# NEW POLL: Johnson Rises To 1st Place With Young Voters, Trump Last



## LibertyThunder (Aug 8, 2016)

Young Voters Favoring Gary Johnson - *The Libertarian Republic*


----------



## AnCap'n_Murica (Aug 8, 2016)

Hipstertarians love the closet democrats that the LP is running.


----------



## Pogo (Aug 8, 2016)

>> New polling shows *Gary Johnson* getting 35% of the votes between the ages of 18-24. Coming in second place is *Hillary Clinton* with 30%. *Jill Stein* pulls ahead of *Donald Trump*, as she gets 14% and he gets 12% per the TechnoMetrica Market Intelligence Poll as posted by _Investors.com_. <<

Rump whipped by not just a girl but_ two_ girls 

I'm still doubled over in laughter that Rump is polling a whopping _one percent _of black voters --- count 'em, *one *-- less than David Duke.  

Anybody who polls me on who I'm voting for, I'm telling them "Gary Johnson", just to help get his numbers up to where the Duopoly has to let him speak in the debates.  And if he gets there I'm telling them "Jill Stein" to get her in.  Etc etc etc.  Baby steps.


----------



## Intolerant (Aug 8, 2016)

Pot head's  voting for a pot  head.


----------



## konradv (Aug 8, 2016)

A rising Johnson, imagine that!


----------



## sealybobo (Aug 8, 2016)

LibertyThunder said:


> Young Voters Favoring Gary Johnson - *The Libertarian Republic*


I encourage young liberals in red states to vote green party. Pull our country to the left. Give a more liberal party more money power and influence!!!


----------



## TNHarley (Aug 8, 2016)

Its sad that gary is the best choice and he even sucks.


----------



## TNHarley (Aug 8, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> LibertyThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Young Voters Favoring Gary Johnson - *The Libertarian Republic*
> ...


 green party is a bunch of fringe loonies


----------



## LibertyThunder (Aug 8, 2016)

> I encourage young liberals in red states to vote green party. Pull our country to the left. Give a more liberal party more money power and influence!!!


I don't like all the crying and calling me selfish because I support a platform that won't let them tell me what to do with MY money. So.. I'm definitely NOT pro Green Party.. but I like the idea of steps as Pogo mentioned for Greeners...


----------



## sealybobo (Aug 8, 2016)

LibertyThunder said:


> Young Voters Favoring Gary Johnson - *The Libertarian Republic*


I encourage young liberals in red states to vote green party. Pull our country to the left. Give a more liberal party more money power and influ


TNHarley said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > LibertyThunder said:
> ...


Maybe, but I like bits of their agenda. Same way you guys like libertarians and teabaggers.

I suggest you cons in blue States shouldn't waste your vote on trump. Vote for libertarians and tea baggers to give them more money and power.


----------



## sealybobo (Aug 8, 2016)

LibertyThunder said:


> > I encourage young liberals in red states to vote green party. Pull our country to the left. Give a more liberal party more money power and influence!!!
> 
> 
> I don't like all the crying and calling me selfish because I support a platform that won't let them tell me what to do with MY money. So.. I'm definitely NOT pro Green Party.. but I like the idea of steps as Pogo mentioned for Greeners...


This is a real strategy us liberals are going to use in red states. Why throw away your vote on hillary in a red state? Give the green or progressive party your vote. 

If we do it right trump will win the popular vote but not the election.

We aren't advising this in Texas Arizona or Georgia because we could win those states this year


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Aug 8, 2016)

This is just hedonistic youth expecting no-rules policy.
Reality is that Johnson is no real libertarian. True libertarianism would be _opposed_ to legal homo marriage and abortion being left exclusively to the woman, two positions Johnson supports. He's no libertarian.


----------



## Brynmr (Aug 8, 2016)

RealClearPolitics - 2016 Latest Polls

Clinton 45, Trump 37, Johnson 8, Stein 4


----------



## Pogo (Aug 8, 2016)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> This is just hedonistic youth expecting no-rules policy.
> Reality is that Johnson is no real libertarian. True libertarianism would be _opposed_ to legal homo marriage and abortion being left exclusively to the woman, two positions Johnson supports. He's no libertarian.



Really.
And why would a Libertarian --- or any gummint official at all --- concern themselves with individuals' private affairs?  Hm?

No, those are what we call "authoritarian" positions.  Or if you prefer, "statist".


----------



## Pogo (Aug 8, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> LibertyThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Young Voters Favoring Gary Johnson - *The Libertarian Republic*
> ...



I did that in 2000.
Of course, I had the luxury of doing that as I was living in a locked-red state, which meant my vote for either of the Duopoly flavors would mean nothing.  So I made it mean something.

Anybody who's in a locked-red or locked-blue state should do the same.  It's the patriotic thing to do.  With the electoral college bullshit, your red or blue vote, whether it's for or against the trend, means absolutely nothing anyway.  Make it count for something.


----------



## Pogo (Aug 8, 2016)

konradv said:


> A rising Johnson, imagine that!



Yabbut what if his election lasts more than four hours?


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Aug 8, 2016)

Pogo said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > This is just hedonistic youth expecting no-rules policy.
> ...


You have it backwards.
Legal marriage and women choosing on the basis of their gender what consequences are applied to a man are in fact gov-mandates beyond the realm of personal liberty.


----------



## Pogo (Aug 8, 2016)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...



So you agree with me and thus reverse your earlier post.
And another one bites the dust.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Aug 8, 2016)

Pogo said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...


No, you just couldn't get your brainwashed brain around the initial point I made. 
Legal marriage and a woman _legally_ choosing what happens to another person or persons are absolutely NOT libertarian concepts. Once you grasp that, the conversation can continue. Until then, we have no discussion.


----------



## dblack (Aug 8, 2016)

AnCap'n_Murica said:


> Hipstertarians love the closet democrats that the LP is running.



You misread. The poll reported that young people are favoring Johnson, not Trump.


