Best candidates for Libertarian Party 2020

[angelatc]

I take it you aren't aware that Petersen is running for the Senate as a Republican as I type this sentence. Not only is he connected, he joined the syndicate itself!

http://www.businessinsider.com/austin-petersen-missouri-senate-claire-mccaskill-trump-ar-15-2017-10

Which is exactly what Ron Paul said we needed to do if we want to win.

 

[RonZeplin]

RINO's Ron Paul & Austin Petersen - Too pro-American to be REAL Republicans

I take it you aren't aware that Petersen is running for the Senate as a Republican as I type this sentence. Not only is he connected, he joined the syndicate itself!

http://www.businessinsider.com/austin-petersen-missouri-senate-claire-mccaskill-trump-ar-15-2017-10

I'm aware that Austin is running for US Senate as a Republican, but he's more of a RINO like Ron Paul was. They're too good to be real Republicans.

 

[PierzStyx]

I'm aware that Austin is running for US Senate as a Republican, but he's more of a RINO like Ron Paul was. They're too good to be real Republicans.

I don't buy it. Petersen doesn't believe in teh NAP. He is a minarchist, which makes him a statist. He actively believes the government should have the ability to force you to obey it against your will when you arenm't violating the rights of anyone else. The list of things he thinks it should be able to do that to you for may be small, but it exists. Ron was the opposite. He really does believe in an endorse the NAP, even to the point to where he thinks the Golden Rule should guide foreign policy and warfare. If anything, Ron was the RINO. Which is not something I see as a problem.

 

[PierzStyx]

Which is exactly what Ron Paul said we needed to do if we want to win.

Still waiting for that Libertarian wave. Ron did well at using his role as a podium from which to espouse libertarian values from. But that neither he nor anyone even close to his positions has won is telling I think. Amash is probably the closest, but he is far from as public or famous a figure as Ron.

 

[Krugminator2]

Setting aside being good on the issues, I feel like a minimum standard should be having a job or profession unrelated to getting donations for being a libertarian.

Larry Sharpe- makes the cut

Daryl Perry - Missed cut

Austin Petersen- Missed Cut

Adam Kokesh- ummmmmm

By the way, if Kokesh gets out of jail in time to run for president in 2020 and proceeds to win, he says he’ll abolish the federal government. That could be problematic for him, though, since he said in a Fox 5 interview that he’s 70 percent disabled from his service in Iraq (he was a Marine) and now lives on government assistance.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2013/08/adam-kokeshs-2020-presidential-campaign-betsy-woodruff/

 

[angelatc]

Still waiting for that Libertarian wave. Ron did well at using his role as a podium from which to espouse libertarian values from. But that neither he nor anyone even close to his positions has won is telling I think. Amash is probably the closest, but he is far from as public or famous a figure as Ron.

Not saying you're wrong, but the Tea Party had a lot in common with the Libertarians. The PTB effectively quashed them both, and a lot of people quit the party when they met the internal resistance. Our philosophy is sound, but without warriors we can't win.

 

[Swordsmyth]

I don't buy it. Petersen doesn't believe in teh NAP. He is a minarchist, which makes him a statist. He actively believes the government should have the ability to force you to obey it against your will when you arenm't violating the rights of anyone else. The list of things he thinks it should be able to do that to you for may be small, but it exists. Ron was the opposite. He really does believe in an endorse the NAP, even to the point to where he thinks the Golden Rule should guide foreign policy and warfare. If anything, Ron was the RINO. Which is not something I see as a problem.

Still trying to keep those who want smaller government divided are we?

 

[Anti Globalist]

I like Ron Paul at any age. If Ron would be will to run, he'd be a slam dunk nominee.

As far as Trump, I see issues with NAP and National Debt that would ever allow him to be the LP candidate. You can't be a LP candidate and promise a $1 trillion per year defense budget.

Oh, and "Take the guns first."

I like Ron at any age too but he'll be in his mid 80s by the time the next election comes around. I much prefer a Ron where I don't have to worry about him dying in office.

