new aggression in it, even if on balance it is a net aggression reduction? How is a yes vote in that context squared with the NAP, given that there would be a new aggression involved, even one.
    Or is it no until an absolutely clean, 100%…”All tariffs, borders, protectionist measures, etc are hereby dissolved” bill is put forth, and the only qualification allowed is some sort of delay until it goes into effect?

    Does a Libertarian who happens to be in Congress vote Yes on the new NAFTA if it would stay intact with the aforementioned provisions? Should such a hypothetical sitting Libertarian go further and actually sign onto this GOP attempt, because the LGBT protections are yet another aggression (denying freedom of association)? Would that change how voters view us?

    So there is no sitting Libertarian member of the U.S. House. In that case, what sort of messaging should the LP provide in a case like this? Take no position (in other words, abstain) until asked,? If so, how would silence cause members of the public to view us?

    “GOP lawmakers protest LGBT protections in new NAFTA deal”

    https://thehill.com/homenews/house/417354-gop-lawmakers-protest-transgender-protections-in-new-nafta-deal?fbclid=IwAR2mBrR66hL-mUSTdPvT-Lj5D2hVO2Q1n7iwqqnTDENx7bLASpPMUrhbRhI

  262. Thomas Knapp

    “Should a sitting Libertarian congressperson vote no on principle, no matter what is in any new NAFTA, as long as there is any new aggression in it, even if on balance it is a net aggression reduction?”

    There is no way to know if “on balance it is a net aggression reduction.”

    A sitting Libertarian congressperson (in the case of new NAFTA, a US Senator) will vote however he or she decides to vote, for whatever reasons he or she thinks most important, on every issue. And will then presumably face Libertarian primary voters who will judge how well his or her actions in the Senate reflected their priorities.

    All an LP radical is saying is that it is the job of the party’s candidates to campaign on its principles and platform rather than on some other principles or platform. And presumably those same LP radicals will judge the winning candidate’s performance in office and decide to back, or not back, that candidate the next time around.

    At the presidential level, the nomination is decided by ~1,000 national convention delegates. The LP’s radicals ask those delegates to support candidates who support the party’s principles and platform, with there being other very important criteria (a good speaker is better than someone who stammers; a good fundraiser is better than someone who hasn’t demonstrated an ability to raise funds; a record in previous office is a plus if that record was reasonably good — or, possibly, the basis for a convincing “Paul on the Road to Damascus” story; etc.).

    It’s not that supporting the party’s principles and platform is the only qualification. It’s that NOT supporting the party’s principles and platform is a DISqualification. There’s no point in the party nominating a candidate who’s running against the party instead of for it.

  263. dL

    Should a sitting Libertarian congressperson vote no on principle, no matter what is in any new NAFTA

    Personally, I read it as Anthony Dlugos unsurprisingly pushing Donald Trump’s unilateral decision to tear up the old NAFTA. What’s next? Throwing your support around Trump’s unilateral renegotiation of the 14th amendment? Exhibit A.

  264. Jim

    My thought on Weld earlier was based as much on Fishman’s result as Johnson’s. It looked to me that Fishman’s campaign strategy of “why would you elect a Democrat or Republican to oversee Democrats and Republicans” came directly from Weld. And after the Boston Globe endorsement, it was seen by plenty of people in Massachusetts. It didn’t work. Johnson perhaps showed the limit of a popular politician spending enough time out of office, switching parties, and running again as someone from outside the two party system. That didn’t work either.

    Weld seems like the kind of guy who would want to go into it with a plan to win over enough voters to win the election and he just saw two avenues fail. Yes, Weld is a much better speaker than Johnson. But he still needs to figure out what to say in order to win at least enough support to get into the debates. If he can’t come up with something, he may not run. He gave up on NY Governor when his plan didn’t pan out.

    Or, maybe he would run anyway just for the opportunity to rip on Trump for a few months.

  265. Thomas Knapp

    “Weld is a much better speaker than Johnson”

    I disagree. He’s just as terrible a speaker, but in a different way.

    Johnson isn’t quick on his feet, stammers and halts, etc. when he runs into different questions

    Weld is quicker on his feet, but his talks are sort of befogged filibusters. The only time he’s very anchored to clarity on any point is in one of his two-part exercises where he assures LP convention delegates he’s changed right before walking out in the hall to assure CNN viewers he hasn’t.

  266. Chuck Moulton

    As usual, I agree with Tom Knapp re: the ice cream truck / hot dog truck analogy.

    The LP is a party for those who advocate less government. It can be a little less government or a lot less government (perhaps no government). It just can’t be more government.

    I don’t think it makes sense to say advocating for no government is impossible within our political system. That’s equivalent to saying anarcho-capitalists can only use violence to achieve their political end. In fact, our Constitution allows for amendment, which could even lead to a result like abolition. It is completely reasonable to work towards anarchy through the political process.

  267. paulie Post author

    Umm no. Democrats WELCOME immigrants to this country – from all corners of the earth. I would be absolutely fine with no quotas at all, just like when my ancestors came to this great country.

    The democratic stand on immigration has nothing to do with “demographics.” They’ve had pretty much the same viewpoint for several decades now.

    Depends on which Democrats. Bernie Sanders said open borders is a “Koch idea” and many unions have long pushed immigration restrictions on protectionist grounds. There are even some environmentalists who push immigration restrictions because they want fewer people and more open land in the country, and because when people move from a poorer country to a richer one they use more resources.

  268. paulie Post author

    Weld probably will run and win the LP nomination in [2020]. And when he loses the general election, he too will officially announce his retirement from political office. And, unlike Johnson, no one will be rolling their eyes. Third time will be the charm for Weld’s “retirement.”

    Or he could run repeatedly if it raises his profile and earnings. If the Democrats win and think he helped them maybe he will get that ambassadorship after all. Or something.

