Will the Libertarian Party Turn the Trump-Hillary Race Into More Than 1%?

Get a job, hippie! ||| ReasonSix months from today the United States will hold a presidential election that we now know will be between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton (barring some unforeseen miracle from Bernie Sanders and/or the Department of Justice). The Libertarian Party candidate is still TK, despite the media treating 2012 nominee Gary Johnson as the presumptive nominee, but the major-party stage is set for a half-year.

How long is six months during this unfathomable presidential campaign? To get a sense, look backward six months at these blasto-from-el-pasto headlines:

* Yes, Donald Trump Is Still Ahead in the Polls, But It’s Not Time to Panic Yet

* Trump Calls for Complete End to Muslim Immigration

* Rand Paul Introduces Bill Banning Refugees From “High-Risk Countries”

* Ted Cruz Joins Rand Paul in Bashing Marco Rubio’s Reckless Foreign Policy

It was a more innocent time, really.

John Kasich was averaging just 2 percent in national GOP polls last December, well behind Marco Rubio (12%), Ben Carson (11%), Jeb Bush, Chris Christie (both 4%), and even laggardly ol’ Rand Paul 3%). Go six months before that and your consistent front-runner is Jeb!, with Scott Walker not far behind. What I am saying here is that six months is an awful long time in this presidential campaign.

No wonder people are lunging around desperately for a third-party candidate to ease the next half-year of abject pain, while also bringing out the long knives for those who let themselves believe that there was some limited-government upside in the Tea Party generation of Republican politicians.

These topics and more–including the N-word, obviously–are chewed on in the shiny new episode of The Fifth Column, the newish weekly podcast featuring Kmele Foster, Michael C. Moynihan and myself. Due to the miracle of podcast lead times, it was taped before the Indiana results were in, yet eerily prescient, or something. Listen right here:

Also mentioned within: Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), Andrew Sullivan, Penn Jillette, Nick Gillespie, George Will, Michael Brendan Dougherty, and Moynihan’s questionable career management. You can listen to last week’s episode, in which I was replaced by TV’s Andy Levy, here. And head over to the podcast website for info on how to subscribe, and also listen using iTunes, Stitcher, and Google Play.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1rorukJ
via IFTTT

Over Half of Americans Now Believe the Voting System Is Rigged

Submitted by AnonHQ via TheAntiMedia.org,

This American primary season has been unlike any other election in recent memory, if not United States history. Between the Donald Trump phenomenon, Sanders supporters claiming voter fraud after what seems like every single state election and candidates in rivaling parties both publicly stating that the system is rigged, one thing is clear, there is something very strange happening.

We all understand that on some level, of course the system is rigged to a degree. I mean we have all known that Hillary Clinton was going to be ‘the next President’ for over six years now. It is no surprise she is running for election in 2016, we have known this all along. This is the illusion of having a choice in American politics. The reality is that you are presented with a choice to make, the illusion though, is that your choices are narrowed down by a rigged system.

People forget that in 2012 Donald Trump was in the mix to become the next President, however he was told he could not participate in the Republican debates. The same exact thing happened to Rand Paul this year. He did not want to stop campaigning for President, the GOP literally told him they would no longer allow him on the debate stage. Like it or not, on some level the entire system is rigged to a degree and apparently the majority of American citizens now agree. According a new study conducted by Reuters News, “more than half of American voters believe the U.S. system is rigged.

The study was conducted via an online poll between the dates of April 21 – 26 and consisted of approximately 2,215 people – 1,582 of which were Americans. According to the results, when presented with the question “Agree or disagree: The current system of presidential primaries and caucuses are ‘rigged’ against some candidates?” 47.5% of people agreed. 23.6% disagreed with the statement and 28.9% were undecided or did not have an opinion for or against. Overall 51% of perspective American voters in the upcoming election believe that the system as a whole is rigged in general.

The study also went on to reveal that 71% or respondents said they would favor a direct vote for individual candidates on a single day rather than the current prolonged state delegate based system we see today. People point to the fact that when the primary season first began the Republicans had a field of 17 candidates. Today we are still in the process, some states haven’t even had a vote and yet the field of candidates available to vote for has shrunk down 3 – hardly fair or equal for every state.

