Libertarians for Sanders? Naaah.

With Rand Paul out, a lot of libertarians, conservative-libertarians and lib-curious are fumbling around for a new candidate. Ted Cruz looked like he might pick up the liberty vote for a while with his opposition to surveillance. But then he backed out of criminal justice reform and started striking an aggressive tone on foreign policy. Donald Trump is a fool. Hillary Clinton is a power-hungry shill. Rubio doesn’t seem to be going anywhere. So where do we turn? Andrew Kirell asks if it’s … Bernie Sanders

While Sanders’s economic policies deeply conflict with libertarians—single-payer health care, government-funded college tuition for all, etc.—he is their only remaining ally on a slew of other big issues.

And, besides, “there’s this little thing called Congress,” as Michael noted. “Any radical law he tries to pass will run through an obstacle course.”

So the logic goes: With a Republican-controlled Congress—or one remotely close to its current makeup—President Sanders would have a tough time getting his most radical economic policies passed, leaving him to fight for the civil liberties causes that matter to liberals and libertarians alike: e.g., reforms to the criminal justice system, the ongoing drug war, and the government’s surveillance efforts.

In other words, backing a Sanders presidency would mean wagering that Sanders’s most left-wing economic policies wouldn’t come to fruition. And that he’d pull a conservative Congress to the left on civil liberties issues, with the help of cross-partisan allies like Sens. Rand Paul and Mike Lee.

The case for Sanders is this:

  • He’s way better on civil liberties that Clinton. Also marijuana, war, surveillance and criminal justice reform. He’s better than her on gun control, although he’s moved Left on that recently. Against the Republicans, he’s better on civil liberties but worse on the second amendment.
  • You talk about gridlock? Bernie Sanders and a Republican Congress would give you gridlock on just about every economic issue.

So that’s the libertarian case for Sanders. It’s tempting in this kind of anti-liberty field. But the case against is strong as well:

  • Sanders would be 75 years old on inauguration day. His health appears good but it could decay suddenly (to be fair, this is also a concern with Trump and Clinton). This could mean a sudden shift to a Vice President and God knows who Sanders will pick for that. If he picks Clinton, he could get a head cold and find himself removed from office.
  • We can not assume that a Republican Congress will continue indefinitely. A Sanders presidency combined with a Democratic Congress could be dangerous.
  • Sanders would appoint at least one, maybe two or three justice to the Supreme Court, maybe even one for a retiring conservative. This could be good if he focuses on civil liberties. More likely, he’d appoint some social justice types who would stand back while the federal government did whatever it wanted.
  • Sanders has zero foreign policy experience. This has become obvious in the debates. While his philosophy is better than Clinton’s, his lack of any credentials could be a problem. Foreign policy is not something you learn on the fly. I could see a Sanders administration being completely feckless and ineffective. Being against stupid foreign adventures is good. Being able to do that and deal with aggressive foreign powers is better.

That lost one is a big point for me. The one arena where the President has the most authority is foreign policy. It’s a big reason I oppose Trump and a big reason I’m partial to Rubio. Almost every other deficiency in a President can be papered over by a reasonable Congress. But foreign policy is the one place where it can’t.

As I said from the beginning, I prefer Sanders’ honest socialism over Clinton’s dishonest mercantilism. But if its Sanders versus a reasonable Republican, I don’t think you can make the case for Sanders. Not for a conservative and probably not for a libertarian and probably not for this conservative-libertarian.

Comments are closed.

  1. richtaylor365

    He’s way better on civil liberties that Clinton

    How so, specifically? He would be the first to end run the 1st Amendment, adopting Draconian hate speech laws like what Canada has. Big government is by definition anathema to civil liberties, intrusive to the individual in how he wishes to live his life. And how on earth is taxing the shit out of folks, robbing them of their hard earned money, how can that possibly be interpreted as “better on civil liberties”? Isn’t the ultimate liberty in a free capitalist country to be able to prosper through your own industry?

     Also marijuana, war, surveillance and criminal justice reform. 

