# Liberty Movement > Liberty Campaigns >  The LP can't win any elections, how can they expect to win the Presidency?

## Matt Collins

The LP cannot get someone elected to the US Senate, The US House, Governor, or any state Senate in the country. And according to their page they only have 1 elected official in any state legislature, and that is in Nevada.

So someone please tell me how a party is going to get someone elected President when they can't even get more than 1 person elected to a lower chamber in the entire country?

----------


## thoughtomator

They're not. It's just an extension of the fantasy game played by people who, consciously or subconsciously, do not want or expect the advance of liberty.

LP demographics closely match Dungeons & Dragons player demographics, and with good reason - in both cases there is nothing more significant going on than make-believe roleplay.

I suppose every libertarian gives the LP a shot once, and then they learn how unserious it is.

----------


## Matt Collins

> I suppose every libertarian gives the LP a shot once, and then they learn how unserious it is.


I was there once....

----------


## thoughtomator

Maybe it's time for you and I to collaborate some on getting this movement rebooted.

----------


## TheTexan

I bet if Collins taught them how to identify, target, mobilize, the Libertarian Candidate could win.

It's all about ITM and doing it hard

----------


## SpiritOf1776_J4

> I bet if Collins taught them how to identify, target, mobilize, the Libertarian Candidate could win.
> 
> It's all about ITM and doing it hard


It's lack of official threads that is doing us in.

----------


## SpiritOf1776_J4

> It's lack of official threads that is doing us in.


Also, we need a blimp.

----------


## Matt Collins

> I bet if Collins taught them how to identify, target, mobilize, the Libertarian Candidate could win.


That's actually my point is that no matter how good their skills are, they are doomed to failure based on both internal and external factors.

----------


## Origanalist

> Maybe it's time for you and I to collaborate some on getting this movement rebooted.


Yes, good idea. While you're at it expand the police state, build a wall and get rid of all the brown people. Oh, and invade the middle east, get rid of ISIS and take the oil.

----------


## TheTexan

> Yes, good idea. While you're at it expand the police state, build a wall and get rid of all the brown people. Oh, and invade the middle east, get rid of ISIS and take the oil.


That sounds like a solid platform.  I'm surprised noone has taken advantage of it yet.

----------


## RJ Liberty

> So someone please tell me how a party is going to get someone elected President when they can't even get more than 1 person elected to a lower chamber in the entire country?


No one believes the LP will _win_ this election. The goal should be 5%, which is achievable, given polls for Johnson at 11%, and the huge swaths of people who refuse to vote for either current frontrunner of both parties. At 5%, the LP would qualify for federal matching funding of up to $30,000,000.00, which would give the LP a major profile boost, and raise awareness of the party, as well as potentially help raise funds for local LP candidates.

----------


## SpiritOf1776_J4

> No one believes the LP will _win_ this election. The goal should be 5%, which is achievable, given polls for Johnson at 11%, and the huge swaths of people who refuse to vote for either current frontrunner of both parties. At 5%, the LP would qualify for federal matching funding of up to $30,000,000.00, which would give the LP a major profile boost, and raise awareness of the party, as well as potentially help raise funds for local LP candidates.


Yes, well Gary Johnson ran on that last time, and only got 1% of the vote.

John Mcafee would get 5% of the vote by just by being himself.  Learn a lesson from Trump.

----------


## RJ Liberty

> Yes, well Gary Johnson ran on that last time, and only got 1% of the vote.


He wasn't polling at 11% last time. He is now.




> John Mcafee would get 5% of the vote by just by being himself.


Show me a poll that indicates McAfee has those numbers. Of course, there isn't one.




> Learn a lesson from Trump.


Trump's in a major party. McAfee is not. It's apples and oranges. Despite this, I'd vote for McAfee if he were the LP nominee.

----------


## 69360

They won't win. No chance. They are a good protest vote in a Trump/Clinton race. I know that is what I will do. Maybe the $#@! choices this time will get the LP in the 3-5% range and they will build on it. Probably not as they seem to enjoy being a circular firiing squad. Oh well.

----------


## luctor-et-emergo

> Probably not as they seem to enjoy being a circular firiing squad. Oh well.


How would you call what the Republican party is doing then ?

----------


## nobody's_hero

> How would you call what the Republican party is doing then ?


In the GOP, the teleprompter does all the shooting.

----------


## Ronin Truth

The LP (oxymoron) don't, won't, can't nor expect to.

----------


## Michael Landon

I'm a Minnesota Vikings fan and a Libertarian.  For me, I support principles not victories.  If I wanted to be a "winner" I would vote for whoever is leading in the polls and whichever team was favored to win the Super Bowl but that's not me.

- ML

----------


## otherone

> Maybe it's time for you and I to collaborate some on getting this movement *rebooted*.

----------


## thoughtomator

> No one believes the LP will _win_ this election. The goal should be 5%, which is achievable, given polls for Johnson at 11%, and the huge swaths of people who refuse to vote for either current frontrunner of both parties. At 5%, the LP would qualify for federal matching funding of up to $30,000,000.00, which would give the LP a major profile boost, and raise awareness of the party, as well as potentially help raise funds for local LP candidates.


Problem there is that the LP _has_ met thresholds for major party status in quite a number of states over the years and has done _nothing_ with it.

I trust the irony of relying on federal funding to make the LP a major player nationwide is not completely lost on you.

----------


## RJ Liberty

> Problem there is that the LP _has_ met thresholds for major party status in quite a number of states over the years and has done _nothing_ with it.


Not nationally, they haven't. And that's what's needed to run a _national_ campaign.




> I trust the irony of relying on federal funding to make the LP a major player nationwide is not completely lost on you.


If they want to play with the big boys, they have to play by the big boys' rules. You know this.

----------


## Bern

> So someone please tell me how a party is going to get someone elected President when they can't even get more than 1 person elected to a lower chamber in the entire country?


First you get the money
Then you get the power
Then you get the women

----------


## thoughtomator

> Not nationally, they haven't. And that's what's needed to run a _national_ campaign.


If the LP cannot succeed in a single state even after achieving the privileges that come with major party status (e.g. automatic ballot access), what makes you think they can succeed on a national level?

----------


## Ronin Truth

> I'm a Minnesota Vikings fan and a Libertarian. For me, I support principles not victories. If I wanted to be a "winner" I would vote for whoever is leading in the polls and whichever team was favored to win the Super Bowl but that's not me.
> 
> - ML



Nor is it anyone else with even half a brain.

----------


## RJ Liberty

> If the LP cannot succeed in a single state even after achieving the privileges that come with major party status (e.g. automatic ballot access), what makes you think they can succeed on a national level?


I don't.

----------


## thoughtomator

> I don't.


Then we're back into Dungeons & Liberty territory where we pretend to want liberty but insist on doing only things that won't work.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Then we're back into Dungeons & Liberty territory where we pretend to want liberty but insist on doing only things that won't work.


Like vote?

*"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results." -- Benjamin Franklin*

----------


## RJ Liberty

> Then we're back into Dungeons & Liberty territory where we pretend to want liberty but insist on doing only things that won't work.


I think the only ones "pretending to want liberty" are the ones campaigning for Donald Trump on a Ron/Rand Paul forum, while _actively opposing_ real liberty candidates.

----------


## Peace&Freedom

> The LP cannot get someone elected to the US Senate, The US House, Governor, or any state Senate in the country. And according to their page they only have 1 elected official in any state legislature, and that is in Nevada.
> 
> So someone please tell me how a party is going to get someone elected President when they can't even get more than 1 person elected to a lower chamber in the entire country?


And neither has the Constitution, Green, or other modern third parties (with the exception of Sanders, a Socialist) gotten people elected to senior office. Neither the LP nor the other alternatives are so uniformly incompetent as to fail electorally _across all campaigns, all states and regions, and across several decades straight._ Nor is the issue a nationwide lack of interest in liberty, given the verifiable excitement generated by Ron Paul's two runs. Where are the gerrymandered Libertarian districts, designed to favor LP candidates? If LP contenders couldn't win them, that would isolate the issue to candidate or party incompetence. The reason they don't win them is because, of course, _there are no such gerrymandered districts._ 

In other words, the factor that more satisfactorily explains the lack of election wins is an _elite-rigged election system_ that neutralizes alternatives both outside and inside the major party structures. I've discussed this 'establishment regime' many times over the years, long before rank and file voters of both parties exploded in open opposition to the kingmaker insiders during this cycle. "The establishment" I speak of consists of the elite special interests (and media or party leadership vassals) who control both parties, and represent the MIC, banksters, AIPAC, Big Biz, etc. Their money and influence explains why nobody with principles, or even different loyalties, wins elections.

Until pro-liberty folks scuttle or counter that establishment racket, and stop dumping on each other, we'll keep getting beaten, both in third party runs, or in Republican primary races where the liberty candidate fails to win any primaries. For the same reason, it will continue be fair to point out that the elected candidates in the GOP aren't winning anything either, legislatively, to permanently reverse or repeal any aspect of the growth of the modern state, and haven't for 80+ years. If the LP can't win elections, "conservatives" in the GOP have been unable to win any legislative battle, to remove a single major program.

----------


## SpiritOf1776_J4

> Like vote?


It took time to have the American revolution, by men willing to take the next steps.

Some of the founder's protests, like tarring and feathering people, would cause a lot of the effeminate flops on Ron Paul forums to pass out in fear.
You can't even defend yourself according to their thinking.  Hell, you can't even TOUCH someone accidentally, maybe, according to them.  And I
do mean ron paul forums.  Michelle Fields is a former member of Ron Paul forums.

Donald Trump is good for America for A LOT of reasons.  

He might not be the next step, but he surely furthers it along.  And getting rid of pc correctness and ideas that ruin action is a good thing.

----------


## thoughtomator

> I think the only ones "pretending to want liberty" are the ones campaigning for Donald Trump on a Ron/Rand Paul forum, while _actively opposing_ real liberty candidates.


_What_ liberty candidates?

----------


## SpiritOf1776_J4

> I think the only ones "pretending to want liberty" are the ones campaigning for Donald Trump on a Ron/Rand Paul forum, while _actively opposing_ real liberty candidates.


And that is Gary Johnson?

I don't like Garry Johnson.  I would help Mcafee.  But I don't think voting is a solution - it's an education tool, but ultimately, the entire idea of a state is wrong and voting just a way to make it seem ok to an individual who doesn't think about it.

Johnson doesn't further the idea of liberty at all.  He campaigns on the idea of getting federal matching dollars for crying out loud.  A big step backwards that damns the souls of men who believe it.

----------


## torchbearer

> It's lack of official threads that is doing us in.



The LP should get an official thread. That has been their first mistake.

----------


## SpiritOf1776_J4

The Bostonians Paying the Excise-Man, 1774 British propaganda print that depicts the tarring and feathering of Boston Commissioner of Customs John Malcolm.



Don't support it.  Just pointing out the colonists viewed what was useable in defence of their liberty a lot differently then modern society.  They gained their liberty, we are losing ours.  It has to do with something right here - about what they were taught as to when it is appropriate to use force, and what pc think we are taught.

It's our culture that has been damned when the right to self defence is eliminated so completely - and that is a lot more then just guns and never talked about effectively.

----------


## SpiritOf1776_J4

> The LP should get an official thread. That has been their first mistake.


No argument there - or even a sub forum.  An 'official' one.

----------


## RJ Liberty

> And neither has the Constitution, Green, or other modern third parties (with the exception of Sanders, a Socialist) gotten people elected to senior office. Neither the LP nor the other alternatives are so uniformly incompetent as to fail electorally _across all campaigns, all states and regions, and across several decades straight._ Nor is the issue a nationwide lack of interest in liberty, given the verifiable excitement generated by Ron Paul's two runs. Where are the gerrymandered Libertarian districts, designed to favor LP candidates? If LP contenders couldn't win them, that would isolate the issue to candidate or party incompetence. The reason they don't win them is because, of course, _there are no such gerrymandered districts._ 
> 
> In other words, the factor that more satisfactorily explains the lack of election wins is an _elite-rigged election system_ that neutralizes alternatives both outside and inside the major party structures. I've discussed this 'establishment regime' many times over the years, long before rank and file voters of both parties exploded in open opposition to the kingmaker insiders during this cycle. "The establishment" I speak of consists of the elite special interests (and media or party leadership vassals) who control both parties, and represent the MIC, banksters, AIPAC, Big Biz, etc. Their money and influence explains why nobody with principles, or even different loyalties, wins elections.
> 
> Until pro-liberty folks scuttle or counter that establishment racket, and stop dumping on each other, we'll keep getting beaten, both in third party runs, or in Republican primary races where the liberty candidate fails to win any primaries. For the same reason, it will continue be fair to point out that the elected candidates in the GOP aren't winning anything either, legislatively, to permanently reverse or repeal any aspect of the growth of the modern state, and haven't for 80+ years. If the LP can't win elections, "conservatives" in the GOP have been unable to win any legislative battle, to remove a single major program.


Excellent points. I'd only add that third parties can't get traction for a whole lot of other reasons than just gerrymandering; economic factors, historical precedence, active sabotage, law suits, and even death threats have led to the rigged two-party system's history of wins. But everyone knows this; Thoughtomator is just playing dumb.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> It took time to have the American revolution, by men willing to take the next steps.
> 
> Some of the founder's protests, like tarring and feathering people, would cause a lot of the effeminate flops on Ron Paul forums to pass out in fear.
> You can't even defend yourself according to their thinking. Hell, you can't even TOUCH someone accidentally, maybe, according to them. And I
> do mean ron paul forums. Michelle Fields is a former member of Ron Paul forums.
> 
> Donald Trump is good for America for A LOT of reasons. 
> 
> He might not be the next step, but he surely furthers it along. And getting rid of pc correctness and ideas that ruin action is a good thing.


*"It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." - Mark Twain.*

----------


## Matt Collins

> No one believes the LP will _win_ this election. The goal should be 5%, which is achievable, given polls for Johnson at 11%, and the huge swaths of people who refuse to vote for either current frontrunner of both parties. At 5%, the LP would qualify for federal matching funding of up to $30,000,000.00, which would give the LP a major profile boost, and raise awareness of the party, as well as potentially help raise funds for local LP candidates.


Wait, you are saying that the LP should abandon principle and take taxpayer money?

----------


## Matt Collins

> In other words, the factor that more satisfactorily explains the lack of election wins is an _elite-rigged election system_ that neutralizes alternatives both outside and inside the major party structures.


Very true... as I have pointed out both internal and external factors make it impossible for the LP to be viable in any capacity.







> Until pro-liberty folks scuttle or counter that establishment racket, and stop dumping on each other, we'll keep getting beaten, both in third party runs, or in Republican primary races where the liberty candidate fails to win any primaries. For the same reason, it will continue be fair to point out that the elected candidates in the GOP aren't winning anything either, legislatively, to permanently reverse or repeal any aspect of the growth of the modern state, and haven't for 80+ years. If the LP can't win elections, "conservatives" in the GOP have been unable to win any legislative battle, to remove a single major program.


Incorrect... how many states now have Constitutional Carry?

----------


## SpiritOf1776_J4

> Wait, you are saying that the LP should abandon principle and take taxpayer money?


The sound of whore away is coming through the window like bombs away - loud and clear.

I'm outta there.

----------


## fisharmor

> LP demographics closely match Dungeons & Dragons player demographics, and with good reason - in both cases there is nothing more significant going on than make-believe roleplay.


Yeah, this makes perfect sense.
We already totally write off the black community, despite the fact that they've almost to a man been railroaded by the system their whole lives.
We already totally write off the tin-foil hat wearers, despite the fact that they're already on board with the idea that the system is evil.
We already totally write off the Bernie fans, despite the fact that they're already convinced the system is broken.

Let's alienate a bunch of nerds who have spent their lives escaping into a fantasy world for no other reason than that they've been shoved to society's margins.