Further numbers reveal that 27% of respondents admit that they have no idea how the political process actually works, something we refer to as low-information voters. Another 44% of voters have no idea what delegates actually are or why they are involved in the voting process at all.

via http://ift.tt/1NWffWS Tyler Durden

Kasich Out: Trump Challenger To Make 5PM Statement In Ohio After Cancelling Press Conference

It appears that less than one day after Ted Cruz announced he is quitting the race, the last hurdle to Donald Trump becoming the official GOP candidate instead of just the “presumptive” one, is about to fall: according to CNN’s Phil Mattingly the republican challenger has just cancelled a press conference in Virginia and will make a statement in Ohio this afternoon at 5pm. We assume it is to announce he too is withdrawing from the race.

More from The Hill which effectively confirms the speculation that Kasich is finally out.

Republican presidential hopeful John Kasich canceled a planned Wednesday morning news conference outside Washington D.C., and now plans to address the media in Ohio later Wednesday afternoon.

 

A campaign aide told a group of reporters awaiting the Ohio governor in Dulles, Va., that he will will instead make “an announcement” at 5 p.m.

 

The cancelation stokes speculation that Kasich will drop out of the race, the morning after Ted Cruz withdrew his presidential bid.

via http://ift.tt/1TmmN1i Tyler Durden

April 2016 Is Fourth Warmest Month In Satellite Record: Global Temperature Trend Update

BestThermometerApril 2016 was the fourth warmest month in the satellite temperature record, but only the second warmest April (just behind April 1998 at +0.73 C, although the difference is within the error range of +/- 0.1 C), when compared to seasonal norms, according to Dr. John Christy, director of the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville in a press release.

April and March 2016 anomalies were similar, with some hint that the El Niño Pacific Ocean warming event’s warming of the atmosphere might have passed its peak. The ten warmest months in the satellite record (compared to seasonal norms) are now all from either the 1998 El Niño or the ongoing 2016 El Niño.

The recent uptick in warming has been sufficient to raise the global climate trend from +0.11 to +0.12 C per decade.

UAHTempTrendApril2016

Global climate trend since Nov. 16, 1978: +0.12 C per decade

April temperatures (preliminary)

Global composite temp.: +0.72 C (about 1.30 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for April.

Northern Hemisphere: +0.85 C (about 1.53 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for April.

Southern Hemisphere: +0.58 C (about 1.04 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for April.

Tropics: +.94 C (about 1.69 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for April.

Go here for the monthly satellite data.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1W9bHn6
via IFTTT

New Georgia Law Makes Sure Undercover Cops Can Count as Sex-Trafficked Teens

A new sex-trafficking law in Georgia clarifies that undercover cops totally count as minors for purposes of handing out 10-year mandatory minimum prison sentences. Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal signed the measure, which is being touted as a crackdown on the sex-trafficking of minors, into law this week. In addition to enhancing the penalties for sex trafficking someone with a developmental disability, House Bill (HB) 770 says that it shall be no defense to charges of sex trafficking of a minor that no such minor actually existed.

Here are the relevant portions of the new Georgia law: 

It’s already no defense if a minor willingly chooses to participate in prostitution—something that happens frequently, as the vast majority of teens in the sex trade do not have pimps—or if the minor purports to be over 18 years of age. With the new provisions in place, an undercover cop posing as a pretty 17-year-old girl could friend a young man on Facebook (a tactic cops frequently use in these kind of stings), start chatting with him, and mention that she needs to make money and isn’t averse to porn or prostitution but needs help getting started. If the mark offers to help in any way, even just offering a ride or an introduction to someone else who could help her, he will be eligible to receive a minimum of 10 years in prison and up to 20 years, plus a $100,000 fine. Prosecutors can invoke asset forfeiture to take even more from him, and add another “human trafficking” arrest to their press releases. 

One might object that people shouldn’t help 17-year-olds get involved in the sex trade. Fair enough. But let’s not forget that many of the men cops target with these kinds of stings are only in their late teens or early 20s themselves (i.e., not an age group known for the best judgment, nor an age group that would see age 16 or 17 as terribly young), do not bring up the idea first, and think they are talking to someone who is determined and eager to get involved in sex work anyway. Even if you believe this is still unconscionable behavior, is it really the sort of thing that someone should get a mandatory 10 years in prison for? Aren’t we supposed to be in an era of stopping overcriminalization and getting serious about criminal-justice reform? 

