Is this the year of the Libertarian Party?

[NYcarbineer]

Every year is the year of the Libertarians thinking it's going to be the year of the Libertarians.

Libertarians are never in power, but they are usually right.

What a paradox.

They lack the "Screw the truth and morality for power" gene.

1. Libertarians are pro-choice on abortion.

Wrong (as usual) libertarians are split on abortion, the non-aggression principle can be interpreted both ways on the question.

2. Libertarians oppose government help for the poor. They can therefore get approximately NO support from the Left

Wrong (as usual) libertarians having various opinions on the degree, method and viability of government aid for the POOR.

You really shouldn't talk about things that you know nothing about; of course that would render you completely mute.

Gary Johnson is strongly pro-choice.

... Gary Johnson is ONE libertarian

Ron Paul is another libertarian and he was pro-life as for example are all the members of libertarians for life.

I realize that it's WAY beyond reasonable to expect someone like you who has only the opinions that the DNC gives you and absolutely no principles to understand how the non-aggression principle can be interpreted on both sides of the abortion question but that doesn't mean that libertarians can't.

Make the case that he could ever, under any circumstances, get substantial support from anti-choice Americans.

Why would I bother with that since it's completely non sequitur to the question of whether or not you know what you're talking about with regard to libertarian perspectives on abortion? Personally I don't really care what "anti-choice" Americans support or don't support, I'm not interested in telling other people how to live their lives, authoritarianism is your gig not mine.

..but nice try at attempting to obfuscate the fact that you stuck your foot in your mouth once again... A for effort, F for execution.

I'm telling you because the anti-abortion people are not going to vote for pro-choice candidates, and the Libertarians are not going to run anti-abortion candidates.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I just think that the Electoral College results in candidates running for President in only a handful of states, and it disenfranchises the voters in state like CA and TX, where the outcome isn't really in question. I think that you get a lot of voter apathy simply because they think their votes don't matter, since they live in an overwhelming red/blue state.

Get rid of it in exchange for a straight popular vote, and California will overwhelmingly decide who is president every damn time. People in Idaho or Montana will never vote.

 

[NYcarbineer]

can see where a lot of republicans would take issue with the libertarian stance on abortion and the death penalty.

On death penalty hes

BUT abortion?

The policy is "it is not the government's business

That really means federal government

Libertarians are not opposed to all government, but rather prefer that most decisions are best made at the state a decision local level...

For those that believe that a fetus is a person that deserves the same protection of life as any other person, abortion is the government’s business. For those that don’t believe a fetus is a person, then it’s not the government’s business.
Now if you are saying abortion should be a state issue, I agree.

I don't understand why abortion should be a state issue as opposed to a national law. There will continue to be those who oppose abortion and those who believe it is a woman's right to choose, regardless of what their own choice might be. What does bringing it down to the state level, which would result in a confusing hodgepodge of restrictions and legislative initiatives that would benefit no one. People would be traveling from state to state to find services, outside their own local communities.

Because it isnt an enumerated power.

Enumerated power rhetoric is trumped by Supreme Court case law.

 

[JoeMoma]

can see where a lot of republicans would take issue with the libertarian stance on abortion and the death penalty.

On death penalty hes

BUT abortion?

The policy is "it is not the government's business

That really means federal government

Libertarians are not opposed to all government, but rather prefer that most decisions are best made at the state a decision local level...

For those that believe that a fetus is a person that deserves the same protection of life as any other person, abortion is the government’s business. For those that don’t believe a fetus is a person, then it’s not the government’s business.
Now if you are saying abortion should be a state issue, I agree.

I don't understand why abortion should be a state issue as opposed to a national law. There will continue to be those who oppose abortion and those who believe it is a woman's right to choose, regardless of what their own choice might be. What does bringing it down to the state level, which would result in a confusing hodgepodge of restrictions and legislative initiatives that would benefit no one. People would be traveling from state to state to find services, outside their own local communities.