You guys all made it perfectly clear that winning is more important than anything, starting in June 2012.  I'm still not sure where Matt got off coming here and stabbing Rand in the back when the thing Matt explicitly wanted him to do didn't work out.

Just do us all a favor already and go get behind Trump.  He's the clear winner here.  That's what's important - more important by far than building coalitions with people who might have a reservation or two with getting behind the objective winner.  There's obviously no way that pissing off potential allies of an alternate approach can go wrong.

----------


## Snowball

The Libertarian Party is useless and will fade away. 
When the Constitution Party and Green Party get on the ballot in all 50 states, 
they will grow, but LP will die, because LP stands for nothing at all.

----------


## thoughtomator

@Matt Collins

clear some space in your inbox please

----------


## SpiritOf1776_J4

> Just do us all a favor already and go get behind Trump.  He's the clear winner here.  That's what's important - more important by far than building coalitions with people who might have a reservation or two with getting behind the objective winner.  There's obviously no way that pissing off potential allies of an alternate approach can go wrong.


It's impossible to get behind Trump, he hasn't been nominated yet.

But it's obvious a bunch of us think that not hindering Trump attacking the establishing, supporting a LP candidate like McAfee some, and not voting - yet again - actually makes a lot more sense then

Attacking the right to defend yourself - or even ToUching someone else - horrors
Supporting a communist
Being against indirect taxes
Sucking up to federal matching funds - by a libertarian candidate - initating force from the outset.
Thinking Ayn Rand stuff is for capitalist pigs and billionaires, etc etc etc

Under the muster of attack Trump at any costs, I've seen endless amounts of non-libertarian ideas supported.
And thus, Trump is exposing the non-libertarian among us.

----------


## fisharmor

> Attacking the right to defend yourself - or even ToUching someone else - horrors
> Supporting a communist
> Being against indirect taxes
> Sucking up to federal matching funds - by a libertarian candidate - initating force from the outset.
> Thinking Ayn Rand stuff is for capitalist pigs and billionaires, etc etc etc
> 
> Under the muster of attack Trump at any costs, I've seen endless amounts of non-libertarian ideas supported.
> And thus, Trump is exposing the non-libertarian among us.


+rep for a multi-pronged attack.
I'm not arguing in favor of Johnson.  I think "Johnson" is the most appropriate name for that leftist retard.
But that's not what the thread is about.  The thread is about abandoning the idea of supporting the LP before support has even started.

The LP has more of a chance right now of being a haven for the remnants of the Revolution than anywhere else.  The Republican party takeover failed, and you can lay the blame for that right at the feet of everyone who thought Rand was going to sleeper-agent his way to the top and actively discouraged all the actual takeover efforts that were going on four years ago.

The LP can be taken over in an identical manner.  If that star is rising right now, it makes zero sense to ignore it.

----------


## thoughtomator

> Under the muster of attack Trump at any costs, I've seen endless amounts of non-libertarian ideas supported.
> And thus, Trump is exposing the non-libertarian among us.


Worth repeating. It has been revealed that many of the most frequent posters on RPF are not libertarians at all, but play-pretend anarchists who turn into full-on totalitarians where the rubber meets the road.

To see people here engaging with glee and enthusiasm in the same dirty tactics that were used against Ron Paul in 2012 has been eye-opening.

If you want to advance the cause of liberty, you'll have to do it elsewhere, because they are going to make damn sure anything you propose or attempt to do through this site is buried in fallacies, naysaying, negativity, utopian nonsense, and propaganda.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Worth repeating. It has been revealed that many of the most frequent posters on RPF are not libertarians at all, but play-pretend anarchists who turn into full-on totalitarians where the rubber meets the road.
> 
> To see people here engaging with glee and enthusiasm in the same dirty tactics that were used against Ron Paul in 2012 has been eye-opening.
> 
> If you want to advance the cause of liberty, you'll have to do it elsewhere, because they are going to make damn sure anything you propose or attempt to do through this site is buried in fallacies, naysaying, negativity, utopian nonsense, and propaganda.


*Q:* What is the difference between a libertarian and an anarchist?

*A:* Twenty years. 




> *Statement of Purpose:* Voluntaryists are advocates of non-political, non-violent strategies to achieve a free society. We reject electoral politics, in theory and in practice, as *incompatible with libertarian principles*. Governments must cloak their actions in an aura of moral legitimacy in order to sustain their power, and political methods invariably strengthen that legitimacy. Voluntaryists seek instead to delegitimize the State through education, and we advocate withdrawal of the cooperation and tacit consent on which State power ultimately depends.


http://voluntaryist.com/

----------


## thoughtomator

> *Q:* What is the difference between a libertarian and an anarchist?
> 
> *A:* Twenty years.


Agreed. Anarchism seems good when you're 12 years old, but when you grow up and understand human nature, you come to understand what a horrible idea it is.

----------


## SpiritOf1776_J4

> +rep for a multi-pronged attack.
> I'm not arguing in favor of Johnson.  I think "Johnson" is the most appropriate name for that leftist retard.
> But that's not what the thread is about.  The thread is about abandoning the idea of supporting the LP before support has even started.
> 
> The LP has more of a chance right now of being a haven for the remnants of the Revolution than anywhere else.  The Republican party takeover failed, and you can lay the blame for that right at the feet of everyone who thought Rand was going to sleeper-agent his way to the top and actively discouraged all the actual takeover efforts that were going on four years ago.
> 
> The LP can be taken over in an identical manner.  If that star is rising right now, it makes zero sense to ignore it.


Ok, I agree with that.  By all means start official LP threads.  create an LP subforum.  In fact, I think we may have not supported a LP strategy under the guise of taking over the GOP with Ron Paul, and that even made sense with Rand Paul in the race, but when we don't have a dog in the race - a lot of us are, or have been LP members.

By all means let's support the LP insofar as we can - although I am not supporting Johnson personally, I don't mind supporting the LP generally.  taking - or seeping - into a major party is a good idea still (we had some success) - but right now we're doing nothing but bickering among ourselves (or becoming a recruiting ground for a communist).  We can always go back to working on the gop next election - can do both.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Agreed. Anarchism seems good when you're 12 years old, but when you grow up and understand human nature, you come to understand what a horrible idea it is.


*Jesus Is an Anarchist (pdf)*

----------


## thoughtomator

> *Jesus Is an Anarchist (pdf)*


Whee a call to authority based on a religious doctrine I don't follow... I'm so convinced I can't stand it!

----------


## Peace&Freedom

> Incorrect... how many states now have Constitutional Carry?


Emphasis on *states*, as in people-centered movements and initiatives got the carry provisions passed. The local GOP went along, because gun rights are about the only issue they can't finesse. And note Constitutional carry didn't repeal a major government program, which was the point being discussed. 

The special interest bought-and-paid-for pols at the national level have not done any repealing, with the sole exception of occasionally denying renewals. The assault-weapons ban, and Section 215 of the Patriot act went away *only* because they had a sunset provision. GOP pols would have never gotten around to directly repealing either if they had to formally do so.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Whee a call to authority based on a religious doctrine I don't follow... I'm so convinced I can't stand it!


Keep on pushing your phony made up BS, then just check back here again, in about 20 years. 

No authority call just information for those who might give a crap and can also read.

----------


## SpiritOf1776_J4

"If just one-tenth of the population strongly believed that government was itself the greatest moral evil and that there was a better alternative it would be enough to turn the tide."

I don't think you can fully understand Revelation without understanding state government is evil.

Make no mistake a great deal of it is about the lamb of God on mount sion - but part of the kingdom of the anti-christ that is at war with Him is state government.  And the concept of government is supported by false religious ideas, whether explicitly, like the holy roman empire was, or implicitly.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Agreed. Anarchism seems good when you're 12 years old, but when you grow up and understand human nature, you come to understand what a horrible idea it is.


- Rep!

----------


## Warlord

the LP is purely an educational vessel

----------


## SpiritOf1776_J4

This is what I've been saying when we are bickering among ourselves, are not espousing libertarian principles (for the record, I've been an anarcho capitalist supporter and Christian since I was a teen ager, but probably only recently reconciled them fully or perhaps deeply is the word), and that a critical juncture is coming up and we needed to prepare:




> You may wonder where I got the one-tenth figure from in the above if all governments
> require the acceptance of their rule by the majority of their population. Again,
> the reason is because this acceptance doesn’t have to be active support but merely
> resigned, as it usually is. *If just one-tenth of the population strongly believed that
> government was itself the greatest moral evil and that there was a better alternative
> it would be enough to turn the tide*. Since most people are followers and uncritically
> accept the reigning political opinions, those who do not accept the status quo and
> who are able to form and articulate a critical alternative will come to be the intellectual
> leaders by default when the popular regime suffers a crisis and people begin to
> ...


The critical junction is fast appearing.  The *only* way we are going to have a voice is unite so people can find us.  I suggest the LP - which at least gives us a vehicle to educate.

(well, Christian since seven.  But both as a teen).

----------


## SpiritOf1776_J4

> the LP is purely an educational vessel


But in this election - because it is a crisis in both parties (and many other things), education has more power.

Read Jesus is an Anarchist with me.  It seems pretty good so far!

----------


## Foreigner

A "first past the poll" (winner takes everything) system will over time create a two party system.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> how can they expect to win the Presidency?


They don't.

The goal is to raise the party and ideology's profile with an historic performance (which would be anything over 1%).

For hardcore LP supporters, this is intended to improve the odds of LP candidates winning elections in the future. 

For libertarian GOPers such as myself, the purpose is rather to increase the odds of libertarians winning GOP primaries.

----------


## brushfire

> The LP cannot get someone elected to the US Senate, The US House, Governor, or any state Senate in the country. And according to their page they only have 1 elected official in any state legislature, and that is in Nevada.
> 
> So someone please tell me how a party is going to get someone elected President when they can't even get more than 1 person elected to a lower chamber in the entire country?



Seems to me that more people need to vote libertarian.   I'll be voting for a libertarian candidate whenever possible.  There are some local elections though, where I must often take a republican primary ballot.  At least until we have some more libertarian candidates.

The way I see it though, at the very least, any protest vote should absolutely go towards a libertarian party candidate.   I'm going to try a different strategy.   I realize you have a lot of personal social/political capital invested in the republican party, but  you may want to try the libertarian party some time.

Republicans - they did this to themselves.

----------


## angelatc

> Problem there is that the LP _has_ met thresholds for major party status in quite a number of states over the years and has done _nothing_ with it.
> 
> I trust the irony of relying on federal funding to make the LP a major player nationwide is not completely lost on you.


But the problem isn't that they aren't providing a viable candidate for the office - they clearly are.  The problem as I see it is that they are not winning any significant number of offices at the lower levels.

----------


## euphemia

In my personal opinion, the party leaders are not interested in the good of the citizens, country, states, counties, or cities.  They are only in politics for their own good, and this is why they keep doing things that create a concentrate wealth and power at the top.  It is going to take a lot of us shifting away from major parties and toward something else.  We need to shift in the same direction and agree on where we're going to make this work.

----------


## Chieppa1

Trolllllllll

----------


## fisharmor

> But in this election - because it is a crisis in both parties (and many other things), education has more power.


"When an opponent declares, 'I will not come over to your side,' I calmly say, 'Your child belongs to us already... What are you? You will pass on. Your descendants, however, now stand in the new camp. In a short time they will know nothing else but this new community.'"

Even Hitler understood this.  This is what we're dealing with: tyrants always know that the security of their power rests on education.
So few people on this site understand that the counter to this situation is... education.  This despite the fact that it's basically all Ron Paul did when he had the nation's attention.
You can't break their monopoly on power until you break their monopoly on education.  And in order to do that, you have to.... you know.... TRY.
You can't just pick a candidate who kinda believes the right things and expect that when he gets into a position of power over 300 million people, he's just going to ignore a combined 300 million lifetimes of state-blessed conditioning overnight.
That's asinine.

----------


## SpiritOf1776_J4

> "“When an opponent declares, 'I will not come over to your side,' I calmly say, 'Your child belongs to us already... What are you? You will pass on. Your descendants, however, now stand in the new camp. In a short time they will know nothing else but this new community.'"
> 
> Even Hitler understood this.  This is what we're dealing with: tyrants always know that the security of their power rests on education.
> So few people on this site understand that the counter to this situation is... education.  This despite the fact that it's basically all Ron Paul did when he had the nation's attention.
> You can't break their monopoly on power until you break their monopoly on education.  And in order to do that, you have to.... you know.... TRY.
> You can't just pick a candidate who kinda believes the right things and expect that when he gets into a position of power over 300 million people, he's just going to ignore a combined 300 million lifetimes of state-blessed conditioning overnight.
> That's asinine.


I've never seen a more hardcore drive to non-libertarian ideas here and elsewhere.  We have people that have been with us since 7 years and more, and yet don't recognize basic quotes or ideas they've heard the whole time.  They aren't only weakening us, they're taking up our time we could be explaining it to others - they already heard it in 2007 and REJECTED it.

----------


## Anti-Neocon

> But the problem isn't that they aren't providing a viable candidate for the office - they clearly are.  The problem as I see it is that they are not winning any significant number of offices at the lower levels.


The problem is that people don't even consider them as an option.  If the media wanted to present the LP as an option, they would be viable for the highest office.  But they aren't even brought into the discussion.

----------


## undergroundrr

A lot of people got mad at Paul in 2007-8 and to a lesser extent in 2011-12 for running an "education campaign."  Well I'm going to come out and say I'm a big fan of the education campaign.  If the candidate is principled, energetic and appealing, an education campaign merits MORE of your money and canvassing than an "in it to win it" campaign.  And as Dr. Paul said in at least one interview, "There's probably a risk I could win."

We all as a movement have to stay focused, not get distracted (that's you trumpies), keep plugging, getting city councilmen, mayors, congressmen, governors and senators elected, creating a farm team for the white house race and taking the opportunities as they come to persistently bring the message.

The truth is, NO ONE knows when the right time will be for any given candidate liberty minded or otherwise to go all the way.  Our man or woman maybe running as a Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Constitution or other party.  This year's as good as any so far for the LP.  An election after four years of Hillary maybe even more ideal.  Keep your ears open, stay engaged and be ready.

I believe even Ron Paul was surprised how close he came to winning Iowa. trump, even though he's not our guy should underline the point - No one, least of all he knew he would make it this far.

----------


## Matt Collins

> "When an opponent declares, 'I will not come over to your side,' I calmly say, 'Your child belongs to us already... What are you? You will pass on. Your descendants, however, now stand in the new camp. In a short time they will know nothing else but this new community.'"
> 
> Even Hitler understood this.  This is what we're dealing with: tyrants always know that the security of their power rests on education.
> So few people on this site understand that the counter to this situation is... education.  This despite the fact that it's basically all Ron Paul did when he had the nation's attention.
> You can't break their monopoly on power until you break their monopoly on education.  And in order to do that, you have to.... you know.... TRY.
> You can't just pick a candidate who kinda believes the right things and expect that when he gets into a position of power over 300 million people, he's just going to ignore a combined 300 million lifetimes of state-blessed conditioning overnight.
> That's asinine.


"Education" of the voters is not necessary to acquire power. Maintaining it over the long term, yes maybe.  But you can only change government education once you acquire power.

----------


## Matt Collins

> Emphasis on *states*, as in people-centered movements and initiatives got the carry provisions passed. The local GOP went along, because gun rights are about the only issue they can't finesse. And note Constitutional carry didn't repeal a major government program, which was the point being discussed. 
> 
> The special interest bought-and-paid-for pols at the national level have not done any repealing, with the sole exception of occasionally denying renewals. The assault-weapons ban, and Section 215 of the Patriot act went away *only* because they had a sunset provision. GOP pols would have never gotten around to directly repealing either if they had to formally do so.


Yes, the  federal level is practically a lost cause. We can fight defensively there, but the offensive fights are on the state and local level.

----------


## Matt Collins

> @Matt Collins
> 
> clear some space in your inbox please


Hit me up on Facebook.

