Well, here we are again talking about athletes taking a knee in protest of how people of color are treated in this country and the exercising of free speech. The ante was just upped by Tangerine Mussolini, who called any athlete who kneels for the anthem “a son of a bitch,” and imploring team owners to fire these people and fans to boycott the NFL. And now his administration just released this garbage.

“They can do free speech on their own time[…] They have the right to have the First Amendment off the field.”

Now this administration wants to tell you that the first amendment only applies some of the time, and they get to tell you where you can and can’t exercise it. I’m not sure which is more alarming: that this is the white house’s stance toward our constitutional freedoms, or that their supporters are fine with the idea that government dictates how and when you can use those freedoms. But let’s take some of the common arguments about this issue and examine them a little more closely.

“They can do free speech on their own time.”

This is the most alarming aspect of all of this. Anyone can exercise their right to free speech whenever they want, and I’m pretty sure there are courts in this country that would agree with that. Living in a free country doesn’t mean you never have to hear speech you don’t like, and it certainly doesn’t mean everyone has to arrange their free speech when it’s convenient for you. That’s the price you pay for living in a free country.

“If I did this at my job I’d be fired, so I don’t see why players should get a free pass.”

You see this a lot on the comment section of articles on the topic (see, comment sections are stupid). Yes, someone should have to live with the consequences of their free speech…but that’s precisely why these athletes are doing it during the game, what makes it a more powerful statement: they’re willing to risk their whole career, in most cases their life’s work, for their convictions. If you take away all the stakes involved, then really there isn’t anything behind the statement.

“Standing for the anthem is about respecting those who served our country.” 

Perhaps the most ironic statement of all. If that’s the case you want to make, I’d like to point out two things to you. First, our veterans gave their lives precisely to protect someone’s freedom to do exactly what these athletes are doing. Okay, got that? Second, there was an entire war fought because this precise scenario was happening. People fought in WWII to stop the spread of fascism. If anyone is disrespecting the sacrifice of the greatest generation, it’s the people who now openly embrace fascism in the US. 

I’ve decided to coin a new term for Trump supporters. PINO–Patriots In Name Only. These are people who act like they love the country. They stand for a song and put a flag on the front porch, a bumper sticker on their truck. But their words and their actions betray people who actually care very little for freedom and American values. I don’t really know how else to describe people who think that “there are some very fine people” in Nazi marches and who support a government restricting your right to free speech. Who cheer a government that tries to destroy the free press. Who shrug off a foreign power interfering in our election system. Who don’t seem at all perturbed that the commander in chief and his administration are under investigation for treason and obstruction of justice.

I literally can’t think of anything less American or less patriotic.

download (1)



Why the GOP can walk all over its voters–and get away with it

The GOP finally got their bill to repeal and replace the ACA out the house. It’ll now go to the senate, where it’s pretty much doomed. If it doesn’t collapse altogether, it’ll be sent back as a much different bill. Regardless, pundits and experts are predicting that the AHCA has shown the republican hand, namely that they care more about tax cuts for the rich and not at all about your health.

That’s certainly true.

The bill sees hundreds of millions of dollars cut from medicaid and a corresponding tax break for the wealthy. It also allows insurers to drop you if you become ill or have a pre-existing condition. It’ll raise premiums for the elderly. It’s just an awful, awful bill. Which is why pundits are predicting a major backlash against the party come 2018.

I don’t think we’re going to see that.

Ultimately, a few red districts in blue states may flip, but it won’t be enough to shift the balance of power. Because I don’t think that this will perturb republican voters. History has shown, time after time, that they’ll vote against their own self-interest and I don’t think that this moment in history is an exception. Many of the deep red states have had republican governors, legislatures, and courts for 30+ years. And yet things keep getting worse for those states. If republican voters were ever going to finally wake up to the fact that they’re voting against their own interests, it would have happened by now. In fact, it’s probably never going to happen.

Here, take a look at this:


Every single one of those states is solid red, and every single one voted for Trump. And every single one of those voters with a pre-existing condition will see their insurance either disappear or skyrocket in price. But I’m willing to wager that come 2018 they’ll still vote for the very same congressman who voted to strip them of healthcare. Why? Because many republicans are single issue voters. And what is that issue, you ask?


As long the GOP continues to be the party that opposes abortion and wants to overturn Row v. Wade they can pretty much do whatever they want to voters and still get re-elected.