It’s not just those targeted by undercover cops who suffer here, however. One 2014 study by the anti-trafficking organization Shared Hope International found that 50-60 percent of police efforts aimed at stopping “child sex trafficking” by cracking down on potential clients involved no actual victims or minors at all, just cops pretending to be teens and men who agreed to pay them for sex. If there are really as many minor sex-trafficking victims out there as advocates, cops, and politicians would have us believe, how can they justify spending half of their time and money pretending to be victims rather than saving them? With a finite amount of resources available, that’s what’s truly unconscionable. 

The answer, of course, is that they claim these men would go on to pay for sex with real minors, or help real minors start in prostitution. Perhaps. But most evidence indicates otherwise. In the john stings, for instance, most of the men merely start out looking to pay for sex, not pay for sex with a teen. Yet, then, a “teen” shows up. These are mostly crimes of opportunity—men who opt not to turn down a mature-looking older “teen,” not men seeking out 14-year-olds for sex. But just like law enforcement has been known to lure young men into “terrorist plots” and “drug dealing” schemes, then speak of and charge them as some sort of criminal masterminds, we’re beginning to see more and more anti-human-trafficking activity focus on creating sex criminals rather than finding them.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/24xYTb4
via IFTTT

Mark Cuban Asked to Run For President with Libertarian Party; “Flattered” But Family Would Rebel

Charles Peralo is an inventor and early adopter in the Bitcoin space who is running for chair of the National Libertarian Party this year.

He had informally explained some things about Bitcoin years ago to billionaire sports team owner, entrepreneur, and Shark Tank star Mark Cuban when connected by a mutual associate, and had a personal email for Cuban.

Peralo emailed Cuban, in the wake of the certainty of the Trumpening, to think about saving America by running for president with the L.P.

Peralo promised he could get Cuban a ton of instant endorsements within the Party.

Cuban responded, in an email Peralo posted on his Facebook, that: “My wife and kids would run away if I did. But I’m flattered.”

Well, someone is going to be on the ballot in likely every state with the Libertarian Party, most likely at this point former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson. Sensible Republicans with a free-market, small-government bone in their body need to think hard about that, certainly starting now.

Peralo writes me that:

I’m not sure if Mark Cuban would be my pick for president. The thing is the guy over the years has said some very libertarian type views and I feel he could…actually have us win on a friendly pro business and pro freedom message.

I’m happy with the current crop of candidates, but I am aware that someone like Mark Cuban could not only get us to the magic 15% number, but would probably win. Also, I think other people in the LP should at this point probably be calling up Tim Draper, David Koch and other business moguls with liberty views to come in and be our Trump. And by “our Trump” I mean be peaceful and filled with dignity.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/24xYV2F
via IFTTT

“Extremely Dangerous” IED Found Under Bridge In Texas

In recent weeks ISIS has been become far more brazen in its threats against US targets, and just last week released out a “hit list” which allegedly had the personal details of 3,600 New Yorkers whom it “wanted dead.” And while it is unknown if there is a terrorist link, the threat may have hit closer to home for residents in Rosebud, Texas when the McLennan County Sheriff’s office and a bomb squad used a water cannon to breach a suspicious device found under a bridge Tuesday night.

According to KCEN TV, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives blasted water on the container found just outside Rosebud off Farm to Market Road 1963. Rosebud, about 40 miles southeast of Waco, is home to about 1,400 people.

Flammable liquid and shotgun shells were found inside the container, according to Sheriff Parnell McNamara. He said the IED was designed to blow shrapnel and would have been “extremely dangerous” had it gone off.

“Someone had made this to create lots of damage and harm,” McNamara said.

There were no injuries. The liquid was being sent to a lab for analysis.

No motive or suspects were named as the investigation continued early Wednesday. If this was indeed the work of some local terrorist organization, we are confident it will promptly take credit for the attempted bomb. 

kcentv.com – KCEN HD – Waco, Temple, and Killeen

via http://ift.tt/1Uz6aoa Tyler Durden

Trump vs. Clinton Is Terrible News for Fans of Free Speech and the First Amendment

The impending presidential contest between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump is depressing for many reasons. One reason it that both candidates have abysmal records on free speech and they both seem fundamentally hostile to very idea of the First Amendment placing any constitutional limits on government power.