----------



## dblack (Aug 8, 2016)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> This is just hedonistic youth expecting no-rules policy.
> Reality is that Johnson is no real libertarian. True libertarianism would be _opposed_ to legal homo marriage and abortion being left exclusively to the woman, two positions Johnson supports. He's no libertarian.



With all due respect, you don't know squat about libertarians.


----------



## AnCap'n_Murica (Aug 8, 2016)

dblack said:


> You misread. The poll reported that young people are favoring Johnson, not Trump.


Johnson & Weld are closet democrats. They're the saddest sacks the LP has ever run.


----------



## dblack (Aug 8, 2016)

AnCap'n_Murica said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > You misread. The poll reported that young people are favoring Johnson, not Trump.
> ...



Trump on the other hand is a tried and tested defender of Constitutionally limited government. A fine example of the best Republicans have to offer!


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Aug 8, 2016)

dblack said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > This is just hedonistic youth expecting no-rules policy.
> ...


I'm talking about libertarianism, not a group who mistakenly refer to themselves as libertarian. Like democrats who call themselves liberal but are anything but liberal.


----------



## AnCap'n_Murica (Aug 8, 2016)

dblack said:


> Trump on the other hand is a tried and tested defender of Constitutionally limited government. A fine example of the best Republicans have to offer!


Trump isn't the subject. The sad sack closet democrats Johnson & Weld are. They suck on ice.

Makes me love my agorist tendencies even more.


----------



## dblack (Aug 8, 2016)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...



So, you agree with me. That you don't know what you're talking about?

I've been a Libertarian all my life. And the views you're espousing have always been in the minority within the party. I respect the views of the conservative leaning libertarians who disagree on these matters, but neither issue is a litmus test. Johnson and Weld represent the views of the majority of libertarians.


----------



## AnCap'n_Murica (Aug 8, 2016)

If these two jokers are libertarians, I'm Max Stirner.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Aug 8, 2016)

dblack said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


And some of those views are not libertarian. You don't know what I'm talking about, not me.


----------



## thanatos144 (Aug 8, 2016)

Gary is a loser no better then Clinton or Trump ... He is a pro abortion open borders big government ass who is  libertarian only because he is PROUD to get high and DRIVE.


----------



## thanatos144 (Aug 8, 2016)

Lets face it the Libertarian Party fails because they dont choose good candidates ether. Who is running constitutional party?


----------



## dblack (Aug 8, 2016)

thanatos144 said:


> Gary is a loser no better then Clinton or Trump ... He is a pro abortion open borders big government ass who is  libertarian only because he is PROUD to get high and DRIVE.



?? Where do you come with this shit? Is it Trump talking points? Or Clinton's?


----------



## thanatos144 (Aug 8, 2016)

dblack said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > Gary is a loser no better then Clinton or Trump ... He is a pro abortion open borders big government ass who is  libertarian only because he is PROUD to get high and DRIVE.
> ...


Him is where I get that... Why don't you actually investigate your candidate before you whole hardheartedly support him because you are pro pot? Gary Johnson has a actual record you can look up and see how ultra progressive he is. I don't expect you to because like the dems and trumpetes you are to addicted to the koolaid.


----------



## dblack (Aug 8, 2016)

thanatos144 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...



Pro pot? What are you smoking? OH.. wait, you're just making shit up and throwing it against the wall. I wonder why? What's you're angle here? Are you a Trumpster? Clintonista? Green party? What?


----------



## thanatos144 (Aug 8, 2016)

dblack said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


Not a partisan like you.


----------



## dblack (Aug 8, 2016)

thanatos144 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...



I see. Just a solid representative for Truth?  

Johnson is 'ultra-progressive'???  I think maybe Orwell is your man.


----------



## thanatos144 (Aug 8, 2016)

dblack said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


So being a stoner trumps actual issues with you.... W\hat a sad little man you must be.


----------



## dblack (Aug 8, 2016)

thanatos144 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...



You mean like beating your wife trumps pretty much everything for you?


----------



## Natural Citizen (Aug 8, 2016)

Polls are generally meaningless. Particularly where young voters are concerned given that few of them actually show up to vote.


----------



## LibertyThunder (Aug 8, 2016)

Hilarious that Trump supporters rely on adjectives rather than substance. Always always always they consistently rely on verbal bully tactics to "prove" their point, and all it does is prove ours. Trump is selling fear & paranoia & people are buying. I show stats & people go off on a deflection campaign talking about abortion, which a president doesn't have anything to do with until a bill is submitted. Guess what???? Congress never submits bills... so... point on stats are....??? lol


----------



## SuperDemocrat (Aug 8, 2016)

There goes the 'liberal' youth vote.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Aug 8, 2016)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> This is just hedonistic youth expecting no-rules policy.
> Reality is that Johnson is no real libertarian. True libertarianism would be _opposed_ to legal homo marriage and abortion being left exclusively to the woman, two positions Johnson supports. He's no libertarian.


It's funny how people opposed to libertarianism are always telling us what a "real" libertarian would support, and it always lines up with what they support somehow. The libertarian position on gay marriage is that the state has no role in any marriage, gay, straight, or otherwise. If, however, two gay men want to get married the libertarian says that as long as they're not violating anybody else's property they can call their agreement whatever they want. If a church doesn't want to marry them then they have no right to force the church to do so, but nobody has the right to stop the church from marrying them either. This is where Johnson fails the libertarian test, because he says yes the church should be forced to marry them. You, however, seem to have no more idea of what libertarianism is than Johnson does. Congrats.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Aug 8, 2016)

thanatos144 said:


> Lets face it the Libertarian Party fails because they dont choose good candidates ether. Who is running constitutional party?


Darrell Castle. On a cursory glance he might be better than Johnson.

Castle 2016 - Darrell Castle for President


----------



## LibertyThunder (Aug 8, 2016)

> Darrell Castle. On a cursory glance he might be better than Johnson.