    All hollow talking points. Yeah, he would gut the NSA, including all their foreign surveillance, throwing out the baby with the bath water. Forget keeping America safe under his watch.

    War? I guess gutting the military so that they are incapable of foreign intervention, anywhere, that is one way to avoid conflict, temporarily. God forbid American leadership is needed anywhere in the world, Sanders would be MIA.

    And please tell me, what does criminal justice reform even mean? That term is as nebulous as comprehensive immigration reform, a slogan. Sanders would probably like to disarm all police, submit them and their actions to civilian review boards, deny them Constitutional protections, effectively marginalizing the very need for a civilian police force. I would support criminal justice reform, my definition, better training and more restrictive protocols on the use of deadly force, but not the kind of reform Sanders has in mind.

    • You talk about gridlock? Bernie Sanders and a Republican Congress would give you gridlock on just about every economic issue.

    Based on your other posts on this subject, this is exactly the type of scenario you would support, Sanders for president with a GOP controlled congress. A shriveled up old communist who wants to turn us into Venezuela, wonderful.

    And you forgot to mention how rabid he is about climate change, talk about wrecking the economy is one full swoop. But with free college, free healthcare, and $19 trillion in new spending over the next 10 years, a wrecked economy is the least of our worries.

     

    Thumb up 0

  2. Hal_10000 *

    As usual, Rich, you didn’t bother to read through. I said I couldn’t see myself supporting him against a reasonable Republican. Against Clinton? Maybe.

    How so, specifically?

    Opposes mass surveillance. Supports 4th amendment protections. Opposed the Patriot Act. Opposed the flag amendment. Opposes asset forfeiture. Opposes the War on Drugs.  Wants to deschedule marijuana. Opposed PIPA. Clinton supports all of that and worse.

    Do you have a link on him supporting hate speech laws? I’ve never heard him advocate for them.

    Isn’t the ultimate liberty in a free capitalist country to be able to prosper through your own industry?

    Yes. Hence my opposition to his economic agenda.  Although New Hampshire just voted for a Republican who supports single payer, so who knows what’s going on?

    Yeah, he would gut the NSA, including all their foreign surveillance, throwing out the baby with the bath water

    Again, says who? He opposes domestic surveillance. Not heard him say we should end foreign surveillance.  Are you going to play that neocon game of pretending the only choices are no surveillance and ripping up the Fourth Amendment?

    War? I guess gutting the military so that they are incapable of foreign intervention, anywhere, that is one way to avoid conflict, temporarily.

    Again, Republican Congress. And our military could be “gutted” (Washington-speak for cut about 2%) and still be more powerful than the next ten combined.

     Sanders would probably like to disarm all police, submit them and their actions to civilian review boards, deny them Constitutional protections, effectively marginalizing the very need for a civilian police force.

    Rich, if you’re going to make stuff up, why even bother?  Congress almost passed a criminal justice reform bill that was very real — cutting mandatory minimums and providing a review of long sentences.  That’s what it means.  Quit getting your talking points from the police unions.

    The point here was to see if Sanders is a viable choice for a libertarian. I don’t think he is.  He’s probably better than Clinton. But I would certainly vote for Rubio or Christie or Kasich or Bush over him.  Not so sure about Cruz or Trump (in which case, I’d vote Libertarian, not for Sanders).

    Thumb up 2

  3. Hal_10000 *

    Here is a good illustration of why Sanders is better than Clinton on civil liberties. Sanders want to get money out of politics — a stupid idea.  Clinton wants the government to prevent people from saying nasty things about her — an evil idea.

    Clinton also supported the Iraq War, supported our Syrian escapade and was the architect of the intervention in Libya. Sanders opposed all three.

    Thumb up 2

  4. richtaylor365

    As usual, Rich, you didn’t bother to read through.

    As usual, you leave your conclusions so open ended and ambiguous that they are meaningless. “Reasonable Republican”, talk about subjective and ambiguous. And for the record I do read posts that I feel obligated to comment on, like all those posts you write about having a Democrat in the WH when the GOP has congress, like this is somehow the perfect scenario. Why even bother touting any GOP candidates when you have made it perfectly clear that you are rooting for a Democrat?