  269. paulie Post author

    Anarchy, or leaving it open as a possibility, is not the sine qua non here. In fact, operating a political party rules out even considering it as a possibility.

    That government governs best which governs least is a pretty mainstream political view. Whether there’s a stopping point short of zero or not is kind of an esoteric question which doesn’t really have to be addressed any time until we get a lot closer to that point, if that ever happens.

  270. robert capozzi

    cm: That’s equivalent to saying anarcho-capitalists can only use violence to achieve their political end.

    me: There’s another method, as suggested by Gary Chartier. He recently suggested: “I don’t think this can be accomplished through the political process, which can be, at best, defensive. It has to be a matter of, as the Wobblies said, building the new society within the shell of the old, finding ways to make the state irrelevant.”

  271. robert capozzi

    TK, fixing this:

    All an LP radical is saying is that it is the job of the party’s candidates to campaign on the principles and platform set forth by 88 20-somethings plus Hospers (many of whom are dead) nearly five decades ago rather than on some other principles or platform.

  272. paulie Post author

    here’s another method, as suggested by Gary Chartier. He recently suggested: “I don’t think this can be accomplished through the political process, which can be, at best, defensive. It has to be a matter of, as the Wobblies said, building the new society within the shell of the old, finding ways to make the state irrelevant.”

    That’s by no means new, nor exclusive of working within whatever opportunities the existing system creates. They can be complimentary methods.

  273. Thomas Knapp

    RC,

    I don’t know how many delegates were at the 1974 national convention, which is when the Statement of Principles was amended to read as it does now (with a 2/3 rule like other docs), after which the 7/8 rule went into effect. See Caryn Ann Harlos’s recent and excellent historical work on the subject. It was not quite so peremptory as you seem to want it to be.

    The thing was written and passed in 1972, with an additional one-convention window under which it could be amended with 2/3 and during which the 7/8 requirement could have been nixed. That second convention actually made it more “NAPist” and then allowed the 7/8 rule to go into effect.

    And then, 44 years later, more than 2/3 of national convention delegates voted to strengthen, not weaken, the 7/8 rule. So it does not seem like there is any sort of persistent near-7/8 (or even 1/3+1) thwarted sentiment to get rid of the 7/8 rule.

    That’s just how it is. The LP Isn’t trying to be the kind of party you want it to be and failing. It is continuously and overwhelmingly declining to be the kind of party you want it to be. Stipulating entirely for the sake of argument that that’s a bad thing, it’s still akin to petrification. The petrified redwood is not going to become unpetrified maple no matter how hard you wish upon it to do so.

  274. robert capozzi

    TK,

    I missed the 44-years-later strengthening of the 7/8ths depth charges. Please refresh or add to my memory.

    Bigger picture, assuming this is correct, while the technicalities of the NAPist 88-20-somethings + Hospers may have been strengthened, it’s also the case that the LPUS convention has — for 3 cycles — picked non-NAPist standard bearers. Four, if we count Badnarik, whom I saw as more “constitutionalist” than “NAPist.” Even Browne was not in my estimation a classic NAPist like Bergland or Marrou. (He struck me as more of an anarcho-individualist.)

    Codification of dysfunction does not make it functional. Surely you recognize that just because a law is on the books does not make it moral, yes? I presume that you oppose a long list of laws that you consider immoral. Similarly, I oppose a millstone that weighs down a political party dedicated to maximizing individual liberty from attaining its highest and best use. We simply disagree about the utility of imposing NAPism on the LP. You seem to consider it its core strength. I consider it to be its fatal flaw. You have the “law” on your side. Thankfully, I have the right to my opinion. I informally represent many who’ve left the LP because of its narrow and restrictive “laws,” either explicitly or in its effect.

    (I suspect there are more of us than there are of true-blue NAPists. It appears you don’t care about their opinions, given your unwavering commitment to NAPism. Such devotion is admirable on one level, but to me it’s more like Einstein’s definition of insanity.)

  275. robert capozzi

    pf: That’s by no means new, nor exclusive of working within whatever opportunities the existing system creates.

    me: I’m not so sure of whether it’s exclusive or not. Simultaneously participating in the political process AND going Wobblie could be viewed as contradictory. If you seek to make change both OUTSIDE and INSIDE the system could easily be viewed as contradictory. The “inside” work could be viewed as validating the existing regime.

  276. Tony From Long Island

    Chuck, Chuck, bo buck: ” . . . . . I was pretty surprised that “Tony from Long Island” and “Anthony Dlugos” weren’t the same person, judging from both conmenting here. I just assumed they were the same because Anthony showed up as soon as Tony left, they have similar names, and both are the only ones who agree with Robert Capozzi on just about everything. . . . . ”

    Pretty much every word of this post is incorrect 🙂

  277. Tony From Long Island

    TK: ” . . . Obama deported more immigrants than any president before him. In fact, he surpassed his predecessor’s eight-year record in less than five years.. . . .. ”

    Other than those with an actual criminal record, that is very unfortunate.

  278. dL

    Other than those with an actual criminal record, that is very unfortunate.

    If you think having a criminal record makes deportation okay, then I would point out the mere act of crossing an imaginary line w/o permission is a crime and hence all unauthorized immigrants are criminals subject to deportation. That’s the GOP position.

  279. Tony From Long Island

    I do not consider crossing an imaginary line to be a crime. Hence my use of the word ACTUAL.

  280. Tony From Long Island

    I am very aware of the GOP position. I think it is disgustingly xenophobic. Just one of many, many reasons I have only voted for a republican one single time in my entire life – Rick Lazio over Hilary Clinton for senator in New York in 2000.

  281. dL

    I do not consider crossing an imaginary line to be a crime. Hence my use of the word ACTUAL.

