The debut Reason Versus debate was recorded in front of a live audience at the Howard Theatre in Washington, D.C. Here is a look at more Reason events: reason.org/events/
Yikes you guys need a new name... Seems kinda smug to me to present a debate as "the reasonable ones (us)" vs "you other people". Maybe have a little humility about your ability to reason?
@@jeffgojail You nailed it. I'm unfamiliar with this Nick character and throughout this debate I was felt we were being punked with this Fonzi wannabe.
@@jeffgojail That argument has always annoyed the shit out of me. You shouldn't be wearing those clothes. Why don't you act your age? Young people are supposed to wear this type of clothing and older people are supposed to wear that type of clothing. I remember going to a rock concert with my dad and someone asked him how old he was. His reply was to ask back, "how old do you have to be."
I thumbed-up this video solely because Tim and Sarah smoked these clowns and I want other people to witness the "Reason" 's privileged, wet-fart arguments fall flat on their face.
Telling the Bulwark people they should have stayed in the Republican Party and worked from within to make changes is like asking someone to stay within the flames to fight a fire.
Why I’d never be a Bulwark listener summed up in one comment. If two gangs are having a turf war, you can prefer the less brutal gang to win, but you don’t have to root for or support either of them. Hilarious how partisan brain prevents Bulwarkers from wrapping their heads around this simple concept.
Translation: "I wanted the altruist Looter Kleptocracy to coerce me, and didn't lift a finger to oppose it with a law-changing. leveraged, Libertarian spoiler vote." Clearer now?
@@luke53285why is that wrong? It seems like if you aren’t decidedly in one camp or another, you get pushed into one. So that sounds like a side being chosen for you.
@@Justin_Beaver564People who make these statements are not really using much logic. If there were a dozen parties a Hitler like demagogue could win the presidency with just 15 to 20 % of the vote. That would not be the will of the American people. A two-party system is the number one best form which allows at minimum a 50% minimum of the voting public to vote for someone for them to win.
True, but why see only the totalitarian altruist portion of the Venn Diagram? I vote libertarian and got dozens of time the repeal available by voting for the looters.
Never thought of hating Trump on a spectrum but I suppose it all makes sense in some parallel universe where bad governance does not have real world consequences. Should we hate Vance on a spectrum? How about Matt Gaetz? Mitchell McConnell? Etal? It's like degrees of separation an arbitrary line is drawn somewhere and everything becomes relevant in relation to that line. Nah, I'd just rather vote for someone I actually like. Now there's a novel concept.
Two rotting hulks adrift in a harbor, aling come the tugboat Lady Libertarian to nudge both in a better direction. That's how leveraged, law-changing spoiler votes work.
First, I’m a fan of Tim and Sarah. I’m a registered Democrat. I resent the reason brothers thinking I can’t look listen and pay attention to what people say and vote accordingly. Reason side is why people stay home. Good job Tim and Sarah❣️
@@Justin_Beaver564- Never heard of Chase Oliver until seeing this comment section. Definitely was not on my Kansas ballot. Yet, people keep believing that voting for someone that 99% of voters have never heard of will make a difference. How delusional can you be?🤷🏼♀️🌻🇺🇸
Yeah she is brilliant. I was thinking about flying to DC just to go to this in person. I decided against it cuz I learned about it too late. I now regret it haha.
@@Justin_Beaver564 Wrong. I didn't vote in 1988 which was the first year I could have voted because I didn't know who to vote for. In 1992 I voted for Ross Perot. The main thing Ross Perot campaigned on was the budget deficit and Bill Clinton ended his presidency with a budget surplus for the first time in my lifetime. In 1996 I didn't vote because I didn't think it mattered. In 2000 I didn't vote because I didn't think it mattered. In 2004 I didn't vote because I didn't think it mattered. In 2008 I voted for one of the two main political parties for the first time in my life. There was not a damn thing wrong with John McCain. He was a damn good man. But at one of his rallies, one of his supporters said that she couldn't vote for Obama as McCain was shaking his head in agreement. Then she said "because he, he is a Muslim." and I was saying to myself "Oh my God." That's when I realized that this country was going over a cliff. "Then in 2015, Trump started to very aggressively push the Conspiracy Theory that Obama was not born in this country. From then on, this country has been completely inundated with constant Conspiracy Theories and millions of people actually believe the Conspiracy Theories over the actual truth. Trump is an existential threat to this country. The threat started before Trump. I would say that the threat to American democracy started with Gingrich and Trump supercharged the threat. There has only ever been one existential threat to democracy in my lifetime. Trump is that existential threat. This time will not be like the first time. The first time, Trump had guardrails. This time, there will not be guardrails.
@@libertariantranslator1929 In a "first past the post" system two parties will always come to dominate. Many parties may exist ... only two will matter.
You can blame Donald Trump for the extreme partisanship. I'm 60 years old and until he came along, I didn't know what my friends, coworkers, neighbors were, etc. were. Now you know what everybody is
Trump is merely a symptom. Among young people, your political alliance was becoming a requirement for social relationships in the early 2010s due to the great awokening long before Trump was even on the political scene. You just didn't realize it until later because you're old. It took some time for the Boomer culture to catch up to the Millennial culture but now we are all ensnared in this shit where we have to sadly know everything about everyone's voting habits.
I'm almost 60. The extremism has exploded since Trump. But I first noticed it in 2008, when both political candidates were good men. But at one of John McCain's rallies, a woman spoke up and said "I can't vote for Obama" and McCain shook his head in agreement. But then she said "because he, he is a Muslim." I was like Oh my God. This country is becoming radicalized. Trump supercharged the radicalization, but it already started before him. In my opinion, it started with Gingrich.
That’s not Trump’s fault. That is the fault of the establishment. Both parties see Trump as a threat to their power so they put their propaganda wing into full swing to convince you, and it appears to have worked, that Trump is a unique threat to “democracy”. All of these vague terms and misrepresented positions as well as everything taken out of context but you buy the media line. Congrats. You’ve been brainwashed by the corporate press.
I knew I was surrounded by socialists. Now I know what percent are national socialists and what percent sino-soviet socialists. It's under half and half, so there is hope.
@@Walking_bear09 Why? Because her observations about objective reality are offensive to you? Every claim she made about Trump is demonstrably and provably true with evidence. Now Reason is pretty libertarian, but they are the educated, beltway variety and do in fact take the concept of 'reason' seriously, and are principled small l liberals. She made an effective case, and that case moved 21% of the people, a group of folk who generally are hostile to knee-jerk partisanship.
I'm almost 60 and in my entire lifetime, we have basically had normal presidential candidates. Trump is the only candidate in my lifetime who is an existential threat to the country. It seems so crazy to me that such a large percentage of the American people can't see it, including the Reason guys on the stage. Wow.
The whole premise of this debate makes absolutely no sense. It seems like the "Reason" side is trying to say that "choosing a side" means being blindly loyal to that side forever, no matter what. 15:01 "Your right of exit from any given coalition is exactly the thing that helps keep that coalition... focused on what they're trying to achieve." Sarah and Tim USED to be Republicans... but they LEFT their "coalition". It seems like the "Reason" side has no idea who they're even talking to.
Yeah they kept saying esentially "picking a side means staying blindly loyal to them forever and that is bad". Meanwhile Tim and Sarah are sitting RIGHT THERE proving you do not have to stay loyal to whatever "side" you once chose.
My take on it is that the Reason side is saying that you don't have to choose between the two main parties and the Bulwark side is saying that from 2016 through 2024, it was critical to choose a side between the two main parties because one of the main candidates is an existential threat to the country versus the Reason side is saying that both major party candidates are normal politicians and there is no existential threat to the country. I guess we will find out who is right over the next 4 years.
I’m a democrat because I agree with more democratic values & policies than republican ones. However, I don’t agree with everything that every democrat does or believe everything that every democrat does. Just because you “choose a side” doesn’t mean that you have to become a mindless robot.
@@Justin_Beaver564 That may very well be the case. However, that’s when you decide which is the least bad in order to participate in and have a meaningful effect on our democratic process. There typically is one candidate or party that is worse than the other.
@@kendrabryant4738 The least bad was Chase Oliver, the Libertarian Party presidential candidate whom I voted for. If everyone refused to vote for the duopoly we might actually get ranked choice voting.
Well I was paying attention for at least the last few months leading to the election and I never heard of Chase Oliver. He also was not an option on the ticket in Indiana. It’s not about not voting for either side, we will never have more than 2 dominant parties as long as we allow millions and millions of dollars to flow through the government
To an altruist, Shrylla or Trump sound close to sane and not much different. To individualists, neither does. Altruist totalitarians fight amongst themselves like rats, and over the tiniest differences.