    Opposes mass surveillance. Supports 4th amendment protections. Opposed the Patriot Act. Opposed the flag amendment. Opposes asset forfeiture. Opposes the War on Drugs.  Wants to deschedule marijuana. Opposed PIPA. Clinton supports all of that and worse.

    How about some links for all that, specifically ones that say Clinton is for all that. Both are for eminent domain,  square that civil liberty circle. And in 2006 Sanders voted yes on continuing intelligence gathering without civil oversight.

    Do you have a link on him supporting hate speech laws? I’ve never heard him advocate for them.

    We know that he has proposed an amendment to the Constitution to limit free speech in the form of over turning the Citizens United decision, a pretty drastic and desperate act if you ask me. We know that he has made the tenuous link between free speech (or bitter rhetoric as he likes to hide behind) and the Colorado Springs shooting.  We know that he has made numerous speeches on campuses and at mosques condemning “anti Muslim bigotry”, implying that condemning violent radical Islamist is bigotry.

    Quit getting your talking points from the police unions.

    I have no idea what the police unions want, but how narrow minded of you to think that they are monolithic or that they reject any change whatsoever. And don’t presume that your definition of  criminal justice reform is even in the same ball park as what Sanders thinks it means. He has made great hay out of his stance on “racial justice” and both he and Hillary are all in with BLM and their identity politics. As usual, the devil is in the details, I can get behind reasonable (don’t you just love that word, it can mean anything at all, can’t it?) criminal justice reform.

     

     

     

     

     

    Thumb up 0

  5. Hal_10000 *

    This was not an ambiguous post, Rich. It did not involve sly metaphors and a plot twist. It was, “Some are arguing libertarians should voter for Sanders. There’s a case to be made, but I’m unconvinced. I think he’s better than Clinton but way worse than several Republicans.”  I realize that, on this blog, anything less than “SANDERS!  EVIL!  COMMUNIST!  REPUBLICANS GO!” is considered an endorsement.

    I am not a Republican. I’m a libertarian-conservative. I voted Republican for many years because they were the better party. But when the GOP embraced massive spending, bungled wars, torture, mass surveillance and, above all, requiring absolute loyalty to everything the party does, I left them.  I will vote for them if I think it is in the best interest of the country. I voted Republican for Senate and House in my state.  But if the Republicans put up a candidate who is going to engage in more war, rip up more of the constitution and blow up the deficit — which currently describes much of the GOP field — I will not vote for them.

    Is Sanders a great candidate? No, he’s a bad one. But he’s better than Clinton.  Almost all the issues you have with Sanders are the same or worse with Clinton.  Example: Sanders supported an anti-free-speech amendment that will never happen. Clinton supports that and has openly declared her intention to go after and silence her political enemies.  Sanders would probably be inept on foreign policy; Clinton already has a record of making disastrous foreign policy decision after disastrous foreign policy decision.

    Sanders is a crank. I’ve said this many times. But Clinton is a vicious petty tyrant who has been nursing grudges for 25 years and can’t wait to get the power of the Presidency so she can go after the people she hates. This is a woman who boasted in the first debate about how many enemies she has. The longer this goes on, the more I’m seeing of why she should not be allowed anywhere near the White House.

    Thumb up 2

  6. Section8

    “I realize that, on this blog, anything less than “SANDERS!  EVIL!  COMMUNIST!  REPUBLICANS GO!” is considered an endorsement.”

    Well it is called “Right Thinking” you dumb fuck, and given your penchant for “secretly hoping” the Democrats win, well, you’d have to be brain dead to not understand why people respond to you the way they do these days.  Notice your only defender anymore is the leftist ideologue that posts here. You might want to consider why that is, but I’m sure you already know and are just fine with it.

    We all know your so-called pro free market stance goes to shit anytime someone comes along to fight bigger government. There is ALWAYS an excuse as to why it’s not the right time or place, or they must be doing it for self serving purposes, and of course you never bother to elaborate on when the right combination would present itself because there obviously isn’t one.

