Is this the year of the Libertarian Party?

[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.

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.

Libertarians I think often believe that the fact there are so few of them somehow indicates how brilliant they are.

 

[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.

Libertarians I think often believe that the fact there are so few of them somehow indicates how brilliant they are.

yeah...sounds exactly like my fuckin' cat. He's a little entitled asshole too.

 

[NightFox]

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

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.

Yeah because unlike you partisan drones, libertarians don't operate using a centrally controlled hive mind, they can actually think for themselves and form their own opinions instead of having some party boss wanker do it for them.

 

[JoeMoma]

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?

10th amendment.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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.

No, wrong. As long as we have individual states with different needs, it is a huge problem. All Federal Government policy would be tailored for California only because ONLY California would control the election.

Look at the history of the EC. Virginia was a huge state with lots of people when the Union was formed. Virginia would decide the presidency every single time if it were a straight popular vote. The Fed Gov was intended to be controlled by the Union of States, not the people at large. The interest of each individual state would have been ignored. The EC is a balance between the popular vote of individuals, and the one state, one vote alternative.

 

[NightFox]

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

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.

LOL, once again, the LP doesn't represent the views of all or even a majority of libertarians.

Libertarianism isn't a political party it's a philosophy ya fucking idiot.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Yeah because unlike you partisan drones, libertarians don't operate using a centrally controlled hive mind, they can actually think for themselves and form their own opinions instead of having some party boss wanker do it for them.

You can't be for and against abortion rights at the same time.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

LOL, once again, the LP doesn't represent the views of all or even a majority of libertarians.

Libertarianism isn't a political party it's a philosophy ya fucking idiot.

lol, the above is exactly where the Libertarians end up every time this sort of conversation occurs, and it's occurred on this forum before.

Stop trying to pin us down on the issues!!!! The issues don't matter!!! The Libertarian Party is not a political party!!!!

Goddam funny

 

[NightFox]

... 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.

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.

Yeah because unlike you partisan drones, libertarians don't operate using a centrally controlled hive mind, they can actually think for themselves and form their own opinions instead of having some party boss wanker do it for them.

You can't be for and against abortion rights at the same time.

Yes individuals that share the same core principles and self identify as libertarians can and do have opposing opinions on the question of abortion.

I realize differences of opinion are impossible in the Borg collective you inhabit but that doesn't mean it isn't a reality outside of it.

 

[The Derp]

10th amendment.

How so? Do people in California get a different kind of abortion than people in Maryland?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

lol, the above is exactly where the Libertarians end up every time this sort of conversation occurs, and it's occurred on this forum before.

Stop trying to pin us down on the issues!!!! The issues don't matter!!! The Libertarian Party is not a political party!!!!

Goddam funny

The Republican party does not support a republican form of government in its platform. Neither does the Democratic party always support democracy in its platform.

LP is a POLITICAL PARTY first and foremost.

Libertarianism is an ideal.

Why is that such a hard concept?

 

[The Derp]

No, wrong. As long as we have individual states with different needs, it is a huge problem..

What are these different needs to which you're referring? Can you give an example? You do realize we don't live in the 18th century, right?

All Federal Government policy would be tailored for California only because ONLY California would control the election.

Why would that be the case? The President executes the law, Congress writes it. Do you need a refresher on the three branches of government and the checks and balances?

Look at the history of the EC. Virginia was a huge state with lots of people when the Union was formed. Virginia would decide the presidency every single time if it were a straight popular vote. The Fed Gov was intended to be controlled by the Union of States, not the people at large. The interest of each individual state would have been ignored. The EC is a balance between the popular vote of individuals, and the one state, one vote alternative.

So you obviously think the Executive Branch has more power than it actually does. And in a popular vote situation, every vote counts the same so it doesn't matter who "wins" Virginia. All votes count equally. Besides, Congress writes the laws, not the President.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

How so? Do people in California get a different kind of abortion than people in Maryland?

Are people in California more likely to die by a bullet than in Texas? Why should we allow California to put more restrictions on the 2nd Amendment?


I am not arguing against abortion, by the way. That's not the issue.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

So you obviously think the Executive Branch has more power than it actually does. And in a popular vote situation, every vote counts the same so it doesn't matter who "wins" Virginia. All votes count equally. Besides, Congress writes the laws, not the President.

Who appoints federal judges and SCOTUS justices, enter EOs, negotiates treaties, controls defense?

You honestly cannot see how presidential candidates could campaign and tailor policy to only benefit California at the expense of the other 49 in order to get elected/re-elected?

 

[The Derp]

Are people in California more likely to die by a bullet than in Texas? Why should we allow California to put more restrictions on the 2nd Amendment?

No...and that's exactly my point. What makes you think that CA would put restrictions on the 2A when it's Congress who writes laws, not the President.

You don't seem to know how our system of government actually works.

 

[The Derp]

Who appoints federal judges and SCOTUS justices, enter EOs, negotiates treaties, controls defense?

FUCKING IDIOT, CONGRESS HAS TO VOTE ON ALL THAT SHIT (except EO's, which have limited authority anyway).

You stupid fucking nobody.

You are an embarrassment to this board.

You honestly cannot see how presidential candidates could campaign and tailor policy to only benefit California at the expense of the other 49 in order to get elected/re-elected?

How much of the vote in CA did Trump get? 32% and 4.5M votes. How much of the electoral votes in CA did Trump get? 0% and 0 EC votes.

So which is more? 33% or 0%? Use math if you need it.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I am coming around on that whole Electoral College being outdated. I think we should go to a one state, one vote format. Each state legislature pass a bill on its vote for a president, and the governor of that state must sign that bill into law for one vote.

 

[JoeMoma]

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?

10th amendment.

Do people get a different kind of pregnant in TN than they do in OR? No, but that question shows you don’t have an understanding of the 10th amendment. Or as least you are pretending not to!

 

[g5000]

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?

So you think every issue is a federal one?

This is exactly what I meant when I said no one can point to where the line separating state and federal powers is any more.

You just loooooooooove your central government, don't you.

 

[JoeMoma]

10th amendment.

How so? Do people in California get a different kind of abortion than people in Maryland?

You don’t understand the 10th amendment.