The distortion here is to conflate never Trumpism with democratic partisanship. The inverse is true. Republican blindly support Trump. The term RINO says it all. It is a term that ostracizes anyone that breaks rank to criticize Trump.
Yeah these libertarian guys are dishonestly pretending that the trump cult is business as usual, that all political parties demand robotic conformism from their members.
Rino's get their head pats from Democrats and are forever surprised they are critiqued and face consequences because they believe as fellow libs they will be blindly backed by the system.
Some of Trumps staunchest and most effective critics are not democrats. Mark Cuban is an independent. The Bulwark and LP are former republicans. David Frum, a GW Bush speech writer has been talking about this since even before he was popular - like 2012. Fair number of libertarians like Justin Amash have been staunch critics of Trump. It's not partisanship. It's principle.
If you want to have any political power under the current American electoral system, you have to choose. Ranked-choice voting would be great, but without it voting third party is the equivalent of flushing your ballot down the toilet.
UNLESS it’s a true Conservative Party which would 1. Split the vote and save us from the tyranny of corrupt morons 2. Give smart conservatives and Moderate Dems a place to go and 3. THAT kind of party will quickly pick up speed and overtake MAGA pushing MAGA to the outskirts where it belongs.
@@Justin_Beaver564 You are totally dismissing the concern. I know that you believe one is worse than the other. They can't both be equal. Even one of the Reason guys on the stage said that Harris would be better for the country over Trump even though he didn't vote for either one. Ranked-Choice Voting is absolutely critical in order to vote your conscience without throwing away your vote. Only the Republican or Democrat has any chance whatsoever of winning. It absolutely makes sense to vote for the least bad of the two. We should be demanding Ranked-Choice Voting.
A lie. "The Case for Voting Libertarian" proves that libertarian spoiler vote clout is highly leveraged and effective. 2% spoiler votes by small party supporters installed the 16th and 18th Amendments. Search for it. The Kleptocracy is very aware of this.
"We were hoping Kamala Harris would win" ok if you were in a swing state would you have lifted a finger to achieve that outcome? This is the core question of the debate.
If you vote for the freedom you want instead of the Looter Kleptocracy that offers to rob and jail you, THEN you have made a choice. See the Solomon Asch experiment on opinions and social pressure
How does one vote without choosing who to vote for, aka picking a side? This argument is absurd on its face. These “Reason” fellas are so far up their own butts, I just can’t relate to anything they have to say.
Yep. You can try to change people's minds toward positions that neither party holds, but when it comes time to vote there are only two real choices. Not just in terms of electability. The Libertarians and Greens consistently fail to meet even the modest goal of 5% of the popular vote, which would secure them public funding for the next election.
They didn't make it very clear, but they meant picking a side between the two major parties. The Reason side believes that both major party candidates are normal politicians vs the Bulwark side believes that one of the candidates is an existential threat to the country.
@ How is that different from being an independent? Ya know, listen to the candidates pick which one best matches your ideals, regardless of party? It doesn’t take political affiliation to recognize a threat to democracy when birth rite citizenship all of a sudden comes into question, just sayin’
Welch is employed as a sophist for Koch Industries. He presents his book attacking John McCain as evidence of principled bipartisanship rather than a tome of oppositional research intended to destroy a Conservative leader prepared to cross party lines in the fight against climate change. From 2000-2008 there was a concerted & covert effort on the part of Koch Industries & EXXON to ensure no Republican representative ever introduced policies designed to fight carbon emissions. Weasels like Welch were part of that successful scheme, ultimately resulting in McCain's abandonment of science based climate policy & the introduction of “Drill baby drill” running mate Sarah Palin.
The Koch brothers have BANKROLLED Liberarian candidates and organizations because they want a HANDS OFF polocies to their Climate Change producing industries and also because they do NOT wanty to be taxed. NOTHING "principled" at all--just GREED.
facts. I used to be open to libertarian ideas until i realized how useless they are as a movement and in the political conversation. Like a bunch of people arguing over aerodynamics during a plane flight with a pilot suffering a heart attack. We live in the real world, as it is, that demands reaction. Such a joke.
I think these folks are obfuscating the whole question. We're not talking about do you have to join a party forever? And go to their meetings and all of that.The question is saying, do you have to pick one to express your political choice at the moment?" I mean, if you're gonna vote you have to pick something, They don't make any sense.
I think the question is referring to the two main parties. The Bulwark side is saying that Trump is an existential threat to this country and the Reason side is saying that Trump is just a normal politician and the threat is exaggerated. I guess we will see which side was right. You can't go by what happened from 2017-2021. This time will be very different from the last time, but I guess we will all find out over the course of the next 4 years.
The Bulwark people managed to obfuscate the question so successfully that they wound up winning the debate by restating Reason's position. As this past election has shown, no one is served by blindly following a political party no matter how nonsensical and vague they become.
@@aicram62 yeah, that was a problem. I wish that the two sides and the moderator had worked out a more precise explanation of what the question really meant, because I had the feeling the two sides were arguing past each other about points they really agreed on. Tim and Sarah are emphatically NOT Democrats just because they left the Republican Party, but they are willing to ally themselves with reasonable Dems in the current moment to oppose Trump.
@@vinista256 I so agreed with her last comment to my core. she said exactly what she was fighting for. And this country has done some crappy things to people but The constitution if applied properly can be pretty fair.
Hot dang. If only debates are about being snide and snarky.... And touching on the tangents of a topic. This wasn't a Trump debate, but she tried to make it so.
@scottwhitman7951 one must be willfully naive to believe that any discussion of politics now can occur without the shadow of authoritarianism that Trump has brought to American politics. It is not 2004. We can't pretend it is, and no amount of wishing will make it so.
Huh? It is apathy voting. If you are forced into voting, then many people will be voting who have apathy toward voting. U.S. citizens who have apathy, don't vote. I'm almost 60 and haven't voted for the majority of my adult lifetime. I only started taking voting seriously in 2008, when I noticed that my country was becoming radicalized and I started seeing these conspiracy theories taking over our country.
The moral condescension and lame attempts at public shaming (in lieu of good arguments) were only coming from one side, and it was most definitely not the Reason side.
Yeah. Whole lot of boomer energy in that one while trying to evoke gen x energy while not realizing that's still 20 years behind, even if you pull it off. Pathetic.
I find the description of elections being a choice between two "crap sandwiches" in the current situation to be particularly inapt. There's never been a presidential election in my life where I was more one-sided than 2024. In 2016, I voted third party not because I thought both major candidates were equally bad, but rather because it was an open question to me which was worse. That open question has been settled, by Jan. 6th 2021 if not earlier. Trump was obviously worse. Better, smarter people than me were able to see that in 2016, so I'm trying to be patient with people who don't see it now, but it's a struggle.
Props to you. I also made the mistake of voting 3rd party in 2016, albeit for a different reason. I viewed Trump as far worse, but still operated under the illusion that voting for an unelectable candidate could bring substantive benefits. For example, if a party secures at least 5% of the popular vote, they are given public financing for their campaign in the following election. I've seen from the past few elections that even that modest, intermediate goal is a pipe dream.
@@synchronium24the Green Party has been known for decades to be funded by the Republican Party to be there strictly take away votes from the Dems. Hence how we ended up with DUBYA to begin with . And now it’s worse cause Jill Stein only shows up every 4 years from Russia
In 2016 my take was that its near certain that both candidates will misuse the aparatus of state, but that Trump was the one that risked actually damaging the aparatus of state. So ... yeah ... called it.
@@mikefarnsworth772 right who would have thought that a bankrupt sexual predator would trick so many people. Meanwhile the same people that lost their mind over said spouse getting a BJ at the White House was equally as bad as said outsider
She is so well-spoken, passionate and knowledgeable, and she doesn't get triggered enough to go off the deep end of defensiveness. She just gets more passionate about making her points.
I wouldn't mock the libertarians here. 1) Nick made some great points about knee jerk partisanship and influence. 2) Libertarians actually moved towards the Bulkwarks position, despite those points after consideration of the evidence and the arguments. If anything - libertarians represents a narrow sliver of gettable voters. We should welcome those folk. Also note that a lot of the Bulwark people are basically Reason Libertarians, moderates certainly - but with a strong libertarian instinct. All philosophies if taken to their extreme fail - including democratic centrism - which has shown itself laughably incapable of taking on Trumpism, and you are a fool if you think California or New York are well governed states. Having an appreciation of political beliefs not as a philosophy, but as a kind of group psychology makes it a lot easier to make arguments to people in terms they will understand. Sarah Longwell did that here. She appealed to what libertarians actually care about - and it showed in the results. I think the Reason crowd is breaking AGAINST trump if the good guys can keep up the pressure. They already don't like him.