    “But when the GOP embraced massive spending, bungled wars, torture, mass surveillance and, above all, requiring absolute loyalty to everything the party does, I left them.”

    And you’ve totally missed the fact that the GOP voter is pissed about all of that in general, and will be pressuring the shit out of any GOP president. Sorry to break it to you, it’s not your incredible insight that discovered the GOP fucked up; it was and is blatantly obvious to everyone, hence the establishment rebellion. Of course your argument carried weight here for a while, but then the consistent “secretly hoping” the other side will win, and the “not the right time” to take a stand has blown your credibility. You bitch about Obamacare, then rail against anyone who takes a stand against it. You praised Robert’s decision 3 years ago to keep the thing alive. You insist it needs to go, but any avenue to do so you oppose. It’s not just this issue but others as well, so you’ll have to excuse some of us if we don’t buy your bullshit anymore.

    It’s clear your belief is that the GOP should fight from a position of capitulation, and hope for some small victories here and there at the Democrat’s mercy. It’s a fucking ridiculous strategy to anyone who is even remotely conservative at heart.

    Fact is you’re the type of idiot the GOP and any conservative for that matter does not need on their side, so please quit “secretly hoping” and just be honest and jump ship already.

    “Example: Sanders supported an anti-free-speech amendment that will never happen. ”

    Didn’t you just get on Rich’s ass for not providing links about his issues with free speech, but of course you knew Sander’s view anyhow right? Rich did not have to provide any links. He was right in making an assumption. At the end of the day socialists in general do not support free speech, and their argument in general to ban speech is to call it “hate speech”. That’s the patter, and it’s part and parcel to their ideology, and again you’d have to be brain dead to not know that already.

    So in the end, who gives shit whether Sanders is better or worse than Clinton. They’ll both be horrible for the future of this nation, and in fact worse than ANY GOP candidate plain and simple. Which I guess in your mind would mean that I must think every GOP candidate is JUST AWESOME right?

    As we all know, a “reasonable” GOP candidate for you today would be an unreasonable one come election time when you’ll do your “secret hope” bullshit again (actually is has been well underway for months now), and that my friend is why you get the reactions here that you do, and not because anything less than “SANDERS!  EVIL!  COMMUNIST!  REPUBLICANS GO!” is considered an endorsement.

    Thumb up 2

  7. CM

    Notice your only defender anymore is the leftist ideologue that posts here. You might want to consider why that is, but I’m sure you already know and are just fine with it.

    Hal is one of the few here who ISN’T an ideologue. Unlike most others, he can and will actually back up his opinions with evidence and logic. Rather than just screaming ideology and personal abusive (“you dumb fuck”). An ideologue is someone who would, for example, align themselves with something as obviously dodgy as skewedpolls.com, for example. I suspect that’s why I might be considered a ‘defender’. I’m sure not a ‘defender’ of ideological mantras and a complete lack of standards in the pursuit of ideological purity.

    Thumb up 2

  8. Hal_10000 *

    And you’ve totally missed the fact that the GOP voter is pissed about all of that in general, and will be pressuring the shit out of any GOP president.

    Bullshit. If a GOP President starts spending like crazy and bungling everything, I will expect the same silence that reigned for the first six or so years of the Bush presidency. During that time Lee was heavily critical of Bush and was pilloried for it.  He noted to me that when he turned against Bush, he lost about 2/3 of his traffic for his “disloyalty”.  And the fact is that the GOP candidates right now are talking about spending increases and tax cuts that would blow out the deficit again.  Their front-runner is a supporter of single-payer healthcare who hobnobs with Democrats.  This isn’t about principle. It never is.  It’s about teams.  I don’t play for the GOP team anymore.

    It’s clear your belief is that the GOP should fight from a position of capitulation, and hope for some small victories here and there at the Democrat’s mercy. It’s a fucking ridiculous strategy to anyone who is even remotely conservative at heart.