Because of the 10th amendment.

 

[TNHarley]

can see where a lot of republicans would take issue with the libertarian stance on abortion and the death penalty.

On death penalty hes

BUT abortion?

The policy is "it is not the government's business

That really means federal government

Libertarians are not opposed to all government, but rather prefer that most decisions are best made at the state a decision local level...

For those that believe that a fetus is a person that deserves the same protection of life as any other person, abortion is the government’s business. For those that don’t believe a fetus is a person, then it’s not the government’s business.
Now if you are saying abortion should be a state issue, I agree.

I don't understand why abortion should be a state issue as opposed to a national law. There will continue to be those who oppose abortion and those who believe it is a woman's right to choose, regardless of what their own choice might be. What does bringing it down to the state level, which would result in a confusing hodgepodge of restrictions and legislative initiatives that would benefit no one. People would be traveling from state to state to find services, outside their own local communities.

Because it isnt an enumerated power.

Enumerated power rhetoric is trumped by Supreme Court case law.

It isnt rhetoric. It is plain old "black and white law of the land."
And frankly, i can read myself. I dont need a political activist to lie to the country to get a statist point across.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I just think that the Electoral College results in candidates running for President in only a handful of states, and it disenfranchises the voters in state like CA and TX, where the outcome isn't really in question. I think that you get a lot of voter apathy simply because they think their votes don't matter, since they live in an overwhelming red/blue state.

Get rid of it in exchange for a straight popular vote, and California will overwhelmingly decide who is president every damn time. People in Idaho or Montana will never vote.

lol, with the popular vote, Trump would have gotten 33% of the vote out of California. With the electoral college, he got zero percent.

 

[JoeMoma]

can see where a lot of republicans would take issue with the libertarian stance on abortion and the death penalty.

On death penalty hes

BUT abortion?

The policy is "it is not the government's business

That really means federal government

Libertarians are not opposed to all government, but rather prefer that most decisions are best made at the state a decision local level...

For those that believe that a fetus is a person that deserves the same protection of life as any other person, abortion is the government’s business. For those that don’t believe a fetus is a person, then it’s not the government’s business.
Now if you are saying abortion should be a state issue, I agree.

I don't understand why abortion should be a state issue as opposed to a national law. There will continue to be those who oppose abortion and those who believe it is a woman's right to choose, regardless of what their own choice might be. What does bringing it down to the state level, which would result in a confusing hodgepodge of restrictions and legislative initiatives that would benefit no one. People would be traveling from state to state to find services, outside their own local communities.

Because it isnt an enumerated power.

Enumerated power rhetoric is trumped by Supreme Court case law.

In other words, legislation from the bench!

 

[OldLady]

Every year is the year of the Libertarians thinking it's going to be the year of the Libertarians.

Libertarians are never in power, but they are usually right.

What a paradox.

They lack the "Screw the truth and morality for power" gene.

1. Libertarians are pro-choice on abortion.

Wrong (as usual) libertarians are split on abortion, the non-aggression principle can be interpreted both ways on the question.

2. Libertarians oppose government help for the poor. They can therefore get approximately NO support from the Left

Wrong (as usual) libertarians having various opinions on the degree, method and viability of government aid for the POOR.

You really shouldn't talk about things that you know nothing about; of course that would render you completely mute.

I'm reading the Libertarian Party Platform.

You're arguing that Libertarians have no set of core principles. Maybe THAT"S why they're a 5%er joke.

I looked into their platform in 2016. The fact that they are so libertarian that there is not a clear direction or set of core priniciples (because everyone has their own libertarian idea) made it impossible for me to envision them in power. What would it look like? Who the hell knows?

 

[NYcarbineer]

On death penalty hes

BUT abortion?

The policy is "it is not the government's business

That really means federal government

Libertarians are not opposed to all government, but rather prefer that most decisions are best made at the state a decision local level...