----------


## Matt Collins

> Yeah, this makes perfect sense.
> We already totally write off the black community, despite the fact that they've almost to a man been railroaded by the system their whole lives.
> We already totally write off the tin-foil hat wearers, despite the fact that they're already on board with the idea that the system is evil.
> We already totally write off the Bernie fans, despite the fact that they're already convinced the system is broken.
> 
> Let's alienate a bunch of nerds who have spent their lives escaping into a fantasy world for no other reason than that they've been shoved to society's margins.
> 
> You guys all made it perfectly clear that winning is more important than anything, starting in June 2012.  I'm still not sure where Matt got off coming here and stabbing Rand in the back when the thing Matt explicitly wanted him to do didn't work out.
> 
> Just do us all a favor already and go get behind Trump.  He's the clear winner here.  That's what's important - more important by far than building coalitions with people who might have a reservation or two with getting behind the objective winner.  There's obviously no way that pissing off potential allies of an alternate approach can go wrong.


I haven't stabbed anyone in the back.

And yes winning is the most important thing. You can't change anything unless you win.

----------


## Matt Collins

> They don't.
> 
> The goal is to raise the party and ideology's profile with an historic performance (which would be anything over 1%).
> 
> For hardcore LP supporters, this is intended to improve the odds of LP candidates winning elections in the future. 
> 
> For libertarian GOPers such as myself, the purpose is rather to increase the odds of libertarians winning GOP primaries.


That is a losing strategy.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> I've never seen a more hardcore drive to non-libertarian ideas here and elsewhere. We have people that have been with us since 7 years and more, and yet don't recognize basic quotes or ideas they've heard the whole time. They aren't only weakening us, they're taking up our time we could be explaining it to others - they already heard it in 2007 and REJECTED it.


This is NOT a libertarian site. It's statist GOP hardcore conservative, if anything by both intention and design.

----------


## Matt Collins

> A lot of people got mad at Paul in 2007-8 and to a lesser extent in 2011-12 for running an "education campaign."  Well I'm going to come out and say I'm a big fan of the education campaign.  If the candidate is principled, energetic and appealing, an education campaign merits MORE of your money and canvassing than an "in it to win it" campaign.  And as Dr. Paul said in at least one interview, "There's probably a risk I could win."


Ron was so much more successful in 2012 than in 2008 because he was running a campaign to win, not to educate.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> That is a losing strategy.


It's unlikely but not impossible that it would result in meaningful gains (in terms of press which would benefit libertarian GOPers).

But it also has no meaningful opportunity cost. 

What does it cost us to talk up the LP for the next couple months and then pull the lever for them?

----------


## Peace&Freedom

> But the problem isn't that they aren't providing a viable candidate for the office - they clearly are.  The problem as I see it is that they are not winning any significant number of offices at the lower levels.


The third parties are good at finding principled candidates, the major parties are good at gerrymandering districts to ensure that structure guarantees their election. What's needed is a bridge mechanism, to enable a minor party guy to win a major party race. Post the Paul Revolution and Tea Party trends, there is an additional way for the LP and CP to provide viable candidates who can get elected. The party should keep running candidates, both to conduct educational campaigns and to provide a choice on the ballot that is clearly pro-liberty. But what this does is vet a number of people per each state who can be viewed as "the real deal" as far as liberty issues are concerned, and thus turned to when a more likely election scenario comes up. 

That is usually an open seat situation (when the incumbent has retired, or a special election) where our candidate can win the election, or the nomination of the *dominant party of a particular district* (be it Democrat or Republican). There is less of an incumbent party machine to combat in those situations, or a machine that is vulnerable enough to be successfully primaried if local TP forces are riled up enough. (One real world example of this is how Michael Bentivolio got elected to Congress in Michigan---the GOP incumbent retired, and only Paul activist Bentivolio was on the GOP primary ballot when the deadline passed.) This means running a liberty candidate in the GOP primary of an open seat in a GOP-leaning district, or running a liberty candidate in the Democratic primary of an open seat in a Democratic-leaning district. 

Since there is not a dime's worth of difference between the Democrats or the Republicans (at the leadership level), it is viable to run vetted LP/CP candidates when these openings occur. This would make the LP an important 'batter's box' or proving ground, to verify a person's seriousness as a liberty advocate, while not interfering with the third party's ability to run people on their own line. This strategy would also shift the movement from centered around either a major party or minor party, but around a grassroots drawing from the strengths of both (use the minor parties to track and pre-vet liberty candidates, then run them on a major line once an open seat scenario occurs).

----------


## Matt Collins

> What does it cost us to talk up the LP for the next couple months and then pull the lever for them?


Because it makes it impossible to work within the GOP in the future.

----------


## 69360

> How would you call what the Republican party is doing then ?


Suicide as well. Trump will be the death of the GOP.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Because it makes it impossible to work within the GOP in the future.


We're talking about different things.

I'm talking about ordinary people such as mostly populate this forum supporting the LP for the remainder of this cycle.  

I'm NOT talking about high-profile people, politicians or activists, doing this.

If Rand gets on TV and starts promoting the LP, he's pretty much done in the GOP = epic fail. 

If I propagandize for the LP online, and write LP on my secret ballot on November, no harm done.

----------


## euphemia

> Because it makes it impossible to work within the GOP in the future.


This election cycle has shown me I really don't want to work with them any more.  The RNC is not interested in what is good for our country, our states, our cities, or us.  It is only interested in concentrating power and money at the top. Either we take them over, outright, or we branch off together.  Of all people, you should know that if the Republican party can't beat you fair and square, it will exclude you.

----------


## SpiritOf1776_J4

> A lot of people got mad at Paul in 2007-8 and to a lesser extent in 2011-12 for running an "education campaign."  Well I'm going to come out and say I'm a big fan of the education campaign.  If the candidate is principled, energetic and appealing, an education campaign merits MORE of your money and canvassing than an "in it to win it" campaign.  And as Dr. Paul said in at least one interview, "There's probably a risk I could win."
> 
> We all as a movement have to stay focused, not get distracted (that's you trumpies), keep plugging, getting city councilmen, mayors, congressmen, governors and senators elected, creating a farm team for the white house race and taking the opportunities as they come to persistently bring the message.
> 
> The truth is, NO ONE knows when the right time will be for any given candidate liberty minded or otherwise to go all the way.  Our man or woman maybe running as a Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Constitution or other party.  This year's as good as any so far for the LP.  An election after four years of Hillary maybe even more ideal.  Keep your ears open, stay engaged and be ready.
> 
> I believe even Ron Paul was surprised how close he came to winning Iowa. trump, even though he's not our guy should underline the point - No one, least of all he knew he would make it this far.


Yep, that is why I came on here, to hear libertarian ideas after the ridiculous primary and to vote for rand paul - anyway.

So instead I'm accused of being a Trump supporter by a few for saying things like:
Don't hate Trump for being against the UN!
There is nothing wrong with earning a billion dollars through business without government help.
You know, you're allowed to defend yourself, and traditionally, fighting words are part of it.
Trump's not so off in his statement that there isn't enough gold, that's why in history silver was popular too.
Don't attack him for being selfish and egoism - that actually can be good as Ayn Rand pointed out
Tariffs are actually better that direct taxes, and were even used more in history - just read some books by Irwin Schiff (not that no tax is preferably / and no government by force).

etc etc.

The board is currently being managed into an anti-trump board by a few people who are doing their best to tie us up from educating outsiders about libertarian ideas.  It would be no better as a pro-this or that candidate board either.

For *this* election, I can see no better alternative then to go hardcore libertarian (small l), with support for the Libertarian party - since it is an education vehicle - with no requirement for anyone to personally support any candidate they don't choose.  If we don't do that, our liberty loving voices will get more and more silent and confused.  

We don't have a Candidate, but we do have a Voice!

----------


## undergroundrr

> Because it makes it impossible to work within the GOP in the future.


A true liberty candidate is going to have the label "libertarian" plastered all over him by the time he gets to a major GOP election.  For him to win, a significant portion of the GOP is going to have to be comfortable with that label.  And once they are, who cares if he was associated with the LP?  Anyhow, there's already been so much interchange between them with people like Ron Paul, Bob Barr and Gary Johnson that the Republican and Libertarian parties are already be considered cousins by many.  The LP is not necessarily considered anathema by Republicans.  And I guarantee you a record number of them are looking into the LP now due to the trump situation.  In a way, trump is running an unintended education campaign for the LP.

----------


## SpiritOf1776_J4

Here's some broad groups these non-libertarian voices are getting rid off - coalitions that have taken *years* to form.

1. Don't hate Trump for being against the UN!
anti-nwo, anti-globalists, including certain conservative christians and birchers. 
2.
There is nothing wrong with earning a billion dollars through business without government help.
free market businessmen, real capitalists.
3.
You know, you're allowed to defend yourself, and traditionally, fighting words are part of it.
common law proponents (read traditionally as traditional law), survivalists
4.
Trump's not so off in his statement not enough gold, that's why in history silver was popular too.
Constitutionalists, sound money people, anti-fed activists
5.
Don't attack him for being selfish and egoism - that actually can be good as Ayn Rand pointed out.
objectivists
6.
Tariffs are actually better then direct taxes, and were even used more in history - just read some books by Irwin Schiff (not that no tax isn't preferably with no government by force).
tax protesters.

This list goes on.

We only have one method to get rid of this crud discussion stifling our voice that unifies all that.  rally around the libertarian flag - small l, and support the Libertarian party a little more then we are - since we don't have a dog in the race.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Suicide as well. Trump will be the death of the GOP.


The GOP has been around for more than 150 years.   Trump won't kill it.

----------


## Peace&Freedom

> This election cycle has shown me I really don't want to work with them any more.  The RNC is not interested in what is good for our country, our states, our cities, or us.  It is only interested in concentrating power and money at the top. Either we take them over, outright, or we branch off together.  Of all people, you should know that if the Republican party can't beat you fair and square, it will exclude you.


I agree. Parties exist to loyally serve the people, not for people to be loyal to the parties. Based on the Republican leadership's behavior this year, and against Paul supporters in 2012, they have done nothing to warrant loyalty in the first place (GOP = epic fail). The major parties should be thought of only as a necessary _vehicle_ for obtaining office (due to the gerrymandered districting system), not as a political home. The minor parties should be thought of as a _vehicle_ for discovering and running principled, uncompromised candidates, not as a home. Our home should be the grassroots movement, independent of party limitations.

----------


## SpiritOf1776_J4

> This election cycle has shown me I really don't want to work with them any more.  The RNC is not interested in what is good for our country, our states, our cities, or us.  It is only interested in concentrating power and money at the top. Either we take them over, outright, or we branch off together.  Of all people, you should know that if the Republican party can't beat you fair and square, it will exclude you.


Yes, and insanely, the only candidate that tearing that apart is Trump - but we're against him for that   Likewise, the only chance we ever had for a brokered convention where we could get our candidate in after 2-3 rounds was THIS election, and Rand drops out after ONE primary

----------


## SpiritOf1776_J4

> I agree. Parties exist to loyally serve the people, not for people to be loyal to the parties. Based on the Republican leadership's behavior this year, and against Paul supporters in 2012, they have done nothing to warrant loyalty in the first place (GOP = epic fail). The major parties should be thought of only as a necessary _vehicle_ for obtaining office (due to the gerrymandered districting system), not as a political home. The minor parties should be thought of as a _vehicle_ for discovering and running principled, uncompromised candidates, not as a home. Our home should be the grassroots movement, independent of party limitations.


Well spoken.

----------


## SpiritOf1776_J4

by the way, Rand can still unsuspend his campaign - but he only has a couple of delegates going into the convention!

----------


## euphemia

The Tennessee GOP is doing what it can to make sure Cruz and malleable Rubio delegates are maximzied.

One of the reasons the 2008/2012 takeovers did not work in Nashville is the local party leaders disqualified some delegates because they were students. It gave the establishment a numerical advantage. This is why the liberty movement needs to work to expand its demographic upward.  People who are 40+ are more established with a permanent address and an verifiable voting record.  True the movement has aged a bit, but it is still largely a youth movement.  This is one of the reasons Rand was not successful.  By depending on the college student vote, he was appealing to a base more vulnerable to party nonsense.

----------


## SpiritOf1776_J4

> Because it makes it impossible to work within the GOP in the future.


From the gop whose establishment is threatening to start a third party if they don't get their way?

----------


## euphemia

They still control who gets on the ballot and how they are listed.  <---This is something that should change, pronto.

----------


## Natural Citizen

At this point, the only thing people should be concerning themselves with is changing the course of history. Average people still have the power to accomplish that feat. Spread ideas. Stop worrying about getting elected. For the moment, it's rigged. Function within your means. And be nice. If you go looking for an argument, you'll surely find one.

Take a guy like Trump for example. The only way you'll ever derail him is by spreading ideas. Attacking him or his people just fuels them more. And you're playing in their court when you do. Stop doing that.

----------


## RJ Liberty

> Wait, you are saying that the LP should abandon principle and take taxpayer money?


That ship sailed _years_ ago, Matt. Where were you in 2012 when Johnson announced this plan, repeatedly?

----------


## Matt Collins

> The major parties should be thought of only as a necessary _vehicle_ for obtaining office (due to the gerrymandered districting system), not as a political home. The minor parties should be thought of as a _vehicle_ for discovering and running principled, uncompromised candidates, not as a home. Our home should be the grassroots movement, independent of party limitations.


Very true!

----------


## Matt Collins

> We're talking about different things.
> 
> I'm talking about ordinary people such as mostly populate this forum supporting the LP for the remainder of this cycle.  
> 
> I'm NOT talking about high-profile people, politicians or activists, doing this.
> 
> If Rand gets on TV and starts promoting the LP, he's pretty much done in the GOP = epic fail. 
> 
> If I propagandize for the LP online, and write LP on my secret ballot on November, no harm done.


I completely agree

----------


## Matt Collins

> This election cycle has shown me I really don't want to work with them any more.  The RNC is not interested in what is good for our country, our states, our cities, or us.  It is only interested in concentrating power and money at the top. Either we take them over, outright, or we branch off together.  Of all people, you should know that if the Republican party can't beat you fair and square, it will exclude you.


No party is interested in what is good for the people, including the LP.

We don't need to take over the GOP, but having a strong libertarian wing in a strategic position would be optimal because they won't be able to win without us.

----------


## Matt Collins

> A true liberty candidate is going to have the label "libertarian" plastered all over him by the time he gets to a major GOP election.  For him to win, a significant portion of the GOP is going to have to be comfortable with that label.  And once they are, who cares if he was associated with the LP?  Anyhow, there's already been so much interchange between them with people like Ron Paul, Bob Barr and Gary Johnson that the Republican and Libertarian parties are already be considered cousins by many.  The LP is not necessarily considered anathema by Republicans.


You have obviously never been to a local Republican Party meeting outside of NV or NH.

----------


## twomp

> @Matt Collins
> 
> clear some space in your inbox please


This image comes to mind when I think about you two having a conversation.

----------


## SpiritOf1776_J4

> That ship sailed _years_ ago, Matt. Where were you in 2012 when Johnson announced this plan, repeatedly?


Which is one of several reasons I didn't support him then, and highly recommend not supporting him now.

Articulating a clear statement of libertarian values is far more important than anything else at the moment.  Without that, the movement dies.  And in 2008, while we had Ron Paul - true, they had bob barr

----------


## surf

> No party is interested in what is good for the people, including the LP.


bull$#@!. lp is all about freedom and you, as a Ron Paul supporter, should know that.

i'm going to feel good about my vote. will you?

----------


## Ronin Truth

> No party is interested in what is good for the people, including the LP.
> 
> We don't need to take over the GOP, but having a strong libertarian wing in a strategic position would be optimal because they won't be able to win without us.


You appear to finally be coming along nicely now, at last, Matt.

----------


## acptulsa

> You appear to finally be coming along nicely now, at last, Matt.


If you say so.

The Republican Party couldn't win any elections, either.  Then the Whig Party self-destructed, and suddenly the GOP could win.