59% of republican voters think abortion should always be illegal. Even among moderate or ‘liberal’ republicans, 41% think it should always be illegal. And that number has shifted up from where it stood in 1995; 20 years go, republicans were split almost evenly, 49%/48%. In the last two decades, republican voters have only become more conservative on this issue. In 2015, 21 percent of Americans said they would only vote for a candidate who shared their abortion views, up from 13 percent in 2008.

Particularly ironic, given that the AHCA isn’t friendly to pregnant women or babies and children. But I digress.

Economically, many conservatives align with progressive values. 52% of republicans with family incomes <$30,000 say the government has a responsibility to provide healthcare coverage for everyone, up from 31% just last year. And in a recent Gallup poll, 45% of republicans said they think the wealthy don’t pay their fair share in taxes. They hate those free trade deals that sent their jobs overseas–something Bernie Sanders talked about extensively during the election.  In other words, conservative voters know that they’re getting screwed over economically. As time goes on, they seem to be getting more progressive economically.

And yet…when it’s time to step into that voting booth, they always pull the red lever. And what does it get them? Healthcare? Gone. Overtime pay? Gone.  Clean water and air? Gone, too. Taxes? More income redistributed from the middle and lower classes to the donor class.

But hey, abortion, right?

The new GOP “healthcare” plan

In case you missed it, republicans are back with a re-vamped version of their failed ACA repeal. The new American Healthcare Act (AHCA) is somehow even worse than before after a new amendment was added by Representative Tom MacArthur (R-NJ). The problem with the last bill was that it apparently didn’t screw enough people over, so the “freedom caucus” (hint: the freedom they want is the freedom for you to die destitute) lifted their noses in disgust and said no. The new amendment by MacArthur aims to bring those ultra-conservative members of the freedom caucus over to their side. How does this amendment do this, you ask?

I am so glad you asked. Here’s a copy of the actual amendment to the bill. The proposed changes are many, but I’d like to focus on one specific part which I think illustrates why this bill isn’t really a healthcare bill at all. One of the main focuses of this amendment is eliminating the mandate that insurance plans offer certain “essential health benefits” as outlined by the ACA. Here’s the actual text of the amendment:

(B) In the case of plan years beginning 2 on or after January 1, 2020, for health insurance coverage offered in the individual or small  group market in such State, to apply, subject to paragraph (5), instead of the essential health benefits specified under subsection (b) of section 1302 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, essential health benefits as specified by the State.

“Essential health benefits” are things that, by law, insurance is currently REQUIRED to cover. So, what kind of things did the ACA define as “essential” to your heathcare plan?

  1. Ambulatory services
  2. Emergency services
  3. Hospitalization
  4. Maternity and newborn care
  5. Mental health and substance use disorder services
  6. Prescription drugs
  7. Rehabilitative services
  8. Laboratory services
  9. Preventive services and chronic disease management
  10. Pediatric care, including oral and vision screening

Right off the bat, we can see some major hypocrisy here. I find it truly insulting that the party that claims to be about “family values” and touts how “pro-life” it is says you don’t need newborn care, maternity care, and screw your children’s pediatric care. They don’t give a fuck if your child’s teeth rot out or he can’t get glasses.

Second, whenever the issue of gun control comes up, republicans are the first people to shout, “It’s not a gun problem, it’s a mental health problem!” So naturally their healthcare plan would allow insurance companies to drop mental health coverage.

Third, and also just as disgusting: Trump campaigned on the opiate epidemic. Remember that? He talked about how it’s a tragedy and he feels their pain. So of course now they can just take the whole substance abuse treatment part out of your plan.

So how does this save you money? Well, let’s say your insurance company says, “Sure, we can provide all ten of those benefits for $500/month. But what if we lobbied the state, and now your plan looks like this…”

  1. Ambulatory services
  2. Emergency services
  3. Hospitalization
  4. Maternity and newborn care
  5. Mental health and substance use disorder services
  6. Prescription drugs
  7. Rehabilitative services
  8. Laboratory services
  9. Preventive services and chronic disease management
  10. Pediatric care, including oral and vision screening

“There. We’ll just provide you with those 4 benefits. You won’t need to visit the hospital, right? And you didn’t want drug coverage, did you? And forget preventive care–you don’t need to waste your money on avoiding illness. If we take all of those things out, we can give you a plan for $50/month.”

The problem with this amendment is that it allows states and insurance companies to decide what’s essential, and let’s them pare down the plans they offer to the point that you aren’t even really receiving healthcare anymore. Of course healthcare will be cheaper if nobody is actually offering you healthcare.