For those that believe that a fetus is a person that deserves the same protection of life as any other person, abortion is the government’s business. For those that don’t believe a fetus is a person, then it’s not the government’s business.
Now if you are saying abortion should be a state issue, I agree.

I don't understand why abortion should be a state issue as opposed to a national law. There will continue to be those who oppose abortion and those who believe it is a woman's right to choose, regardless of what their own choice might be. What does bringing it down to the state level, which would result in a confusing hodgepodge of restrictions and legislative initiatives that would benefit no one. People would be traveling from state to state to find services, outside their own local communities.

Because it isnt an enumerated power.

Enumerated power rhetoric is trumped by Supreme Court case law.

It isnt rhetoric. It is plain old "black and white law of the land."
And frankly, i can read myself. I dont need a political activist to lie to the country to get a statist point across.

Really? Then why do we have the laws we have?

 

[The Derp]

Get rid of it in exchange for a straight popular vote, and California will overwhelmingly decide who is president every damn time. People in Idaho or Montana will never vote.

First of all, CA should be the state to decide who is President because CA is the most populous state and the world's sixth largest economy. Secondly, why would people in ID or MT not vote if the popular vote is what decides the Presidency and not the Electoral College?

 

[OldLady]

Your big government has gotten so out of control, the only way you can think to save it is to preserve it by funding campaigns with yet MORE taxpayer money

Candidates can opt to take taxpayer-funded campaigns now. In fact, Obama was the first nominee to eschew the practice. Why? Because he had success raising money from Wall Street in 2008.

Hillary and Trump's campaign expenditures--and Sanders'--may give hope to some people who are considering running off the major tickets. Clinton's money didn't help her. Sanders and his little contributors and Trump's savvy use of free publicity demolished Clinton's millions.

Refresh my memory. When did Sanders win the Democrat's nomination for President?

If Hillary hadn't had the deck stacked way in her favor with all those hundreds of extra votes, Bernie might have pulled it off, I think. I wouldn't have voted for him--he's too socialist for me--but he was very popular and probably would have tried to take on the Democratic platform cloak if he'd won the primary.

 

[NightFox]

Libertarians are never in power, but they are usually right.

What a paradox.

They lack the "Screw the truth and morality for power" gene.

1. Libertarians are pro-choice on abortion.

Wrong (as usual) libertarians are split on abortion, the non-aggression principle can be interpreted both ways on the question.

2. Libertarians oppose government help for the poor. They can therefore get approximately NO support from the Left

Wrong (as usual) libertarians having various opinions on the degree, method and viability of government aid for the POOR.

You really shouldn't talk about things that you know nothing about; of course that would render you completely mute.

Gary Johnson is strongly pro-choice.

... Gary Johnson is ONE libertarian

Ron Paul is another libertarian and he was pro-life as for example are all the members of libertarians for life.

I realize that it's WAY beyond reasonable to expect someone like you who has only the opinions that the DNC gives you and absolutely no principles to understand how the non-aggression principle can be interpreted on both sides of the abortion question but that doesn't mean that libertarians can't.

Make the case that he could ever, under any circumstances, get substantial support from anti-choice Americans.

Why would I bother with that since it's completely non sequitur to the question of whether or not you know what you're talking about with regard to libertarian perspectives on abortion? Personally I don't really care what "anti-choice" Americans support or don't support, I'm not interested in telling other people how to live their lives, authoritarianism is your gig not mine.

..but nice try at attempting to obfuscate the fact that you stuck your foot in your mouth once again... A for effort, F for execution.

I'm telling you because the anti-abortion people are not going to vote for pro-choice candidates, and the Libertarians are not going to run anti-abortion candidates.

No, you're "telling me" because I pointed out that you were blathering on regarding subject matter you clearly know nothing about and now you're attempting to change the subject in the hopes that it will distract from that fact.

You clearly know nothing about libertarians or libertarianism so either spend the time and effort to educate yourself or continue to provide further evidence of your ignorance and lots of laughs for those that have.