And those who, like Matt, stuck to the Whigs like glue got left out in the cold...

----------


## Ronin Truth

> If you say so.
> 
> The Republican Party couldn't win any elections, either. Then the Whig Party self-destructed, and suddenly the GOP could win.
> 
> And those who, like Matt, stuck to the Whigs like glue got left out in the cold...



I just thought I'd detected a chink or reasonable crack in his usual statist armor.

----------


## Contumacious

> The LP cannot get someone elected to the US Senate, The US House, Governor, or any state Senate in the country. And according to their page they only have 1 elected official in any state legislature, and that is in Nevada.
> 
> So someone please tell me how a party is going to get someone elected President when they can't even get more than 1 person elected to a lower chamber in the entire country?


The LP is not going to compromise principles in order to be electable , you already have the demopublicans.

We are not going to support the gargantuan bankrupt welfare/warfare police state as a matter of expediency.

.

----------


## euphemia

> We don't need to take over the GOP, but having a strong libertarian wing in a strategic position would be optimal because they won't be able to win without us.


Except they do everything they can to exclude libertarians.  You know that as well as anyone else.  I am not willing to compromise my principles and lie to get access to a process that is corrupt top to bottom.  Libertarians are rather a self-serving lot.  Everyone is interested in their own rights, but won't do squat to defend someone else's.

----------


## Matt Collins

> The LP is not going to compromise principles in order to be electable , you already have the demopublicans.
> 
> .


Compromising of principles is not required to be a libertarian-Republican, at least not to any great extent. Even Ron had to compromise in some places though, keep in mind.

----------


## euphemia

That's not the point.  The point is that the establishment ruling class are so entrenched they don't even try to hide their corruption any more.  Unless this demographic gets a lot older, and a lot richer, liberty voters will not stand a chance.

----------


## SpiritOf1776_J4

> Compromising of principles is not required to be a libertarian-Republican, at least not to any great extent. Even Ron had to compromise in some places though, keep in mind.

----------


## RJ Liberty

> Which is one of several reasons I didn't support him then, and highly recommend not supporting him now.


Gary Johnson is the LP's best choice: he's got name recognition and he's polling extremely well for a third party candidate. None of the other LP candidates can say that. I don't believe the LP is going to ditch a popular candidate who attracted more votes than any other LP candidate (Johnson) for a candidate of unknown popularity and untested leadership within the party.

As for the decision to accept federal funding, if the LP wants to play with the big boys, they're going to need to accept funding... unless they can find a sponsor willing to chip in $30,000,000.




> Articulating a clear statement of libertarian values is far more important than anything else at the moment.  Without that, the movement dies.


No. The LP has "articulated their statement of values" before. That didn't win them votes. What the LP needs is _funding_.

----------


## acptulsa

> No. The LP has "articulated their statement of values" before. That didn't win them votes. What the LP needs is _funding_.


Before was before.  Before the nation was far less sick of the MSM, far less sick of Democratic superdelegates, far less sick of Fox, far less sick of the lowest common denominator of the Republican Party nominating a buffoon, far less sick of this eight year Great Depression, far less sick of this bipartisan screwing.

Yes, funding.  Yes.  But also talk.  Anything for name recognition.  _Anything_ for name recognition.  I mean anything.  I'm not even saying anything but a blimp.  *ANYTHING.*

----------


## RJ Liberty

> Before was before.  Before the nation was far less sick of the MSM, far less sick of Democratic superdelegates, far less sick of Fox, far less sick of the lowest common denominator of the Republican Party nominating a buffoon, far less sick of this eight year Great Depression, far less sick of this bipartisan screwing.
> 
> Yes, funding.  Yes.  But also talk.  Anything for name recognition.  _Anything_ for name recognition.  I mean anything.  I'm not even saying anything but a blimp.  *ANYTHING.*


Welcome back, Tulsa!

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> The Republican Party couldn't win any elections, either.  Then the Whig Party self-destructed, and suddenly the GOP could win.


Whence came the bosses of the GOP in 1854?



A "party" is an ephemeral thing, sometimes. 

The _very_ serious interests behind it are much more durable. 

...which is all that democratic politics is; who wins the bid on the Senator?

On an unrelated note, welcome back.

----------


## SpiritOf1776_J4

> Gary Johnson is the LP's best choice:


Since what is important is to deliver a pure libertarian vision at this time, Johnson is the WORSE choice.  The man right from the outset talks about how voting for him will get the Libertarian party matching federal funds - initiating force against others for money.  And it goes downhill from there.

Johnson won't win, not even close - and that isn't suppose to be the point.  Voting for your principles so people can see your principles aren't anything, is not only a step  in the wrong direction - it's sabotage.

Not only should Johnson get out of the way for someone who will consistently voice libertarian principles, but this may be the end of the Libertarian party AS a libertarian party.

You can't go three elections compromising your basic principles and claim to stand for them.





> Articulating a clear statement of libertarian values is far more important than anything else at the moment. Without that, the movement dies.





> No. The LP has "articulated their statement of values" before. That didn't win them votes. What the LP needs is funding.


You really don't understand what is going on.

----------


## SpiritOf1776_J4

> Before was before.  Before the nation was far less sick of the MSM, far less sick of Democratic superdelegates, far less sick of Fox, far less sick of the lowest common denominator of the Republican Party nominating a buffoon, far less sick of this eight year Great Depression, far less sick of this bipartisan screwing.
> 
> Yes, funding.  Yes.  But also talk.  Anything for name recognition.  _Anything_ for name recognition.  I mean anything.  I'm not even saying anything but a blimp.  *ANYTHING.*


Did someone mention blimp

----------


## acptulsa

> Whence came the bosses of the GOP in 1854?


Yes, but not all of them.  Probably mostly the good ones.  In any case it was a purge, and a good one.




> Since what is important is to deliver a pure libertarian vision at this time, Johnson is the WORSE choice.  The man right from the outset talks about how voting for him will get the Libertarian party matching federal funds - initiating force against others for money.  And it goes downhill from there.


Try to split off the purists from the initiative.  Check.




> Johnson won't win, not even close - and that isn't suppose to be the point.  Voting for your principles so people can see your principles aren't anything, is not only a step  in the wrong direction - it's sabotage.


Holler 'Go ahead, throw your vote away' in your best Kodos voice, and try to get people all wrapped up in choosing the lesser evil.  Try to convince them voting for the winner is better than voting your principles and hoping everyone else is also so sick of it they join you.  Check.




> Not only should Johnson get out of the way for someone who will consistently voice them, but this may a be the end of the Libertarian party AS a libertarian party.
> 
> You can't go three elections compromising your basic principles and claim to stand for them.


Pretend one of the most mainstream LP candidates, and one of the best in crossover appeal, and one of the most successful in state politics, is so terrible he will destroy the party faster than Trump is doing, and even though seconds ago the claim was made that no victory is possible, pretend like you think this is about something other than proving that the LP can break certain barriers, and build momentum going into 2020.  Check.

Okay.  You earned your check.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Yes, but not all of them.  Probably mostly the good ones.  In any case it was a purge, and a good one.


Whig platform = GOP platform (19th century version, i.e. the "American System")

....nothing really changed, except internal party politics, i.e. they found a new way of pursuing their constant goal.

....being federal domination of the states for the purpose of benefiting certain elites in the North, more or less.

----------


## SpiritOf1776_J4

> Pretend one of the most mainstream LP candidates, and one of the best in crossover appeal, and one of the most successful in state politics, is so terrible he will destroy the party faster than Trump is doing, and even though seconds ago the claim was made that no victory is possible, pretend like you think this is about something other than proving that the LP can break certain barriers, and build momentum going into 2020.  Check.
> 
> Okay.  You earned your check.


Same thing as usual - ignorance.

I'm absolutely consistent on all my threads.  The point of virtually every message I write is espousing libertarian ideas - I smuggle them in every news story.  With you it's force, who can get elected with the greatest mob, if you can pressure someone to shut up through online bullying.

It's easy reading through the lp thread who everyone thought was the best speaker for ACTUAL libertarian values.  It sure wasn't Johnson, but then, we already knew that from 2012 

Being a libertarian is a message, not an office.  If everyone truly believed in it, we wouldn't be running for office - because there wouldn't be a state government initiating force.  So - NO the point isn't getting into office, nor is there any chance in the election that will happen.

----------


## acptulsa

> Same thing as usual - ignorance.
> 
> I'm absolutely consistent on all my threads.  The point of virtually every message I write is espousing libertarian ideas - I smuggle them in every news story.  With you it's force, who can get elected with the greatest mob, if you can pressure someone to shut up through online bullying.
> 
> It's easy reading through the lp thread who everyone thought was the best speaker for ACTUAL libertarian values.  It sure wasn't Johnson, but then, we already knew that from 2012 
> 
> Being a libertarian is a message, not an office.  If everyone truly believed in it, we wouldn't be running for office - because there wouldn't be a state government initiating force.  So - NO the point isn't getting into office, nor is there any chance in the election that will happen.


In other words, go out of our way to insist on an educational campaign, and don't go for the votes.  Don't go for more matching funds, and don't try to score a big enough percentage of disaffected voters to make everyone sit up and say, wait, if I join them we can get rid of one of these corrupt parties.

Check.  You're doing your job well.  Pardon if you consider my translation of your code to be 'bullying'.  It simply bears translation.

----------


## SpiritOf1776_J4

> 


Step right up folks.  We already had some sign up.  Now's your chance to sell your soul as a libertarian.  Just fill er in and send er off.

----------


## acptulsa

> Step right up folks.  We already had some sign up.  Now's your chance to sell your soul as a libertarian.  Just fill er in and send er off.


There you are.  You sell your soul to the devil if you campaign for Johnson but not if you campaign for Trump.  Or if good men stand by and do nothing.  The only way you can keep the devil out is to pick the most boring policy wonk in the LP and campaign hard for him.  Fox can cause the whole of e GOP to shoot themselves in the foot--repeatedly--but it takes a special, personal touch to talk the LP delegates into nominating their Biggest Loser--or talk the grassroots into refusing to help publicize the LP if they don't dig up Ludwig von Mises' coffin and stick the badge on him.

You are so doing it by the book.

----------


## SpiritOf1776_J4

Let me reiterate the point isn't to get control "of the ring of power", government - the point is to destroy the ring of power.

This is only possible during a crime of crisis, were people are looking for something new, and the libertarian message is clearly articulated.

This may be a time of crisis coming up.  Missing it the same way that Rand Paul missed a brokered convention - by giving up too soon - would be a bad idea - in fact horrible. 

I've also added someone else to my ignore list.  As I said before, if the only thing you do is insult and have no interest in libertarian discussion, I'll add you.  If everyone did this for themselves - the board would be a better place.  A person not interested in honest discussion would soon find himself excluded from everyone's discussion.

----------


## enhanced_deficit

LP who?   Just cuz some party puts "Liberty" in their name is not enough to get my attention. Unless they have had established a track record of raising their voices over the years standing up for civil liberties and standing up against attacks on civil/human liberties, Rafael Cruz supported spying on Americans, Hillary supported wars abroad, dronegangsta supported attacks on human children, police states at home/abroad.

----------


## RandallFan

Gary Johnson's piss poor performance with .99% should have been a wake up call in 2013 to the charlatans pushing immigration reform and gay marriage as immediate issues of the American voter.

Look at what Perot in the general and Trump in the GOP primary have generated in numbers compared to Johnson.

----------


## RJ Liberty

> Gary Johnson's piss poor performance with .99% should have been a wake up call in 2013 to the charlatans pushing immigration reform and gay marriage as immediate issues of the American voter.
> 
> Look at what Perot in the general and Trump in the GOP primary have generated in numbers compared to Johnson.


Perot and Trump were/are billionaires, with nearly unlimited amounts of money. The LP has just managed to raise $6,800 to challenge election officials in Maine, due to restrictions on ballot access which don't affect Trump since he is a major party candidate. 

And Johnson's doing just fine in polling, with 11% in a head-to-head match-up versus Trump and Hillary. In fact, so far it's the biggest third party showing since Perot's second run in 1996. Hardly "piss-poor".

----------


## Matt Collins

> Gary Johnson is the LP's best choice: he's got name recognition and he's polling extremely well for a third party candidate.


GJ is the best choice because he has credibility unlike the others in the race.

He was a former Republican Governor in a Democrat state. That plays well in to the "if you are an unhappy Republican, here is a new home for you"


Except that the LP will be too dumb and inept to undertake any sort of intelligent strategy like that.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Here's some broad groups these non-libertarian voices are getting rid off - coalitions that have taken years to form.
> 
> 
> 1. Don't hate Trump for being against the UN!
> anti-nwo, anti-globalists, including certain conservative christians and birchers. 
> 2.
> There is nothing wrong with earning a billion dollars through business without government help.
> free market businessmen, real capitalists.
> 3.
> ...



I no longer want to argue with Trump supporters.  Do what yall want to do, but in the above post, youve accused those of us who have opposed Trump of being non-libertarian voices, and I have to call foul on that.  The list you posted are all good things, but you failed to mention other things that are problematic to *this* libertarian  (I'm not speaking as a member of a group hereI cant say whether these things bother anyone else or not, but they bother me greatly because I'm anti-war and very much an advocate for civil liberties):



He supports torture http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/06/politics/donald-trump-tortureHe supports NSA data collection http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/...a-surveillanceWants to put 20K-30K American ground troops in Syria http://www.weeklystandard.com/trump-...rticle/2001505Unclear whether he would replace Obamacare with Universal Health Care (hes praised single-payer many times in the past) http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/...single-payer-/The damned Border Wall and his crazy plan to make Mexico pay for it, his plan to deport immigrants and bring back the good ones, etc. http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpo...migration-planWants to restrict free speech on the Internet http://www.theverge.com/2015/12/7/98...net-bill-gatesThinks Edward Snowden is a traitor who should be executed http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...-kill-traitor/Supports eminent domain http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...-trump/409432/Considers gun ban for no-fly list members (slippery slope for 2nd Amendment opponents) http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/06/politi...s-no-fly-list/

----------


## Ronin Truth

> I no longer want to argue with Trump supporters. Do what yall want to do, but in the above post, youve accused those of us who have opposed Trump of being non-libertarian voices, and I have to call foul on that. The list you posted are all good things, but you failed to mention other things that are problematic to *this* libertarian (I'm not speaking as a member of a group hereI cant say whether these things bother anyone else or not, but they bother me greatly because I'm anti-war and very much an advocate for civil liberties):
> 
> 
> 
> He supports torture http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/06/politics/donald-trump-tortureHe supports NSA data collection http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/...a-surveillanceWants to put 20K-30K American ground troops in Syria http://www.weeklystandard.com/trump-...rticle/2001505Unclear whether he would replace Obamacare with Universal Health Care (hes praised single-payer many times in the past) http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/...single-payer-/The damned Border Wall and his crazy plan to make Mexico pay for it, his plan to deport immigrants and bring back the good ones, etc. http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpo...migration-planWants to restrict free speech on the Internet http://www.theverge.com/2015/12/7/98...net-bill-gatesThinks Edward Snowden is a traitor who should be executed http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...-kill-traitor/Supports eminent domain http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...-trump/409432/Considers gun ban for no-fly list members (slippery slope for 2nd Amendment opponents) http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/06/politi...s-no-fly-list/


+Rep!

----------


## acptulsa

> Let me reiterate the point isn't to get control "of the ring of power", government - the point is to destroy the ring of power.
> 
> This is only possible during a crime of crisis, were people are looking for something new, and the libertarian message is clearly articulated.
> 
> This may be a time of crisis coming up.  Missing it the same way that Rand Paul missed a brokered convention - by giving up too soon - would be a bad idea - in fact horrible. 
> 
> I've also added someone else to my ignore list.  As I said before, if the only thing you do is insult and have no interest in libertarian discussion, I'll add you.  If everyone did this for themselves - the board would be a better place.  A person not interested in honest discussion would soon find himself excluded from everyone's discussion.