It saves you money in the same way that selling a car without windows, doors,  mirrors, seat belts, airbags, a back seat, and brakes would save you money on a vehicle.

Of course none of this is an issue if you’re rich. If you’re wealthy, you can afford everything that’s essential. But if you’re poor? Screw you, you have to pick and choose from bare-minimum plans that don’t cover everything necessary to keep you healthy.

If you’re middle or lower class, here’s your GOP healthcare plan:


What happened to those bootstraps?

Does anyone else find it supremely ironic that republican and conservative voters elected Donald Trump on the promise that his government would bring jobs back? Because I certainly find this sentiment to be the epitome of hypocrisy.

For decades now, all we’ve heard from the GOP and other conservatives is that the government is horrible and meddlesome, and everything would be better if there was less government interference and everyone took more personal responsibility for their lives.

Conservatives 2008/2012: “The government just makes things worse. Get rid of the government and everything will be fine–it’s not the function of government to create jobs, you libtards.”


It’s galling to me that the party of moxie and rugged individualism is now the party that applauds a government that directly gets involved in business and trade negotiations–the very things conservatives were crying the government should stay out of for the past 30 years.

How many times have we seen conservative politicians and voters say the following about welfare or the minimum wage: “We don’t believe in handouts. If you want to make more money, improve your situation, work harder, etc. Pull yourself up by your bootstraps like a real American.”

Well apparently conservatives in 2016 have thrown out their old bootstraps.

This article on CNN interviews people in a Kentucky town, “the poorest city in America,” that overwhelmingly voted for Donald Trump. Here are some snippets:

Beattyville residents want jobs, especially ones that pay more than the minimum wage of $7.25 an hour. They think if anyone can bring jobs back, it’s Trump.

Yeah, of course. The guy whose Trump brand suits and ties are made in Chinese factories is going to bring your job back. The same guy who immediately nominated the CEO of a fast food company who hates the minimum wage, Andy Puzder, as labor secretary.

Here’s what one of the men Kentucky elected to the senate, Mitch McConnell, had to say about the minimum wage: He cited a Congressional Budget Office study that he claimed said raising the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour would “destroy half a million to 1 million jobs. […] That’s not the way to grow our economy,” he added.

And here’s what Kentucky’s other senator, Rand Paul, had to say about raising the minimum wage: ‘The minimum wage is a temporary’ thing, Paul said. ‘It’s a chance to get started. I see my son come home with his tips. And he’s got cash in his hand and he’s proud of himself. I don’t want him to stop there. But he’s working and he’s understanding the value of work. We shouldn’t disparage that.’”

Good luck getting jobs that pay beyond the minimum wage, Beattyville. You elected people who propose the very opposite of that, who think, in Paul’s case, that trying to raise a family on a minimum wage job is great because it’ll build your character and teach you the value of hard work!

“If you got a job here in Beattyville, you’re lucky,” says Amber Hayes, a bubbly 25-year-old mom of two, who also voted for Trump. She works at the county courthouse, but is paid by the Kentucky Transitional Assistance Program (K-TAP), a form of welfare.
The vast majority of Beattyville residents get some form of government aid — 57% of households receive food stamps and 58% get disability payments from Social Security.

But I thought that welfare was just for the takers? Isn’t that what all the conservative politicians campaign on? Haven’t we all heard some iteration of that from conservative friends and relatives? Isn’t that what Mitt Romney said just 4 years ago, that 47% of the country votes to just get free stuff?

Here’s what Kentucky’s own Mitch McConnell said about food stamps as recently as last September: Asked about the improving economy, McConnell scoffed: Business leaders tell him they have “a hard time finding people to do the work because they’re doing too good with food stamps, Social Security and all the rest.”


Residents of Beatyville would apparently beg to differ with Mr. McConnell.

From the outside, it’s easy to wonder why people in Beattyville don’t just move somewhere else. But out of all the people CNNMoney met in Beattyville, only one wanted to leave. The rest are drawn to the beauty of the place and the friendly community. “I’m country to the core,” laughs Puckett. He husband of 39 years nods beside her. Judge executive Mays puts it this way: “We’re perceived as a hillbilly, backwoods, all this and that. But we’re a good people.”