Consider Hillary Clinton. As my colleague Matt Welch has documented, Clinton’s “long war on free speech” includes censorship crusades against rap music, video games, movies, and television. And we’re not just talking about ratings systems and warning labels here. She’s also supported federal laws that would penalize the makers and distributors of so-called offensive entertainment. Clinton is also in favor of empowering the federal government to spy on private communications through such tools as anti-encryption back doors on iPhones and other devices.

And then of course there is Hillary Clinton’s well-known view that federal authorities should be able to prevent her political opponents from distributing a documentary film that’s critical of her in the days before a federal election. That particular issue was litigated before the U.S. Supreme Court in a little case called Citizens United v. FEC. Among other things, Citizens United featured Clinton and her pro-censorship allies squaring off against the American Civil Liberties Union, which supported Citizens United and its First Amendment right to distribute a documentary film about a political candidate in the United States of America.

Now consider Donald Trump, who has effectively become the GOP nominee thanks to Ted Cruz dropping out of the race last night. Trump’s hostility to constitutionally limited government is well known (Trump has even cheered Franklin Roosevelt’s notorious internment of Japanese Americans). But Trump seems particularly antagonistic towards the First Amendment. For example, among other foul proposals, Trump has advocated the forced closing of mosques, a truly authoritarian measure that is plainly at odds with the First Amendment and its protections for religious liberty. Trump also wants the government to censor parts of the internet in order to eliminate speech that he thinks is dangerous (as does Hillary Clinton). What’s more, Trump favors gutting libel law so that it will be easier for him to sue—and thus silence—any critics who dare to write unkind things about him. Just like the biggest left-wing advocates of political correctness on campus, Trump wants to trash the First Amendment in order to create a “safe space” for himself.

Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have a lot in common when it comes to free speech and the First Amendment, and none of it is good.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/24qVdeB
via IFTTT

By Picking Donald Trump As the GOP Nominee, Republicans May Have Handed the Presidency to Hillary Clinton

Last night, the Republican party effectively handed its presidential nomination to Donald Trump. And in doing so, they may have handed an easy general election victory to Hillary Clinton. What in the world were Republican voters thinking? 

In normal circumstances, Hillary Clinton, who is virtually certain to be the Democratic presidential nominee, would almost certainly be the least liked major party presidential candidate in decades. But amongst the general electorate, Trump is viewed even worse. An April poll by The Washingotn Post found that 67 percent of adults view him unfavorably, and a result that is consistent with other polls. Trump is particularly disliked by women, with multiple polls finding that more than 70 percent view him unfavorably. As a Quinnipiac University pollster told Politico in March, those numbers alone make it very difficult for Trump to win in a general election.

And, indeed, early polling suggests that Trump would fare poorly—very poorly—against Hillary Clinton in a general election matchup.

Trump trails Hillary Clinton by a whopping 13 points in a national poll by CNN/ORC released yesterday, and he’s down by about seven points in an average of polls pitting him against Clinton. That gap may close somewhat as the broader public looks more closely at the two candidates, but it means that Hillary Clinton is likely to start the race with a big advantage.

Trump’s team, in response, has argued that he would upend the usual electoral map, winning working class voters that Republicans wouldn’t normally be able to reach. He might change the map, yes, but most likely by making it more favorable to Clinton. Trump is currently running behind Clinton in at least four states—North Carolina, Arizona, Missouri, and Utah—that Romney won in 2012. And Romney, as you may recall, lost the election.

Anything can happen in an election, of course, and external shocks, in particular, could scramble the race in a variety of ways. Trump is an unusual enough candidate that we should probably have slightly less confidence in our ability to model any race he’s in.

But the reality, as Nate Cohn writes pursuasively in The New York Times, is that just about every data point we have right now suggests that Trump would be a historically weak candidate—even against someone who would normally be considered a fairly weak candidate, like Hillary Clinton.

In giving the nomination to Trump, then, Republicans may have ensured a win for Clinton—the outcome that, in theory, the party was trying to prevent.