The problem with libertarianism as a philosophy is that it picks the side of negative freedom, which IS "childish", in the sense that it will never be enough to imagine that The Other is the problem and that the best politics can do is to limit someone else's freedom so that you can be "free". A country, in order to thrive, needs to cultivate positive freedom and therefore use the government to increase people's freedom to have access to education, healthcare, and real opportunities that most people don't have from birth. If you reject that idea, you simply contribute to an elitist system that isn't helpful nor viable.
There is a very old TH-cam video called "How the Right understands rights" that always gives me a chuckle. It's very obscure, but I imagine searching the channel name (robogrrrl) will still bring it up on the search page.
@@johnmcguire8329 That is demonstrably false. When the state installs regulations, for instance, and allows an entire society to go from savage to regulated capitalism, average health levels increase, average education levels increase, and average happiness levels increase, since it also means that parents can now spend time with their young children and the elderly, people can take up a hobby, and equally important in a democracy, they have the time to come together to discuss politics, study the facts, and vote in a well-informed way. Two hundreds years of Western democracy prove your hypothesis to be 100% false.
@@euwritingdownthebones9123 anymore i see little space between libertarians and anarcho-capitalists. They seem unable to see or unwilling to accept that the virtues of capitalism are not self-sustaining. The economy needs guardrails, just as the Republic does.
@@kevinmcneeley879 Actually, "the" economy doesn't exist. There's always a government and there are always, therefore, legal rules of the game installed. What libertarians de facto support are rules of the game that only benefit the wealthiest. Those who reject libertarianism do so for the same reason they reject right-wing philosophies: we need rules of the game that benefit all citizens, not just the 1% wealthiest.
And then Sarah cooked him again by pointing out how hypocritical his critique of Bulwark's lack of relevance was lmao and he just took it with no retort
I found that part to have been the most effective rhetorical strategy employed. It’s still unbelievable that when faced with the reality of Jan 6th, so many “informed” voters still sided with the person who inspired and instigated that attack on our country. And then for people to intimate that in light of this, both choices are equally as bad, it just defies reason (pun intended).
Here's the question for Reason. First answer this question: 'Are you aware that we are not in a political issue with two Parties but rather a 'religious war' conducted by one side that has worked for decades to take over our 'democratic' republic and replace it with a white christian conservative theocracy? If you do NOT know, then you are either intentionally or ignore of an on-going realtiy If you DO know, then you are going to pick a side because the WCN movement sees itself at war with 'evil' and you are either on their side or not.
The previous reply about getting fresh air was very ignorant. You are absolutely correct that the current Republican Party is a White Nationalist Party. The Reason guys, however, see Trump as a normal politician. Also, I think it's important to note that the previous Republican candidates for president (McCain, Romney, Bush, etc.) are not White Nationalists. Previous Republican candidates for president believe in the rule of law, institutions, etc. versus Trump is very uniquely unfit for the presidency.
@@mikemccormick6128 Thanks for your reply. Bush was, not Romney/McCain. Remember Bush was 'the axis of evil' and that's evocative of the other area where WCT (white christian theocrats ...NAR/Opus Dei) are working ... to bring forth The End Times in Israel. Trump moved the Embassy on their request. They are seeking global dominion. (OATH TAKEN WHITE CHRISTIAN NATIONALISM TRAINING start at 39:00 to understand their oath and trump th-cam.com/video/8iTxLCIxW8M/w-d-xo.html)
This is Sarah Longwell in her element. She was gas. Like ...lit the match, threw it over her shoulder and walked away. Damn girl! Her argument and style/delivery muAaah. Chef's kiss.
I feel like the Reason was arguing one question and the Bulwark is arguing another. Many people split their ticket all the time. I’m a democrat but I’m not a sheep. I actually criticize people in my party all the time.
I think that’s the difference btw us and them. We can criticize those within our party and not attack over it. They can’t do that. I’m a democrat, mostly a single issue voter, and yet there are some things on the right I agree with. I always considered myself to be purple in my views. Now I’m totally disillusioned with my party and feel like I’m more progressive than anything else 🤷🏻♀️
Tim won at his WV travel analogy. The rest really doesn't matter, because Libertarians don't really want to live in a society. They should be living off the grid somewhere with their school choice which is a scam for wealthy people, and aids in the dismantling of public school.
@@guatemalan360 No they didn't, the liberatarians are too busy trying to be intellectual, and naval gazing it's pathetic, Tim and Sarah's message is on point you're not aware enough obviously of the fact that liberatarians actually don't have an argument.
These reason guys are literally just saying that they are in a privileged position to where making no decisions personally will have no major personal consequences. Good for you guys and screw everyone else. 🙄
Ah, altruists will never tire of scolding people for not sacrificing that they value for what they value less or not at all. Dems and MAGAts are exactly alike in that regard.
You Go Tim!!! You do have to pick a side at a fork in the road, unless you want to wander off into the woods and get lost. Reason should rebrand as Child-Like Reason.
Sarah really carried the debate for the Bulwark by giving some really impassioned arguments about defending the tenants of American values. Too bad the general public didn't pay attention to these things before the last election.
For whatever reason, the public thinks that the media are liars which is absolutely not accurate. The extremely religious also have a very strong belief system which is at odds with science. The religious people can't understand why science changes because their beliefs don't change. They literally believe that the Earth is 6,000 years old and the entire Universe was created in 6 days. I'm still trying to figure out how the kangaroos hoped all the way from the Middle East to Australia after the Earth was flooded. Anyway, science is based on evidence, not belief. Evidence changes which is something the extremely religious can't understand. Well I guess evidence doesn't really change but more and more evidence changes our understanding. Like for example in 2020. Everyone was so upset that the rules kept changing. Well, that was because there has never been a SARS-Co-V2 before. The scientists were learning as we went along. All they were doing was trying to keep us safe. There is no reason to be so upset about what happened. I heard someone recently say that we were lied to about the 6 feet. No we were not lied to. They mistakenly thought that the virus came out in droplets and that 6 feet was a good safe distance. Now we know that the virus is an aerosol instead of droplets, so 6 feet is meaningless. But it wasn't a lie, they just didn't know. But anyway, people don't pay attention to the Main Stream Media because they think the media lies which is not true. For whatever reason, they think that the conspiracy theories are the truth and the truth are lies. It's very hard for me to understand because I can very clearly see the conspiracy theories for what they are. I just don't get why so many people are this gullible.
I didn't expect to think Nick and Matt were naive as often as I did. When he asked wtf was Sarah's post about populism about, I thought, "the truth you fool". Bulwark wins.
@@AndyRosebrook I remember that too, along with supporting police unequivocally during the 2020 George Floyd protests, screaming about lockdowns and being almost dead silent about state use of violence against protestors. That era showed me they were less than useless.
Yeah, it kind of seemed like the two teams were arguing two different questions at times, I found the best and most interesting parts of the debate to be where they were both arguing over the question of "Is Trump a unique threat" vs the more vague "do you have to pick a side"
Yeah, Nick and Matt lost the debate for themselves by re-framing the resolution "choose a side" as "choose a party". I didn't interpret Sarah's and Tim's argument as "lesser of two evils" I saw it as "choose a side means choose your values".
@@Skablergen I'd blame Reason for that bit. The question was a bit silly in some ways. But regardless - the Bulwark made an extremely compelling case , in language I think at least educated libertarians would appreciate. I consider myself a libertarian, though I been fully in the Anti-Trump at all cost camp since maybe 2018. The language they used is exactly how I think about this issue. The question matters to us , because neither party really represents our values. But while democrats got their problems - they seem willing to moderate on certain things to win votes. Republicans on the other hand, are not friendly in the least to libertarian values. That should be painfully obvious. The most Radical thing Harris proposed was deregulation of housing rules to encourage more construction - which is no small thing - because she did it from a democratic podium. The fact that we didn't reward her for that probably set the cause of liberty back - cuz people in the democratic party were at least thinking about trying to bring us into the tent. I don't see any incentive for them to take that political risk now.
how the F are they republicans when they're anti John McCain, anti george bush, anti patriot act? You're proof that TDS is real and strong. Partisan hack.
I see Mitt Romney as an old fashioned moderate Republican. There is a considerable amount that Romney and Reason disagree on. It would be fair to say that Reason is, broadly speaking, on the political right.