Again, whatever happened to those bootstraps, hmm? That’s what Paul Ryan or Rand Paul would tell you to do–work to improve your own situation and don’t depend on the government to save you. If you lose your job, find another, even if it means moving. Retrain yourself. Oh, you can’t pay for that? Well, you just need more gumption and definitely less of that darned government in your life, always making things worse.

Look, I have lots of sympathy for the people of Beatyville. They’re certainly in a bad place. Yet at the same time, they and the rest of their state have repeatedly voted for people who have told them that the government will make their life worse. That getting rid of food stamps will create an incentive for people to get a real job. That social security and medicaid should be cut or outright privatized. That the problem with America in general is too much reliance on the government.

In the end, Beatyville and other red cities in red states that are suffering are the victims of their own voting. It’s particularly tragic that they now expect the same government that believes that the government shouldn’t be engaged in safety net programs or other forms of public assistance to save them. If the democrats were smart, they’d get out grassroots campaigns to go to towns like Beatyville and help explain this to residents.


I guess we’ll see what happens in 2018.

The Pollyanna party


I was surfing the internet the other day and came across this article about a group of conservative students in Texas who had a bake sale designed to highlight how bad affirmative action is. Indeed, I hear things all the time about affirmative action is really just reverse racism. People should be hired or admitted to place based on merit, not the color of their skin or their gender. Indeed, here’s how the students described their bake sale:

“YCT is a truly colorblind organization,” the Facebook event reads, “and believes that all government institutions are constitutionally prohibited from discriminating on the basis of race in all circumstances, including affirmative action.”

Well, that’s certainly nice in principle. I do happen to agree that people should be judged based on their individual accomplishments and merit, not on the color of their skin. However, unlike these students and other conservatives who make similar arguments, I also live in the real world.

Racism still exists, kids. Sorry to burst your bubble.

I’d like to live in a world where there wasn’t discrimination, but the fact of the matter is that we still live in a country where people will throw away our your application or resume just because of your last name, your address, or the color of you skin. So is affirmative action a perfect system? No. But is it better than the alternative? In my opinion, yes.

And this instance is a prime example of why I just can’t ever get behind conservatism, particularly the libertarian flavor: I live in the real world where people aren’t perfect. Conservatives seem to believe that we can trust businesses to always do what’s best and that individuals will always take care of each other. While that’s certainly a warm blanket of happy feelings, that isn’t the world we live in. As much as I’d like it to be true, you can’t trust businesses and individuals to act altruistically all the time. Will the majority of people always act in a manner that benefits others? Maybe. It probably depends on what we’re talking about specifically. In the case of racism, it’s pretty evident that there are still a good number of people out there who hold minorities and other races in disregard.

So no, I don’t trust people to be colorblind. I don’t trust businesses to place environment or people over profit, or any other warm fuzzy thing conservatives think about people and free markets. Because history has shown that this isn’t the case time and time again. And it’ll probably continue to be that way for a very long time. So yes, we need regulation. Yes, we need oversight. And sadly, yes, we need laws that prohibit people, businesses, and institutions from acting on any inherent racism they might have.

In a way, conservatives kind of remind me of Pollyanna, always seeing the world and people through rose colored glasses. Which really made me think of a famous scene from the 80s/90s prime time soap opera, Knots Landing:

I agree with you, Michele Lee. Nice should be the norm. Unfortunately, though, it isn’t.


The jobs are never coming back

If you listen to Donald Trump, he can bring back all of the jobs that we’ve lost in the last several decades. Yes, Donald Trump, all by himself, is going to reverse three decades of globalization. It’ll be a thing of beauty, believe him. It was all he could talk about at the first presidential debate.

Except that those jobs aren’t coming back, ever. Those jobs and the US are just like Taylor Swift and any of her exes–they are never, ever getting back together.

To think otherwise is just plain ignorant. Those jobs are gone, it’s impossible for them to come back, and they probably would have left no matter what. I say this based on several things:

Automation. All of the jobs that Trump talks about bringing back are based in the manufacturing area. We lost a lot of those jobs because foreign labor is cheaper (more on that in a bit). But we also lost a lot of those jobs because technology started making workers obsolete. And guess what? That threat continues today. Technology will continue to replace workers for years to come, in all sorts of industries, not just manufacturing. In fact, some estimates show that by the next time we’re ready to elect another president, the world’s biggest economies will have lost a little over 5 million jobs to automation. And this time that extends to business and administrative work.

It’s no secret that workers are more productive than ever, but wages and employment haven’t kept up. The reason for that is technology, as laid out here by these fine folks from MIT. I’ll let the infographic do the talking:


Those jobs that Trump likes to talk about were destined to be lost one way or another. If it wasn’t because of trade deals, it would be because of technology.