    Yeah, but the gubmint does…

  282. Krzysztof Lesiak

    Arvin Vohra and Aria DiMezzo (Chesire County, NH sheriff candidate) were interviewed earlier this year.

  283. William T. Forrest

    The government doesn’t consider crossing an imaginary line to be a crime. It considers it to be an infraction, like driving over the speed limit. Crimes are more substantial offenses which are punished with jail time, over and above jail as a form of debtors prison. Thus, it isn’t true that everyone who crossed government borders without permission has committed a crime even by the government’s definition. It’s also not a good reason to deport someone if they committed a “crime” that has no victim.

    Cannabis is still illegal in many US states, but legal in some and in some but not other foreign countries. If someone commits a cannabis crime in the US states where it’s still illegal is that a good reason to deport them? What about those who live in US states where’s it’s legal, since it’s still federally illegal? How about someone who violated a cannabis law in a foreign country but now lives in a legal cannabis US state? What about someone convicted of something which isn’t a crime at all in the US, say a woman caught driving in Saudi Arabia…ground for deportation?

    In many foreign countries criticizing the regime is grounds for a criminal conviction, or people may be falsely convicted of crimes they did not commit even though the real reason was that they spoke up against the government in some way or failed to pay a bribe. In some cases it may have been bad luck, because the person who did commit the crime was someone connected to the regime or someone who did pay bribes and someone else had to be picked to take the blame.

    Many countries have legal systems which do not afford many protections to the accused, as there is no presumption of innocence, no freedom from torture, no right to humane treatment or even food while in custody, no right to legal representation, etc, etc. Should we favor the US regime helping these other regimes get another go at people they have convicted falsely, or of things that shouldn’t have been crimes at all, or both?

  284. William T. Forrest

    “: I’m not so sure of whether it’s exclusive or not. Simultaneously participating in the political process AND going Wobblie could be viewed as contradictory. If you seek to make change both OUTSIDE and INSIDE the system could easily be viewed as contradictory. The “inside” work could be viewed as validating the existing regime.”

    It’s not contradictory, The existing regime exists with or without our “validation.” If I vote in elections and use cryptocurrencies, onion routers and encryption am I contradicting myself? If I run for office and work with my neighbors to provide voluntary alternatives to inadequate government “services” where’s the contradiction? If I attend party meetings and survival training where’s the conflict? They are just parallel tracks.

  285. William T. Forrest

    “He’s the 3rd LP candidate to appear on Cantwell’s show this year.”

    Shame on all of them.

  286. dL

    The government doesn’t consider crossing an imaginary line to be a crime.

    yes, it does

    8 U.S. Code § 1325 – Improper entry by alien
    (a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts
    Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.

    (b) Improper time or place; civil penaltiesAny alien who is apprehended while entering (or attempting to enter) the United States at a time or place other than as designated by immigration officers shall be subject to a civil penalty of—
    (1) at least $50 and not more than $250 for each such entry (or attempted entry); or
    (2) twice the amount specified in paragraph (1) in the case of an alien who has been previously subject to a civil penalty under this subsection.
    Civil penalties under this subsection are in addition to, and not in lieu of, any criminal or other civil penalties that may be imposed

  287. dL

    Despite the fact that Trump is more extension than departure from Clinton/Obama on immigration, it is fair to point out that Dems and Repubs(or proggies and cons) do not see face to face vis a vis immigration. At least not at the moment.

  288. wolfefan

    FWIW most people here illegally do not cross an imaginary line. They come in legally with visas and then overstay them. Estimates are that about 2/3 of people here illegally entered legally.

    While the government does consider the crossing of that line as a crime, the punishment is not dissimilar to a traffic infraction. It’s a misdemeanor,typically punished with penalties not unlike those for reckless driving in most jurisdictions.

  289. robert capozzi

    wtf: If I run for office and work with my neighbors to provide voluntary alternatives to inadequate government “services” where’s the contradiction?

    me: Let me break it down for you. When a person runs for office, most would perceive that to be a statement something along the lines: “I can do a better job in this office than the other candidates.” Most would not know about the candidates desire for voluntaryism, and (if the candidate is a nonarchist) most would not even entertain the idea of statelessness. The idea that the nonarchist candidate is proceeding on parallel tracks is a level of nuance that is beyond most people’s perception. Most never entertain the nonarchist option, if we want to take it seriously.

    What the NAPist doesn’t seem to get is his/her frame of reference is soooo foreign to the average voter, it’s a position that requires profound levels of “education,” levels of education that few have patience for.

    In politics especially, perception is reality. Running for office that shouldn’t exist is perceived by many/most as contradictory.

  290. William T. Forrest

    “FWIW most people here illegally do not cross an imaginary line. They come in legally with visas and then overstay them. Estimates are that about 2/3 of people here illegally entered legally.

    While the government does consider the crossing of that line as a crime, the punishment is not dissimilar to a traffic infraction. It’s a misdemeanor,typically punished with penalties not unlike those for reckless driving in most jurisdictions.”

    Bingo

  291. William T. Forrest

    “Let me break it down for you. When a person runs for office, most would perceive that to be a statement something along the lines: “I can do a better job in this office than the other candidates.” Most would not know about the candidates desire for voluntaryism, and (if the candidate is a nonarchist) most would not even entertain the idea of statelessness. The idea that the nonarchist candidate is proceeding on parallel tracks is a level of nuance that is beyond most people’s perception. Most never entertain the nonarchist option, if we want to take it seriously.”

    Let me help you while you’re broken down. When a person engages in non-electoral activism, or parallel track, it’s not for the purpose of bolstering their run for office, just like if I go bicycling it’s not for the purpose of improving my chess game. It doesn’t mean that I can’t do both, though, and maybe I’ll even run into a chess partner on the bike ride. For the most part they are separate activities which neither help nor hurt each other.