These two from the Bulwark have honestly got to be the most trivial, petty, annoying, immature, venomous, and childish debaters I’ve seen in quite some time.
They didn’t play the end of the South Park episode in which Stan explains basically Tim miller’s point that someone in life you have to choose between two bad options
I appreciate this debate. I like both Reason and The Bulwark - they represent my thinking in a lot of ways. I am very much a reason Libertarian, but I think Trump is such an obvious danger that my policy preferences are basically irrelevant. Def on the Bulwark side of this particular debate. I do think the Libertarian instinct for open mindedness often does them a disservice because they can't , psychologically, get to the point of principled opposition. If your a libertarian there was a vote that better reflected your values. Kamala Harris. It should be obvious she was better. She represented a status quo , and Trump is promising radical changes that are against our values. The most radical thing she did was talk about deregulation from a democratic podium. That's a good thing!
" I'm a journalist I don't pick sides" you should, you should pick the side of truth.Accuracy, and a defended analysis that you're willing to be corrected on.
Bulwark folks wrecked them. You don’t have to pick a side like it’s a sports team that you’re going to love for the rest of your life, but in my opinion, there is one party party that is actually interested in governing, cares about facts and character and the other. Even “not picking” is picking.
Absolutely! I don't want to be cynical here, but I almost got the impression the Reason team were the sort of guys who would watch the world burn down, then gloat that they didn't get their hands dirty fighting the flames.
Amazing these guys argue that people who vote Democrat or Republican every election (not quite the same as choosing a side, btw, because there’s nothing in choosing a side that insists you always choose it) as they proudly declare that they vote alternative every election, regardless of the situation.
It's all about voting, choosing to vote for these guys, those guys, or no guys, and votes matter because they determine who is in charge ... until they don't. The US is now facing the prospect of votes no longer determining anything, so that debates like this, pretty much all debate in fact, will be pointless, and all because this time around not enough people voted against the guys who will seek to ensure that votes no longer determine anything.
How can anyone say that a terrorist in the White House is NOT an existential threat, not just to us, but to the entire world?!?! Also, isn't choosing the Libertarian Party choosing a side, albeit not a popular one?
Both libertarians humble brag that they've never voted for a winner of the pres election. That is not the flex you think it is. That means you voted for W in 2000 and WORSE you voted for Trump in 2016. Sorry, you lost the debate right there
maybe they voted for nader in 2000, or whomever the libertarian candidate was back then. Either way, empowering the presidency to bush, who ended up murking over a million brown people and throwng the country a few trillion dollars in debt chasing imaginary wmd is definitely not a flex.
Sarah Longwell: I'm a Bulwark consumer who often disagrees with you on many things. But your opening statement is exactly my thinking on why I left the Libertarian party and movement. I used to be a big, not only Reason magazine, but Nick Gillespie and Matt Welch stan as well. But then they. along with the majority of the Libertarian movement, are so committed against the Left that they refuse to even acknowledge the possibility that there could be a greater threat to Liberty from the Right. Even as it's Sieg Heiling in their douchey libertarian faces.
The proposition should have been phrased "You Don't Have To Be a Strict One-Party Voter". Even so, the proposition applies only to general elections, and is beside the point of whether administration, legislature, and judiciary office holders put party above country.
I was on the fence but I got swayed to you can choose a side with the caveat you can be an independant and speak out for one side or another then when it becomes time to vote choose a party or an independent candidate. If I'm understanding the proposition correctly but I might not be.
The debut Reason Versus debate was recorded in front of a live audience at the Howard Theatre in Washington, D.C. Here is a look at more Reason events: reason.org/events/
Yikes you guys need a new name... Seems kinda smug to me to present a debate as "the reasonable ones (us)" vs "you other people". Maybe have a little humility about your ability to reason?
Nick Gillespie is a grown man who literally wears Fonzi's costume. Why does anybody listen to this 60 year old teenager?
@@jeffgojail You nailed it. I'm unfamiliar with this Nick character and throughout this debate I was felt we were being punked with this Fonzi wannabe.
@@jeffgojail That argument has always annoyed the shit out of me. You shouldn't be wearing those clothes. Why don't you act your age? Young people are supposed to wear this type of clothing and older people are supposed to wear that type of clothing. I remember going to a rock concert with my dad and someone asked him how old he was. His reply was to ask back, "how old do you have to be."
I thumbed-up this video solely because Tim and Sarah smoked these clowns and I want other people to witness the "Reason" 's privileged, wet-fart arguments fall flat on their face.
Telling the Bulwark people they should have stayed in the Republican Party and worked from within to make changes is like asking someone to stay within the flames to fight a fire.
Cool story bro.
Except it's not, tariff policy vs free markets is not a giant flame, it's just tax policy.
@@tomatojuice984do you think only tax policy is what the last 8 years have been?
@@tomatojuice984 And that is why the word "like" was used. Similar or analogous to. Not the same as.
We’re glad they’re gone. And irrelevant.
Why I’d never be a libertarian summed up in one sentence: “I wanted Harris to win but didn’t vote for her” - go Team Bulwark!!!
Why I’d never be a Bulwark listener summed up in one comment. If two gangs are having a turf war, you can prefer the less brutal gang to win, but you don’t have to root for or support either of them.
Hilarious how partisan brain prevents Bulwarkers from wrapping their heads around this simple concept.
Translation: "I wanted the altruist Looter Kleptocracy to coerce me, and didn't lift a finger to oppose it with a law-changing. leveraged, Libertarian spoiler vote." Clearer now?
If you do not choose a side, a side will be chosen for you.
Wrong
You're being played by the two party system
@@luke53285why is that wrong? It seems like if you aren’t decidedly in one camp or another, you get pushed into one. So that sounds like a side being chosen for you.
@@shaunnaemmons1297 Real choice would be a dozen parties, not two parties.
@@Justin_Beaver564People who make these statements are not really using much logic. If there were a dozen parties a Hitler like demagogue could win the presidency with just 15 to 20 % of the vote. That would not be the will of the American people. A two-party system is the number one best form which allows at minimum a 50% minimum of the voting public to vote for someone for them to win.
Lifelong Democrat. Sarah and Tim (and the Bulwark) have saved my sanity understanding that those just to the right of me see what I see.
They were never right of you is the point dear, you are Dick Cheney.
@@churblefurbles Of course they are. They still have lots of positions that mainstream Democrats don't, like the usefulness of the debt ceiling.
@@louisrovegno542 You can't reason with a Troll which is what churblefurbles is.
Oh you poor thing. If Sarah Longwell (a woman filled with little more than bitterness) keeps you sane-JFC.
Happily choosing a candidate you hate doesn’t make sense till you see Trump and you realize hate has a spectrum.
True, but why see only the totalitarian altruist portion of the Venn Diagram? I vote libertarian and got dozens of time the repeal available by voting for the looters.
@@libertariantranslator1929 Bro that LLM AI model you're running needs more training data.
Never thought of hating Trump on a spectrum but I suppose it all makes sense in some parallel universe where bad governance does not have real world consequences. Should we hate Vance on a spectrum? How about Matt Gaetz? Mitchell McConnell? Etal? It's like degrees of separation an arbitrary line is drawn somewhere and everything becomes relevant in relation to that line.
Nah, I'd just rather vote for someone I actually like. Now there's a novel concept.
@@arthurswanson3285 That rebuttal attempt needs potty training.
The Reason people want to be involved in policy but don't want the responsibility that comes with governing.
Two rotting hulks adrift in a harbor, aling come the tugboat Lady Libertarian to nudge both in a better direction. That's how leveraged, law-changing spoiler votes work.
Are you loyal to America and our constitution or to a politician? I’m fiercely loyal to America.
I'm not collectivist, live and work in many countries, defend the Constitution but am studying the Swiss system as Plan B
Ah, the Swiss, who have wralth taxe?
First, I’m a fan of Tim and Sarah. I’m a registered Democrat. I resent the reason brothers thinking I can’t look listen and pay attention to what people say and vote accordingly. Reason side is why people stay home. Good job Tim and Sarah❣️
They didn't stay home, they both voted for Chase Oliver.
@@Justin_Beaver564 WTF?make it make sense.
@@Justin_Beaver564- Never heard of Chase Oliver until seeing this comment section. Definitely was not on my Kansas ballot. Yet, people keep believing that voting for someone that 99% of voters have never heard of will make a difference. How delusional can you be?🤷🏼♀️🌻🇺🇸
Shill caller for international socialism
Yay Tim and Sarah!!!!🎉🎉🎉❤
This was great! Sarah Longwell rocks!
Yeah she is brilliant.