Wages and Benefits. Those jobs also left because companies suddenly found themselves in a position to pay a whole lot less for labor by outsourcing it to countries where they could pay employees pennies on the dollar. Why would a corporation bring back jobs to the US if it means having to pay higher wages and provide benefits like healthcare, sick days, etc? No American worker would settle for less than minimum wage and benefits, and many companies wouldn’t provide them for employees if they didn’t have to. It’s a pipe dream to think that someone could bring those jobs back. In order to do so, they’d have to essentially make the American worker equivalent to the overseas worker, and that wouldn’t fly.

No, taxes aren’t the problem. That’s the problem if you listen to Trump and other conservatives. The taxes here are just too high! How can anyone do business at a rate of 35%? First of all, that’s a rich argument coming from someone who probably hasn’t paid one red cent in taxes for the last twenty years. But two things come to mind whenever I hear this argument. First, American businesses and individuals have paid a lot more in the past, and the economy did just fine. Great, in fact. As evidence that this tax business is a red herring, Exhibit A:


Corporations have never contributed less to the economy than they do now. Companies like Apple proudly boast that they stash billions or dollars overseas. Which bring me to Exhibit B:


Many companies don’t actually pay 35%. What they’re taxed on paper and what they actually pay is quite different thanks to lots of loopholes, legal maneuvering, and offshore funny business. In fact, many companies end up paying pretty much 0% in taxes, like these assholes. So unless Trump plans to drop the tax rate to 0%, I don’t think there’s really anything else he could do.

But more to the point, how does Trump plan to increase military spending after he’s lowered the nation’s income? How does he plan to pay down the debt if he’s reduced the nation’s income? He could slash other programs, but that would mean either cutting or eliminating popular programs like social security, which wouldn’t go over well with voters and politicians.

It’s all empty rhetoric. I get why it resonates for people in the rust belt, who did lose out thanks to globalization and automation. But to believe that Trump can somehow “bring jobs back” is absolutely not true. The best thing to do would be to put forth a policy that created new high paying jobs in sectors where automation and globalization weren’t as influential. And right now, that probably means infrastructure building and rebuilding, because the last time I checked robots still didn’t repair bridges or roads. And it isn’t like our country isn’t in dire need of such repairs.

But I’m sick and tired of political seasons where we continually have this debate about a fictional economy. Conservatives love to talk about an economy that doesn’t exist, and Donald Trump has just upped this game by a factor of a thousand. In this fictional economy, employment never rises, the economy never grows, and stimulus packages never work. However, all of those things are demonstrably false. It’s great to have a robust debate about the state of our economy and the direction that we’re headed in, but it’s impossible to do when one candidate is essentially basing his entire campaign on an economy that only exists in the halls of Fox News.

Voting with your conscience

I know that I’ve been posting a lot about politics of late, but hey–it’s election season here in America.

“Fiscally conservative and socially liberal” is a descriptor I’ve heard a lot lately. It’s been used to describe a portion of independent voters, and it’s also been used to describe libertarians. What I find fascinating about both of these groups is how they vote. Usually, people who fall under this umbrella tend to vote for republicans.

What I find particularly interesting is the message that this send to people like me. If you value smaller government, lower taxes and fewer regulations but you also value a government that stays the hell out of your personal affairs, then what does it say to the rest of us when people you vote for the republican candidate?

Quite frankly, it says to me that you care more about your wallet than how other people are treated. It says that you’re willing to look the other way socially and let people be oppressed so long as it doesn’t hurt your financial situation. In short, it’s moral cowardice.

Here’s the libertarian platform, straight from their own mouths. Let’s take a quick look at these points and then how the republican party factors in.

Individuals own their bodies and have rights over them that other individuals, groups, and governments may not violate. Individuals have the freedom and responsibility to decide what they knowingly and voluntarily consume, and what risks they accept to their own health, finances, safety, or life.

Sounds great! So why vote for the republican? They’re the ones that think they can legislate what you can and can’t do to your own body. Abortion, anyone? Marijuana?

We support full freedom of expression and oppose government censorship, regulation or control of communications media and technology. We favor the freedom to engage in or abstain from any religious activities that do not violate the rights of others. We oppose government actions which either aid or attack any religion.

Again, great! So why would you vote for the party that doesn’t seem to understand or support separation of church and state? Why vote for the party that wants to put the ten commandments in government buildings?