Well, I don't have you on ignore, and anyone with eyes to see can tell who is avoiding honest discussion.

But here's a chance for you to appear to be arguing earnestly and toward a just cause:  Tell us why giving up on the GOP now would be a horrible idea, and who is still in the race who does not love 'the ring of power' far too much to destroy it.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Well, I don't have you on ignore, and anyone with eyes to see can tell who is avoiding honest discussion.
> 
> But here's a chance for you to appear to be arguing earnestly and toward a just cause:  Tell us why giving up on the GOP now would be a horrible idea, and who is still in the race who does not love 'the ring of power' far too much to destroy it.


You think the LP would help destroy the ring of power?  Without being too explicit, did you happen to see the thread about underage children?   The LP has and will continue to shoot their own selves in the foot.

----------


## euphemia

> Let me reiterate the point isn't to get control "of the ring of power", government - the point is to destroy the ring of power.


Still can't do that without having people in place to make the changes needed to restore a liberty way of life.

----------


## acptulsa

> You think the LP would help destroy the ring of power?  Without being too explicit, did you happen to see the thread about underage children?   The LP has and will continue to shoot their own selves in the foot.


Certainly gives them something in common with the GOP.

----------


## RJ Liberty

> I no longer want to argue with Trump supporters.  Do what y’all want to do, but in the above post, you’ve accused those of us who have opposed Trump of being “non-libertarian voices,” and I have to call foul on that.  The list you posted are all good things, but you failed to mention other things that are problematic to *this* libertarian  (I'm not speaking as a member of a group here…I can’t say whether these things bother anyone else or not, but they bother me greatly because I'm anti-war and very much an advocate for civil liberties):
> 
> 
> 
> He supports torture http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/06/politics/donald-trump-tortureHe supports NSA data collection http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/...a-surveillanceWants to put 20K-30K American ground troops in Syria http://www.weeklystandard.com/trump-...rticle/2001505Unclear whether he would replace Obamacare with Universal Health Care (he’s praised single-payer many times in the past) http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/...single-payer-/The damned Border Wall and his crazy plan to make Mexico pay for it, his plan to deport immigrants and bring back “the good ones,” etc. http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpo...migration-planWants to restrict free speech on the Internet http://www.theverge.com/2015/12/7/98...net-bill-gatesThinks Edward Snowden is a “traitor” who should be executed http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...-kill-traitor/Supports eminent domain http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...-trump/409432/Considers gun ban for no-fly list members (slippery slope for 2nd Amendment opponents) http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/06/politi...s-no-fly-list/


YEP!

10. Supported the war in Iraq
We could go on and on...

----------


## surf

I ran for statewide office as a libertarian in 2000 and felt extremely conflicted. our candidate for lt. gov. got over 8% of the vote, and essentially had the easiest lp message to deliver about her position: eliminate the office. we ran a full slate of candidates and we qualified as a "major' party due to how well we did here. then the state changed the rules to a "top 2" system and the state party (and voters) suffered.

I leaped on the RP bandwagon in 2007 and have loathed having any association with republicans. our goal in 2000 was to destroy the ring of power and minimize the influence of gov't on peoples lives, both financially and socially. that's still my goal. I see that as a goal for Massie and Amash, and I would vote for them if I could. but I'm going to vote for just about any lp candidate I can because of principles (wrote in RP in 2008 because Barr is not a libertarian).

I honestly haven't decided whether Bernie or Cruz would be better for liberty (or which would be worse), but I do know they both suck. my lp vote won't decide this election, but I think it will send more of a liberty message than any vote for a republicrat ever would.

still not sure what point Collins is trying to make, but "wasted vote" seems to be where he's going. my viewpoint is vastly different.

----------


## undergroundrr

> YEP!
> 
> 10. Supported the war in Iraq
> We could go on and on...


11. He hates free trade.  And no, I'm not talking about managed trade deals. I'm all for eliminating NAFTA/CAFTA, TPP etc., but trump would replace them with his own protectionist tariffs and it will damage you (whoever you are reading this).  Economic protectionism is one of the most anti-libertarian, anti-capitalist, anti-free market, anti-liberty positions you can take.  For those who want a primer on why, I recommend this podcast from a couple weeks ago by some pretty strong thinkers - http://libertarianangle.libsyn.com/t...-of-free-trade

And to  @SpiritOf1776_J4 - I'm sure I can come up with 20 things I agree with Stalin about.  And Stalin may have been 10% less bad than other potential dictators of the time.  trump's one consistent policy element is war.  Military wars, trade wars, and culture wars are at the heart of all of his keystone proposals.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> I ran for statewide office as a libertarian in 2000 and felt extremely conflicted. our candidate for lt. gov. got over 8% of the vote, and essentially had the easiest lp message to deliver about her position: eliminate the office. we ran a full slate of candidates and we qualified as a "major' party due to how well we did here. then the state changed the rules to a "top 2" system and the state party (and voters) suffered.
> 
> I leaped on the RP bandwagon in 2007 and have loathed having any association with republicans. our goal in 2000 was to destroy the ring of power and minimize the influence of gov't on peoples lives, both financially and socially. that's still my goal. I see that as a goal for Massie and Amash, and I would vote for them if I could. but I'm going to vote for just about any lp candidate I can because of principles (wrote in RP in 2008 because Barr is not a libertarian).
> 
> I honestly haven't decided whether Bernie or Cruz would be better for liberty (or which would be worse), but I do know they both suck. my lp vote won't decide this election, but I think it will send more of a liberty message than any vote for a republicrat ever would.
> 
> still not sure what point Collins is trying to make, but "wasted vote" seems to be where he's going. my viewpoint is vastly different.


If ya ain't electing the shadow government (and ya ain't) odds are your national votes are wasted and are only serving you as pacifying placebos.

----------


## SpiritOf1776_J4

> Perot and Trump were/are billionaires, with nearly unlimited amounts of money. The LP has just managed to raise $6,800 to challenge election officials in Maine, due to restrictions on ballot access which don't affect Trump since he is a major party candidate. .


Trump has spent less than 25 million for most of the election season, far far less than the other candidates.  Ron Paul raised this much.  Money has nothing to do with it.

----------


## JK/SEA

> Wait, you are saying that the LP should abandon principle and take taxpayer money?


is that the litmus test?


meh...i like the sports metaphor. The LP is like little league. As the years roll by, maturity and intellect grow. The LP nomenclature gets more and more attention as the other parties show there ass to be what it is. Soon people turn their attentions away from the failed parties and ponder a LP type of Government. Votes and support increase as the election cycles come and go along with the failures and anger....this won't get done in the near future, but the future is now. This country is ripe for a STRONG 3rd party option...

----------


## SpiritOf1776_J4

> Still can't do that without having people in place to make the changes needed to restore a liberty way of life.


The only place to do that in is in the hearts of men - The only forge that can destroy the concept that government is good - the place where the idol was created in the first place.

I've been saying it for a *long time*, one of the reasons I have always insisted you don't separate Christians from discussing libertarian ideas - is because ultimately what keeps government going is doctrine, unanalyzed belief that it is necessary.  If a large enough % of people believed it was not necessary and evil - say a tipping point of 10% (to borrow the amount from the book 'Jesus was an anarchist', which I just looked at the other day for the first time), then when one of the frequent crises society goes through occurs - there would be someone to explain to the other 90% they don't need this, government is unnecessary and evil.  They'd have a voice.

As long as you support the idea that the LP has to win elections by compromising libertarian ideas, while at the same time it has less than 1% of the vote, you are sabotaging it as being a vehicle for people to learn that government isn't necessarily - in fact you're telling them it is.

_Matthew 15:18 But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. 19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: 20 These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man._

Back to the forge from whence it came.  Back to the land of * M"o"rdor.*

----------


## SpiritOf1776_J4

> I no longer want to argue with Trump supporters.  Do what y’all want to do, but in the above post, you’ve accused those of us who have opposed Trump of being “non-libertarian voices,” and I have to call foul on that.  The list you posted are all good things, but you failed to mention other things that are problematic to *this* libertarian  (I'm not speaking as a member of a group here…I can’t say whether these things bother anyone else or not, but they bother me greatly because I'm anti-war and very much an advocate for civil liberties):


As I'll say the last time I'll say it to you - I'm not a trump supporter.

And I continue to point out, that among the posters who have been anti-"Trump" have been a Hillary supporter (one of the most frequent anti-Trump posters), a Sanders supporter, several foreigners, most likely some other people from democratic underground, and several Cruz supporters - who is a socialist and globalist himself.    

*Being anti Trump means squat.*  Communists are anti-Trump.  arguing against a position of a communist is not being "for" Trump.  *The only thing you need to be is libertarian - not "either for or against" anyone*  - or otherwise you are just falling for the  *false choice fallacy.*

----------


## SpiritOf1776_J4

> You think the LP would help destroy the ring of power?  Without being too explicit, did you happen to see the thread about underage children?   The LP has and will continue to shoot their own selves in the foot.


The LP is like Gondor - stewards of an idea that should rule over everyone - *no initiation of force and thus no state government.*

And Boromir just wants to take the ring of power back to the LP so they can use it

----------


## SpiritOf1776_J4

To anyone that may believe in *A false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, false binary, black-and-white thinking, bifurcation, denying a conjunct, the either–or fallacy, fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses, the fallacy of false choice, or the fallacy of the false alternative) is a type of informal fallacy that involves a situation in which only limited alternatives are considered when there are others"*

Marxists are adept at making this fallacy.  But instead of it just being presented as a logical fallacy, they present it as a "physical" fallacy - that you have to be either for this side or against it - even though there are many sides.  Then with the use of force, violence, or crises, people are usually herded into one of two sides - - without even thinking, for "safety".

There may be one or two posters using a false choice argument on here to stifle libertarian discussion.  And I'm sad to say, a few people seem to be weak minded enough to have fallen for this method of discourse.

As libertarians, we need to be able to discuss what is libertarian and what is not libertarian about any news story and about any candidate.  That does not make us for or against those news items or candidates.   *The only way we are going to have a voice* and become intellectual movers is by doing that.  *We have to be able to comment on the current news everyone is discussing.*  Using insults and either/or fallacies about what issues you are talking for or against i.e.  "you are either with us or against us fallacy", will doom the movement and silence libertarian discussion.

Only outsiders will think that we are "disagreeing".  We are an unique side, it's libertarian ideas that unite us, not outsider candidates.  And those that continue to use the false choice fallacy after being warned?  well, they're probably marxists.

----------


## SpiritOf1776_J4

> is that the litmus test?
> 
> 
> meh...i like the sports metaphor. The LP is like little league. As the years roll by, maturity and intellect grow. The LP nomenclature gets more and more attention as the other parties show there ass to be what it is. Soon people turn their attentions away from the failed parties and ponder a LP type of Government. Votes and support increase as the election cycles come and go along with the failures and anger....this won't get done in the near future, but the future is now. This country is ripe for a STRONG 3rd party option...


Johnson is advocating a lot more that is completely contrary to libertarian values than stealing money.  He's also advocating things like forcing Jewish bakers to bake gay "pink swastika" wedding cakes.

Johnson is the anti-Paul, and undoes all of Ron Paul's ideas and un-pc positions over many years.  A complete disaster.

----------


## undergroundrr

> As libertarians, we need to be able to discuss what is libertarian and what is not libertarian about any news story and about any candidate.  That does not make us for or against those news items or candidates.   *The only way we are going to have a voice* and become intellectual movers is by doing that.  *We have to be able to comment on the current news everyone is discussing.*  Using insults and either/or fallacies about what issues you are talking for or against i.e.  "you are either with us or against us fallacy", will doom the movement and silence libertarian discussion.
> 
> Only outsiders will think that we are "disagreeing".  We are an unique side, it's libertarian ideas that unite us, not outsider candidates.  And those that continue to use the false choice fallacy after being warned?  well, they're probably marxists.


So please, you've gone out of your way to give supposedly libertarian aspects of insider candidate trump. Please back up the repeated claim that you're not a trump supporter and list the libertarian properties of the following. Be careful, as you've done with trump, not to list negative factors. They would only distract from the Dagny Taggart like profile of Hillary Clinton for instance - 

1. Hillary Clinton.
2. Ted Cruz.
3. Bernie Sanders.
4. John Kasich.

----------


## undergroundrr

> A complete disaster.


LOL. You've been listening too much to TheTexan.

----------


## SpiritOf1776_J4

> So please, you've gone out of your way to give supposedly libertarian aspects of insider candidate trump. Please back up the repeated claim that you're not a trump supporter and list the libertarian properties of the following. Be careful, as you've done with trump, not to list negative factors. They would only distract from the Dagny Taggart like profile of Hillary Clinton for instance - 
> 
> 1. Hillary Clinton.
> 2. Ted Cruz.
> 3. Bernie Sanders.
> 4. John Kasich.


I've given libertarian views in discussions about each of these candidates.  It's not necessary to be either for or against candidates to discuss news items about the candidates.  

As I've said many times, I'm not for any of the candidates, and most likely will write in "ask Jesus" on my ballot.

If any forum is blindly 60-100% against anything, I will very likely take the other side, because I'm not interested in truth determined by herd feelings, but truth discovered by reasoning.

----------


## undergroundrr

> I've given libertarian views in discussions about each of these candidates.  It's not necessary to be either for or against candidates to discuss news items about the candidates.  
> 
> As I've said many times, I'm not for any of the candidates, and most likely will write in "ask Jesus" on my ballot.


Great, then you can provide post links or copy and paste.  No biggie.  I can confidently say for instance that Hillary Clinton is easily the most hated of all the candidates on RPF.  She is most in need of your defense out of all the candidates.  How many posts have you spent trying to get people to wise up to her very libertarian positions?  I would surmise it's a lot less than trump.

----------


## Matt Collins

> still not sure what point Collins is trying to make, but "wasted vote" seems to be where he's going. my viewpoint is vastly different.


The point is that those voting for the LP should be under no delusions of actually having any chance to win anything.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Great, then you can provide post links or copy and paste.  No biggie.  I can confidently say for instance that Hillary Clinton is easily the most hated of all the candidates on RPF.  She is most in need of your defense out of all the candidates.  How many posts have you spent trying to get people to wise up to *her very libertarian positions*?  I would surmise it's a lot less than trump.


I joined this forum not to promote "libertarianism", but to do what little I could to try to save the country I loved.  Perhaps you misunderstand the objective of the forum; it has a mission and no one is required to push your meme.

----------


## Ronin Truth

*"The real rulers in Washington are invisible and exercise power from behind the scenes." -- Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter,1952*

----------


## SpiritOf1776_J4

> LOL. You've been listening too much to TheTexan.


The strongest position Congressman Ron Paul of Texas ever took against force is that you are free to associate with or believe anything you want without being forced otherwise.

Forcing people to bake gay wedding cakes against their will is dramatically opposed to this.  It is the same as homosexuals raping others in spirit.

If you believe that government should use force to do this, you are a fascist.

----------


## Bossobass

This is how irrelevant the LP is; the Trump haters derail the LP thread to hate Trump. 

I believe they're (THs) all paid Clinton shills. Nothing else makes sense.

----------


## SpiritOf1776_J4

> Great, then you can provide post links or copy and paste.  No biggie.  I can confidently say for instance that Hillary Clinton is easily the most hated of all the candidates on RPF.  She is most in need of your defense out of all the candidates.  How many posts have you spent trying to get people to wise up to her very libertarian positions?  I would surmise it's a lot less than trump.


Is the forum talking about hillary 60-100% of the time?

----------


## SpiritOf1776_J4

> This is how irrelevant the LP is; the Trump haters derail the LP thread to hate Trump. 
> 
> I believe they're (THs) all paid Clinton shills. Nothing else makes sense.


CPUd has said he was a hillary supporter.  So yes, a few are.

----------


## undergroundrr

> This is how irrelevant the LP is; the Trump haters derail the LP thread to hate Trump.