I was thinking about flying to DC just to go to this in person. I decided against it cuz I learned about it too late. I now regret it haha.
Tim and Sarah MOPPED the floor with ALL the Reason boys. 😂
Sorry, but the libertarians argument was weak and nonsensical.
"Plan" beats "no plan."
"Side" beats "no side."
If you have the luxury of not being affected by the outcome, then obviously giving a shit is optional.
We're affected badly by two bad options
@@Justin_Beaver564 Wrong. I didn't vote in 1988 which was the first year I could have voted because I didn't know who to vote for. In 1992 I voted for Ross Perot. The main thing Ross Perot campaigned on was the budget deficit and Bill Clinton ended his presidency with a budget surplus for the first time in my lifetime. In 1996 I didn't vote because I didn't think it mattered. In 2000 I didn't vote because I didn't think it mattered. In 2004 I didn't vote because I didn't think it mattered. In 2008 I voted for one of the two main political parties for the first time in my life. There was not a damn thing wrong with John McCain. He was a damn good man. But at one of his rallies, one of his supporters said that she couldn't vote for Obama as McCain was shaking his head in agreement. Then she said "because he, he is a Muslim." and I was saying to myself "Oh my God." That's when I realized that this country was going over a cliff. "Then in 2015, Trump started to very aggressively push the Conspiracy Theory that Obama was not born in this country. From then on, this country has been completely inundated with constant Conspiracy Theories and millions of people actually believe the Conspiracy Theories over the actual truth. Trump is an existential threat to this country. The threat started before Trump. I would say that the threat to American democracy started with Gingrich and Trump supercharged the threat. There has only ever been one existential threat to democracy in my lifetime. Trump is that existential threat. This time will not be like the first time. The first time, Trump had guardrails. This time, there will not be guardrails.
There are three parties, not two.
@@libertariantranslator1929 In a "first past the post" system two parties will always come to dominate. Many parties may exist ... only two will matter.
@@JP-JustSayin John Sherman invented that lie in a speech for Foraker, who lost.
You can blame Donald Trump for the extreme partisanship. I'm 60 years old and until he came along, I didn't know what my friends, coworkers, neighbors were, etc. were. Now you know what everybody is
Trump didn't cause extreme partisanship, he just utilized it to his advantage. Plurality voting is a corrupt system.
Trump is merely a symptom. Among young people, your political alliance was becoming a requirement for social relationships in the early 2010s due to the great awokening long before Trump was even on the political scene.
You just didn't realize it until later because you're old. It took some time for the Boomer culture to catch up to the Millennial culture but now we are all ensnared in this shit where we have to sadly know everything about everyone's voting habits.
I'm almost 60. The extremism has exploded since Trump. But I first noticed it in 2008, when both political candidates were good men. But at one of John McCain's rallies, a woman spoke up and said "I can't vote for Obama" and McCain shook his head in agreement. But then she said "because he, he is a Muslim." I was like Oh my God. This country is becoming radicalized. Trump supercharged the radicalization, but it already started before him. In my opinion, it started with Gingrich.
That’s not Trump’s fault. That is the fault of the establishment. Both parties see Trump as a threat to their power so they put their propaganda wing into full swing to convince you, and it appears to have worked, that Trump is a unique threat to “democracy”. All of these vague terms and misrepresented positions as well as everything taken out of context but you buy the media line. Congrats. You’ve been brainwashed by the corporate press.
I knew I was surrounded by socialists. Now I know what percent are national socialists and what percent sino-soviet socialists. It's under half and half, so there is hope.
The Bulwark people are the best of us. They are the only consolation of the Trump era.
I don’t know who “us” is, but it’s really unhealthy to speak of yourself as a plural.
@@CyndeLooWho Da tovarisch. Is comment very nice.
So proud of the Bulwark! Passion, conviction I love you!
Talking points live?
Passion!? That's what you call the love of lie street media propaganda. Only a few minutes of her gar-bage was all I could take. Outta here
Passion, conviction? Check. Weak arguments and straw men? Also check.
@@Walking_bear09 Why? Because her observations about objective reality are offensive to you?
Every claim she made about Trump is demonstrably and provably true with evidence.
Now Reason is pretty libertarian, but they are the educated, beltway variety and do in fact take the concept of 'reason' seriously, and are principled small l liberals. She made an effective case, and that case moved 21% of the people, a group of folk who generally are hostile to knee-jerk partisanship.
Choosing a side does not mean that you have to stop thinking, weighing, or testing, but YES, if the choice is good or evil. Pick one.
If you choose between dems and republican you are choosing evil
If you don't, you are choosing good
I'm almost 60 and in my entire lifetime, we have basically had normal presidential candidates. Trump is the only candidate in my lifetime who is an existential threat to the country. It seems so crazy to me that such a large percentage of the American people can't see it, including the Reason guys on the stage. Wow.
even if its morally ambiguous vs evil the choice is still a very clear one.
Mad respect for Sarah Longwell and Tim Miller! Great representation!
The whole premise of this debate makes absolutely no sense.
It seems like the "Reason" side is trying to say that "choosing a side" means being blindly loyal to that side forever, no matter what.
15:01 "Your right of exit from any given coalition is exactly the thing that helps keep that coalition... focused on what they're trying to achieve."
Sarah and Tim USED to be Republicans... but they LEFT their "coalition".
It seems like the "Reason" side has no idea who they're even talking to.
I think Libertarians just exist to be against the establishment, help elect Republicans, and call people tribalists. Super helpful.
Yeah they kept saying esentially "picking a side means staying blindly loyal to them forever and that is bad". Meanwhile Tim and Sarah are sitting RIGHT THERE proving you do not have to stay loyal to whatever "side" you once chose.
My take on it is that the Reason side is saying that you don't have to choose between the two main parties and the Bulwark side is saying that from 2016 through 2024, it was critical to choose a side between the two main parties because one of the main candidates is an existential threat to the country versus the Reason side is saying that both major party candidates are normal politicians and there is no existential threat to the country. I guess we will find out who is right over the next 4 years.
The Reason side is being more cowardly than you actually realize...
My question would have been: if you wanted Harris to win wtf did you not vote for her?!
Obviously they can’t be arsed lol. Nothing is on the line for them.
I’m a democrat because I agree with more democratic values & policies than republican ones. However, I don’t agree with everything that every democrat does or believe everything that every democrat does. Just because you “choose a side” doesn’t mean that you have to become a mindless robot.
True but there are enough bad ideas in both parties that I can't justify voting for either one.
@@Justin_Beaver564 No the choice is democracy vs an autocracy, that was the choice this time around, you are living in a dream world, or a troll/bot.
@@Justin_Beaver564 That may very well be the case. However, that’s when you decide which is the least bad in order to participate in and have a meaningful effect on our democratic process. There typically is one candidate or party that is worse than the other.
@@kendrabryant4738 The least bad was Chase Oliver, the Libertarian Party presidential candidate whom I voted for. If everyone refused to vote for the duopoly we might actually get ranked choice voting.
Well I was paying attention for at least the last few months leading to the election and I never heard of Chase Oliver. He also was not an option on the ticket in Indiana. It’s not about not voting for either side, we will never have more than 2 dominant parties as long as we allow millions and millions of dollars to flow through the government
I ❤ Sarah and Tim.
Enjoy being irrelevant
Sarah Longwell crushed it.
To an altruist, Shrylla or Trump sound close to sane and not much different. To individualists, neither does. Altruist totalitarians fight amongst themselves like rats, and over the tiniest differences.
Bulwark makes the better argument regarding defending our freedoms.
no. they don’t. they’re bush supporters. they’re upset that THEY can’t abuse YOUR rights
The distortion here is to conflate never Trumpism with democratic partisanship. The inverse is true. Republican blindly support Trump. The term RINO says it all. It is a term that ostracizes anyone that breaks rank to criticize Trump.
Yeah these libertarian guys are dishonestly pretending that the trump cult is business as usual, that all political parties demand robotic conformism from their members.
Rino's get their head pats from Democrats and are forever surprised they are critiqued and face consequences because they believe as fellow libs they will be blindly backed by the system.
Some of Trumps staunchest and most effective critics are not democrats.
Mark Cuban is an independent. The Bulwark and LP are former republicans. David Frum, a GW Bush speech writer has been talking about this since even before he was popular - like 2012. Fair number of libertarians like Justin Amash have been staunch critics of Trump.
It's not partisanship. It's principle.
If you want to have any political power under the current American electoral system, you have to choose. Ranked-choice voting would be great, but without it voting third party is the equivalent of flushing your ballot down the toilet.