    Finding ways to get things done is not capitulation. You regard getting less than 125% of what you want as capitulation.  The “capitulation” on the budget cut the deficit by 2/3 in four years. More “capitulation” like that would reduce it further and balance the budget.  The bold, principled stand you wanted would have accomplished nothing but giving the Democrats Congress and wrecking the economy.  Reagan “capitulated” all the time to get what he wanted.  It’s how democracy works.

    Didn’t you just get on Rich’s ass for not providing links about his issues with free speech, but of course you knew Sander’s view anyhow right? Rich did not have to provide any links. He was right in making an assumption. At the end of the day socialists in general do not support free speech, and their argument in general to ban speech is to call it “hate speech”. That’s the patter, and it’s part and parcel to their ideology, and again you’d have to be brain dead to not know that already.

    In other words, “I don’t have to support my assertions with facts.  I’m just right.”

    Thumb up 4

  9. richtaylor365

    I was ready to walk away from this thread. Yeah, I was wondering why you were trying to convince us that  a 90 mph fastball to the head was somehow preferable to a hard kick in the nuts (comparing Hillary to Sanders), both are horrible but worthy of debate, I guess. But then in response to Section 8 you go off the rails, yet again.

     If a GOP President starts spending like crazy and bungling everything, I will expect the same silence that reigned for the first six or so years of the Bush presidency.

    May I remind you that Hurricane Katrina and the Iraq War happened during that time, subtract those 2 events from your tally then tell me how much money he spent. What’s Obama’s excuse? He has doubled the debt under his watch, spent way way more than Bush. And your memory is faulty (what a surprise), there was much angst and complaints on this very blog about the Iraq War, Medicare B Prescription Drug Plan, No Child Left Behind, and all the other boondoggles but that does not fit your narrative.

    He noted to me that when he turned against Bush, he lost about 2/3 of his traffic for his “disloyalty”.

    I guess I will just have to take your work for it and believe that a conversation existed where he actually said that because that is not how I remember it. When he left for China and turned the rains over to you 5 guest bloggers, the traffic did go down. But I was here then. Maybe you can find some posts he wrote in the archives that bolster your statement.

      And the fact is that the GOP candidates right now are talking about spending increases

    Who has talked about spending increases? I haven’t heard any. Granted it has been shameful that nobody talks about the national debt but they have mentioned entitlement reform, a move that would actually save money.

     This isn’t about principle.

    It’s about Trump, don’t mention principle or any conservative values with his name attached, your point here is moot.

    It’s about teams.  I don’t play for the GOP team anymore.

    Now you are just being insulting. Yeah, we are all mindless sheep who, once we latch on to a candidate, blindly ignores everything that he says and does. Team this.

    Finding ways to get things done is not capitulation

    Finding ways to get the wrong things done is worse than capitulation. Tell me, how much grief has Paul Ryan and the rest of those GOPe clowns got after that last budget capitulation? According to you it was a good thing that they just blew up the deficit because, hey, they got things done, total nonsense.

     More “capitulation” like that would reduce it further and balance the budget.  

    And when has that happened recently? Since Obama has been president when has there been one solitary inch of movement in that direction? Sure, I will get your patent go to answer that we have lowered the deficit from $1 trillion (his starting point) to $500 billion,  and I will counter for the millionth time that it don’t mean dick if you still have deficit spending because you are still increasing the national debt, something you refuse to acknowledge because you will like break out in hives or something.

     The bold, principled stand you wanted would have accomplished nothing but giving the Democrats Congress and wrecking the economy

    You mean like what we have now? You go ahead and stay unprincipled for the sake of “getting things done”, that notion has really worked wonders for us so far.

    In other words, “I don’t have to support my assertions with facts.  I’m just right.”

    Refute what he actually said.  I gave you two examples of things Sanders has said which should make any free speech advocate cringe. And why is it such a stretch to assume that a socialist would work towards restricting free speech, hasn’t that always been the pattern in the past?

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Thumb up 1

  10. trade_pro

    Next up….

    Vermin Supreme is better than both Hillary and Sanders.

    Who doesn’t want a free pony?

    He will get stuff done…what that will be is anyone’s guess, but it will involve toothbrushes in a major way.