 

[NYcarbineer]

On death penalty hes

BUT abortion?

The policy is "it is not the government's business

That really means federal government

Libertarians are not opposed to all government, but rather prefer that most decisions are best made at the state a decision local level...

For those that believe that a fetus is a person that deserves the same protection of life as any other person, abortion is the government’s business. For those that don’t believe a fetus is a person, then it’s not the government’s business.
Now if you are saying abortion should be a state issue, I agree.

I don't understand why abortion should be a state issue as opposed to a national law. There will continue to be those who oppose abortion and those who believe it is a woman's right to choose, regardless of what their own choice might be. What does bringing it down to the state level, which would result in a confusing hodgepodge of restrictions and legislative initiatives that would benefit no one. People would be traveling from state to state to find services, outside their own local communities.

Because it isnt an enumerated power.

Enumerated power rhetoric is trumped by Supreme Court case law.

In other words, legislation from the bench!

It's called case law because it's law.

 

[The Derp]

Now if you are saying abortion should be a state issue, I agree.

Why is it a state issue for you? I don't understand. Do people get a different kind of pregnant in TN than they do in OR?

 

[NYcarbineer]

1. Libertarians are pro-choice on abortion.

Wrong (as usual) libertarians are split on abortion, the non-aggression principle can be interpreted both ways on the question.

2. Libertarians oppose government help for the poor. They can therefore get approximately NO support from the Left

Wrong (as usual) libertarians having various opinions on the degree, method and viability of government aid for the POOR.

You really shouldn't talk about things that you know nothing about; of course that would render you completely mute.

Gary Johnson is strongly pro-choice.

... Gary Johnson is ONE libertarian

Ron Paul is another libertarian and he was pro-life as for example are all the members of libertarians for life.

I realize that it's WAY beyond reasonable to expect someone like you who has only the opinions that the DNC gives you and absolutely no principles to understand how the non-aggression principle can be interpreted on both sides of the abortion question but that doesn't mean that libertarians can't.

Make the case that he could ever, under any circumstances, get substantial support from anti-choice Americans.

Why would I bother with that since it's completely non sequitur to the question of whether or not you know what you're talking about with regard to libertarian perspectives on abortion? Personally I don't really care what "anti-choice" Americans support or don't support, I'm not interested in telling other people how to live their lives, authoritarianism is your gig not mine.

..but nice try at attempting to obfuscate the fact that you stuck your foot in your mouth once again... A for effort, F for execution.

I'm telling you because the anti-abortion people are not going to vote for pro-choice candidates, and the Libertarians are not going to run anti-abortion candidates.

No, you're "telling me" because I pointed out that you were blathering on regarding subject matter you clearly know nothing about and now you're attempting to change the subject in the hopes that it will distract from that fact.

You clearly know nothing about libertarians or libertarianism so either spend the time and effort to educate yourself or continue to provide further evidence of your ignorance and lots of laughs for those that have.

You're trying to tell us that Libertarians are anti-abortion and pro-abortion all at the same time.

 

[NYcarbineer]

1. Libertarians are pro-choice on abortion.

Wrong (as usual) libertarians are split on abortion, the non-aggression principle can be interpreted both ways on the question.

2. Libertarians oppose government help for the poor. They can therefore get approximately NO support from the Left

Wrong (as usual) libertarians having various opinions on the degree, method and viability of government aid for the POOR.

You really shouldn't talk about things that you know nothing about; of course that would render you completely mute.

Gary Johnson is strongly pro-choice.

... Gary Johnson is ONE libertarian

Ron Paul is another libertarian and he was pro-life as for example are all the members of libertarians for life.

I realize that it's WAY beyond reasonable to expect someone like you who has only the opinions that the DNC gives you and absolutely no principles to understand how the non-aggression principle can be interpreted on both sides of the abortion question but that doesn't mean that libertarians can't.