But the Constitution Party favors a particular religion with their platform. Government wasn't established to make us better or religious people, it was established to ensure we could be whatever we wanted as long as we don't harm anyone else's rights.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Aug 8, 2016)

LibertyThunder said:


> > Darrell Castle. On a cursory glance he might be better than Johnson.
> 
> 
> 
> But the Constitution Party favors a particular religion with their platform. Government wasn't established to make us better or religious people, it was established to ensure we could be whatever we wanted as long as we don't harm anyone else's rights.


And there's a funny joke. Government was established so that a few could plunder the many. Yes, the Constitution Party could easily be renamed the Christian Party, but so what? I don't care if the candidate or the party itself espouses a particular religion so long as they're solid on the issues. As I said, on the surface Castle could be better than Johnson. I haven't done the relevant research to say for sure, however. As he may not even make it on the ballot in my state it's probably irrelevant either way.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Aug 9, 2016)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > This is just hedonistic youth expecting no-rules policy.
> ...


You totally missed one word I very intentionally used which defines the issue; _*legal*_ marriage.


----------



## AnCap'n_Murica (Aug 9, 2016)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > This is just hedonistic youth expecting no-rules policy.
> ...


YAAAAY! Another Rothbard guy!


----------



## LibertyThunder (Aug 9, 2016)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> You totally missed one word I very intentionally used which defines the issue; _*legal*_ marriage


The whole idea that people vote on who gets married to who is just ridiculous! Guess what! When I got married, the Nation didn't vote on who or what was my life companion was, neither did the State, nor my city, niether my own family! Who are others to decide if it's legal between consenting adults? LAWD!


----------



## AnCap'n_Murica (Aug 9, 2016)

LibertyThunder said:


> The whole idea that people vote on who gets married to who is just ridiculous! Guess what! When I got married, the Nation didn't vote on who or what was my life companion was, neither did the State, nor my city, niether my own family! Who are others to decide if it's legal between consenting adults? LAWD!


Did you go to the state to get a license?


----------



## dblack (Aug 9, 2016)

AnCap'n_Murica said:


> LibertyThunder said:
> 
> 
> > The whole idea that people vote on who gets married to who is just ridiculous! Guess what! When I got married, the Nation didn't vote on who or what was my life companion was, neither did the State, nor my city, niether my own family! Who are others to decide if it's legal between consenting adults? LAWD!
> ...


That's just as ridiculous. And the root of the problem, really.


----------



## AnCap'n_Murica (Aug 9, 2016)

dblack said:


> AnCap'n_Murica said:
> 
> 
> > LibertyThunder said:
> ...


Yes, it is the root of the problem.

Where is the legal jurisdiction of the state to force people to get a license, in order to enter into a private agreement?


----------



## dblack (Aug 9, 2016)

AnCap'n_Murica said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > AnCap'n_Murica said:
> ...



Beats me. It oughta be a simple matter of contract law.


----------



## LibertyThunder (Aug 9, 2016)

AnCap'n_Murica said:


> Did you go to the state to get a license?



unfortunately, the public is still ignorant & uses threats of force against me if I don't.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Aug 9, 2016)

LibertyThunder said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > You totally missed one word I very intentionally used which defines the issue; _*legal*_ marriage
> ...


Procreation is as coercive as murder. Homo couples can't procreate, heteros can.
Put that in your libertarian pipe and smoke it.


----------



## dblack (Aug 9, 2016)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> LibertyThunder said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...



???


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Aug 9, 2016)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...


And you totally miss basic logic. If the libertarian says that gay marriage is fine so long as nobody's property is violated then the logical conclusion ought to be that the libertarian believes gay marriage should be *legal*.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Aug 9, 2016)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> LibertyThunder said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...


Irrelevant. Try again.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Aug 10, 2016)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...


You're doing a Charlie the Tuna 'good taste' thing. It's not about homo marriage being _illegal_. It's about the law granting coercion and privilege in the name of a _legally_ decreed marriage rooted in an irrelevant personal behavior choice. Hence, _legal_ homo marriage vs homo marriage as a perception.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Aug 10, 2016)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > LibertyThunder said:
> ...


_Irrelevant_?? It's the _essence!_


----------



## dblack (Aug 10, 2016)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > LibertyThunder said:
> ...



You misspelled incoherent.


----------



## AnCap'n_Murica (Aug 10, 2016)

LibertyThunder said:


> unfortunately, the public is still ignorant & uses threats of force against me if I don't.


So you just complied. How embarrassing.


----------



## yiostheoy (Aug 10, 2016)

TNHarley said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > LibertyThunder said:
> ...


The last time I voted Green it was for Nader.

I have never voted for any other fringe 3rd party besides once for Green.

Usually when I vote I can just flip a coin -- heads = DEM and tails = GOP.

That's because the GOP is usually out to screw you unless you make over $250K/yr.

Sadly I have never made over $250K/yr.


----------



## AnCap'n_Murica (Aug 10, 2016)

Christopher Cantewll tells it like it is.


----------



## sealybobo (Aug 10, 2016)

yiostheoy said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Knowing that you still voted GOP because the coin landed tails?

Which election did it land tails?

500 Nader assholes in Florida gave bush the election.


----------



## yiostheoy (Aug 10, 2016)

LibertyThunder said:


> Young Voters Favoring Gary Johnson - *The Libertarian Republic*


You should start saying something in your post besides just citing a link.

To form a sentence, all you need is a subject, a verb, and a predicate to go with it.

This was taught in elementary school.

To create a short essay, you need at least a one-sentence intro, two or three sentences for your body, and one final sentence for your conclusion.

This was taught in high school.

You probably did not go to college, however if you had you would have taken two more classes in writing, one called English composition in your Freshman year and another during your Junior year called Technical Writing.


----------



## yiostheoy (Aug 10, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> > TNHarley said:
> ...


Sometimes they are too close to call.

Nixon / McGov was too close to call.