He might not have ever shown up in it, but good ole @SpiritOf1776_J4 brought up trump in post #12 (the first to do so), praising his winning and authentic personality.

----------


## acptulsa

> I've given libertarian views in discussions about each of these candidates.  It's not necessary to be either for or against candidates to discuss news items about the candidates.  
> 
> As I've said many times, I'm not for any of the candidates, and most likely will write in "ask Jesus" on my ballot.
> 
> If any forum is blindly 60-100% against anything, I will very likely take the other side, because I'm not interested in truth determined by herd feelings, but truth discovered by reasoning.


You are denigrating Gary Johnson and defending the 'self-funded' myth about Trump because you like to run around playing white knight in defense of _underdogs_?

----------


## SpiritOf1776_J4

> I ran for statewide office as a libertarian in 2000 and felt extremely conflicted. our candidate for lt. gov. got over 8% of the vote, and essentially had the easiest lp message to deliver about her position: eliminate the office. we ran a full slate of candidates and we qualified as a "major' party due to how well we did here. then the state changed the rules to a "top 2" system and the state party (and voters) suffered.
> 
> I leaped on the RP bandwagon in 2007 and have loathed having any association with republicans. our goal in 2000 was to destroy the ring of power and minimize the influence of gov't on peoples lives, both financially and socially. that's still my goal. I see that as a goal for Massie and Amash, and I would vote for them if I could. but I'm going to vote for just about any lp candidate I can because of principles (wrote in RP in 2008 because Barr is not a libertarian).
> 
> I honestly haven't decided whether Bernie or Cruz would be better for liberty (or which would be worse), but I do know they both suck. my lp vote won't decide this election, but I think it will send more of a liberty message than any vote for a republicrat ever would.
> 
> still not sure what point Collins is trying to make, but "wasted vote" seems to be where he's going. my viewpoint is vastly different.


I wrote Ron Paul's name in, and felt the same about Bob Barr.

I don't think it's necessary to assault the gates of Mordor directly, but it's a good diversion tactic by running principled candidates*1.  Win or lose, the ring of power inches closer and closer to that forge where it was wrought - the heats of men, and they finally wake up with the ideas in their heart.  initiation of force is wrong.  Boom.  Down goes Mount Doom, so ends the state.  

Blessed are the meek!
_
(*1 the candidates have to really be libertarian candidates!)_

----------


## SpiritOf1776_J4

> He might not have ever shown up in it, but good ole @SpiritOf1776_J4 brought up trump in post #12 (the first to do so), praising his winning and authentic personality.


post #12



> Yes, well Gary Johnson ran on that last time, and only got 1% of the vote.
> 
> John Mcafee would get 5% of the vote by just by being himself. Learn a lesson from Trump.


Looks like you are a liar undergroundrr.  You are almost on my ignore list - repeating things you know are not true over and over and use of insults instead of libertarian discussion will get you on it - anything that replaces real discussion with something else.  If everyone did this for themselves (and themselves only), pretty soon they'd only be libertarians discussing things among themselves.

----------


## undergroundrr

> Is the forum talking about hillary 60-100% of the time?


No, but I don't think it would be far off to calculate you're posting about trump 60-100% of the time. Your started threads are almost invariably pro-Trump or anti-Cruz, which at this point is the same thing.  Since you've become the equal time warrior for trump, a guy you're supposedly not even for, it would be inconsistent not to spend reciprocal forum space posting about how great Ted Cruz is, since you're not for him either, right?

----------


## SpiritOf1776_J4

Looks like somewhen forgot to say, you're right, your post was really about McAfee.  

_Talking with someone is a pleasure, not a right.  None of the few people on my ignore list I will miss - because I've never seen them say anything interesting to hear, and they don't act like libertarians.    Being a libertarian is more than saying it, it's in the heart.  Not using force is a big part of libertarianism, and when you try to use other things besides reasoning to persuade people, and you're more interested in what others think then what the truth is, getting anything beneficial from you ceases to be.
_
John McAfee is authentic and seems a real libertarian in the heart.  Austin Petersen is more bookishly libertarian (which may be better), but I'm not sure he gets it in the heart, and Johnson is a disaster.  McAfee isn't actually eligible - but neither are Cruz and Obama, so there may be a lesson in that.

In my own opinion as a small l libertarian, of course.

----------


## SpiritOf1776_J4

But if McAfee wins it, I'm going to start the anti-birther libertarian movement for him!

----------


## Ronin Truth

> But if McAfee wins it, I'm going to start the anti-birther libertarian movement for him!


What is your guesstimate on the odds for that one?

----------


## SpiritOf1776_J4

> The point is that those voting for the LP should be under no delusions of actually having any chance to win anything.


You mean they can't win the hearts of men

----------


## SpiritOf1776_J4

> What is your guesstimate on the odds for that one?


Of me making arguments about how we abandoned the constitution a long time ago and a lot of candidates aren't
any more eligible?  almost a certainty

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Of me making arguments about how we abandoned the constitution a long time ago and a lot of candidates aren't
> any more eligible? almost a certainty


  No, of McAfee winning.

----------


## SpiritOf1776_J4

> No, of McAfee winning.


Not much.  But his expression of libertarian principles is better then Johnson's - so in winning people over, greater.

----------


## undergroundrr

> Looks like somewhen forgot to say, you're right, your post was really about McAfee.


My pants were on fire. Too busy putting it out. But no, I don't see any disagreement between what I wrote and your post as quoted.




> John McAfee is authentic and seems a real libertarian in the heart.


I'm presuming that's to correct your previous suggestion that McAfee needed need personality lessons from trump.  Nice of you.




> Johnson is a disaster.


You do realize who that phrase evokes, right? I'm trying to keep his name out of this post.

Anyhow, if it's a judgement and not a parody - are you saying you have pointed out the libertarian strengths of Hillary Clinton elsewhere (you claimed it but never linked a thread) but won't do the same for Gary Johnson, but simply dismiss him as a "disaster?"

I'll agree he's not my ideal. But gee whiz

----------


## SpiritOf1776_J4

*Vote for me, I'll make Jewish bakers make this!*
*Johnson, Libertarian candidate.*

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Not much. But his expression of libertarian principles is better then Johnson's - so in winning people over, greater.


Which libertarian principles are you comparing and referring to? Certainly not the Voluntaryist's statement of purpose.




> *Statement of Purpose:* Voluntaryists are advocates of non-political, non-violent strategies to achieve a free society. We reject electoral politics, in theory and in practice, as incompatible with libertarian principles. Governments must cloak their actions in an aura of moral legitimacy in order to sustain their power, and political methods invariably strengthen that legitimacy. Voluntaryists seek instead to delegitimize the State through education, and we advocate withdrawal of the cooperation and tacit consent on which State power ultimately depends.


http://voluntaryist.com/

----------


## SpiritOf1776_J4

> Which libertarian principles are you comparing and referring to? Certainly not the Voluntaryist's statement of purpose.


Johnson? His cake principle is one example.



I'm not supporting any of the candidates.  As I've said many times before, I won't be voting for them, I'm just commenting on them.

I believe the elections we are currently having tends to de-legitimize elections and governments in the eyes of voters as the establishment tries to use more and more force and fraud to prop them up.  It's an assault on the gates of mordor, but only ultimately, a diversion.  No, we can't win it that way - but we can use the power of the enemy against him - by causing him to show to everyone that it isn't legitimate.

----------


## CPUd

> Johnson? His cake principle is one example.
> 
> 
> 
> And fyi - I'm not supporting any of the candidates.  As I've said many times before, I won't be voting for them, I'm just commenting on them.


Aren't you Canadian anyway?

----------


## undergroundrr

> *Vote for me, I'll make Jewish bakers make this!*
> *Johnson, Libertarian candidate.*


Again, you're refusing to point out Johnson's libertarian positives, which I think you'd agree are many. This is in the wake of torrents of posts (attempting to) point out the positives of a certain other candidate. Why? Dwelling on negatives like this may not be conducive to pleasant conversation. Some might find it insulting.

FWIW, his Sharia law rant in the Mississippi debate was just as disturbing to me as the cake thing. He seems a little fuzzy-brained to many and I think both of those missteps together will make it fairly difficult for him to get the nomination of the party. But then again, Bob Barr.

I actually find it interesting that Johnson didn't do the PC thing and say that only socially acceptable messages would be forced to be put on cakes.  It's not a good or sane position, but it's a consistent one.

----------


## otherone

> Forcing people to bake gay wedding cakes against their will is dramatically opposed to this.


Cakes are gay by choice.  They're not baked that way.

----------


## SpiritOf1776_J4

Just electing the "right group" to govern the government doesn't work.  America has tried that for the last 200 years, and it just gets worse and worse.

Using government is a lot like using the ring of power - the longer you use it, the worse you get.  It is completely perilous to use, and isn't my solution for anything.

The LP is a lot like Gondor.  They aren't the idea or king whose time has not yet come, but they are _acting_ as Stewards of it.  They aren't altogether bad - they can divert Sauron's attention, nor altogether good - Boromir's trying to seize the ring of power to use for good was foolish.

----------


## acptulsa

> *Vote for me, I'll make Jewish bakers make this!*
> *Johnson, Libertarian candidate.*





> Johnson? His cake principle is one example.
> 
> .


Of all the silly single-issue voters I've ever seen, you definitely take the cake.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Just electing the "right group" to govern the government doesn't work. America has tried that for the last 200 years, and it just gets worse and worse.
> 
> Using government is a lot like using the ring of power - the longer you use it, the worse you get. It is completely perilous to use, and isn't my solution for anything.
> 
> The LP is a lot like Gondor. They aren't the idea or king whose time has not yet come, but they are _acting_ as Stewards of it. They aren't altogether bad - they can divert Sauron's attention, nor altogether good - Boromir's trying to seize the ring of power to use for good was foolish.


Sorry, "Lord of the Rings" analogies/metaphors, just don't carry much sway or do much for me.  Carry on.

----------


## SpiritOf1776_J4

> Sorry, "Lord of the Rings" analogies/metaphors, just don't carry much sway or do much for me.  Carry on.


It's the perfect metaphor for this election when you don't have a liberty candidate in the race.

Frodo splits from the rest of the party, and heads off to mordor with Samwise Gamgee, because he just wants to destroy the ring of power, state; government, and the rest of the group will be tempted to use it.

----------


## undergroundrr

> It's the perfect metaphor for this election when you don't have a liberty candidate in the race.
> 
> Frodo splits from the rest of the party, and heads off to mordor with Samwise Gamgee, because he just wants to destroy the ring of power, state; government, and the rest of the group will be tempted to use it.


Yeah, but so far trump has been Hank Rearden. The LP is Boromir. Who's Captain Kirk? How about Starbuck? Twiki?

----------


## otherone

> Sorry, "Lord of the Rings" analogies/metaphors, just don't carry much sway or do much for me.  Carry on.

----------


## RJ Liberty

> trump's one consistent policy element is war.  Military wars, trade wars, and culture wars are at the heart of all of his keystone proposals.


This deserves reiterating, because the Trumpettes gloss over this: Trump has advocated going to war in Iraq, Syria, North Korea, Iran, you name it. He is as hawkish as Hillary $#@!ing Clinton.

----------


## SpiritOf1776_J4

> This deserves reiterating, because the Trumpettes gloss over this: Trump has advocated going to war in Iraq, Syria, North Korea, Iran, you name it. He is as hawkish as Hillary $#@!ing Clinton.


But he has called for withdrawing from Nato and the UN, so he is as dove like as a peacenik.  (fyi - I don't believe your cites are accurate).

----------


## cajuncocoa

> As I'll say the last time I'll say it to you - I'm not a trump supporter.
> 
> And I continue to point out, that among the posters who have been anti-"Trump" have been a Hillary supporter (one of the most frequent anti-Trump posters), a Sanders supporter, several foreigners, most likely some other people from democratic underground, and several Cruz supporters - who is a socialist and globalist himself.    
> 
> *Being anti Trump means squat.*  Communists are anti-Trump.  arguing against a position of a communist is not being "for" Trump.  *The only thing you need to be is libertarian - not "either for or against" anyone*  - or otherwise you are just falling for the  *false choice fallacy.*


Thank you for telling me what *you* think I need to be.  Here's what I am (among other things):  a libertarian who opposes Trump.

----------


## SpiritOf1776_J4

> Thank you for telling me what *you* think I need to be.  Here's what I am (among other things):  a libertarian who opposes Trump.


I haven't told you what to be - which is absurd.  Why would I want to be like you, advocating enemies list of people who disagree with you - first in the thread after tulsa created that - as I recall, labeling people as trump supporters who aren't, insulting, group bullying, driving off old members, etc?

No, I wouldn't want to be you.  Unlike you, I try to *act* like a libertarian.  I don't care who you vote for.  I just want the freedom to make my own choices and be left alone.  I'm not voting for any candidate.  And fyi - I don't believe you are a libertarian from how you act.  But you're free to call yourself what you will.

----------


## RJ Liberty

> Trump has spent less than 25 million for most of the election season, far far less than the other candidates.  Ron Paul raised this much.  Money has nothing to do with it.


"Money has nothing to do with it"? That's flat-out wrong. $25,000,000 certainly has a lot to do with making a candidate viable. So does the additional $9.5 million Trump got from individual donors, for a total of $35,000,000.00 already spent. Johnson was only able to raise $2.3 million dollars throughout his campaign, and still managed ~1% of the vote. $2.3 million isn't enough for a national campaign, and everyone here knows it.

----------


## SpiritOf1776_J4

> "Money has nothing to do with it"? That's flat-out wrong. $25,000,000 certainly has a lot to do with making a candidate viable. So does the additional $9.5 million Trump got from individual donors, for a total of $35,000,000.00 already spent. Johnson was only able to raise $2.3 million dollars throughout his campaign, and still managed ~1% of the vote. $2.3 million isn't enough for a national campaign, and everyone here knows it.


Yes, and Ron Paul raised that much, so money has nothing to do with him not doing as well as Trump.  Trump has spent the least amount of any major candidates, on the same order as Ron Paul - who was also notoriously cheap.  And Trump has no pacs either.

Compare to what Sanders and Hillary are spending:

Sanders $122,599,177. * one hundred and twenty two million.*
Hillary: $129,068,041

Here's a slightly different list.  It has Cruz spending 60 million to Trump's now 30 million.  And Cruz has a lot of pacs.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...oney-race.html

It even has Rand Paul spending 11 million, and he dropped out after one primary.

----------


## FindLiberty

Is this an LP or a Trump thread? lol

Anyhow, I'll just plunk this down here and step back...

THE LP MAKES HISTORY, AGAIN:

Darryl W. Perry announced Wednesday that his running mate will be the first Muslim Vice Presidential candidate in American history

http://darrylwperry.com/darryl-w-per...ment/#more-886

----------


## Smitty

> Is this an LP or a Trump thread? lol
> 
> Anyhow, I'll just plunk this down here and step back...
> 
> THE LP MAKES HISTORY, AGAIN
> 
> http://darrylwperry.com/


Yeah,...that'll work.

----------


## Wilf

> Yeah,...that'll work.


Do you have a better suggestion?

----------


## acptulsa

> But he has called for withdrawing from Nato and the UN, so he is as dove like as a peacenik.  (fyi - I don't believe your cites are accurate).


What would it take for you to believe those citations?  YouTubes of Trump?  YouTubes of Trump during this election cycle only?  Signed affidavits from Trump?  A ride in Trump's 737 wherein he tells you he wants to conquer them and build a transAtlantic pipeline to pump their oil out 24/7?

What would it take to get you to hold Trump to anything remotely resembling the standard you crucify Gary Johnson upon?

----------


## SpiritOf1776_J4

> Is this an LP or a Trump thread? lol
> 
> Anyhow, I'll just plunk this down here and step back...
> 
> THE LP MAKES HISTORY, AGAIN:
> 
> Darryl W. Perry announced Wednesday that his running mate will be the first Muslim Vice Presidential candidate in American history
> 
> http://darrylwperry.com/darryl-w-per...ment/#more-886


The argument was made that it was because the LP has no money and Trump does that the LP doesn't win:




> Perot and Trump were/are billionaires, with nearly unlimited amounts of money. The LP has just managed to raise $6,800 to challenge election officials in Maine, due to restrictions on ballot access which don't affect Trump since he is a major party candidate.