Make the case that he could ever, under any circumstances, get substantial support from anti-choice Americans.

Why would I bother with that since it's completely non sequitur to the question of whether or not you know what you're talking about with regard to libertarian perspectives on abortion? Personally I don't really care what "anti-choice" Americans support or don't support, I'm not interested in telling other people how to live their lives, authoritarianism is your gig not mine.

..but nice try at attempting to obfuscate the fact that you stuck your foot in your mouth once again... A for effort, F for execution.

I'm telling you because the anti-abortion people are not going to vote for pro-choice candidates, and the Libertarians are not going to run anti-abortion candidates.

No, you're "telling me" because I pointed out that you were blathering on regarding subject matter you clearly know nothing about and now you're attempting to change the subject in the hopes that it will distract from that fact.

You clearly know nothing about libertarians or libertarianism so either spend the time and effort to educate yourself or continue to provide further evidence of your ignorance and lots of laughs for those that have.

Go ahead, name the prominent anti-abortion individuals in the Libertarian Party.

 

[OldLady]

I just think that the Electoral College results in candidates running for President in only a handful of states, and it disenfranchises the voters in state like CA and TX, where the outcome isn't really in question. I think that you get a lot of voter apathy simply because they think their votes don't matter, since they live in an overwhelming red/blue state.

Get rid of it in exchange for a straight popular vote, and California will overwhelmingly decide who is president every damn time. People in Idaho or Montana will never vote.

It doesn't MATTER what state you live in. If it were a straight one man one vote procedure the way it is for every other elected official in this country, EVERY vote would count and it wouldn't matter what state you live in. You sound as if you believe California is some kind of analogous entity where everyone in The Blob votes one way. And if everyone in Montana voted, each one of those votes would count as much as every other vote.
I really don't get what you're arguing.

 

[The Derp]

I just think that the Electoral College results in candidates running for President in only a handful of states, and it disenfranchises the voters in state like CA and TX, where the outcome isn't really in question. I think that you get a lot of voter apathy simply because they think their votes don't matter, since they live in an overwhelming red/blue state.

Get rid of it in exchange for a straight popular vote, and California will overwhelmingly decide who is president every damn time. People in Idaho or Montana will never vote.

It doesn't MATTER what state you live in. If it were a straight one man one vote procedure the way it is for every other elected official in this country, EVERY vote would count and it wouldn't matter what state you live in. You sound as if you believe California is some kind of analogous entity where everyone in The Blob votes one way. And if everyone in Montana voted, each one of those votes would count as much as every other vote.
I really don't get what you're arguing.

Sometimes I get the feeling these Conservatives argue for the sake of arguing.

 

[JoeMoma]

For those that believe that a fetus is a person that deserves the same protection of life as any other person, abortion is the government’s business. For those that don’t believe a fetus is a person, then it’s not the government’s business.
Now if you are saying abortion should be a state issue, I agree.

I don't understand why abortion should be a state issue as opposed to a national law. There will continue to be those who oppose abortion and those who believe it is a woman's right to choose, regardless of what their own choice might be. What does bringing it down to the state level, which would result in a confusing hodgepodge of restrictions and legislative initiatives that would benefit no one. People would be traveling from state to state to find services, outside their own local communities.

Because it isnt an enumerated power.

Enumerated power rhetoric is trumped by Supreme Court case law.

In other words, legislation from the bench!

It's called case law because it's law.

So we agree, they made case law —legislation from the bench.
Like it or not, The Supreme Court can effectively change the constitution with their “case law” that they create with their rulings, especially when they view the constitution as a “living document”.

 

[NYcarbineer]

This is what you're going to get almost always from 'leaders' in the Libertarian Party:

Harry Browne, the Libertarian Party candidate for President for 1996 and 2000, rejected the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice" and stated about abortion: "Whatever we believe abortion is, we know one thing: Government doesn't work, and it is as incapable of eliminating abortions as it is of eliminating poverty or drugs. ...