Carter / Ford was a no brainer

Reagan / Carter was a no brainer

Reagan / Mondale was too close to call

Bush / Dukakis was too close to call

Bush / Clinton was a no brainer

Clinton / Dole was too close to call.  Even though Bob Dole was known for doing the nasty and taking Viagra.

Bush / Gore was too close to call but they were both so bad I preferred Nader that year indeed.

That's the only time I voted Green.

In hindsight everybody should have voted for Gore instead.

But hindsight is 20-20.


----------



## dblack (Aug 10, 2016)

yiostheoy said:


> In hindsight everybody should have voted for Gore instead.
> 
> But hindsight is 20-20.



Not exactly. It's still a guess. As bad as Bush was, Gore might have been worse. That's the thing with history. There's no way to really know how things would have gone if we'd made different decisions.


----------



## thanatos144 (Aug 10, 2016)

dblack said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


So because I don't support your Progressive I beat my wife? Well that tells us all everything we need to know about you and your intelligence.


----------



## thanatos144 (Aug 10, 2016)

LibertyThunder said:


> > Darrell Castle. On a cursory glance he might be better than Johnson.
> 
> 
> 
> But the Constitution Party favors a particular religion with their platform. Government wasn't established to make us better or religious people, it was established to ensure we could be whatever we wanted as long as we don't harm anyone else's rights.


Saying you are a Christian is not pushing a certain religion... You seem a bit touchy....


----------



## Natural Citizen (Aug 10, 2016)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> If the libertarian says that gay marriage is fine so long as nobody's property is violated then the logical conclusion ought to be that the libertarian believes gay marriage should be *legal*.


Legal doesn't mean Lawful when discussed in context with fundamental matters of Individual Liberty. Legal and Lawful are two entirely different phenomena when the issue is judged morally in accordance with Natural Law. Natural Law is the primary foundation for moral code which establishes legitimacy in the fundamental principles of Individual Liberty as they relate to our traditional system of governance and proper human/government relations. No other worldly "legality" is legitimate in terms of defining or judging the true and fundamental libertarianism of any immoral act which defies Natural Law.

If someone who identifies as a libertarian claims that gay marriage is fine, then, he isn't a libertarian and likely understands very little of what Liberty actually is or anything directly relative to its fundamental foundation. He's a libertine at best. Libertine, btw, is not libertarian. The foundation for moral code (again, Natural Law: God's Law) that provides legitimacy to the fundamental principles of Individual Liberty and ultimately proper Man-to-Man/Government-to-Man relations must be accepted as an Indivisible whole together with its fundamental principles in order to make a legitimate claim to Individual Liberty's benefits fully. They cannot be accepted and rejected piece-meal. To accept and reject them piece-meal is an open declaration that you want no Liberty at all.

Aside from that, our traditional system of governance is religious in nature given that its founding documents and governing philosophy is premised upon Natural Law itself.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Aug 11, 2016)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...


Well if that's your argument, then marriage itself, gay or not, is simply a perception. There's no such natural phenomenon as marriage, it's simply an arrangement between people that has historically had religious sanction. Then the state steps in and creates a list of who can or cannot call themselves this completely made up thing.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Aug 11, 2016)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...


Maybe in your marriage. The rest of us can define the essences of our relationships for ourselves. We don't need the government to pat us on the back and tell us our way is the best way.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Aug 11, 2016)

Natural Citizen said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > If the libertarian says that gay marriage is fine so long as nobody's property is violated then the logical conclusion ought to be that the libertarian believes gay marriage should be *legal*.
> ...


No, I can be a libertarian and think that gay marriage is fine, and say so. I'm not speaking in my capacity as a libertarian by saying so, because libertarianism in and of itself takes no position on gay marriage per se. I can, however, be a libertarian and think gay marriage is not only fine but great, or I can be a libertarian and think that gay marriage is wrong. I would be acting against libertarian principles only if I said that violence, be it government or otherwise, should be used to enforce my personal beliefs one way or another. So saying that gay marriage ought to be legal is perfectly logical in the sense that I'm saying that the government should not use violence to stop people from entering into any arrangement they want so long as everybody voluntarily chooses to enter it.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 11, 2016)

AnCap'n_Murica said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > You misread. The poll reported that young people are favoring Johnson, not Trump.
> ...



That's not true at all. I've been in the LParty for almost 30 years. And there was a LONG STRING of losers who had no clue what running for office was all about. 

I consider Johnson/Weld to be a Mediation Team right now. I'm over being concerned how "libertarian" they actual are. The most important goal is to separate the partisans before they kill each other and us along with them. 

We need 4 years of "cooling off" the rhetoric and delivering "consensus" solutions that aren't just 50/50 Conservative/Progressive compromise. A LOT can get done in 4 years if you cut off the partisan BullShit..


----------



## SAYIT (Aug 11, 2016)

yiostheoy said:


> Usually when I vote I can just flip a coin -- heads = DEM and tails = GOP. That's because the GOP is usually out to screw you unless you make over $250K/yr. Sadly I have never made over $250K/yr.



_Mr. French_: Well make more fuckin' money. This is America. You don't make money, then you're a fuckin' douchebag.
Now what you gonna do? 
[_kicks him_] 
_
Bookie Harassed by French_: I'll make more money! 
_
Mr. French_: That's the spirit!

The message (because I know you won't get it): _*make more money*_!


----------



## Bruce_T_Laney (Aug 11, 2016)

konradv said:


> A rising Johnson, imagine that!



Without Viagra!


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Aug 11, 2016)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...


No, the state steps in to provide support in order to make child rearing easier. Homos can't make babies with each other. Those state-imposed benefits are therefore moot for homo couples.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Aug 11, 2016)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...


I totally agree. But that isn't the issue. Legal marriage affords/coerces financial benefits and other privileges. Homo marriages have no need of those benefits because they can't procreate together.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Aug 13, 2016)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...


Yes, getting the state's permission to get married somehow makes child rearing easier.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Aug 13, 2016)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...


