Libertarians For Sanders?

[cajuncocoa]

Lawrence M. Vance

If it is okay for Libertarians for Trump to be narrowly focused on advocating only for Trump as the Republican nominee because he is not as bad on foreign policy as the other two GOP guys, and then disbanding after the Republican primary, then why not Libertarians for Sanders, since he is not as bad on foreign policy as Hillary Clinton, and then disbanding after the Democratic primary? And then why should libertarians not vote for the lesser of two evils in any election between two Republicans or a Republican and a Democrat?


Because the lesser of two evils is still evil.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/libertarians-sanders/

 

[hells_unicorn]

Lawrence M. Vance

https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/libertarians-sanders/

It's crap like this that made me stop going to Lew's website a couple years ago. Seriously, as terrible as Trump is, I have yet to hear him openly advocate for people being in food lines and supporting the complete abolition of private property. I'd sooner vote for Trump knowing full well that he'd turn the Mid-East into a sea of glass than ever contemplate voting for someone who is openly threatening my immediate economic and personal well-being.

 

[cajuncocoa]

It's crap like this that made me stop going to Lew's website a couple years ago. Seriously, as terrible as Trump is, I have yet to hear him openly advocate for people being in food lines and supporting the complete abolition of private property. I'd sooner vote for Trump knowing full well that he'd turn the Mid-East into a sea of glass than ever contemplate voting for someone who is openly threatening my immediate economic and personal well-being.

You may have missed Mr. Vance's point. He's not suggesting you should vote for or support Sanders. Quite the opposite. Did you read to the end?

 

[Working Poor]

I think it doesn't really matter which mainstream candidate is elected. I think if you keep voting for the mainstream that is what you will keep getting. If we don't vote against them we wont ever win. It is really quite simple.

 

[phill4paul]

I'd sooner vote for Trump knowing full well that he'd turn the Mid-East into a sea of glass than ever contemplate voting for someone who is openly threatening my immediate economic and personal well-being.

I'm pretty sure that if Trump turned the ME into a sea of glass there would be a threat to your immediate and economic well-being.

 

[hells_unicorn]

I'm pretty sure that if Trump turned the ME into a sea of glass there would be a threat to your immediate and economic well-being.

Not really, unless present border and environmental policies in this country continue. I am at a greater threat in my person and property from a rogue federal government than I am from somebody 7,000 miles away with no navy or air force to speak of. Do keep in mind that Sanders has a track record for supporting the most brutal of dictatorships (Soviet Union) in modern history, whereas with Trump we have a passing acknowledgment of Hitler's powers as an orator, which is generally conceded by many historians.

 

[phill4paul]

Not really, unless present border and environmental policies in this country continue. I am at a greater threat in my person and property from a rogue federal government than I am from somebody 7,000 miles away with no navy or air force to speak of. Do keep in mind that Sanders has a track record for supporting the most brutal of dictatorships (Soviet Union) in modern history, whereas with Trump we have a passing acknowledgment of Hitler's powers as an orator, which is generally conceded by many historians.

Perhaps we should clear one thing up. Using the phrase "sea of glass" implies using a nuclear option in the ME. You don't think there would be a threat to your immediate and economic well being were that to occur?

 

[LibertyEagle]

There is far less chance of Trump bombing the ME into oblivion, than there is of anyone else with a chance in hell of winning and even some of them too.

 

[Ender]

It's crap like this that made me stop going to Lew's website a couple years ago. Seriously, as terrible as Trump is, I have yet to hear him openly advocate for people being in food lines and supporting the complete abolition of private property. I'd sooner vote for Trump knowing full well that he'd turn the Mid-East into a sea of glass than ever contemplate voting for someone who is openly threatening my immediate economic and personal well-being.

The post was irony and had nothing to do with supporting Sanders.

And-yes- the lesser of 2 evils is still evil.

 

[CPUd]

There is far less chance of Trump bombing the ME into oblivion, than there is of anyone else with a chance in hell of winning and even some of them too.

 

[phill4paul]

Honey badger Trump don't care...

 

[cajuncocoa]

The post was irony and had nothing to do with supporting Sanders.

And-yes- the lesser of 2 evils is still evil.

It's interesting how that went over a few heads.

 

[LibertyEagle]

bombing the hell out of them...

And I am sure he would, if Al Qaeda/ISIS bombed us again.

I do believe that would meet the criteria of the Just War Doctrine, eh?

 

[hells_unicorn]

And-yes- the lesser of 2 evils is still evil.

Spare me the stupid cliches, I'm not even voting.

 

[Ender]

And I am sure he would, if Al Qaeda/ISIS bombed us again.

I do believe that would meet the criteria of the Just War Doctrine, eh?

Again? Musta missed the 1st time.

 

[TheUglyTruth]

The truth is that Sanders has absolutely no policy positions that line up with libertarianism.

 

[phill4paul]

And I am sure he would, if Al Qaeda/ISIS bombed us again.

I do believe that would meet the criteria of the Just War Doctrine, eh?

I'm not sure bombing the Sauds and the U.S. would go over too well.

 

[Ender]

Spare me the stupid cliches, I'm not even voting.

I'm not either- and the stupid cliche was not personal.

 

[cajuncocoa]

The truth is that Sanders has absolutely no policy positions that line up with libertarianism.

No one said they did. Why not read the article before jumping to conclusions?

 

[TheUglyTruth]

Again? Musta missed the 1st time.

On December 29, 1992, the first attack by Al-Qaeda was carried out in Aden, Yemen known as the 1992 Yemen Hotel Bombings. That evening, a bomb went off at the Gold Mohur hotel, where U.S. troops had been staying while en route to Somalia, though the troops had already left when the bomb exploded. The bombers targeted a second hotel, the Aden Movenpick, where they believed American troops might also be staying.

February 26, 1993, a truck bomb was detonated below the North Tower of the World Trade Center in New York City.

In August 1998, Al-Qaeda operatives carried out the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, killing more than 200 people and injuring more than 5,000 others.

The most destructive act ascribed to al-Qaeda was the series of attacks in the United States on September 11, 2001. Four commercial airliners were hijacked. Two of these were crashed into the Twin Towers which later collapsed, destroying the rest of the World Trade Center building complex. The third was crashed into the Pentagon and the fourth in a field during a struggle between passengers and hijackers to control the airplane. Nearly 3,000 people were killed in the attacks, making them the deadliest act of terrorism to occur in the United States, and more than 6,000 others were injured.

An Al-Qaeda agent posing as a double agent killed 7 CIA officers in the Camp Chapman attack on December 30, 2009. The Jordanian man, thought to be an American asset penetrating Al-Qaeda was brought in the wire of the camp and detonated an explosive belt, killing 7 CIA, 1 Jordanian intelligence officer, and seriously wounding six others.


A full list can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_al-Qaeda_attacks