    Also, if I run for office, it’s OK that most people don’t entertain the notion of statelessness seriously. They wouldn’t entertain it seriously whether or not I ran for office. A few may begin to explore reading and conversation topics that will eventually open their minds to it thanks to my run for office, and that’s fine too. If I happen to get elected to some minor office and make some minor nibbles at making policy better here and there, great. If I don’t get elected but force my opponents to pay attention to the concerns of voters who would consider voting for me, great. If I help change the mind of the winning candidate on something or another in a debate, great. If I activate new party volunteers who then get involved in other aspects of the movement or go on to run themselves, great.

    None of it keeps me from cleaning up the local park, serving food to the homeless, or getting together with neighbors for a neighborhood patrol. None of it keeps me from going to the gun range or stockpiling gold in a vault or maintaining a prepper stash. None of it keeps me from growing my own pot and vegetables or signing up for an arbitration service or donating anarchist books to the library. These are all separate activities which I may or may not be doing, even if I run for office and even if most of the people who vote for me if I do are nowhere near being anarchists.

  292. William T. Forrest

    “In politics especially, perception is reality. Running for office that shouldn’t exist is perceived by many/most as contradictory.”

    A lot of people have insurance for things they wish didn’t exist, but do. For that matter the reason why a lot of people think we need government is for things that they wish didn’t exist: poverty, crime, foreign invasion, terrorism, etc. These things exist regardless of whether we wish they did or not. So does political office. Wishing it away doesn’t seem to work. So there’s nothing contradictory about working within a system that I wish didn’t exist, nor is there anything contradictory about taking other measures outside of it at the same time. If I keep a fire extinguisher at home does that mean I can’t call the local fire department? If I don’t rule out calling the fire department does that mean I can’t keep my own fire extinguisher?

  293. robert capozzi

    wtf,

    It seems you are confusing technical, eye-of-the-needle analysis with the game of politics. Yes, one can run for office as a crypto- or explicit-nonarchist while doing things on the DL that you think advance the cause of statelessness. Those are not contradictory necessarily.

    Running for office when — in the back of one’s mind — the idea that “…governments — when instituted –…” — is a serious one tends to make the candidate weak and conflicted. It’s an inside joke that the candidate is doing something serious but does not have serious ideas about. Kokesh comes to mind. He aims to run for prez so that he can abolish the federal government. That stance sounds loopy to probably 98% of the population, and may have as much as 0.1% of actual support. Don Quixote was more grounded in reality!

    Now, I’ll grant that Kokesh is an extreme example, but I’d submit that many NAPists take a certain amount of glee in his stance, even if they don’t approve of Kokesh’s tactic. They may well realize that such an extreme position is counter-productive rhetorically and politically, and yet my sense is such abolitionism warms at least part of their hearts.

  294. William T. Forrest

    The idea that government could and should one day be entirely voluntary on a mutual basis has very little to do with a serious run for local office where we may have a serious chance. It has about as much to do with winning local office as a kid’s dreams to be the next Dale Earnhardt one day have to do with participating in the local neighborhood soap box derby. As for Kokesh, yes, it’s as if he’s on the field at Giants stadium during the game, but only as a streaker. Is that a bad thing? Dunno, but I think it’s about as useful as the Hillary Clinton sex doll:

    https://www.amazon.com/Hilary-Clinton-Blow-Up-Love-Doll/dp/B016VB5ML8?fbclid=IwAR3ek_iUIgL32cC19ixuRXFPqyOVccmxJdJhC4TOoK802Ly6wZM0PTm8AIE

  295. robert capozzi

    wtf: ,,,local office….

    me: This is commonly known as “moving the goal posts.” But, OK. If prominent NAPists like Cantwell or Perry ran in NH for alderman or dogcatcher with the purpose of abolishing the seat, this too would be viewed as loopy and unsupportable, right?

  296. William T. Forrest

    How is it moving goalposts? You don’t get to the goalpost without making it down the field first. As far as I know no one has ever kicked a hundred yard field goal through the uprights. As a matter of fact we have actually had people, who may or may not have been anarchists, run for office such as soil and water commissioner and not just campaign on abolishing the office but actually get elected and carried out the promise. If abolishing the office is not a practical possibility it’s still OK to run for that office and mitigate the harm that would be caused if someone else won even if it’s less than the ideal of actually getting rid of that office. After all someone will be in that office, so better someone that thinks it should not exist than someone who will be enthusiastic about it.

    As for Cantwell the only thing I want to see him run for is the edge of a tall cliff or skyscraper building. As they kept telling me all throughout my school years: Run, Forrest, run!

  297. Thomas L. Knapp

    RC,

    The 2018 national convention passed a bylaws amendment theoretically “closing the back door” through which some have tried to amend the 7/8ths requirement by a 2/3 vote.

    You seem to have a problem understanding that I am describing a situation, not prescribing the NAP or anything else here.

    The LP is what it is with regard to its Statement of Principles. That’s what it’s going to stay. You don’t have to like it. I don’t have to like it. That’s how it is whether you or I like it or not. It’s not about whether or not you’re right that it’s dysfunctional. It’s about it being dysfunctional to sit around moaning about the fact that it isn’t changing instead of creating the kind of party you claim to want.

  298. Thomas Knapp

    “If prominent NAPists like Cantwell or Perry ran in NH for alderman or dogcatcher with the purpose of abolishing the seat, this too would be viewed as loopy and unsupportable, right?”

    We actually have an existence proof of the opposite — back in the early 2000s, Allen Weiss of Texas ran for a utility district seat on the announced goal of eliminating the district. He won — and then talked one of the other two commissioners into the necessary yes vote to do exactly that.

  299. dL

    While the government does consider the crossing of that line as a crime

    The government doesn’t consider crossing an imaginary line to be a crime.