UNLESS it’s a true Conservative Party which would 1. Split the vote and save us from the tyranny of corrupt morons 2. Give smart conservatives and Moderate Dems a place to go and 3. THAT kind of party will quickly pick up speed and overtake MAGA pushing MAGA to the outskirts where it belongs.
It's not because voting for one of the two major parties reinforces plurality voting and the duopoly.
@@Justin_Beaver564 You are totally dismissing the concern. I know that you believe one is worse than the other. They can't both be equal. Even one of the Reason guys on the stage said that Harris would be better for the country over Trump even though he didn't vote for either one. Ranked-Choice Voting is absolutely critical in order to vote your conscience without throwing away your vote. Only the Republican or Democrat has any chance whatsoever of winning. It absolutely makes sense to vote for the least bad of the two. We should be demanding Ranked-Choice Voting.
A lie. "The Case for Voting Libertarian" proves that libertarian spoiler vote clout is highly leveraged and effective. 2% spoiler votes by small party supporters installed the 16th and 18th Amendments. Search for it. The Kleptocracy is very aware of this.
Libertarianism is full of privileged mostly men. Interesting.
I went into this thinking Libertarians were just spoiled teenagers. I left thinking they are spoiled children.
"We were hoping Kamala Harris would win" ok if you were in a swing state would you have lifted a finger to achieve that outcome? This is the core question of the debate.
Great distinction!
To quote the Libertarian rock band, Rush, "If you choose not to decide. You still have made a choice."
You’re a quick one. They only reference that detail about 5 times.
O vote libertarian. My vote repeals bad laws instead of wanking off the kleptocracy.
If you vote for the freedom you want instead of the Looter Kleptocracy that offers to rob and jail you, THEN you have made a choice. See the Solomon Asch experiment on opinions and social pressure
I didn’t realize Sarah had access to the nuclear codes but she dropped several bombs in this debate 🔥🔥🔥
Ah, so someone else noticed the smell...
How does one vote without choosing who to vote for, aka picking a side? This argument is absurd on its face. These “Reason” fellas are so far up their own butts, I just can’t relate to anything they have to say.
They refuse to admit reality because their privilege keeps them safe and they don't care about anyone it does harm
Yep. You can try to change people's minds toward positions that neither party holds, but when it comes time to vote there are only two real choices. Not just in terms of electability. The Libertarians and Greens consistently fail to meet even the modest goal of 5% of the popular vote, which would secure them public funding for the next election.
They didn't make it very clear, but they meant picking a side between the two major parties. The Reason side believes that both major party candidates are normal politicians vs the Bulwark side believes that one of the candidates is an existential threat to the country.
@ How is that different from being an independent? Ya know, listen to the candidates pick which one best matches your ideals, regardless of party? It doesn’t take political affiliation to recognize a threat to democracy when birth rite citizenship all of a sudden comes into question, just sayin’
30:18 Holy cow, that gave me chills. Well done, Tim!
Welch is employed as a sophist for Koch Industries. He presents his book attacking John McCain as evidence of principled bipartisanship rather than a tome of oppositional research intended to destroy a Conservative leader prepared to cross party lines in the fight against climate change.
From 2000-2008 there was a concerted & covert effort on the part of Koch Industries & EXXON to ensure no Republican representative ever introduced policies designed to fight carbon emissions.
Weasels like Welch were part of that successful scheme, ultimately resulting in McCain's abandonment of science based climate policy & the introduction of “Drill baby drill” running mate Sarah Palin.
Haha, “tome.”
At what point does a book become a tome?
The Koch brothers have BANKROLLED Liberarian candidates and organizations because they want a HANDS OFF polocies to their Climate Change producing industries and also because they do NOT wanty to be taxed. NOTHING "principled" at all--just GREED.
Welch has picked the side that endorses freedom, not cowardice, betrayal and coercion.
What a stupid thing to say..."i wanted harris to win but idid not vote for her".
facts. I used to be open to libertarian ideas until i realized how useless they are as a movement and in the political conversation. Like a bunch of people arguing over aerodynamics during a plane flight with a pilot suffering a heart attack. We live in the real world, as it is, that demands reaction. Such a joke.
Well that's a libertarian for you 😂😂😂😂😂😂
@francesbowles If you live in anything other than a swing state, your vote doesn't matter.
It’s not stupid if you live in a red or blue state 🤷
Definitely another shy maga
I think these folks are obfuscating the whole question. We're not talking about do you have to join a party forever? And go to their meetings and all of that.The question is saying, do you have to pick one to express your political choice at the moment?" I mean, if you're gonna vote you have to pick something, They don't make any sense.
I think the question is referring to the two main parties. The Bulwark side is saying that Trump is an existential threat to this country and the Reason side is saying that Trump is just a normal politician and the threat is exaggerated. I guess we will see which side was right. You can't go by what happened from 2017-2021. This time will be very different from the last time, but I guess we will all find out over the course of the next 4 years.
The Bulwark people managed to obfuscate the question so successfully that they wound up winning the debate by restating Reason's position.
As this past election has shown, no one is served by blindly following a political party no matter how nonsensical and vague they become.
@@aicram62 yeah, that was a problem. I wish that the two sides and the moderator had worked out a more precise explanation of what the question really meant, because I had the feeling the two sides were arguing past each other about points they really agreed on. Tim and Sarah are emphatically NOT Democrats just because they left the Republican Party, but they are willing to ally themselves with reasonable Dems in the current moment to oppose Trump.
@@vinista256 I so agreed with her last comment to my core. she said exactly what she was fighting for. And this country has done some crappy things to people but The constitution if applied properly can be pretty fair.
Hot dang, Sarah was on fire!
Sarah Slays.
Hot dang. If only debates are about being snide and snarky.... And touching on the tangents of a topic. This wasn't a Trump debate, but she tried to make it so.
@scottwhitman7951 one must be willfully naive to believe that any discussion of politics now can occur without the shadow of authoritarianism that Trump has brought to American politics. It is not 2004. We can't pretend it is, and no amount of wishing will make it so.
She had weak comments
@@scottwhitman7951 A proof of existence destroys a proof of universality.
In Australia you pay a 10 dollar fine if you don’t vote. Forced democracy might sound like an oxymoron, but it works better than apathy voting.
It does, the American system breeds low information ripe for exploitation
And that system only asks you to attend the election, you can choose not to fill in your vote and it prevents all the issues suppression
I disagree. Not voting is also a form of expression. I do prefer Australia's preferential voting though.
Huh? It is apathy voting. If you are forced into voting, then many people will be voting who have apathy toward voting. U.S. citizens who have apathy, don't vote. I'm almost 60 and haven't voted for the majority of my adult lifetime. I only started taking voting seriously in 2008, when I noticed that my country was becoming radicalized and I started seeing these conspiracy theories taking over our country.
Altruists gotta coerce.
The condescension from the Reason side, especially during the Q&A, was really offputting.
The moral condescension and lame attempts at public shaming (in lieu of good arguments) were only coming from one side, and it was most definitely not the Reason side.
getting mad about being called childish then using a South Park clip to prove an example is like... breathtakingly hilarious
Yeah. Whole lot of boomer energy in that one while trying to evoke gen x energy while not realizing that's still 20 years behind, even if you pull it off. Pathetic.
Not actually an argument. Illustrate how/why the point he was making is wrong.
So to which of those only existing alternatives should they sacrifice their freedom and give away their vote?
I find the description of elections being a choice between two "crap sandwiches" in the current situation to be particularly inapt. There's never been a presidential election in my life where I was more one-sided than 2024. In 2016, I voted third party not because I thought both major candidates were equally bad, but rather because it was an open question to me which was worse. That open question has been settled, by Jan. 6th 2021 if not earlier. Trump was obviously worse. Better, smarter people than me were able to see that in 2016, so I'm trying to be patient with people who don't see it now, but it's a struggle.
❤
Props to you. I also made the mistake of voting 3rd party in 2016, albeit for a different reason. I viewed Trump as far worse, but still operated under the illusion that voting for an unelectable candidate could bring substantive benefits. For example, if a party secures at least 5% of the popular vote, they are given public financing for their campaign in the following election. I've seen from the past few elections that even that modest, intermediate goal is a pipe dream.
@@synchronium24the Green Party has been known for decades to be funded by the Republican Party to be there strictly take away votes from the Dems. Hence how we ended up with DUBYA to begin with . And now it’s worse cause Jill Stein only shows up every 4 years from Russia
In 2016 my take was that its near certain that both candidates will misuse the aparatus of state, but that Trump was the one that risked actually damaging the aparatus of state.