Libertarians advocate individual privacy and government transparency. We are committed to ending government’s practice of spying on everyone. We support the rights recognized by the Fourth Amendment to be secure in our persons, homes, property, and communications. Protection from unreasonable search and seizure should include records held by third parties, such as email, medical, and library records.

Two words: Patriot Act. And yes, I’m aware that democrats overwhelming voted for that. But so did republicans. That party still supports legislation that most libertarians do not.

Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government’s treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships.

If you believe this, how can you justify voting for the only party that actually is trying to define and restrict personal relationships?

Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.

Again, if this is the case, how can you justify voting for the only party that wants the government to insert itself into the issue?

We favor the repeal of all laws creating “crimes” without victims, such as the use of drugs for medicinal or recreational purposes, since only actions that infringe on the rights of others can properly be termed crimes.

The republican party is waaaay worse about this than their liberal democrat counterparts. So why vote for them?

The only legitimate use of force is in defense of individual rights — life, liberty, and justly acquired property — against aggression. This right inheres in the individual, who may agree to be aided by any other individual or group. We affirm the individual right recognized by the Second Amendment to keep and bear arms, and oppose the prosecution of individuals for exercising their rights of self-defense.

At first glance, it finally seems like we have a reason to vote for the republican over the democrat. But find me a democrat that wants to abolish the second amendment. Gun control isn’t necessarily the same thing as “persecution of individuals for exercising their rights of self-defense.” In fact, I’d bet you could find near universal agreement upon liberals that the second amendment fully applies to self-defense.

We support a clean and healthy environment and sensible use of our natural resources. Private landowners and conservation groups have a vested interest in maintaining natural resources. Pollution and misuse of resources cause damage to our ecosystem […] We realize that our planet’s climate is constantly changing, but environmental advocates and social pressure are the most effective means of changing public behavior.

This doesn’t even outright deny that climate change is happening or that man has an impact on it. In fact, as time goes on, the number of Americans who think climate change is real and that we have an effect on it is increasing. So why vote for the party that has politicians who think it’s a hoax? And who base their environmental policy on biblical scripture, like the “Climate change can’t be real because God said he’d never flood the world again after Noah” congressman.

While energy is needed to fuel a modern society, government should not be subsidizing any particular form of energy. We oppose all government control of energy pricing, allocation, and production.

Democrats certainly do this on the renewable side. But republicans do it on the fossil fuel side. They’re just as guilty of it as anyone else, and their subsidizing increases pollution, unlike the renewables that democrats support with your tax dollars.

The United States should both avoid entangling alliances and abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world. We oppose any form of compulsory national service.

So why would you vote for the republicans?

American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world. Our foreign policy should emphasize defense against attack from abroad and enhance the likelihood of peace by avoiding foreign entanglements. We would end the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention.

Well then the republican candidate isn’t for you, are they?

We support the removal of governmental impediments to free trade. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders.

Don’t democrats support free trade? Didn’t Bill Clinton sign NAFTA? Doesn’t Obama support the TPP? You can go back in time and look at virtually any of these free trade bills and see that they get democratic support.

 Government should neither deny nor abridge any individual’s human right based upon sex, wealth, ethnicity, creed, age, national origin, personal habits, political preference or sexual orientation.

That sounds more like the democratic platform than the republican one.

Well there you have it. If you go over that page, you’d find that literally THE ONLY reason a libertarian would vote for the republican candidate is economic policy: Free markets, privatizing social security, ending welfare programs, lower taxes, reduced government spending–those are really the only parts of the libertarian or fiscal conservative/socially liberal agenda that overlap with the republican platform.

Which, to me, just underscores the idea that given a choice, most of these people would cast a vote that preserves economic freedom as they see it over the civil liberties of other people. Hardly an ethically or morally defensible position. Of course, libertarians and like-minded independents could solve that by simply not voting for the republican candidate. But even libertarians don’t vote for the libertarian candidates for some bizarre reason. Some math puts that number somewhere around 9%, which is pretty paltry.

A lot of analysis also indicates that even though the amount of individuals who fall into the fiscally conservative/socially liberal category are significant in number, they aren’t numerous enough to carry an election. But they can certainly swing an election. It’s just not clear to me why how you could possibly justify swinging the election in favor of someone who will lower your taxes but deny your neighbor the right to marry whomever they want. vote.jpg

Let that voice be an ethical one.