 

[dean.engelhardt]

I like Ron at any age too but he'll be in his mid 80s by the time the next election comes around. I much prefer a Ron where I don't have to worry about him dying in office.

How about Ron/Rand ticket. Rand is no Ron, but there is a good chance Ron could be very productive into his 90s. Heck, Jimmie Carter is still kicking it around these days.

 

[VIDEODROME]

Penn Jillette

 

[dean.engelhardt]

Penn Jillette

Lets do a money bomb!

 

[PierzStyx]

Still trying to keep those who want smaller government divided are we?

You want someone to put a gun to my head and force me to obey your will and wear your shackles or be beaten, caged, or killed. I don't care if the list of things you want to do that to me on is big or small, you're all the same. You petty dictators are the problem, not the solution. Free men do not need to be governed.

 

[CaptUSA]

Depends on what you want, I suppose. Are you looking for someone who has principles but will be totally ignored? You have a wide choice (even though libertarians will never agree on what principles matter.)

Or are you looking for ratings and a tick up at the polling booth? Then, maybe Mark Cuban? The Rock??

Who knows? Does it even matter?

 

[Swordsmyth]

You want someone to put a gun to my head and force me to obey your will and wear your shackles or be beaten, caged, or killed. I don't care if the list of things you want to do that to me on is big or small, you're all the same. You petty dictators are the problem, not the solution. Free men do not need to be governed.

The differences between minarchists and anarchists don't make any difference until we reach minarchy and the anarchists want to go farther, but you don't want us to make any progress or even slow down the decline so you spread division and infighting and tell people not to support candidates that are far better than the alternative because the are supposedly not perfect.

 

[USAFCapt]

Tom Woods. PhD in History via Ivy League. He lives in Orlando (home of the LP convention?) He's short but his public speaking is 10/10.

 

[USAFCapt]

Lets do a money bomb!

Very well spoken, tall, and would crush in a debate. Atheist which could rally votes and wake the sheeple up.

 

[Thor]

We will keep vacillating on dipshits while the Dems and Repubs advance the police state. More cameras, drones, NSA, biometric markers, you know - standard fair... and then AI will take over the infrastructure they have built and fuck us all up the ass real hard... But, hey, we are helping...

LOL... wishful dreams.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Depends on what you want, I suppose. Are you looking for someone who has principles but will be totally ignored? You have a wide choice (even though libertarians will never agree on what principles matter.)

Or are you looking for ratings and a tick up at the polling booth? Then, maybe Mark Cuban? The Rock??

Who knows? Does it even matter?

The Libertarian Party usually goes for the person who hypothetically (unproven) might have the best chance of getting votes, and that means getting someone previously elected under a different Party. They want respectability.

Boehner/Flake 2020!

 

[PierzStyx]

The differences between minarchists and anarchists don't make any difference until we reach minarchy and the anarchists want to go farther, but you don't want us to make any progress or even slow down the decline so you spread division and infighting and tell people not to support candidates that are far better than the alternative because the are supposedly not perfect.

1. I'm not talking about anarchy. No one here is. I'm talking about libertarianism, a political philosophy founded on the idea that neither you nor the government have the right to initiate force against anyone. It is opposed to statism -the belief that you have the right to use violence to compel others to obey your orders- in all its forms, no matter whether the list of things you want to force others to do is big or small.

2. That you do not understand number one tells me two things. One, you don't understand anarchy or libertarianism. You constantly conflate the two. And two, it gives me a great deal of confidence in concluding that you do not understand minarchy either.

3. The differences between anarchy and minarchy are fundamental and foundational. Minarchists want to use violence against peaceful people in order to force them obey your orders and violate their freedom. Anarchists do not. Unlike you, anarchists have no list of demands that everyone else must obey or be beaten, caged, or killed for the "evil" of living as a free human being. Everything else flows from this truth.