    Thumb up 0

  11. CM

    May I remind you that Hurricane Katrina and the Iraq War happened during that time, subtract those 2 events from your tally then tell me how much money he spent. What’s Obama’s excuse? He has doubled the debt under his watch, spent way way more than Bush. And your memory is faulty (what a surprise), there was much angst and complaints on this very blog about the Iraq War, Medicare B Prescription Drug Plan, No Child Left Behind, and all the other boondoggles but that does not fit your narrative.

     

    Wow, so the Global Economic Meltdown of Epic Proportions never happened then. Nice. That’s one hell of a fantasy land you’re living in there Rich. A hurricane, but not the GFC.

    Now you are just being insulting. Yeah, we are all mindless sheep who, once we latch on to a candidate, blindly ignores everything that he says and does. Team this.

    Right, it’s liberals who are the mindless sheep. But it’s ok to be insulting to them because they’re hardly even people I guess.

    Thumb up 2

  12. Hal_10000 *

    Jesus, Rich, do we have to keep going over this? Where I trot out facts and you say, “But Obama!”

    May I remind you that Hurricane Katrina and the Iraq War happened during that time, subtract those 2 events from your tally then tell me how much money he spent. 

    So tell me, which of those required massive increases in education spending?  Which of those required massive increases in spending at the Department of Energy or the Interior?  George W. Bush was the first President under whom every single government department saw a spending increase.  In most cases, a massive one.

    When we got into World War 2, FDR cut spending and raised taxes to pay for it. When we went into Korea, first Truman than Ike cut spending to pay for it. When Reagan ramped up military spending during the Cold War, he cut other spending and raised taxes to pay for it.  George W. Bush, getting us into two wars, raised spending in every single damned department and maintained a giant tax cut. The true damage was hidden by the real estate bubble for a while. But then the roof caved in and he left us with an FY09 budget that had the first trillion deficit in history.

    Obama added to that while he had Congress.  But … once again … spending doubled under Bush and has been flat under Obama.  This is a fact. You like to pretend that fact doesn’t exist because you can’t stand Obama.  Fine.  But it remains a fact.  Download the budget numbers for yourself if you don’t believe me.

    This perfectly illustrates my point. Eight years out from the most fiscally reckless administration in American history and you’re still making excuses for them and “Obama was worse”-ing. I expect the same thing when Cruz blows out the deficit. Denial, blaming Democrats and “Hillary would be worse.”

    I guess I will just have to take your work for it

    Here’s Lee mentioning losing 2/3 of his readers, long before we took over. I’ll see if I can find the post where he mentions that it happened once he turned on Bush (the search function for the archives is difficult.)

    Who has talked about spending increases? I haven’t heard any. 

    Then you haven’t been listening.  Every single remaining candidate has talked about massive increases in military spending to “rebuild” our military.  Not a single one has talked about reinstating the sequester or identified spending cuts.  Kasich is the only one who has talked about cutting entitlements (and has the experience from the 90’s in balancing the budget). He’s polling less than 5%.

    Finding ways to get the wrong things done is worse than capitulation. Tell me, how much grief has Paul Ryan and the rest of those GOPe clowns got after that last budget capitulation? According to you it was a good thing that they just blew up the deficit because, hey, they got things done, total nonsense.

    Tell me, Rich, do you ever get tired of being wrong? I criticized the budget deal. The only good thing I said was it was a return to a normal budget process.  But I guess that’s me being too ambiguous again. I went through the entire post without calling Obama a Communist.

    You mean like what we have now? You go ahead and stay unprincipled for the sake of “getting things done”, that notion has really worked wonders for us so far.

    “Getting things done” == cutting deficit in half while a big-spending Democrat is still in the White House and without any tax increases.  “Principled stand” = walking away from bigger spending cuts because the deal would have raised taxes, pointless shutdown, near fiscal crisis and a downgrade on our credit rating with no progress toward decreasing spending.

    But sure, better to have the house burn down while we stand on principle than getting the fire under control.