    WTF, which is it?

  300. dL

    Got about 50 likes from proggies and dem socialists with this tweet reply. And I’m merely regurgitating Bastiat…

  301. robert capozzi

    wtf,

    You move the goalposts because you limit the inquiry to specialty local offices. Yes, there have been special situations where running to abolish an office is appropriate, but those are rare. I’m sure you recognize that exceptions don’t establish rules. Utility commissioner =/= president. It doesn’t even include town council. Even most NAPists see the distinction, I suspect. That’s part of the reason why Kokesh 2020 is not getting much support aside from the most strident, nihilistic elements of the (already tiny) NAPist community.

  302. Anthony Dlugos

    WTF,

    “None of it keeps me from cleaning up the local park, serving food to the homeless, or getting together with neighbors for a neighborhood patrol. None of it keeps me from going to the gun range or stockpiling gold in a vault or maintaining a prepper stash. None of it keeps me from growing my own pot and vegetables or signing up for an arbitration service or donating anarchist books to the library. These are all separate activities which I may or may not be doing, even if I run for office and even if most of the people who vote for me if I do are nowhere near being anarchists.”

    We’re not talking about quite worthy volunteer efforts like some of what you mentioned here, nor are we talking about avant-garde political actions like growing your own pot plants or using cryptocurrencies.

    We’re talking about using some variation of the NAP to design public policy.

    Actually, its not even that. Its using the NAP to eliminate “public” policy.

    This isn’t volunteering for Meals on Wheels to assist charity efforts to the elderly. Its telling those elderly people that they would be better off in a world where social security is privatized.

    The NAP is a nice sentiment, no doubt about it. “Don’t hurt people and don’t take their stuff.” has a nice ring to it.

    However, the closer you get to actual application of the NAP to public policy, the closer the two ideas get to being inherently contradictory, as RC points out. At the point where they meet, they are BY DEFINITION contradictory. If all government is inherently force, what the hell are you doing running for office in the first place?

    In any case, long before you get to that singularity, you’ve become effectively un-electable. Which defeats the whole purpose of a political party.

  303. robert capozzi

    TK,

    Yes, it’s likely that the depth charges will do their job. Sealing the back door makes that even more likely.

    Open-minded NAPists and non-NAPists may attempt to continue to ignore the handiwork of the 88-20 somethings + Hospers five decades ago. This will continue to inflame the NAPist True Believers. This, in turn, will lead to more technical wrangling while the State grows. That is a sad state of affairs.

    As for Cantwell, he wrote a blog post four short years ago entitled: “Still Debating the Non Aggression Principle?” in which he said: “The initiation of force is impermissible, and may be responded to with force. All else is permissible, and may not have force levied against it.”

    Sounds like a NAPist to me. You?

    Now, he may well have renounced the NAP as the One True Principle since he’s become an infamous leader of racist right, of this I’m unsure.

    To me, four years is a relatively short time. In 2014, I was warming to UBI, but now I’m pretty sold. I’m not sure how your thinking has evolved in four years, if at all. Perhaps Cantwell made a more extreme shift in such a short time — that’s possible. But extremism seems to have an allure for a certain personality type, and I fear that more NAPists may follow in Cantwell’s wake.

  304. Anthony Dlugos

    Last time I heard Cantwell, he didn’t seem to fit even into your extraordinarily malleable definition of “NAPist.”

    Its not RC’s “extraordinarily malleable definition” of the NAP we need to consider. (Although I’m not sure how RC ever malleated it. I just see him pointing out its implications taken to their logical conclusions.)

    Its the voters’.

    At this point, we don’t even need to worry about our political opponents’ mangling of the NAP as applied to public policy in order to make us un-electable. We pretty much do that ourselves, then crow about it.

    The LP will gain no support if we insist that we aren’t racists, but we do indeed wish to “get the government out of X.” But we don’t mean right away!

    Although, like RC points out, my fear is that more NAPists….maybe even the party itself? as paulie fears….will follow Cantwell down the rabbit hole.

    Demonstrating fealty to dogma when actual people are involved is a dangerous thing.

  305. Anthony Dlugos

    “Now, he may well have renounced the NAP as the One True Principle since he’s become an infamous leader of racist right, of this I’m unsure.”

    If he has any political sensibilities, he wouldn’t renounce it. Its too useful as a cudgel against the “principled.”

  306. Tony From Long Island

    accurate prediction from me: Weld runs for the LP nomination in 2020. He gets pushback from some of the ultra purist looney tunes who want to continue with .05% of the vote. He wins the nomination when common sense prevails and has a more pure running mate (but one with little name recognition).

    He goes on to do much better than GJ did in terms of vote totals.

  307. Anthony Dlugos

    Weld’s advantage is that he is retired, so he is not staking an ongoing political career on a run at the LP nomination.

    It would take a lot for a sitting politician to defect on what will almost certainly be a long shot.

    His competition, if any, could come from the independently wealthy.

  308. Tony From Long Island

    RC: I’m not aware of anyone from Smithtown every running for President.

    p.s. I’m not really near Smithtown. Thirty minute drive from me. Crappy traffic there 🙂

  309. Tony From Long Island

    AD, do you mean his competition for the LP nomination? It will likely consist of fringe libertarians like Daryl Perry, pompous blowhards like Austin Petersen and maybe Larry Sharpe, who speaks quite well.

    Weld / Sharpe would be quite nice.

  310. Anthony Dlugos

    TfLI,

    Its probable that Weld’s competition for the LP will be something like what you suggest.

    OTOH, we are in an unusual time with regard to presidential politics in this country. There is huge pent up demand for an alternative to the D’s and the R’s. A lot would depend on:

    1) does Trump run again?
    2) who is his competition from the D’s?
    3) Does someone like Bloomberg consider an independent run?