What benefits? Lower taxes? Why do you need a reason for lower taxes, aren't you a conservative? How about just cutting everybody's taxes married or not?


----------



## thanatos144 (Aug 13, 2016)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...


How about letting states take care of themselves with out facists like you telling them how?

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Aug 13, 2016)

thanatos144 said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...


Lower taxes = fascism? Are you a Democrat now?


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Aug 14, 2016)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...


It's not about permission. It's about subsidies.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Aug 14, 2016)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...


Go ahead. But why give extra breaks to homos since they can't make babies?


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Aug 14, 2016)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...


Lower taxes for some means the difference is compensated for by others. Giving homos tax breaks for no good reason causes increases for others to compensate the homo tax break. That is a subsidy. In the name of booger-eating. That is no way libertarian.


----------



## dblack (Aug 14, 2016)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...



Listen guy, libertarians simply don't share your morbid fear of homosexuals. You don't have the slightest clue what it means to be a libertarian.


----------



## thanatos144 (Aug 14, 2016)

dblack said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...


Listen facist it is a state issue and should have been decided per state not by five people in a robe. 

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Aug 14, 2016)

dblack said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...


You have that entirely backwards which explains why you couldn't rebut.


----------



## thanatos144 (Aug 14, 2016)

7 Reasons The Libertarian Ticket Isn't Libertarian At All


Here is a article proving Johnson and his running mate are not even libertarians let alone worth voting for 

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## dblack (Aug 14, 2016)

thanatos144 said:


> 7 Reasons The Libertarian Ticket Isn't Libertarian At All
> 
> Here is a article proving Johnson and his running mate are not even libertarians let alone worth voting for
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk



Since all you've ever done was whine about Libertarians, I expect this would be right up your alley!


----------



## thanatos144 (Aug 14, 2016)

dblack said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > 7 Reasons The Libertarian Ticket Isn't Libertarian At All
> ...


It is true I am not a libertarian because I am a adult and understand actions have consequences.  Yet that is not the point because I would have easily voted for a real libertarian over hillary and Donald in a heartbeat.  Gary is just like them . So no I   won't vote for another fraud 

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## dblack (Aug 14, 2016)

thanatos144 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...



Huh.. well, I don't believe you. And I'm sure as hell not going take advice on who is a 'real' libertarian from your sorry ass.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Aug 14, 2016)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...


Right, so cutting taxes is now considered a subsidy by conservatives. You sure you're not a Democrat?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Aug 14, 2016)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...


Your obsession with other people's potential procreation is a little weird to say the least.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Aug 14, 2016)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...


And the conservative becomes a socialist making the argument for 100% taxation.


----------



## amethyst (Aug 14, 2016)

most recent nbc online poll. they actually apologized for forgetting johnson n jill stein (120,000 likely voters)

Donald Trump 71861 59%

Hillary Clinton 
15178
13%

Jill Stein 
21861
18%

Gary Jonhson 
11985
10%
......................

abcs online poll

hillary comes in 3rd

The SHOCKING Results of ABC’s Online Presidential Poll


----------



## thanatos144 (Aug 14, 2016)

dblack said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


So gun control and tax money for abortions is libertarian?  You might want to look that up .

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## dblack (Aug 14, 2016)

thanatos144 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...



Heh...  what are you rambling about now? BTW, who are you voting for?


----------



## thanatos144 (Aug 14, 2016)

dblack said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


So you don't know your candidates platform ... 

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Aug 14, 2016)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...


Specifically aimed tax breaks are subsidies.
Why should booger-eaters be subsidized? Nothing libertarian about that.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Aug 14, 2016)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...


You think survival of the species is an obsession?


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Aug 14, 2016)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...


You obviously don't understand.  Tax breaks are subsidies. The money has to be compensated. It has to come from somewhere. That requires additional coercion. Coercion is the antithetical to libertarianism.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Aug 17, 2016)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...


Your sexual preferences don't make your property any less your property. A tax break for any reason is libertarian, and no tax break is a subsidy. Unless you're a socialist, of course.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Aug 17, 2016)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...


No, I think your concern regarding the government needing to promote relationships based on your individual values is an obsession, and creepy.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Aug 17, 2016)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...


So, Stalinist or Trotskyist, comrade?


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Aug 17, 2016)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...


As long as taxes are inevitable, tax breaks are subsidies. It affects the pool. It has to come from somewhere. Giving tax breaks to homos in the name of their irrelevant personal behavior is counter-libertarian. _Marriage equality_ is a libertarian misnomer.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Aug 17, 2016)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...


Survival of the species is not a subjective value. Procreation is uniquely hetero.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Aug 17, 2016)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...


I'm not promoting taxation. I'm only comparing human conditions as they apply to taxation. 
Homo sex is as inconsequential as booger eating and hetero sex is potentially as significant as murder.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Aug 17, 2016)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...


I think we libertarians will feel free to define our ideology for ourselves.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Aug 17, 2016)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...


Actually it would be. There are plenty of people who actively seek the end of the human race.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Aug 17, 2016)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...


When you say you don't want somebody's taxes cut, it doesn't matter the reason, you're promoting taxation. I knew socialists were bad at logic, but come on now.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Aug 17, 2016)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...


It's about selective tax breaks and their motivation. You're being obtuse.


----------



## dblack (Aug 17, 2016)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...



And we don't always agree. On this one narrow issue, for example, I think Roshawn is right - targeted tax breaks are worse that not lowering taxes at all. They violate equal protection and expand government power to coerce society.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Aug 17, 2016)

dblack said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...


However, I do believe that some tax breaks are legit -- as long as we have to have taxes in the first place.


----------



## dblack (Aug 17, 2016)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...


Why?