    Thumb up 2

  13. Hal_10000 *

    Re: budgets. So what do you think was doable under this President that the GOP didn’t do? 30% budget cuts? Huge cuts to Medicare and Social Security? Big cuts in defense spending?  Big tax cuts? I’d love to see what goes on in this fantasy world where the GOP “stood on principle”. They had some of that stuff initially but balked because Obama wanted tax hikes.

    Thumb up 2

  14. richtaylor365

    Here’s Lee mentioning losing 2/3 of his readers

    But where is the connection between Lee losing his readers due to his disloyalty to Bush? If you are going to say there was a connection………prove it.

    Jesus, Rich, do we have to keep going over this? Where I trot out facts and you say, “But Obama!”

    You do realize that “But Obama” is being used as a reference point? Although with you nothing is a given. You place yourself on a pedestal ,”  I’m no team player, I have principals”, then cry that you left the GOP because they spent too much. I only brought up Obama to point out that over spending is not a GOP thing.

    So tell me, which of those required massive increases in education spending?  Which of those required massive increases in spending at the Department of Energy or the Interior?  George W. Bush was the first President under whom every single government department saw a spending increase.  In most cases, a massive one.

    A wasted paragraph. Please point out where I said Bush was  a model president when it came to spending, budgets, or deficits? Have I not stated like several times, even throwing in a few examples, that Bush was not trust worthy or conservative like in his profligate spending? You keep missing the point, let me try again, Bush was bad, Obama was worse, is that better?

    Then you haven’t been listening.  Every single remaining candidate has talked about massive increases in military spending to “rebuild” our military

    No, I heard all that, but what you haven’t heard is the talk about cutting entitlement spending. Cutting spending on one program and increasing spending on another, that sounds like a wash to me. And please provide a link or sound clip where any of those guys said they would be willing to borrow money or increase the debt solely to increase the military budget.

    Tell me, Rich, do you ever get tired of being wrong?

    You just broke the irony meter on that one, offering up a post you wrote……..to prove that you are right, I don”t think I have ever seen that done before, anywhere.

    without any tax increases

    Have you been living under a rock? Of course there has been tax increases. Here is a list of the Obama tax hikes.

    “Getting things done” == cutting deficit in half while a big-spending Democrat is still in the White House and without any tax increases.

    Again, you play so fast and loose with the facts, it’s scary. How does Hal math reconcile having a 2015 deficit of $438 billion, then having a 2016 budget deficit of  $544 billion (about a 30 percent increase), on what planet is that “cutting the deficit in half”?

     

     

     

     

    Thumb up 0

  15. richtaylor365

    And to further refute your original premise that there was a libertarian case for Sanders, here is a libertarian blog who writes ,” Bernie Sanders is wrong about everything”, doesn’t sound like there is much “fumbling around for another candidate” over there.

    Thumb up 0

  16. Hal_10000 *

    And to further refute your original premise that there was a libertarian case for Sanders,

    The title of this post was that there wasn’t a libertarian case for Sanders. Did you miss that?

    Thumb up 2

  17. CM

    Precisely Iconoclast, it’s binary bullshit. Hal doesn’t indulge in binary bullshit, so clearly he is the enemy, and thus aligned with me.

    Thumb up 2

  18. AlexInCT

    Funny how it is a particular set of ideologues think their side is the one engaging in precision and truth – the universe of evidence to the contrary be damned – while the other side only lies and is labeled as ideological.

    Maybe you bozos missed the donkey freak show the other night, but what I saw was a fascist and a communist telling us how horrible things were, but then blaming everyone but the party they belong to and has held power for almost 8 years now for any of the consequences of their actions. Kind of like some ideologues here….

    Thumb up 4

  19. repmom

    Lee’s post – 2006.

    Damn. Almost ten years ago. Looks like WVR and I are the only ones still around. Except for Hal, of course.

    Does that show how pathetic we are, or how dedicated? I’m feeling the first one.

    Anyway, excuse the intrusion. Carry on.

    Thumb up 0

  20. Hal_10000 *

    Repmom, I occasionally hear from lurkers.  The comments section has declined but we still have people who’ve been reading us for years. I heard from one this weekend about my book.