So ... yeah ... called it.
@@mikefarnsworth772 right who would have thought that a bankrupt sexual predator would trick so many people. Meanwhile the same people that lost their mind over said spouse getting a BJ at the White House was equally as bad as said outsider
I had to rewind and play Sarah Longwell's closing remarks again. They are that inspiring! I want to go where Sarah goes!
She is so well-spoken, passionate and knowledgeable, and she doesn't get triggered enough to go off the deep end of defensiveness.
She just gets more passionate about making her points.
Sarah delivered on the props!
Gobsmacked. Libertarians are really something. The ego situation is something to behold.
I wouldn't mock the libertarians here.
1) Nick made some great points about knee jerk partisanship and influence.
2) Libertarians actually moved towards the Bulkwarks position, despite those points after consideration of the evidence and the arguments.
If anything - libertarians represents a narrow sliver of gettable voters. We should welcome those folk.
Also note that a lot of the Bulwark people are basically Reason Libertarians, moderates certainly - but with a strong libertarian instinct. All philosophies if taken to their extreme fail - including democratic centrism - which has shown itself laughably incapable of taking on Trumpism, and you are a fool if you think California or New York are well governed states. Having an appreciation of political beliefs not as a philosophy, but as a kind of group psychology makes it a lot easier to make arguments to people in terms they will understand.
Sarah Longwell did that here. She appealed to what libertarians actually care about - and it showed in the results. I think the Reason crowd is breaking AGAINST trump if the good guys can keep up the pressure. They already don't like him.
Observe that it's the looter altruists that start their pitches with with I I, Me me...
Libertarians are like housecats, they care for nobody but themselves.
just the usual delusions and narcissistic self-importance of libertarians.
The problem with libertarianism as a philosophy is that it picks the side of negative freedom, which IS "childish", in the sense that it will never be enough to imagine that The Other is the problem and that the best politics can do is to limit someone else's freedom so that you can be "free". A country, in order to thrive, needs to cultivate positive freedom and therefore use the government to increase people's freedom to have access to education, healthcare, and real opportunities that most people don't have from birth. If you reject that idea, you simply contribute to an elitist system that isn't helpful nor viable.
There is a very old TH-cam video called "How the Right understands rights" that always gives me a chuckle. It's very obscure, but I imagine searching the channel name (robogrrrl) will still bring it up on the search page.
The idea that the state can promote freedom is crazy. The state can only use violence or not use violence aka restrict freedom or leave people alone.
@@johnmcguire8329 That is demonstrably false. When the state installs regulations, for instance, and allows an entire society to go from savage to regulated capitalism, average health levels increase, average education levels increase, and average happiness levels increase, since it also means that parents can now spend time with their young children and the elderly, people can take up a hobby, and equally important in a democracy, they have the time to come together to discuss politics, study the facts, and vote in a well-informed way. Two hundreds years of Western democracy prove your hypothesis to be 100% false.
@@euwritingdownthebones9123 anymore i see little space between libertarians and anarcho-capitalists. They seem unable to see or unwilling to accept that the virtues of capitalism are not self-sustaining. The economy needs guardrails, just as the Republic does.
@@kevinmcneeley879 Actually, "the" economy doesn't exist. There's always a government and there are always, therefore, legal rules of the game installed. What libertarians de facto support are rules of the game that only benefit the wealthiest. Those who reject libertarianism do so for the same reason they reject right-wing philosophies: we need rules of the game that benefit all citizens, not just the 1% wealthiest.
LMAO Tim cooked Nick so hard with the Delorean example
And then Sarah cooked him again by pointing out how hypocritical his critique of Bulwark's lack of relevance was lmao and he just took it with no retort
I found that part to have been the most effective rhetorical strategy employed. It’s still unbelievable that when faced with the reality of Jan 6th, so many “informed” voters still sided with the person who inspired and instigated that attack on our country. And then for people to intimate that in light of this, both choices are equally as bad, it just defies reason (pun intended).
And by the way, the Reason got to establish the rules of the debate, and they use video as “props.” They were outclassed in substance AND style. 🤣
Here's the question for Reason. First answer this question: 'Are you aware that we are not in a political issue with two Parties but rather a 'religious war' conducted by one side that has worked for decades to take over our 'democratic' republic and replace it with a white christian conservative theocracy?
If you do NOT know, then you are either intentionally or ignore of an on-going realtiy
If you DO know, then you are going to pick a side because the WCN movement sees itself at war with 'evil' and you are either on their side or not.
Get some fresh air
The previous reply about getting fresh air was very ignorant. You are absolutely correct that the current Republican Party is a White Nationalist Party. The Reason guys, however, see Trump as a normal politician. Also, I think it's important to note that the previous Republican candidates for president (McCain, Romney, Bush, etc.) are not White Nationalists. Previous Republican candidates for president believe in the rule of law, institutions, etc. versus Trump is very uniquely unfit for the presidency.
@@mikemccormick6128 Thanks for your reply. Bush was, not Romney/McCain. Remember Bush was 'the axis of evil' and that's evocative of the other area where WCT (white christian theocrats ...NAR/Opus Dei) are working ... to bring forth The End Times in Israel. Trump moved the Embassy on their request. They are seeking global dominion. (OATH TAKEN WHITE CHRISTIAN NATIONALISM TRAINING
start at 39:00 to understand their oath and trump
th-cam.com/video/8iTxLCIxW8M/w-d-xo.html)
100% TRUTH
This is Sarah Longwell in her element. She was gas. Like ...lit the match, threw it over her shoulder and walked away. Damn girl! Her argument and style/delivery muAaah. Chef's kiss.
No Trump left these losers in the dust. Cry harder sarah.
@@jjets8775 The only crybabies are you MAGA snowflakes.
Sarah and Tim cling to a ridiculous misassessment of Trump.
Ohhhhhhh- Sarah drops 🎤, 💥 you go girl!
I feel like the Reason was arguing one question and the Bulwark is arguing another. Many people split their ticket all the time. I’m a democrat but I’m not a sheep. I actually criticize people in my party all the time.
I think that’s the difference btw us and them. We can criticize those within our party and not attack over it. They can’t do that. I’m a democrat, mostly a single issue voter, and yet there are some things on the right I agree with. I always considered myself to be purple in my views. Now I’m totally disillusioned with my party and feel like I’m more progressive than anything else 🤷🏻♀️
1:39 yeah I feel confident that the Bullwark wins this and it won’t be close.
yep
Bulwark lost out the gate....wrong messaging
Tim won at his WV travel analogy. The rest really doesn't matter, because Libertarians don't really want to live in a society. They should be living off the grid somewhere with their school choice which is a scam for wealthy people, and aids in the dismantling of public school.
@@guatemalan360 No they didn't, the liberatarians are too busy trying to be intellectual, and naval gazing it's pathetic, Tim and Sarah's message is on point you're not aware enough obviously of the fact that liberatarians actually don't have an argument.
@@guatemalan360 Did you watch it?
They moved a libertarian friendly crowd 21 points. I'd call that a resounding victory.
"you accused us of having no influence says the libertarian" that got me so good 🤣
❤ bulwark!
Honestly, if these speakers represent Reason that solidifies that Reason is not a serious publication. What a bunch of stooges.
These reason guys are literally just saying that they are in a privileged position to where making no decisions personally will have no major personal consequences. Good for you guys and screw everyone else. 🙄
Ah, altruists will never tire of scolding people for not sacrificing that they value for what they value less or not at all. Dems and MAGAts are exactly alike in that regard.
You Go Tim!!! You do have to pick a side at a fork in the road, unless you want to wander off into the woods and get lost. Reason should rebrand as Child-Like Reason.
Gawd Damn! Sarah is ON FIRE @ just 11min!
Sarah really carried the debate for the Bulwark by giving some really impassioned arguments about defending the tenants of American values. Too bad the general public didn't pay attention to these things before the last election.
Really? I just saw a fussy PTA mom who’s shocked to discover she doesn’t dictate the choices of others.