I pointed out that Donald Trump and Ron Paul (arguably the most successful LP candidate, although he ran in 2008 / 2012 on the gop ticket) have spent about equal amounts of money.  i.e. *Ron Paul - Receipts	US$28,100,000 (2007-12-31)*

Per the original title of this discussion - it isn't money that is the reason the LP hasn't won.  (And winning isn't important).

Trump and Paul do share a characteristic though.  Paul relied on ideas, and Trump relies on flamboyance.  Both demonstrate money is definitely not the problem, it can be done cheaply.  That is one of the reasons why I thought McAfee would be a better candidate.

----------


## RJ Liberty

> What would it take for you to believe those citations?  YouTubes of Trump?  YouTubes of Trump during this election cycle only?  Signed affidavits from Trump?  A ride in Trump's 737 wherein he tells you he wants to conquer them and build a transAtlantic pipeline to pump their oil out 24/7?


None of those things will convince the Trumpettes, because they're brainwashed.




> What would it take to get you to hold Trump to anything remotely resembling the standard you crucify Gary Johnson upon?


Exactly.

----------


## SpiritOf1776_J4

> None of those things will convince the Trumpettes, because they're brainwashed.
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.


I haven't read the original post - but what standard are we holding Johnson to?

That he run as a libertarian??!!!!

Hell yeah he'd better be a libertarian if he runs on the Libertarian party ticket.  I would certainly not vote for Trump as a Libertarian.  In fact, I've said all along I'm not voting for him because he's not a libertarian.

But vote for someone that from the outset will force Christians bakers to bake gay wedding cakes, and Jewish bakers to bake nazi wedding cakes.

Hell.  Hell no!!!

Gary Johnson, the Cake Candidate, 2016

----------


## RJ Liberty

> But vote for someone that from the outset will force Christians bakers to bake gay wedding cakes, and Jewish bakers to bake nazi wedding cakes.


The President has no executive power over bakeries, and the fact that you've brought this up repeatedly, as a reason to not support a LP candidate as President, tells me you've lost it. 

_The President, whoever is elected, will not force Jewish bakeries to bake gay Nazi cakes,_ nor is this a pressing issue for most voters. Please don't bring this up again. It's nonsense. Collins' thread on the LP has been co-opted by you tracking in Trump $#@! on the bottom of your shoes (you started talking about Trump in the 12th post on this thread) , and now this endless cake crap.

Please, give it a rest. You're better than this.

----------


## Peace&Freedom

> What would it take for you to believe those citations?  YouTubes of Trump?  YouTubes of Trump during this election cycle only?  Signed affidavits from Trump?  A ride in Trump's 737 wherein he tells you he wants to conquer them and build a transAtlantic pipeline to pump their oil out 24/7?
> 
> What would it take to get you to hold Trump to anything remotely resembling the standard you crucify Gary Johnson upon?


It would seem to me that as Trump does not call himself libertarian, while Johnson does, it's fairer to hold the latter to a different standard. Besides, given the relentlessly pro-war political environment, Trump may be employing the same "talk hawkish, while announcing pro-peace reforms" foreign policy tightrope we tolerated in Rand. 

As pointed out before, a Jacksonian impulse to support short term war where the American interest is truly at stake, is much less severely interventionist than the neocon complete and ongoing commitment to regime change, nation building, no exit long wars, global empire and endlessly placating Israel, etc. But these reasonable distinctions appear to be forever lost on the Trump bashers.

----------


## twomp

> Yes, well Gary Johnson ran on that last time, and only got 1% of the vote.
> 
> John Mcafee would get 5% of the vote by just by being himself.  Learn a lesson from Trump.


Why are you always constantly promoting Trump?

----------


## SpiritOf1776_J4

> The President has no executive power over bakeries, and the fact that you've brought this up repeatedly, as a reason to not support a LP candidate as President, tells me you've lost it. .


This is junk.  Anyone knows this is exactly one of the things Ron Paul ran on, and even Rand Paul - that people shouldn't be forced through the Civil Rights act to do business with people they don't want.   It was a principled stand.

Gary is against that to an extremist position.  It's not libertarian, and you obviously know nothing about Ron's campaign - so why are you on here?.  It's come up in 2008, 2012, and 2016 because of both Pauls.

----------


## SpiritOf1776_J4

> Why are you always constantly promoting Trump?


Saying John McAfee is a better libertarian candidate then Johnson is promoting Trump? 

I like McAfee, but HALF the people on this board are better libertarian candidates then Johnson.

----------


## twomp

> Saying John McAfee is a better candidate then Johnson is promoting Trump?


Yes. It's like saying your wife should take cooking lessons from my mine. This was not the first time you promoted Trump and it won't be the last. You probably have a picture of him in his tank top hanging on your wall.

----------


## SpiritOf1776_J4

> Yes. It's like saying your wife should take cooking lessons from my mine. This was not the first time you promoted Trump and it won't be the last. You probably have a picture of him in his tank top hanging on your wall.


One more time and you go on my ignore.  I don't have time for people who discuss nothing about libertarian values, and since I've never seen you post before - although your account is old - and all you are doing is insulting and repeating the same old thing over and over ie a believer in the anti-intellectual "if you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes true", I get nothing out of discussing anything with you.

Using my time on people who do not rationally discuss things is foolish, and prevents me from talking to other like minded people. I'm only stating this in case you are not someone's alt, and through a reasonable rebuke you might come to sensible and rational discussion.

----------


## SpiritOf1776_J4

My opinion of three libertarian candidates from one debate.




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQPW...outu.be&t=1723
I've set the link of the video segment to the cake comment (the video preview doesn't work right), but you can see the same thing throughout:

Austin Petersen: Austin is more educated in libertarianism in his answers (but this is also to his undoing sometimes), as well as more a politician (based on catching your opponent in a lie).

Gary Johnson: Gary isn't espousing libertarian values, doesn't seem very intelligent, and isn't good at speaking 

John McAfee: McAfee seems more intelligent and experienced than the other two.  He seems more trustworthy.  His style reaches more people, and he speaks more smoothly about libertarian values to a common audience - see quote below).

Either of the other two are better than Johnson.  (anyone would be better than Johnson).

(Note - Despite being born in Britain, McAfee is eligible to run as president because he was born on a U.S. Army base to an American serviceman.)

"Am I harming you if I don't sell you something?  No, it's my choice to sell, and your choice to buy." - John McAfee

*John McAfee - The real Libertarian choice, 2016.*

----------


## SpiritOf1776_J4

John McAfee also is far better for another reason.  
(And I whole heartily endorse him now I know the born in Britain thing is nonsense).

He unites two groups I've been trying to unite since the 80s - hackers and libertarians - and my background is computers.  It's an important group to officially recognize in the libertarian movement - and what better introduction then a well known personality in the computer industry?

----------


## cajuncocoa

> I haven't told you what to be - which is absurd.  Why would I want to be like you, advocating enemies list of people who disagree with you - first in the thread after tulsa created that - as I recall, labeling people as trump supporters who aren't, insulting, group bullying, driving off old members, etc?
> 
> No, I wouldn't want to be you.  Unlike you, I try to *act* like a libertarian.  I don't care who you vote for.  I just want the freedom to make my own choices and be left alone.  I'm not voting for any candidate.  And fyi - I don't believe you are a libertarian from how you act.  But you're free to call yourself what you will.


 I guess the phrase "The only thing you need to be..." means something else in your universe. My bad.  And I never suggested that you'd want to be like me. 

The rest of your comments are so absurd, they don't deserve a response.

----------


## acptulsa

> It would seem to me that as Trump does not call himself libertarian, while Johnson does, it's fairer to hold the latter to a different standard. Besides, given the relentlessly pro-war political environment, Trump may be employing the same "talk hawkish, while announcing pro-peace reforms" foreign policy tightrope we tolerated in Rand. 
> 
> As pointed out before, a Jacksonian impulse to support short term war where the American interest is truly at stake, is much less severely interventionist than the neocon complete and ongoing commitment to regime change, nation building, no exit long wars, global empire and endlessly placating Israel, etc. But these reasonable distinctions appear to be forever lost on the Trump bashers.


If you have a Libertarian candidate who is not wonderful but pretty good, and a Republican candidate who sucks donkey balls, you have to vote for the Republican who sucks donkey balls because you can only vote for a Libertarian who is ideologically pure as the riven snow.

Well, I'm glad that works for somebody.  But I think it's the most stupid and self-destructive thing I ever heard.




> One more time and you go on my ignore.


Try his ignore list, twomp.  You'll like it.  It's funny when he quotes someone else and answers you, because he wants to answer you but wants to pretend he has you on ignore.




> John McAfee also is far better for another reason.  
> (And I whole heartily endorse him now I know the born in Britain thing is nonsense).
> 
> He unites two groups I've been trying to unite since the 80s - hackers and libertarians - and my background is computers.  It's an important group to officially recognize in the libertarian movement - and what better introduction then a well known personality in the computer industry?


Potentially just about anyone on earth.  Someone they know about they have opinions about, and fully half of them may not like the guy for one reason or another.  Someone from outside their industry they judge on his or her positions.

Why is this guy trashing Johnson and acting like we choose the LP candidate?  Is there a campaign to ensure that no matter who the LP nominates, we already hate him?  Is that why this obvious Trump supporter who wants us to believe he isn't is foaming at the mouth about cakes?

You know, folks, voting for a Libertarian who isn't as libertarian as he could be doesn't do the cause or the country any harm.  But being genuinely libertarian at a site that makes a mockery of conservatism and principle only serves to give that mockery credibility.

If I were heavenlyboy, I'd be seriously pissed.  He learned to keep his lighthearted banter out of activist threads.  He caught hell over it.  He learned the hard way that there might well be a place for things like this nihilist claptrap, but an activist thread is not one of them.

I guess this isn't an activist site any more.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Why would I want to be like you, advocating enemies list of people who disagree with you - first in the thread after tulsa created that - as I recall, labeling people as trump supporters who aren't, insulting, group bullying, driving off old members, etc?


You know, I haven't mentioned this much, but I'm going to bring it up now because within the past few days I've seen what must be a coordinated effort among some of you who see yourselves on some "enemies list"  to make others on this site believe that we have "driven off old members." I'd like to challenge you to provide some names of those you think we've driven off, because other than one who has a temp ban, the same people who we've been "labeling as Trump supporters" (many of whom said they'd vote for him in a poll that was posted) are still here...they haven't gone anywhere. But you know what? I could provide names of some old members that Trump supporters have driven off. Go ahead. Let's see what ya got.

----------


## RJ Liberty

> If you have a Libertarian candidate who is not wonderful but pretty good, and a Republican candidate who sucks donkey balls, you have to vote for the Republican who sucks donkey balls because you can only vote for a Libertarian who is ideologically pure as the riven snow.
> 
> Well, I'm glad that works for somebody.  But I think it's the most stupid and self-destructive thing I ever heard.


It's completely destructive, but not _self_-destructive, if you never wanted a liberty candidate to begin with.





> Try his ignore list, twomp.  You'll like it.  It's funny when he quotes someone else and answers you, because he wants to answer you but wants to pretend he has you on ignore.


I noticed that, too. WTF? 






> Why is this guy trashing Johnson and acting like we choose the LP candidate?  Is there a campaign to ensure that no matter who the LP nominates, we already hate him?  Is that why this obvious Trump supporter who wants us to believe he isn't is foaming at the mouth about cakes?


I suspect so. QFT: "This one-issue voter really takes the cake."

----------


## Ronin Truth

> If you have a Libertarian candidate who is not wonderful but pretty good, and a Republican candidate who sucks donkey balls, you have to vote for the Republican who sucks donkey balls because you can only vote for a Libertarian who is ideologically pure as the riven snow.
> 
> Well, I'm glad that works for somebody. But I think it's the most stupid and self-destructive thing I ever heard.
> 
> 
> 
> Try his ignore list, twomp. You'll like it. It's funny when he quotes someone else and answers you, because he wants to answer you but wants to pretend he has you on ignore.
> 
> 
> ...


Nor does it any good.  It's totally irrelevant, with a significance and relevance of zippo!

----------


## phill4paul

With current election laws there comes a significant hurdle. Had a friend here in N.C. that approached the primary ballot worker. She asked, "Democrat or Republican?" He kind of just looked at her then asked "Are the Libertarian candidates on either ballot?" She replied, "Oh, you're one of those people." then searched a few minutes and gave him a Libertarian ballot.
  So unless election reform ever actually comes to pass it is a tough row to hoe. And I don't see any election reform coming from the two privileged party system anytime soon. The average voter would not even know they had a different option.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> With current election laws there comes a significant hurdle. Had a friend here in N.C. that approached the primary ballot worker. She asked, "Democrat or Republican?" He kind of just looked at her then asked "Are the Libertarian candidates on either ballot?" She replied, "Oh, you're one of those people." then searched a few minutes and gave him a Libertarian ballot.
>   So unless election reform ever actually comes to pass it is a tough row to hoe. And I don't see any election reform coming from the two privileged party system anytime soon. The average voter would not even know they had a different option.


Let me get this straight. People want to make it illegal to ask for ID when someone votes, but we allow this to happen and no one cares? We're just going to allow a poll worker to disenfranchise an entire political party and its candidate  (or 2, 3 or more.) Awesome.

----------


## Ronin Truth

"Step right up, right this way, to throw away your vote(s) for another Oxymoron scam. " 

(All donations kindly accepted, appreciated and expected.)

----------


## brushfire

#RIPGOP

----------


## Peace&Freedom

> If you have a Libertarian candidate who is not wonderful but pretty good, and a Republican candidate who sucks donkey balls, you have to vote for the Republican who sucks donkey balls because you can only vote for a Libertarian who is ideologically pure as the riven snow.
> 
> Well, I'm glad that works for somebody.  But I think it's the most stupid and self-destructive thing I ever heard.


I voted for Johnson in 2012. The point is, we were already employing different standards when we tolerated Rand's tactical use of compromise, but (most of us) did not hold that against him. Whereas Trump presents with the same compromising dance or conflicting signals, and yet it's considered "destructive" to _not_ hold it against him. I don't know if that inconsistency works for anybody.

----------


## erowe1

> I voted for Johnson in 2012. The point is, we were already employing different standards when we tolerated Rand's tactical use of compromise, but (most of us) did not hold that against him. Whereas Trump presents with the same compromising dance or conflicting signals, and yet it's considered "destructive" to _not_ hold it against him. I don't know if that inconsistency works for anybody.


There is no comparison between Trump and Rand.

----------


## Peace&Freedom

> There is no comparison between Trump and Rand.


Didn't say there was, only that they used the same tactic. The difference in outcomes is Rand used it to pose in a mainly establishment-friendly way, while Trump did not.

----------


## afwjam

It will be funny when all the trump supporters figure out that they are the cucks.

----------


## erowe1

> Didn't say there was, only that they used the same tactic.


That's a comparison, and no they didn't. You're just making excuses for your support for Trump.

----------


## twomp

> One more time and you go on my ignore.  I don't have time for people who discuss nothing about libertarian values, and since I've never seen you post before - although your account is old - and all you are doing is insulting and repeating the same old thing over and over ie a believer in the anti-intellectual "if you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes true", I get nothing out of discussing anything with you.
> 
> Using my time on people who do not rationally discuss things is foolish, and prevents me from talking to other like minded people. I'm only stating this in case you are not someone's alt, and through a reasonable rebuke you might come to sensible and rational discussion.


You are like that 5 year old child who covers his ears when he doesn't hear what he likes. Do you think anyone cares if you put them on ignore? Go ahead and put me on ignore. I will just laugh at you while you cover your ears and act like its not happening. Endlessly promoting Trump then claiming that you are a libertarian. That's priceless. You and your fellow Trump supporters make me laugh with your hypocrisy and stupidity.