    As an aside, I don’t think Weld would consider Sharpe as his v.p. under any circumstances. He’ll have his guy (gal) already picked out, and he’ll be more blunt about it being a package deal.

  311. robert capozzi

    When Reason asked his rival Bill Weld how the LP could become more successful, Weld replied, “You want to get out more candidates like Larry Sharpe.”

  312. Anthony Dlugos

    Of course, and I agree.

    But you and I both know that was largely a tactical political statement. Selecting him as a running mate for the top ticket in the land is a whole other deal.

    I can’t imagine Weld taking a run at the nomination without already having selected…and gotten a yes from…who he wants as his running mate.

  313. dL

    RE: Badnarik. I looked up Badnarik’s old positions on immigration. I found this in a 2004 Slashdot interview.
    https://politics.slashdot.org/story/04/09/20/1423219/libertarian-presidential-candidate-michael-badnarik-answers

    This brings up the third issue: Borders. Some people believe that lifting immigration restrictions implies “open borders.” That’s like saying that an invitation to my house means it’s okay for you to crawl through my bedroom window at four in the morning.

    Immigrants should be welcome to come here — as long as they’re willing to come in through the front door. They should enter the US through a Customs and Immigration checkpoint, identify themselves, and let us verify that they aren’t terrorists or criminals.

    People who come across our borders at remote locations under cover of darkness, when they were free to enter through the front door, aren’t immigrants. They’re invaders. Illegal immigration creates an industry of “coyotes” to guide people across, and it provides cover for the non-peaceful — terrorists and criminals — to enter the country.

    The border is a national security feature. I propose to treat it as such.

    Well, that sounds an awful lot like Bob Capozzi’s position on immigration. So, yeah, I’m not surprised that Badnarik would go on Cantwell’s podcast. Just as I am not surprised when Bob gets flustered, he will start rattling off the alt-right anti-immigrant talking points.

    The Non-Aggression principle(which I do not subscribe to, btw) is not the delineating litmus test for right-wing entryism. The test is open borders. If you support it, if you embrace the term, then you are inoculated. If you don’t, if you are embarrassed by the term, then you are susceptible. Period.

    Nick Sarwark was spot on in his defense of striking the language 2006 restrictionist language from the immigration plank. Whatever the original rationale for supporting the 2006 amended language, it was clear the intent was not the end result. The end result was a rallying cry for bigots and right-wingers. So, because Sarwark is a libertarian, he had a change of heart on the language that he originally supported in 2006. People who continue to push for that crap when they know what that bullshit entails vis a vis right-wing entryism pretty much out themselves for what they actually are.

  314. robert capozzi

    AD,

    Last I checked, Mayor Mike is considering the D nomination, not an independent run. My guess at the moment is Trump v Sherrod Brown. Weld stacks up nicely against them, if he can run the NAPist thicket and Perry limits his attacks on him to only spitting. I would like to see the VP slot sold off, ala 1980.

    I think the Ds would much prefer a woman or man of color, but even more they want to win. Brown probably plays better in the Rust Belt. That’s iirc your neck of the woods, so I’m curious if you see the point.

  315. Anthony Dlugos

    RC,

    I bet a friend of mine that it would be Biden. I’ll stick with my original prognostication.

    I know he’s older, and as you alluded to, the Dems like nominating a fresh, young face.

    Remember the flak Biden got a few years ago when he made some allusions to how many people of Indian descent run convenience stores? That tells me he has the ability to speak the language of the Archie Bunker types in the Midwest, where he only needs to flip 100,000 votes at the most.

    I think that will be Biden’s pitch.

  316. robert capozzi

    TK,

    I’m (with trepidation) listening to the Cantwell/Badnarik show. CC is reading from Rothbard. So, he seems to’ve not turned away from NAPism, at least not entirely.

  317. Thomas Knapp

    “Weld’s advantage is that he is retired”

    Er, no. He’s a lawyer/lobbyist and still hard at work.

    In fact, right now (or at least as of yesterday according to the Boston Globe) he’s lobbying for the state of Massachusetts to hurry up and “invest” more taxpayer money, faster in mass transit.

  318. Caryn Ann Harlos

    ===The 2018 national convention passed a bylaws amendment theoretically “closing the back door” through which some have tried to amend the 7/8ths requirement by a 2/3 vote.===

    You’re welcome Bob.

  319. robert capozzi

    CAH,

    Yes, if the goal is to remain irrelevant, and the parliamentarians and technicians are to be admired for just how tangled a web they can weave, good job.

  320. Anthony Dlugos

    “Er, no. He’s a lawyer/lobbyist and still hard at work.”

    Fair enough. I mean to say he is a Not a Sitting Officeholder. (N.S.O.)

  321. robert capozzi

    wtf: The government doesn’t consider crossing an imaginary line to be a crime. It considers it to be an infraction, like driving over the speed limit.

    me: Many NAPists like to say that borders are “imaginary lines,” and this is true. Unfortunately for the NAPists, they stop there. The truth is PRIVATE PROPERTY lines are also imaginary. The “line” between justifiable homicide and murder are also imaginary.

    These are all constructs — social inventions. Some of them are sensible, others not so much. It makes sense that we draw a distincition between killing in self defense and murder. It makes sense that we respect correctly gotten gains. And it makes sense to respect the line between one set of laws and another.

  322. Anthony Dlugos

    “Many NAPists like to say that borders are “imaginary lines,” and this is true. Unfortunately for the NAPists, they stop there. The truth is PRIVATE PROPERTY lines are also imaginary. The “line” between justifiable homicide and murder are also imaginary. These are all constructs — social inventions.”

    Watch it there, RC!!! You’re blurring the lines!

    There is only one evil in the world, remember!

    Only one thing stands between society and libertopia!