----------



## dblack (Aug 17, 2016)

I'd also add that, regarding the taxation issue, taxes in general should not be lowered until the budget is balanced. One of the biggest reasons government bloat is so hard to address is that we're not actually paying for the government we're getting. We're just putting it on the credit card. If we were actually paying for it, people might be willing to make the difficult decisions we're currently steering around with delusional deficit spending.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Aug 18, 2016)

dblack said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


In the case of marriage, to ease burdens generated by procreation. Time must be committed to effectively raise children to become positive contributors to society and a compensation for that time in the form of a tax break would be a good way to go. Homos can't procreate so it's moot for them. But not with homo marriage. _Legal_ homo marriage, that is. Legal homo marriage would force those tax breaks for no necessary reason. Very un-libertarian.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Aug 18, 2016)

dblack said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...


The Answer to "Unfair" Tax Breaks Is More Tax Breaks


----------



## dblack (Aug 18, 2016)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...



I'm less interested in the psychology of how we characterize targeted tax breaks, than I am their actual effects. I oppose them because Congress uses them to implement mandates on behavior that would be utterly objectionable (to the general public) if implemented as regulations with more straightforward penalties. The use of "tax incentives" to manipulate society has radically expanded the power of government and I'm opposed to the practice regardless of whether we think of them as penalties or benefits.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Aug 18, 2016)

dblack said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


My interest is in reducing aggression. If one person gets a tax break that's less overall aggression.


----------



## dblack (Aug 19, 2016)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...


I don't think that's valid. The aggression of taxation lies in the original claim on your income. Offering discounts for those who do as they are told doesn't mitigate the aggression. 

It's like a mugger who offers half your money back if you give him a hand job. I don't see how that's any less aggressive.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Aug 19, 2016)

dblack said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


I think that's because your analogy isn't applicable. If people get married and thus get a tax break those of us who remain single shouldn't begrudge them that even though we're not eligible. The goal is no taxation, or at least as minimal as possible, so every tax break is a step in the right direction.


----------



## dblack (Aug 19, 2016)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...


Where is isn't it applicable? Where is government empowered to coerce people into maintaining a home mortgage, investing in solar energy, buying insurance from approved government vendors, or any other of the myriad ways government uses tax incentives to manipulate society?


> The goal is no taxation, or at least as minimal as possible, so every tax break is a step in the right direction.



That's a myopic view. The goal is good government. Constitutional limits on state power and guarantees of equal protection are fundamental requirements for good government. Sacrificing them to the narrow goal of reducing overall taxation simply isn't a good tradeoff. As long as we're going to grant government the power to tax us, we must insist in not also be used as a way to micromanage our lives.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Aug 20, 2016)

dblack said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


What is good government? What level of violence are we claiming as "good?" When has the Constitution ever limited government power? That said, I think we're talking past each other. Of course government granting privileges to its favored cronies is wrong, which is why my position is that taxes should be abolished. Make it an even playing ground for everyone. However, if the government says you can get a tax break when you buy from Competitor A but not Competitor B, yes that's government picking a winner, but it also means that consumers get to keep more of their money. I say the libertarian should not be wasting their time trying to raise taxes for people who buy from A, but instead focus their efforts on getting the same tax break for those who buy from B.


----------



## iRush (Aug 20, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> LibertyThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Young Voters Favoring Gary Johnson - *The Libertarian Republic*
> ...


They already have too much power, in fact I think they deserve none. This country has gone to shit in the past 8 years under democrats.


----------



## dblack (Aug 21, 2016)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...



Good government is government that protects our rights without bullying us. I think our primary disagreement is your view that targeted tax cuts represent _less_ overall aggression. I think it's the opposite. They are more aggressive and more intrusive in our lives because they attempt to coerce behavior outside the government's proper authority. 



> ... if the government says you can get a tax break when you buy from Competitor A but not Competitor B, yes that's government picking a winner, but it also means that consumers get to keep more of their money. I say the libertarian should not be wasting their time trying to raise taxes for people who buy from A, but instead focus their efforts on getting the same tax break for those who buy from B.



I'm not sure what you mean here. Let's take a more concrete example: the home mortgage interest deduction. How would we get the same tax break for those who don't maintain debt?


----------



## AnCap'n_Murica (Aug 22, 2016)

flacaltenn said:


> That's not true at all. I've been in the LParty for almost 30 years. And there was a LONG STRING of losers who had no clue what running for office was all about.
> 
> I consider Johnson/Weld to be a Mediation Team right now. I'm over being concerned how "libertarian" they actual are. The most important goal is to separate the partisans before they kill each other and us along with them.
> 
> We need 4 years of "cooling off" the rhetoric and delivering "consensus" solutions that aren't just 50/50 Conservative/Progressive compromise. A LOT can get done in 4 years if you cut off the partisan BullShit..



A century of "consensus solutions" are what got us into this mess. Proposing more of it is akin to drinking oneself to sobriety.

That you aren't concerned how libertarian the nominees for the Libertarian Party are, pretty much underscores my point that Johnson and Wed are the saddest sacks the party has ever run.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 22, 2016)

AnCap'n_Murica said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > That's not true at all. I've been in the LParty for almost 30 years. And there was a LONG STRING of losers who had no clue what running for office was all about.
> ...



You have "consensus solutions" confused with "bipartisan deals".. The FORMER are specific action items that have UNIVERSAL support --- like ending corporate welfare and ending "democratic imperialism" in the middle east, and regaining oversight and control over the massive D.C. bureaucracy..  

The LATTER are sausages made out of 1/3 Socialism, 1/3 capitalism, and 1/3 payoff to constituencies and political debts on both sides. That stuff is vile..


----------



## AnCap'n_Murica (Aug 22, 2016)

flacaltenn said:


> You have "consensus solutions" confused with "bipartisan deals".. The FORMER are specific action items that have UNIVERSAL support --- like ending corporate welfare and ending "democratic imperialism" in the middle east, and regaining oversight and control over the massive D.C. bureaucracy..
> 
> The LATTER are sausages made out of 1/3 Socialism, 1/3 capitalism, and 1/3 payoff to constituencies and political debts on both sides. That stuff is vile..