In reality, there is not much difference between anarchy and libertarianism. Libertarians believe there is still some hope that a formal government can be completely voluntary and function without violating individual liberty. Anarchists are convinced otherwise. That is the only difference.

In contrast, minarchists are not different than Socialists and Fascists. All three ideologies are founded on the belief that you have the right to beat, cage, or kill others for the crime of disobeying the orders of those in power. The only different between the three is they argue over what things they should beat, cage, and kill people over. It is why minarchy is and always has been a fantasy. Once an organization can beat, cage, or kill you for disobeying it, the trend will always be towards totalitarianism. This, in short, is the history of American government, if you can say a government that holds over 5 million people in absolute slavery and uses its vast policing and military powers to compel even those opposed to slavery to support it was ever "small" or minarchist to begin with.

4. As for "supporting candidates," by now everyone with eyes should be able to see the failure of thinking somehow you'll be able to get the State to voluntarily surrender its power or that voting matters. You keep voting for evil and then act shocked when evil wins. It would be laughable if it weren't so damn sad with horrendous consequences.

5. You are not a minarchist anyway. No one who wants to expand the vast police state powers of the US government to hunt, track, beat, cage, and even kill over 11,000,000 people for a nonviolent "crime" could ever be described as minarchist. You are very much for the promotion and expansion of the powers of the State to brutalize, dominate, and steal the life, liberty, and property of private individuals. You're just another regressive Progressive.

 

[Swordsmyth]

1. I'm not talking about anarchy. No one here is. I'm talking about libertarianism, a political philosophy founded on the idea that neither you nor the government have the right to initiate force against anyone. It is opposed to statism -the belief that you have the right to use violence to compel others to obey your orders- in all its forms, no matter whether the list of things you want to force others to do is big or small.

2. That you do not understand number one tells me two things. One, you don't understand anarchy or libertarianism. You constantly conflate the two. And two, it gives me a great deal of confidence in concluding that you do not understand minarchy either.

3. The differences between anarchy and minarchy are fundamental and foundational. Minarchists want to use violence against peaceful people in order to force them obey your orders and violate their freedom. Anarchists do not. Unlike you, anarchists have no list of demands that everyone else must obey or be beaten, caged, or killed for the "evil" of living as a free human being. Everything else flows from this truth.

In reality, there is not much difference between anarchy and libertarianism. Libertarians believe there is still some hope that a formal government can be completely voluntary and function without violating individual liberty. Anarchists are convinced otherwise. That is the only difference.

In contrast, minarchists are not different than Socialists and Fascists. All three ideologies are founded on the belief that you have the right to beat, cage, or kill others for the crime of disobeying the orders of those in power. The only different between the three is they argue over what things they should beat, cage, and kill people over. It is why minarchy is and always has been a fantasy. Once an organization can beat, cage, or kill you for disobeying it, the trend will always be towards totalitarianism. This, in short, is the history of American government, if you can say a government that holds over 5 million people in absolute slavery and uses its vast policing and military powers to compel even those opposed to slavery to support it was ever "small" or minarchist to begin with.

4. As for "supporting candidates," by now everyone with eyes should be able to see the failure of thinking somehow you'll be able to get the State to voluntarily surrender its power or that voting matters. You keep voting for evil and then act shocked when evil wins. It would be laughable if it weren't so damn sad with horrendous consequences.

5. You are not a minarchist anyway. No one who wants to expand the vast police state powers of the US government to hunt, track, beat, cage, and even kill over 11,000,000 people for a nonviolent "crime" could ever be described as minarchist. You are very much for the promotion and expansion of the powers of the State to brutalize, dominate, and steal the life, liberty, and property of private individuals. You're just another regressive Progressive.

Your lies and twistings don't deserve a response.

You constantly demonstrate that your purpose is to make it impossible to improve things by keeping those who want to reduce government divided and by pushing utopian nonsense that will scare away anyone who might otherwise be educated to work for the reduction of government, you also consistently defend leftists who want to increase the size, scope and power of government.