    Our Enemy, the State!

    As an aside (really, not), I’m amazed at how some archive versions of LP News sound like Jehovah’s Witnesses tracts.

  323. robert capozzi

    TK: As much as anti-NAPists quote Rothbard, I’m not sure he’s exactly a good proof of premise there.

    Me: Yes, but CC was a NAPist until at least 2014 and probably later. Anti-NAPists for the most part are not former NAPists.

    His Wikipedia states: “A 2014 episode of the Colbert Report chronicled his daily life harassing meter maids, which Cantwell justified by appeal to the non-aggression principle of anarcho-capitalism. Colbert also documented Cantwell’s harangues against veterans, whom he accused of racism for “killing Arabs.””

  324. Tony From Long Island

    For the Dems, I currently am admiring Senator Klobuchar. One of my favorite political things is presidential primaries (of any party). There will be so many Dem candidates that it will keep me very entertained,

    I don’t see Sherrod Brown winning the nomination, but he certainly will have support.

    I hope only one person runs against Drumph. I don’t care who it is. If it’s more than one, Drumph gets renominated. Flake, Kasich, or Bush senior. Anyone . . . please!!!

  325. Tony From Long Island

    Even at a Thanksgiving table made up entirely of Democrats, the political discussion can get entertaining. Tonight it was the millenials saying that Columbus day should be abolished because he was a murdering rapist and the older ones just saying that Election day should be a holiday instead of Columbus day.

    At least we all agree on Trump!! Happy Turkey Day everyone.

  326. paulie Post author

    Tonight it was the millenials saying that Columbus day should be abolished because he was a murdering rapist and the older ones just saying that Election day should be a holiday instead of Columbus day.

    Of course, they are both correct.

    Things were unusually agreeable here. Everyone except me are all Democrats, but this year we skipped all discussions of taxes, health care, guns, regulation, government spending, etc., and concentrated on how much we all dislike Trump and Putin.

  327. Tylor Reinhardt

    I split my vote this past election between the Libertarians and the Independent American Party because they were the only Third Parties on the ballot in my area. If you want a low level soldier for ballot access or a campaign in the Reno, Nevada area hit me up to see if I’ll help. I’m pretty much open to helping any third party or third party candidate. In Seattle I was in the campaign headquarters making calls for Kshama Sawant, the Socialist and posting flyers in neighborhoods before the election so people knew to vote. If you want to know my label or orientation, I’m pretty much a moderate independent who is very anti-duopoly. I’m pretty much willing to work for free so I’m not trying to make a career or advance myself. I just want people to know I’m willing to help.

  328. paulie Post author

    Tylor, do you use FB? Look up David Colborne and Comstock Libertarians if you do. If not, let me know if the email you put in your contact form here is correct (I can see it thru the dashboard) and I can CC you on an email to him.

  329. Tylor Reinhardt

    That is not the ONLY reason I voted for them. I just tend to vote third party whenever the option is available. So I’m one of those couple thousands or hundreds of people you see supporting the third party or Independent candidate almost every single time.

    I also tried helping the Constitution Party of Washington State, but at the time I was not doing well at all. I was struggling big time.

  330. Tylor Reinhardt

    Hey paulie,

    Yeah, the e-mail is correct. I don’t use Facebook anymore but I do have one. I just never use it anymore. Please send me an/the e-mail. Sorry for the delay. For some reason my device is processing the website slowly. Probably my device; it’s been acting up lately even though I love it. I’ve had it a couple of years so…

  331. Jim

    Tony From Long Island “Even at a Thanksgiving table made up entirely of Democrats, the political discussion can get entertaining. Tonight it was the millenials saying that Columbus day should be abolished because he was a murdering rapist and the older ones just saying that Election day should be a holiday instead of Columbus day.”

    That’s the sort of situation where watching South Park regularly comes in handy.

    https://www.watchcartoononline.com/south-park-season-21-episode-3-holiday-special

    That one is on Columbus Day. They’ve done several episodes on elections, pointing out how the choice is always between a Giant Douche and a Turd Sandwich, or how no matter who wins, the country is going to be run by a gang of thieves.

    The three seasons (2015, 2016, and 2017) where they had Garrison as Trump and spent equal time ripping on both political correctness and Trump supporters have been absolutely brilliant. That episode above is more straightforward, but I’ve just been stunned at how deep and subtle some of their political commentary has gotten, while still managing to throw in some humor. I haven’t watched this season yet, but hopefully it’s as good as the last three have been.

  332. paulie Post author

    You should call Boomer or that other guy and get the skinny.

    Not sure why? All my contact info is public, but I am already swamped with more than enough to do, and already getting all the Hewitt vote count updates as soon as they come out.

  333. paulie Post author

    The US regime usually condemns tyrants such as Saddam Hussein and Bashar Assad for this kind of shit, now Trump is among their ranks. USA! USA!

  334. dL

    The US regime usually condemns tyrants such as Saddam Hussein and Bashar Assad for this kind of shit, now Trump is among their ranks. USA! USA!

    yeah, but this isn’t some Trumpist anomaly. Trump walked right into a ready made evil gubmint.

  335. Tylor Reinhardt

    One of my goals is to at least understand all the third parties well enough, if not closely current events, then at least contemporary ideological perspectives, so I can make a solid case for voting third party to people who have no party or people who consider themselves moderates or other people in the political “center” to vote for third parties too and not just independents. Especially if they agree with an issue that is shared among one or more of them. Like anti-war, ect.

    From some of the podcasts that I listen too I can sometimes identify issues or arguments that are suprisingly not too far off from each other.Or sometimes a 3d view of a problem. Not perfect or anything like that though.

  336. William T. Forrest

    Nice!

    The Democrats will shoot themselves right in the ass if they nominate Hillary Clinton again.