Those items don't have universal support in the halls of corny Congress. If they did, then we'd have those deals cut already.

Again, I refer you to the term of Governor Jesse Ventura. The consensus there was for the cronies to override the most vetoes in state history.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 22, 2016)

AnCap'n_Murica said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > You have "consensus solutions" confused with "bipartisan deals".. The FORMER are specific action items that have UNIVERSAL support --- like ending corporate welfare and ending "democratic imperialism" in the middle east, and regaining oversight and control over the massive D.C. bureaucracy..
> ...



Man -- you're not getting it.  Those issues have CONSENSUS with the public. Those "little people" that Congress is there to serve. THAT'S THE FREAKING POINT.  The PARTIES are standing in the way of MANY consensus solutions that are entirely simple to fix.


----------



## AnCap'n_Murica (Aug 22, 2016)

flacaltenn said:


> Man -- you're not getting it.  Those issues have CONSENSUS with the public. Those "little people" that Congress is there to serve. THAT'S THE FREAKING POINT.  The PARTIES are standing in the way of MANY consensus solutions that are entirely simple to fix.


I'm getting the point. Your idea requires a total cleaning out of the Congress as well.

You're not going to get career warmongers like Feinstein, McCain, and Graham to suddenly adopt a far less aggressive interventionist policy, just because the guy at the top says so.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 22, 2016)

It's been so long since the voters had humble servants and not power hungry demagogues, that they don't realize how easy it is fix some of these chronic problems that have MASSIVE public support. 

The parties MAINTAIN these problems (like southern border immigration and govt/corp collusion) for THEIR benefit and power.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 22, 2016)

AnCap'n_Murica said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Man -- you're not getting it.  Those issues have CONSENSUS with the public. Those "little people" that Congress is there to serve. THAT'S THE FREAKING POINT.  The PARTIES are standing in the way of MANY consensus solutions that are entirely simple to fix.
> ...



Not so much cleaning out -- as a general shaming. This Dem/Rep cross-blaming has been a very effective weapon in distracting the public from scams  the parties PREFER to maintain.  All you need is a mediator/whistle-blower THIRD party to point out the collusion between the parties. 

Let them try to spin and deflect --- We will shame the hell out of them. No more cross-blaming.


----------



## AnCap'n_Murica (Aug 22, 2016)

flacaltenn said:


> Not so much cleaning out -- as a general shaming. This Dem/Rep cross-blaming has been a very effective weapon in distracting the public from scams  the parties PREFER to maintain.  All you need is a mediator/whistle-blower THIRD party to point out the collusion between the parties.
> 
> Let them try to spin and deflect --- We will shame the hell out of them. No more cross-blaming.


Shaming people who have no shame. That'd be a neat trick.


----------



## AnCap'n_Murica (Aug 22, 2016)

OK...He's officially dead to me.

Gary Johnson Backs CO2 ‘Fee’ To Fight Global Warming


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Aug 22, 2016)

dblack said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


When has government protected our rights without bullying us?

Well obviously if you don't have a mortgage you can't get the exact same deduction, but a deduction on something else. Or, better yet, no taxes at all. Again, I see this argument as akin to saying because it's unjust for men to have to register for the selective service, women should have to as well. The correct answer is to just abolish the selective service just like we should abolish taxation. The idea that we should rob Peter because we're also robbing Paul doesn't make sense. Just stop robbing everyone.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Aug 22, 2016)

AnCap'n_Murica said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > That's not true at all. I've been in the LParty for almost 30 years. And there was a LONG STRING of losers who had no clue what running for office was all about.
> ...


I don't know, I'd say Johnson is probably better than Bob Barr. That said, his newest nonsense is saying Mitt Romney of all people would have a place in his administration, supports a carbon tax, and a guaranteed annual income. There's no way to justify any of this on libertarian grounds.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 22, 2016)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> AnCap'n_Murica said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



The duo is probably better than Barr.  And I kinda like the idea of recruiting former Governors like Romney. Ought to draft more Governors for key positions. Because State Govs KNOW the squeeze play that comes from D.C. They are the ones that have to cope with all the half-baked, half-funded mandates. And they KNOW if they got a block grant -- they would come up with a better use of the funds. 

Don't know about a carbon tax or guaranteed income. We already HAVE a functional guaranteed income with the EITC negative income tax. I'm not looking for miracles -- I just want the "noise" and excuses and cross-blaming to disappear for 4 yrs. We could all use a break.   And in the process, maybe a demonstration of how EASY it actually is to fix some chronic problems like corporate welfare that NEITHER party wanted to end.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 22, 2016)

AnCap'n_Murica said:


> OK...He's officially dead to me.
> 
> Gary Johnson Backs CO2 ‘Fee’ To Fight Global Warming



He's jumped the gun on that one. Not good. Has no clue what to "fix" with the proceeds. Or how to do it. 
Some good appointments will fix his "priorities".


----------



## Gracie (Aug 22, 2016)

I think most folks are sick and tired of the Trump/Clinton crap...and want a 3rd choice. Young and old alike.


----------



## Gracie (Aug 22, 2016)

Then again..Alice Cooper said he would run if Tom Hanks would be his VP. Hell, I'll go for that.


----------



## dblack (Aug 22, 2016)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...



Again, I'm not sure what you mean. Government can't protect our rights _with _bullying. As soon as they start bullying, they are _violating_ our rights. If you're asking when government actually protects our rights, _rather than _bullying, I'd say they still manage it most of the time. But that's changing rapidly



> Well obviously if you don't have a mortgage you can't get the exact same deduction, but a deduction on something else. Or, better yet, no taxes at all. Again, I see this argument as akin to saying because it's unjust for men to have to register for the selective service, women should have to as well. The correct answer is to just abolish the selective service just like we should abolish taxation. The idea that we should rob Peter because we're also robbing Paul doesn't make sense. Just stop robbing everyone.