    Thumb up 2

  21. Section8

    “Bullshit. If a GOP President starts spending like crazy and bungling everything, I will expect the same silence that reigned for the first six or so years of the Bush presidency.”

    Well that’s a nice arrogant attitude. Everyone else is stupid and really never has enough, and could not possibly rebel and will always fall in line, but you’re special. I call bullshit on that. As for support for Trump, of course he has plenty of problems, but most view him more like an enema to clear out all the shit that’s in the GOP rather than a savior. It’s kind of a complex situation of years of broken promises and people viewing the status quo of the GOP (which you love) as the worst case scenario. It’s gotten that bad. I think for you it’s too complex to understand so we’ll leave it at that.

    “During that time Lee was heavily critical of Bush and was pilloried for it. He noted to me that when he turned against Bush, he lost about 2/3 of his traffic for his “disloyalty”.”

    I joined Lee’s blog back in 2003 when did you join? There were quite a few reasons people dropped off including relentless bashing of Christians that went on here. I was on this blog back in the day, so I also saw what happened. Plus it also depends on what criticizms you’re talking about. The spending on social programs, support for the war, etc. Putting it all in on general bucket is lazy. I’m afraid you’re going to have to sell bullshit somewhere else on this one.

    “This isn’t about principle. It never is.”

    LOL! see your next post where you bash the GOP on principle! Fucking hilarious!

    ““Getting things done” == cutting deficit in half while a big-spending Democrat is still in the White House and without any tax increases.  “Principled stand” = walking away from bigger spending cuts because the deal would have raised taxes, pointless shutdown, near fiscal crisis and a downgrade on our credit rating with no progress toward decreasing spending.”

    Oh and regarding this gem, if I recall correctly the claim of walking away from bigger spending cuts for more taxes is bullshit. They walked away from an agreement that spending cuts would be considered down the road for tax cuts now. Of course  suckers, or disingenuous bullshitters like you would think that is a good idea or pretend it’s a good idea and blame the ones who walk away.

    “The “capitulation” on the budget cut the deficit by 2/3 in four years. ”

    What? It was due to more tax revenue coming in from the slower than average recovery that finally started happening. It’s fricken hilarious you’ll get on those here who say Obama raised the deficit arguing it was due to less tax revenue in a bad economy, which is a perfectly valid argument, but now all of the sudden the tax revenue due to a recovering economy isn’t a factor. It was due to some great work between a weak GOP congress and Obama. Lame and you know it.

    “George W. Bush, getting us into two wars, raised spending in every single damned department and maintained a giant tax cut. ”

    How do you think Bush should have handled Afghanistan? Just let it go? I don’t have any issue of anyone bitching about the Iraq war, but what’s your argument that Bush got us into the first war? Was it his fault? What should he have done? I’ll admit the leftist talking point the “He got us into two wars” irks me and quite a bit. bin Laden got us into the first war in my opinion. No surprise you’d use the old lefty line though.

    Can you answer your two wars statement or are you just going to cry victim to being “disloyal to the GOP” if you’re questioned on this? I won’t argue your issue with expanding departments, I’m willing to bet I was bitching about it on this very blog before you even came along.

    “The title of this post was that there wasn’t a libertarian case for Sanders. Did you miss that?”

    I can’t speak for Rich, but maybe you missed the content of this post said this:

    “So that’s the libertarian case for Sanders. It’s tempting in this kind of anti-liberty field. ”

    Do you remember writing that? Then of course your “argument against” was half-assed at best with worries about things such as his age or that there could be a democratic congress which “could” be dangerous, as opposed to your argument that everything would be a fucking disaster if the GOP ever gets control of both branches because of course the idiots the vote GOP would just sit quiet again for 6 years.

    Just face it. You’re not conservative of any stripe libertarian or otherwise. Stop your bullshit already.

    Thumb up 2

  22. Hal_10000 *

    You’re not conservative of any stripe libertarian or otherwise. Stop your bullshit already.

    And every spittle-flecked diatribe you post shows that you have no idea what either of those words means.

    Thumb up 2