For whatever reason, the public thinks that the media are liars which is absolutely not accurate. The extremely religious also have a very strong belief system which is at odds with science. The religious people can't understand why science changes because their beliefs don't change. They literally believe that the Earth is 6,000 years old and the entire Universe was created in 6 days. I'm still trying to figure out how the kangaroos hoped all the way from the Middle East to Australia after the Earth was flooded. Anyway, science is based on evidence, not belief. Evidence changes which is something the extremely religious can't understand. Well I guess evidence doesn't really change but more and more evidence changes our understanding. Like for example in 2020. Everyone was so upset that the rules kept changing. Well, that was because there has never been a SARS-Co-V2 before. The scientists were learning as we went along. All they were doing was trying to keep us safe. There is no reason to be so upset about what happened. I heard someone recently say that we were lied to about the 6 feet. No we were not lied to. They mistakenly thought that the virus came out in droplets and that 6 feet was a good safe distance. Now we know that the virus is an aerosol instead of droplets, so 6 feet is meaningless. But it wasn't a lie, they just didn't know. But anyway, people don't pay attention to the Main Stream Media because they think the media lies which is not true. For whatever reason, they think that the conspiracy theories are the truth and the truth are lies. It's very hard for me to understand because I can very clearly see the conspiracy theories for what they are. I just don't get why so many people are this gullible.
@@badmofaux Exactly!
Oh they did. Trump won!
I applaud the progressive principles that gave the "libertarians" a comfortable and prosperous backdrop to live out their delusions.....
Gotta love that when branded as childish, the libertarians pushed back by playing a cartoon clip 😂
I didn't expect
to think Nick and Matt were naive as often as I did. When he asked wtf was Sarah's post about populism about, I thought, "the truth you fool". Bulwark wins.
I remember seeing Reason tacitly promoting MAGA in 2016. Libertarians embraced fascism rather than do anything to fight against it.
@@AndyRosebrook I remember that too, along with supporting police unequivocally during the 2020 George Floyd protests, screaming about lockdowns and being almost dead silent about state use of violence against protestors. That era showed me they were less than useless.
Tim and Sarah killed it!!♥️🙌🏼🙌🏼🙌🏼 Glad they left the Republican party! The Republican party no longer exists, it’s DOA- new name: The Trump party
I felt like the debate hinged on defining the argument and that the bulwark won by defining "choose a side" as "vote for the lesser of two evils."
Yeah, it kind of seemed like the two teams were arguing two different questions at times, I found the best and most interesting parts of the debate to be where they were both arguing over the question of "Is Trump a unique threat" vs the more vague "do you have to pick a side"
Yeah, Nick and Matt lost the debate for themselves by re-framing the resolution "choose a side" as "choose a party". I didn't interpret Sarah's and Tim's argument as "lesser of two evils" I saw it as "choose a side means choose your values".
I mean, it's not like this has never been ignored before with disastrous consequences. Germany, Italy, Spain, even Portugal.
@@Skablergen I'd blame Reason for that bit. The question was a bit silly in some ways.
But regardless - the Bulwark made an extremely compelling case , in language I think at least educated libertarians would appreciate. I consider myself a libertarian, though I been fully in the Anti-Trump at all cost camp since maybe 2018. The language they used is exactly how I think about this issue. The question matters to us , because neither party really represents our values.
But while democrats got their problems - they seem willing to moderate on certain things to win votes. Republicans on the other hand, are not friendly in the least to libertarian values. That should be painfully obvious. The most Radical thing Harris proposed was deregulation of housing rules to encourage more construction - which is no small thing - because she did it from a democratic podium.
The fact that we didn't reward her for that probably set the cause of liberty back - cuz people in the democratic party were at least thinking about trying to bring us into the tent. I don't see any incentive for them to take that political risk now.
I think these libertarians ought to admit that they are old fashioned moderate republicans trying to sell themselves as something else.
how the F are they republicans when they're anti John McCain, anti george bush, anti patriot act? You're proof that TDS is real and strong. Partisan hack.
I see Mitt Romney as an old fashioned moderate Republican. There is a considerable amount that Romney and Reason disagree on. It would be fair to say that Reason is, broadly speaking, on the political right.
Well. This cleared one thing up for me: I will never vote for a libertarian.
These two from the Bulwark have honestly got to be the most trivial, petty, annoying, immature, venomous, and childish debaters I’ve seen in quite some time.
The Bulwark is RIGHT again.
#SarahIsAlwaysRight🔥🔥🔥
They didn’t play the end of the South Park episode in which Stan explains basically Tim miller’s point that someone in life you have to choose between two bad options
I appreciate this debate. I like both Reason and The Bulwark - they represent my thinking in a lot of ways. I am very much a reason Libertarian, but I think Trump is such an obvious danger that my policy preferences are basically irrelevant.
Def on the Bulwark side of this particular debate. I do think the Libertarian instinct for open mindedness often does them a disservice because they can't , psychologically, get to the point of principled opposition. If your a libertarian there was a vote that better reflected your values. Kamala Harris. It should be obvious she was better. She represented a status quo , and Trump is promising radical changes that are against our values. The most radical thing she did was talk about deregulation from a democratic podium. That's a good thing!
Thank you for watching! We appreciate your thoughtful feedback.
Great job Bulwark.
Hi point was Sarah's close.
Low point was the retort that Trump did leave office.
Yes, standing on principles is THE WAY you choose A side
" I'm a journalist I don't pick sides" you should, you should pick the side of truth.Accuracy, and a defended analysis that you're willing to be corrected on.
Bulwark folks wrecked them. You don’t have to pick a side like it’s a sports team that you’re going to love for the rest of your life, but in my opinion, there is one party party that is actually interested in governing, cares about facts and character and the other. Even “not picking” is picking.
These guys just to wipe their hands of accountability but inwardly are ok with the uprooting of american democracy
Absolutely! I don't want to be cynical here, but I almost got the impression the Reason team were the sort of guys who would watch the world burn down, then gloat that they didn't get their hands dirty fighting the flames.
The Reason people were very gracious to do this. They had to know they were going to lose! 😝
Every libertarian I know is a MAGA loving loudmouth.
wow Sarah Longwell's opening statement was devastating
1:05:22 Sarah Longwell = SAVAGE
I love Tim he’s so I touch with my reality lol ,❤️
The Reason bros really got stomped on this one. You'd think that since they were hosting this debate they would have been better prepared.
Amazing these guys argue that people who vote Democrat or Republican every election (not quite the same as choosing a side, btw, because there’s nothing in choosing a side that insists you always choose it) as they proudly declare that they vote alternative every election, regardless of the situation.
Furthermore, in a debate with two people whose whole political ideology is based on switching sides.
It's all about voting, choosing to vote for these guys, those guys, or no guys, and votes matter because they determine who is in charge ... until they don't. The US is now facing the prospect of votes no longer determining anything, so that debates like this, pretty much all debate in fact, will be pointless, and all because this time around not enough people voted against the guys who will seek to ensure that votes no longer determine anything.
Now I love Sara she speaks so beautifully brave ❤
Sarah absolutely killed it. Wow.
Love Sarah and Tim.
bulwark: tim and sarah---clear winners
How can anyone say that a terrorist in the White House is NOT an existential threat, not just to us, but to the entire world?!?!
Also, isn't choosing the Libertarian Party choosing a side, albeit not a popular one?
There have been nothing but terrorists in the White House for decades.
Both libertarians humble brag that they've never voted for a winner of the pres election. That is not the flex you think it is. That means you voted for W in 2000 and WORSE you voted for Trump in 2016. Sorry, you lost the debate right there
maybe they voted for nader in 2000, or whomever the libertarian candidate was back then. Either way, empowering the presidency to bush, who ended up murking over a million brown people and throwng the country a few trillion dollars in debt chasing imaginary wmd is definitely not a flex.
They might have voted for neither.
Damn straight!! 🙂
Sarah Longwell: I'm a Bulwark consumer who often disagrees with you on many things.
But your opening statement is exactly my thinking on why I left the Libertarian party and movement.
I used to be a big, not only Reason magazine, but Nick Gillespie and Matt Welch stan as well.
But then they. along with the majority of the Libertarian movement, are so committed against the Left that they refuse to even acknowledge the possibility that there could be a greater threat to Liberty from the Right.
Even as it's Sieg Heiling in their douchey libertarian faces.
Are you really so lacking in self identification?
Sarah just kills it!! Way to go~
Bravo Sarah and Tim! ❤
Trying to pass off libertarian ideas as "Reason" is laughable at best
Love love loved this!!! Listening to ideas to make you think with a little spice thrown is wonderful
Thank you for watching! Glad you enjoyed it.
Sarah taking a picture is so boss
The proposition should have been phrased "You Don't Have To Be a Strict One-Party Voter". Even so, the proposition applies only to general elections, and is beside the point of whether administration, legislature, and judiciary office holders put party above country.
31:50: “you could have invited a comedian. Talk about cancel culture.”
For real!
I was on the fence but I got swayed to you can choose a side with the caveat you can be an independant and speak out for one side or another then when it becomes time to vote choose a party or an independent candidate. If I'm understanding the proposition correctly but I might not be.