Sure. And I agree, the solution is to get rid of taxation altogether. But as long as we do have taxation, we should refuse government the power to use it as a means of control.


----------



## saveliberty (Aug 22, 2016)

I am getting a lot of FB chatter about Johnson these days.  Not sure he can gain enough momentum by November, but either or both major party candidates could implode by then too.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Aug 23, 2016)

flacaltenn said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > AnCap'n_Murica said:
> ...


Really? Mitt Romney? Creator of Romneycare? Perpetuator of the myth of Russia as a geopolitical threat? That's who we want in a "Libertarian" administration? That would be an embarrassment.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Aug 23, 2016)

dblack said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


I mean exactly what you said. The government can't protect our rights with bullying. Since bullying is all they do, they do not protect our rights. And in that same vein, refusing the government anything doesn't work. They're going to do whatever they want to do, and a hypothetical Gary Johnson administration will be no different. As has been pointed out, he wants a carbon tax and a guaranteed basic income. In other words, Gary Johnson wants to increase taxes and violence against people. I'm supposed to vote for him because he's marginally better than the other clowns running or because I want to see third parties get more traction in general? What do I care if we get a viable third party if it's also just running establishment candidates?

Let's get back to the issue of "control" that you're talking about but let's flip the hypothetical around. Let's say the government imposes a new tax on fast food restaurants like McDonald's and Burger King but not on Subway because they want people to eat at Subway instead. You're obviously opposed to the idea of the government trying to force people to make a choice they might not otherwise make. That's great, so what policy do you advocate? A.) Put the same tax on Subway to make it fair and stop controlling people, or B.) Eliminate the tax completely and stop controlling people.


----------



## AnCap'n_Murica (Aug 23, 2016)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Really? Mitt Romney? Creator of Romneycare? Perpetuator of the myth of Russia as a geopolitical threat? That's who we want in a "Libertarian" administration? That would be an embarrassment.


Given the LP nominees, it's safe to say that embarrassment isn't a problem for them.


----------



## dblack (Aug 23, 2016)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...



I don't see how you can hold that bullying is all a government does. Police aren't bullying when the arrest murders or thieves. The military isn't bullying us when it protects us from foreign invaders. Government _does_ protect our rights. It might also do a lot of bullying on the side, but a sufficiently aware population can utilize a well-written constitution to keep government in check. That's what we should be fighting for. 

Maybe your view is that, as long as government is funded via taxation, everything it does is tarnished. All of it founded on a rights violation. But that's to misunderstand the trade off involved in having a government. The basic deal is that we give up some of our rights (like the right to decide for ourselves how to pay for government, much of our right to use violence to defend ourselves, etc...) in exchange for increased security. 

There are obviously better ways to protect ourselves. I believe that we'll eventually settle into peaceful anarchy. But that requires a general moral consensus far different than what we have now. I don't think it will happen until violence becomes something that is utterly beneath humanity. Something so deeply embedded in our cultural moral compass that anyone who reached for it would be exiled and shunned. 



> Let's get back to the issue of "control" that you're talking about but let's flip the hypothetical around. Let's say the government imposes a new tax on fast food restaurants like McDonald's and Burger King but not on Subway because they want people to eat at Subway instead. You're obviously opposed to the idea of the government trying to force people to make a choice they might not otherwise make. That's great, so what policy do you advocate? A.) Put the same tax on Subway to make it fair and stop controlling people, or B.) Eliminate the tax completely and stop controlling people.



B is, for now, off the table. And A is far better than allowing Congress to keep ratcheting up its power with the tax code.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Aug 24, 2016)

dblack said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


I can absolutely deny that they make us safer in trade off for our tax money which they steal from us. So I'm not only robbed, but they then use my money to make me less safe. They make us less safe by provoking people overseas into killing us. Cops make us less safe in many ways as well. When they're sitting at the side of the road causing traffic to suddenly slow down, that makes us less safe on the road. When we assume that police will protect us from violence but really only show up after we've been murdered they make us less safe.

And I'm flabbergasted that eliminating one tax, for a libertarian, is off the table. I can't even fathom why taking that position is off the table.


----------



## dblack (Aug 24, 2016)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...



I'm not saying it's off the table for me. Obviously, it would be my preference to eliminate all taxes, most especially income tax. I just meant that it's not politically viable.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Aug 24, 2016)

dblack said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


And why does that matter? It's not politically viable for Gary Johnson to be elected president. Libertarianism itself is not politically viable.


----------



## dblack (Aug 24, 2016)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...



It matters because it's not an either/or choice. We can argue for both. We can push for incremental change that will move toward the long term goal without giving up on it. Endorsing the buying off of special interests with targeted tax breaks, because it nominally reduces overall taxation, is short-sighted. It sacrifices equal protection for temporary relief. Arguably, it undermines the cause of limited government with its divide-and-conquer tactic.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Aug 25, 2016)

dblack said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


So when it comes to the Selective Service your preferred order of policy preferences would be: No Selective Service at all-->Selective Service for all-->Selective Service only for men?

I admit I have no interest in equality when it comes to violence. If somebody punches me in the face I'm not going to say they should also punch you to be fair. My interest is in having as little violence as possible.


----------



## dblack (Aug 25, 2016)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...



Yes. And here's why: If the Court stood firm on all matters of equal protection, this kind of egregious rights violation wouldn't be tolerated. If Selective Service were required to treat all citizens equally, there would be significant public demand for ending conscription altogether. As it is, because it only targets a relatively small minority, it stands.



> I admit I have no interest in equality when it comes to violence. If somebody punches me in the face I'm not going to say they should also punch you to be fair. My interest is in having as little violence as possible.



We're not talking about acts of individual violence, but state policy. In particular, whether laws should be applied equally to all citizens, or whether everyone should get a different deal depending on which interest group they belong to. You don't seem to appreciate that equal protection is fundamental to limited government. Dismissing it allows government that is arbitrary and capricious and, in the end, far more intrusive. And far more coercive.


----------

