Libertarian debate w/ Stossel on Fox Business April 1 & 8- FULL VIDEO ADDED

LOL, immediately following the Libertarian debate Fox is airing a propaganda piece about how the military is underfunded.
 
FB_IMG_1459563559955.jpg
 
Here is my take:

Johnson:
Worse than I thought. His social policy is in no way libertarian, it is purely libertine. He wants to use government coercion to implement socially "liberal" policy. I am just not okay with government having any sort of role whatsoever in that regard. I am so sick of hearing that libertarians are "socially liberal". I am for one, not, at all. However, that is my private virtue. Anyone who has seen A Clockwork Orange should understand that forcing morality completely destroys morality. You have to accept the fact that people have different values. Forcing "conservative" social law is no worse than forcing "liberal" social law. GET RID OF THE DAMN LAWS. PERIOD. END OF STORY. His economic policy is absolutely clear that he is in no way respectful of property rights or individual liberty. He is an egalitarian leftist who leans towards fiscal responsibility. No thank you.


McAfee:
He is charming in a weird sort of way. I've called him "a character with a character". I really like his genuineness. However, I am measuring policy, not person (or at least im trying not to). I think he is fantastic when thinking about Cyber Defense, but I am not sure how he could implement it in a constitutional or libertarian way. Outside of this, I have relatively few complaints, he seems well rounded, a little more pragmatic than principled perhaps, but overall, a solid candidate.

Peterson:

Peterson is a complete f*ckboy. However; if I support any of the 3, it will be him. I have no desire to be a Freedom Ninja...actually, that sounds kinda cool....but behind his stupid slogans and mannerisms, he has a fantastic philosophical mindset. He is a Constitutionalist when attempting to 'get things done', such as war with ISIS, but bringing back Letters of M and A. That is a fantastic position. He respects Liberty and Property clearly...and of very particular interest to me, he respects life with the same vigor. I do not really care how you craft the argument of pro-choice as an issue of Liberty, it is an issue of Life for the child. Now, if this issue did not exist...Peterson would still be my guy of the 3. He simply comes off as a Paul-ite.

So if i could mix and match them all.

I would take Petersons policy positions and philosophy, his youthful and upbeat energy and enthusiasm, and maybe a few of his corny jokes, and cross them with McAfees ruggedness, real world intellect, and weird persona....and I would go fly Johnson to the Sanders campaign so he can start making stump speeches for his ideological ally.


EDIT: I like McAfee more and more every time I hear him. I am highly concerned that Peterson is all Slogan, no Backbone. It's not that I dislike Peterson, it is that he seems more concerned about sound-bites and saying something edgy than a mature articulation of his philosophy. McAfee suffers from the exact opposite issue. I would like to see them run together.....and Johnson can take a hike.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
I'm not with McAfee on everything, but he's by far the best out of the three. I still say we should sell the SF Bay Area to him, whole-cloth. Give him ultimate and complete executive power over running the place, and see what he does over a five year period.
 
Petersen opened by calling himself an "anti-establishment" candidate. What a f@cking joke. He has trolled hardcore for the establishment on 9/11 and any other number of issues. He really needs to STFU.
 
Last edited:
Libertas Aut Mortis said:
Here is my take:
Click to expand...

Fair enough, but I don't think anyone outside of the LP and remnants of the Ron Paul crowd are going to take him seriously. He's just too young and his quick, canned answers don't inspire confidence that he has really given things serious thought. Imo, of the 3, he would likely do the worst in the general election. He really should try and cut his teeth on a local or statewide race and get some experience in the great sausage factory. Would help his credibility tremendously.

I really wanted GJ to shine as he has some credibility having been a two term governor with a record to back his rhetoric, but I really thought McAfee won round 1. He (McAfee) seemed a bit nervous at times, but he still managed to be responsive, clear and coherent and present himself as a serious individual. I thought of the 3, he is the most likely to capture some interest from the broader electorate (outside the LP) based upon what I saw last night.
 
found this about Petersen . . .

Austin Petersen on the Perception of Isolationism

You know, obviously terrorism is a threat but we have got to resist these politicans who are going to fear monger as an excuse to take away our liberties.
Stand up to people who use every tragedy as an excuse to take away our constitutional rights.

Now listen. Thomas Jefferson had the Islamic terrorists of his day. He still managed to fight them Constitutionally.
After 9/11, Congressman Ron Paul went to the Congress and asked for Letters of Marque and Reprisal. Congress should update these letters.
Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution would give us powerful tools to fight ISIS in a way that doesn’t involve invasion, occupation, and nation building.

http://austinpetersen2016.com/petersens-presidential-forum-responses/


---------------
Not really sure what he means though when he said. . . "Congress should update these letters" - misspeak or misunderstanding.
Letters of Marque were used hundreds of times in the War of 1812

---------------
There is a poll on the debate . . . not very many responses.
http://theconservatarianusa.com/pol...-business-debates-johnson-mcafee-or-petersen/

 
Last edited:
Brilliant article by a young fellow at... of all places... The Blaze. Totally echoes my views and I'll bet those of many others here.

http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/why-im-voting-libertarian/

Excerpt:

Blaze article said:
"When Paul dropped out in February to focus on his Senate campaign, I was in shock. I couldn’t forgive Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) for his foreign policy and his betrayal of criminal justice reform, along with his position on the USA Freedom Act. Gov. John Kasich (R-Ohio) is a delusional man pretending to be the “moderate” choice in this three-man race. And Trump is a progressive masking himself as a right-wing populist who has given the greatest performance in the history of American politics.


I chose the Libertarian Party after Paul dropped out. My beliefs in limited government, restrained military action, immigration reform, ending the War on Drugs and protecting civil liberties clashed too much with the Republican Party. I cannot in good conscience vote for a Democrat, a televangelist, or a moderate.

I agree with the Libertarian Party far more than I agree with the Republican Party. They espouse limited government and believe in it, unlike “Republicans” such as Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Trump. They understand that it is the free-market, not the government, that creates jobs. They understand the War on Drugs has gone too far and that is has done nothing but make things worse. And most importantly, they understand that the neo-conservative foreign policy the United States has implemented for the past twenty-five years is a disaster.

Paul did, but he’s gone now."
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Z
Thomas Massie to Moderate Open Presidential Debate
Replies
12
Views
3K
Brian4Liberty
Brian4Liberty
Occam's Banana
Tucker on Twitter
14 15 16
Replies
319
Views
144K
unknown
unknown
Occam's Banana
It’s Time We Get Answers About the FBI’s Involvement In the OKC Bombing
Replies
15
Views
4K
Occam's Banana
Occam's Banana
presence
LP Candidate Austin Petersen Responds to Colorado Debate Exclusion
Replies
1
Views
237
Origanalist
Origanalist
presence
Austin Petersen Talks ISIS, Abortion, Criticisms
Replies
15
Views
932
Origanalist
Origanalist
Back
Top