  337. Tylor Reinhardt

    Hi paulie,

    No not yet, but It’s not a big deal to me. He’s probably busy and right now I am too to tell you the truth. I want to let people know that if they need me I’ll to add my little bit to the group effort.

    I noticed the greens weren’t on the ballot this past election so if they need my help too I’m willing. I just want to do small stuff, not like be a district chair or something like that. haha. Especially since I don’t actually belong to any party. I’m not trying to invade anyone’s party or anything. Just want to help. Give an extra little push. Kind of like pushing a heavy car; sometimes strangers will come up and help you push.

  338. Tony From Long Island

    William Forest: ” . . . . Nice! . . . . The Democrats will shoot themselves right in the ass if they nominate Hillary Clinton again. . . . . . ”

    Speaking as a Democrat who did not vote for HRC, I can say that she will not run. If she does run, she will not get nominated. If, by some odd chance she is nominated, she will win BIGLY. Then we all lose.”

  339. Tony From Long Island

    Re Augustus . . . . Is it a wonder I am no longer a libertarian? With filth like this attached to the party (no matter how much you want to deny it or distance from him) who would want to be associated?

  340. William t. Forrest

    Augustus went republiklan quite a while ago. Clinton may in fact run again and I wouldn’t put it past democrats to nominate her again. If they do trump will beat her. Again.

  341. Anthony Dlugos

    Clinton’s recent right-of-center statements regarding immigration indicate she is clearly thinking of trying again.

    I would quibble with WtF’s suggestion that the democrats would readily run her again. I don’t think so.

    You only get one bite at the biggest prize in the world once every four years. I think the overwhelming structural pressure is to not potentially make the same mistake again. She is still going to be the same bad candidate she has always been.

    I said it would be Biden, I can see RC’s argument regarding Sherrod Brown.

    Dems need someone from the Midwest that can peel away approximately 80,000 votes in the Rust Belt, nothing more.

  342. William t. Forrest

    I didn’t say readily, I said it’s possible. They will have a lot of people running for the nomination and she has a lot of party officials and elected politicians who are friends and owe her favors, experienced operatives she can tap to work for her, lots of proven donors on her lists, etc. Lots of people may or may not beat her for the nomination. I don’t think she is lacking in the hubris it would take her to believe she won’t be a disaster for her party again. I don’t know if other candidates in her party will be able to beat her significant institutional advantages.

  343. Tony From Long Island

    He didn’t really beat her the first time. He wouldn’t the second time either. The recent blue wave shows that the people who decided not to vote at all in 2016 realize their mistake.

  344. paulie Post author

    Depends on personalities, economy and other things. I think Hillary Clinton’s is pretty toxic so I expect she would lose again.

  345. Anthony Dlugos

    more importantly, the democrats wouldn’t want to take the chance that she would lose again.

    I agree with WtF that she has the hubris, but I disagree that the institutional advantages are in her favor. I think the institutions in the democratic universe would be opposed to going down that road once again.

    Does backing Hillary AGAIN sound like something the big money donors would throw their tens of millions AGAIN? I don’t think so.

    My guess is they’d sit her down and tell her she had two bites at the apple and lost both times to people she should not have lost to.

    She doesn’t get a strike three.

  346. Anthony Dlugos

    FYI: This liberal radio talk show host Ethan Bearman did as good a job handling Daily Stormer fav Tucker Carlson last night with regard to the border/immigration issue.

    Granted, he didn’t get into specific policy, but his focus on the immigrants basic humanity and what we as individuals have to overcome to see that was first rate stuff, and he didn’t get hysterical either:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLIUxqtQ8EQ

    Tucker’s lead-in starts at 32:44. If you can’t stomach that, Ethan starts at 34:15.

  347. William t. Forrest

    I’m not a fan of randomly throwing first punches at nazis but I think we should all be able to agree that there’s nothing wrong with being there to protest against them and punching them back or in self-defense. Kind of fun too in my personal experience. YMMV.

  348. paulie Post author

    No thanks. If anything, we need to accelerate the process of alienating the Trumpertarian/alt reich/anarchofascist/incel cesspool vortex from the LP and pushing it to the NSGOP or the nazi party or anything that’s not LP or branded libertarian in any way.

  349. dL

    That NSA story isn’t real.

    Yeah, you may be right. I generally confirm stuff with more than one source. I can’t find any other reference to it…

  350. Anthony Dlugos

    Is that a recent Vohra comment?

    Reprehensible.

    Better get ready to see him show up at a Proud Boys event soon.

  351. dL

    Sad devolution Arvin has undergone.

    I liked this Arvin much better:

    Chalk another one up to “knows better, but doesn’t care.”

  352. Anthony Dlugos

    wow.

    Why is Adam even entertaining this dope?

    I’ll say it again: my opinion is that Vohra saw what Petersen was able to accomplish in Orlando by being an antagonistic bomb-thrower, and decided to take a similar course.

    Sadly, Arvin is taking a far darker turn than Petersen’s frat boy bro-publicanism. He may think he’s self-aware enough to keep his distance from his bombs, but eventually, he’ll start believing the crap.

  353. dL

    I’ll say it again: my opinion is that Vohra saw what Petersen was able to accomplish in Orlando by being an antagonistic bomb-thrower, and decided to take a similar course.

    Peterson flipped parties but not positions, and last time I checked, was not a Trumpist. Vohra has flipped positions, not parties, and has become persona non grata in the LP.

  354. Anthony Dlugos

    I mean stylistically, though.

    Vohra is doing the same thing Petersen was doing; get someone hooked in a debate and then say something outrageous intended to draw social networking attention to yourself.

    In my opinion, the only difference is Vohra is going to a far darker place.

    Maybe it doesn’t matter what tactics Vohra adopted if he actually believes what he is saying.

Leave a Reply

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