----------


## undergroundrr

> Didn't say there was, only that they used the same tactic. The difference in outcomes is Rand used it to pose in a mainly establishment-friendly way, while Trump did not.


Rand Paul, a lifelong libertarian conservative, shaped (and continues to shape) his rhetoric to bring his message to a wider audience and to expand the range and alter the direction of political discourse.

trump, a lifelong progressive liberal, plays the role of a belligerent nationalist to game a presidential campaign (perceivably for the purpose of benefiting his longtime friend and financial beneficiary Hillary Clinton) and to mislead the media-addicted and credulous.

They're similar approaches to the extent that they're completely opposite in method, intent and result. Rand Paul weakens the establishment through principled intellect and prudence. trump strengthens the establishment through unprincipled misdirection and co-option.

----------


## Peace&Freedom

> That's a comparison, and no they didn't. You're just making excuses for your support for Trump.


That's not a comparison, but an acknowledgement of the same factor. And yes, they used the same tactic, only Rand was much better and thoughtful doing it than Trump. Are you really declaring that no one other than Rand can try to play the finesse game? Then you're just making up excuses for Trump bashing.




> They're similar approaches to the extent that they're completely opposite in method, intent and result. Rand Paul weakens the establishment through principled intellect and prudence. trump strengthens the establishment through unprincipled misdirection and co-option.


Rand is the one who suspended in February, remember? Whereas Trump is the front runner and likely nominee. If anything has been established by this cycle, it's that Trump's attitudinal approach has weakened and disrupted the establishment far, far more than Rand's intellectual approach. Trump was also far better at naturally engaging and energizing the anti-establishment voters who were seeking this outcome. 

If anything, the establishment showed it has become even *more* efficient at neutralizing the Paul-style liberty candidate than it was in either 2008 or 2012, and thereby _weakened and demoralized the liberty movement_, not the movement doing so to the establishment. At the national level, the clear lesson learned and path moving forward is for the movement to run candidates with Paul-like views, but also an alpha vibe. More of a William Wallace demeanor, not a professorial "educational campaign" aura.

----------


## SpiritOf1776_J4

> There is no comparison between Trump and Rand.


Nope, Rand dropped out after 1 primary and Trump doesn't quit.

If you said no comparison between Ron and Trump, I might have agreed with what you meant.

----------


## SpiritOf1776_J4

> You are like that 5 year old child who covers his ears when he doesn't hear what he likes. Do you think anyone cares if you put them on ignore? Go ahead and put me on ignore. I will just laugh at you while you cover your ears and act like its not happening. Endlessly promoting Trump then claiming that you are a libertarian. That's priceless. You and your fellow Trump supporters make me laugh with your hypocrisy and stupidity.


Does anyone want to live with these tantrums?  As a place of intellectual discussion this place has gone to nil because courtesy is that of a ghetto.  With total disrespect, you treat it like a ghetto.  I would have kicked some of you off back in 2007 for violating rules that were written down for participating in a forum.  You've gotten worse, and age is no excuse now - it's been 10 years.  You must be 20 now at least.

The last person I talked to that acted way, I said he acted like he didn't go to college.  And he was embarrassed, because he hadn't.  Well, it shows.  I taught college as a doctoral student.  There are people that know me from online since the 90s on here, and I've been online since the 80s - a libertarian the whole time.  I'm probably twice the age of most of you acting this way, and if you did it in front of me, you'd get whipped.  You don't treat your elders or your betters that way.

*Good government is no replacement for good society.*  Welcome to my ignore list #5.  It's gotten quite peaceful around here, and I suspect I could sell the list.  No one on it has ever said anything intelligent on here yet - I don't add people just for disagreeing, but for rude behavior that is counter to discussion.   Since that is all anyone on it has done - it cleans up the board well.  And if any of you small (5 people) really were bothered about what I write, you'd *peacefully*  add me to your ignore list too, instead of violently  insulting, bullying, mocking, driving off users,  slandering, making threads to create  enemy lists, etc.  Every sort of evil that goes against *libertarian* values *in fact.*

There's a reason you don't add me to your ignore list and just wail like a baby, and we both know it.  You're beneath my time, and so you're on it.

----------


## CPUd

I can confirm he does read the posts from people on his ignore list.

----------


## SpiritOf1776_J4

> Rand is the one who suspended in February, remember? Whereas Trump is the front runner and likely nominee. If anything has been established by this cycle, it's that Trump's attitudinal approach has weakened and disrupted the establishment far, far more than Rand's intellectual approach. Trump was also far better at naturally engaging and energizing the anti-establishment voters who were seeking this outcome. 
> 
> If anything, the establishment showed it has become even *more* efficient at neutralizing the Paul-style liberty candidate than it was in either 2008 or 2012, and thereby _weakened and demoralized the liberty movement_, not the movement doing so to the establishment. At the national level, the clear lesson learned and path moving forward is for the movement to run candidates with Paul-like views, but also an alpha vibe. More of a William Wallace demeanor, not a professorial "educational campaign" aura.


Which is another reason I think John McAfee is a better Libertarian candidate than Austin Peterson.  We need more firebrands like Samuel Adams now.  We've entered into a different phase.

----------


## SpiritOf1776_J4

> I can confirm he does read the posts from people on his ignore list.


Lol.  you aren't on my ignore list.  I don't add people for disagreeing - and apparently not for being a spammer and hillary supporter as in your case.

----------


## erowe1

> That's not a comparison, but an acknowledgement of the same factor.


That's what comparisons are. And no, they didn't use the same tactic.

----------


## erowe1

> Nope, Rand dropped out after 1 primary and Trump doesn't quit.
> 
> If you said no comparison between Ron and Trump, I might have agreed with what you meant.


I don't get your point. Rand was right to drop out. Trump was right to stay in. But that has nothing to do with anything we're talking about.

----------


## Jamesiv1

> Rand Paul, a lifelong libertarian conservative, shaped (and continues to shape) his rhetoric to bring his message to a wider audience and to expand the range and alter the direction of political discourse.
> 
> trump, a lifelong progressive liberal, plays the role of a belligerent nationalist to game a presidential campaign (perceivably for the purpose of benefiting his longtime friend and financial beneficiary Hillary Clinton) and to mislead the media-addicted and credulous.
> 
> They're similar approaches to the extent that they're completely opposite in method, intent and result. Rand Paul weakens the establishment through principled intellect and prudence. trump strengthens the establishment through unprincipled misdirection and co-option.


You sir, are no lover of Great Deals.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> You are like that 5 year old child who covers his ears when he doesn't hear what he likes. Do you think anyone cares if you put them on ignore? Go ahead and put me on ignore. I will just laugh at you while you cover your ears and act like its not happening. Endlessly promoting Trump then claiming that you are a libertarian. That's priceless. You and your fellow Trump supporters make me laugh with your hypocrisy and stupidity.


If he can't hear you, you're not saying anything.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> I voted for Johnson in 2012. The point is, we were already employing different standards when we tolerated Rand's tactical use of compromise, but (most of us) did not hold that against him. Whereas Trump presents with the same compromising dance or conflicting signals, and yet it's considered "destructive" to _not_ hold it against him. I don't know if that inconsistency works for anybody.


We were told that Rand was only doing that to get elected, that he would govern from a point of liberty.  We never got the chance to find out if he would be able to pull that off or not (I always thought it was risky) but here's the difference:  *no one is saying that Trump is only saying certain things to get elected and then he'll magically change into a liberty president. * ​No one is saying that because they would be laughed off the board.

----------


## CPUd

For all that Rand would say, his voting record is solid liberty.  People who had concerns could always look to that to be reassured.  People who had "concerns" are now trying to find ways to promote Trump on RPFs without breaking the new guidelines.

----------


## twomp

> Does anyone want to live with these tantrums?  As a place of intellectual discussion this place has gone to nil because courtesy is that of a ghetto.  With total disrespect, you treat it like a ghetto.  I would have kicked some of you off back in 2007 for violating rules that were written down for participating in a forum.  You've gotten worse, and age is no excuse now - it's been 10 years.  You must be 20 now at least.
> 
> The last person I talked to that acted way, I said he acted like he didn't go to college.  And he was embarrassed, because he hadn't.  Well, it shows.  I taught college as a doctoral student.  There are people that know me from online since the 90s on here, and I've been online since the 80s - a libertarian the whole time.  I'm probably twice the age of most of you acting this way, and if you did it in front of me, you'd get whipped.  You don't treat your elders or your betters that way.
> 
> *Good government is no replacement for good society.*  Welcome to my ignore list #5.  It's gotten quite peaceful around here, and I suspect I could sell the list.  No one on it has ever said anything intelligent on here yet - I don't add people just for disagreeing, but for rude behavior that is counter to discussion.   Since that is all anyone on it has done - it cleans up the board well.  And if any of you small (5 people) really were bothered about what I write, you'd *peacefully*  add me to your ignore list too, instead of violently  insulting, bullying, mocking, driving off users,  slandering, making threads to create  enemy lists, etc.  Every sort of evil that goes against *libertarian* values *in fact.*
> 
> There's a reason you don't add me to your ignore list and just wail like a baby, and we both know it.  You're beneath my time, and so you're on it.


My apologies. It appears you are an OLD child who likes to cover his ears when he hears bad things he doesn't like. "SHHH everyone, I'm in my happy place now, lalalalalala I can't hear you!!"

Thanks for the personal history lesson by the way. Throwing around your "online street credits" like it means actually something. But hey, I'm sure someone around here is impressed by it! Fellow Trump trolls possibly?

And finally, judging by your actions, if I were in front of you, you wouldn't dare whip me. You'd cover your ears and run away crying like a 5 year old child.

----------


## SpiritOf1776_J4

Still, we're only watching the Libertarian front runners in tomorrow's debates,

What about all the other media neglected Libertarian candidates?  The ron pauls of ron pauls of the future?

----------


## Peace&Freedom

> For all that Rand would say, his voting record is solid liberty.  People who had concerns could always look to that to be reassured.  People who had "concerns" are now trying to find ways to promote Trump on RPFs without breaking the new guidelines.


More accurately, some people are using the guidelines (which were created to address a non-problem) as a figleaf for bashing Trump. They are not acknowledging the value of the anti-establishment/outsider trend for the movement, and stretching the meaning of "promoting" to include any expression of support for that phenomenon. 

Bottom line, Rand's rhetoric on foreign policy during his campaign intentionally sent mixed signals, and Trump's rhetoric on foreign policy during his campaign has intentionally sent mixed signals. Both have provided evidence (Rand, by voting record, Trump, by repeated statements) that their policy intentions are much less interventionist than that of the war party establishment. That's two people doing the same thing, regardless of the issue of their total ideology.

----------


## RandallFan

> And Johnson's doing just fine in polling, with 11% in a head-to-head match-up versus Trump and Hillary. In fact, so far it's the biggest third party showing since Perot's second run in 1996. Hardly "piss-poor".


He's not going to get that. He should be impressed if he gets 2% in November.

Trump's the only guy who could win as a Republican or break double digits as a indie at this point in time.

----------


## CPUd

> More accurately, some people are using the guidelines (which were created to address a non-problem) as figleaf for bashing Trump. They are not acknowledging the value of the anti-establishment/outsider trend for the movement, and stretching the meaning of "promoting" to include any expression of support for that phenomenon. 
> 
> Bottom line, Rand's rhetoric on foreign policy during his campaign intentionally sent mixed signals, and Trump's rhetoric on foreign policy during his campaign has intentionally sent mixed signals. Both have provided evidence (Rand, by voting record, Trump, by repeated statements) that their policy intentions are much less interventionist than that of the war party establishment. That's two people doing the same thing, regardless of the issue of their total ideology.


Trump supports bombing civilians, torture, using the military for theft of natural resources.  He does not get to call himself a non-interventionist, and it is well within the site guidelines to oppose him for that.

----------


## RandallFan

The only party socially aligned with a Gary Johnson candidate could be the Europe Green Party who gained the same time as the far right gained in regions in Germany.

Or the Bernie Sanders Indie Party.

----------


## RJ Liberty

> He's not going to get that. He should be impressed if he gets 2% in November.


Third-party candidates typically receive half of what they poll.




> Trump's the only guy who could win as a Republican


No. Trump cannot win the US general election.

----------


## jmdrake

> The LP cannot get someone elected to the US Senate, The US House, Governor, or any state Senate in the country. And according to their page they only have 1 elected official in any state legislature, and that is in Nevada.
> 
> So someone please tell me how a party is going to get someone elected President when they can't even get more than 1 person elected to a lower chamber in the entire country?




This entire thread is a waste of bandwidth.  What difference does it make?  We've got Trump in the lead, a man who *lied* about being against the Iraq war from the beginning (he was for it in 2002), called for a complete gun ban back in 2000, supported the disastrous overthrow of Ghaddafi, called Hillary Clinton one of the best secretaries of state ever, and supports taking your property against your will and giving it to another private developer versus Cruz, a man who was apparently dumb enough to believe Mitch McConnell's promises on TPA and vote for it before voting against it, versus Hillary, a woman who's foreign policy lead to ISIS, is a potential felon, has a husband who was buddies with someone who is now a convicted pedophile and Bill visited the infamous "orgy island", versus Bernie, who's such a hard core socialist he believes General Electric is the root of all evil and he hates the Uber service that his millennial fans love, while still using Uber himself.  Oh, and Bernie supports the war in Syria too which makes him also responsible for ISIS.

So.....all of the above suck.  If Cruz gets the nomination I *might* vote for him because he's arguably better than Hillary.  Trump, who lied about his opposition to the Iraq war, is no better than Hillary.  That means I'll most likely vote for the libertarian candidate.  And why the hell not?  The only reason I didn't vote for Bob Barr in 2008 was because he was a hyperdouche who snubbed Ron Paul's "third party presidential candidate" press conference.  So I voted for Chuck Baldwin and I'm proud of it.  I voted for Virgil Goode because I thought he was another Baldwin, but it turns out I was mistaken.  I couldn't vote for Gary Johnson last time because he basically endorsed the Obama doctrine of using the military to stop "genocide."  That's no good because the NWO just calls everything they want to intervene in "genocide."  Saddam Hussein?  "Genocide" against the Kurds.  Libya and Syria?  "Genocide" against Al Qaeda.  Hopefully McAfee will get the LP nomination this time, but if he doesn't, screw it.  I'm voting for the LP anyway.  I hope they get over 5%, but if they don't, I don't care.  Nobody else running deserves my vote or any of our votes are far as I can tell.

----------


## SpiritOf1776_J4

Here's part 1 and 2 of the Libertarian party debate together:

https://youtu.be/QQPWiCgAjDo?t=1723

----------


## jmdrake

> Here's part 1 and 2 of the Libertarian party debate together:
> 
> https://youtu.be/QQPWiCgAjDo?t=1723


I see what you're doing.  Trump sucks so bad that he might help the LP get over 5%.  Interesting strategy.  I'm not willing to risk a Hillary presidency over it.  Not willing to risk a Trump presidency over it either for that matter.

----------


## acptulsa

> I see what you're doing.  Trump sucks so bad that he might help the LP get over 5%.  Interesting strategy.  I'm not willing to risk a Hillary presidency over it.  Not willing to risk a Trump presidency over it either for that matter.


That is the point in a nutshell.  The lesser of those two evils is undetectable.  Any alternative at all is a straw worth grasping at.

----------


## younglibertarian

I think for a libertarian candidate to be successful he/she would need to run as a republican at first. If they made a strong showing in the debates they could drop out and THEN run libertarian. That is what I wanted Ron to do in 2012. Would have gotten way more votes then Johnson.

----------


## erowe1

Under what circumstances would any candidate ever stand a greater chance of winning a general election under the Libertarian Party banner than they would of winning the primary election to be able to run under the Republican (or Democrat) Party banner?

----------