This isn’t some startling new conclusion. Trump’s weakness as a general election candidate has been apparent for months. And yet Republican primary voters appear to have, if anything, warmed to him as the election has gone on. He won Indiana with slightly more than 53 percent of the vote last night, beating out the combined vote total of both of his rivals, Ted Cruz and John Kasich, suggesting that Trump’s success is not strictly a result of the fractured field.

So what’s going on? The general presumption when looking at these races is that primary voters take electability into account in their decision process. That just doesn’t seem to have happened this year, and it’s one of the reasons that campaign staffers and election analysts have struggled to understand what voters are thinking.

Maybe, though, it did happen—but Republicans just didn’t accept the evidence that was in front of them.

I haven’t seen any recent polling, but as the race was moving into high gear last October, an Associated Press-GfK poll found that Republican voters viewed Trump as the most electable candidate in a general election. That was wrong based on everything we knew then, and it’s even more wrong based on what we know now.

And yet this may explain the mystery of why Republican voters ultimately went for Trump. They really thought they were selecting the most electable candidate. 

If that’s the case, the race makes a lot more sense, putting Trump’s popularity in perspective and helping to explain why GOP voters seemed to settle on him as the field narrowed.

It’s also rather telling about the gullibility of Republican voters, and their disconnection from the rest of the country.

It’s probably unreasonable to expect most voters to keep up with the finer points of political polling (although primary voters do tend to be more politically involved and informed than the general population). But it shouldn’t have required a deep dive into the survey numbers to see Trump as an unappealing candidate and a bad general election bet.

Just listen to what Trump says about women and immigrants and Muslims, to the shameless ignorance with which he discusses public policy, to the weird conspiracy theories he floats and the many, many, many blindingly obvious lies he tells. Most of country looked at Trump’s campaign and, the polls show, really didn’t like what they saw. That’s precisely why his unfavorables are so high.

Republican primary voters, on the other hand, saw the same campaign and nodded along, thinking, that guy is electable, and we want him to be our nominee. They thought not only that they liked him, but that the rest of the country would too.

That’s how disconnected Republican voters are right now, how unable they are to see things as the rest of the country sees them, or, indeed, to even understand that the rest of the country sees things differently, even when it is in their own interests to do so. That disconnect is what resulted in Donald Trump winning the nomination, and it is likely to ensure that Hillary Clinton becomes the next president of the United States. 

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/26TsC0m
via IFTTT

“Pakistan Is At Best A Frenemy” – Washington Pulls The Plug On Subsidizing F-16s For India’s Neighbor

In an extremely rare occurrence, the U.S. government will not try to squander every single nickel given to it by its taxpayers. As Sputnik News reports, Washington has pulled the funding on a deal that (through the foreign military financing fund) would subsidize roughly $429 million of a $699 million deal to send up to eight F-16s to Pakistan.

Congress, in what appears to be the first time it has ever critically analyzed subsidies,  has concerns that Pakistan is going to take the F-16s and not do much in return for footing the majority of the bill (i.e. fighting terrorism).

“They take our money, take our arms and laugh in our face. Pakistan is at best a frenemy, part friend and a lot enemy.” Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) was quoted as saying.

In addition to the skepticism about how much Pakistan would do to help fight the “war on terror”, congress also kept in mind Washington’s relationship with India. Given the fact that a deal was just finalized in which India would help the U.S. patrol the Indian Ocean for Chinese submarines, congress didn’t want to immediately subsidize F-16s for Pakistan that could potentially be used against India.

“Given congressional objections, we have told the Pakistanis that they should put forward national funds for that purpose.” State Department spokesman John Kirby told reporters.

Pakistan’s response was predictable in that it said other sources of financing would be sought, and if unable to find any funds, it would just look to buy the planes elsewhere.

Pakistani Prime Minister has this to say about having the funding rug pulled out from underneath the deal: “[There is a] lack of sufficient appreciation for Pakistan’s whole-hearted efforts it was undertaking jointly with the U.S. administration, in countering the threat posed by terrorism.”

While we’re skeptical that this deal won’t be put back on the table before the ink is even dry on this article, we are glad to see that for now, further cuts won’t need to be made to social security benefits in order to fund military subsidies.

via http://ift.tt/26TvfPQ Tyler Durden