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.

To ever be a viable party the libertarians would have to win over millions from the established parties.

1. Libertarians are pro-choice on abortion. They can therefore get approximately NO support from the Right.

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

So where do the millions come from?

Not all libertarians are prochoice, that is a lie.

Libertarians are not going to dangle free phones or free anything to the populace for votes. Nor are they going to want to continue trillion dollar deficits, so probably no lower taxes either.

And yes, as a result no one will vote for them cuz Americans like free stuff and low taxes. Anything else is un-American.

When's the last time the Libertarians ran an anti-choice candidate for President?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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?

 

[Votto]

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.

To ever be a viable party the libertarians would have to win over millions from the established parties.

1. Libertarians are pro-choice on abortion. They can therefore get approximately NO support from the Right.

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

So where do the millions come from?

Not all libertarians are prochoice, that is a lie.

Libertarians are not going to dangle free phones or free anything to the populace for votes. Nor are they going to want to continue trillion dollar deficits, so probably no lower taxes either.

And yes, as a result no one will vote for them cuz Americans like free stuff and low taxes. Anything else is un-American.

When's the last time the Libertarians ran an anti-choice candidate for President?

Ron Paul ran as a Libertarian in the GOP party.

Of course, he was derided and ran out of town.

 

[Votto]

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?

This last election. Hillary stole it stupid.

At least, according to Bernie and the e-mails.

Not to worry, they plan on going full blown socialist next election cycle.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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

That is my position, and I lean hard right Libertarian) as opposed to Bill Maher, who leans hard left Libertarian)

I believe life begins at conception and have zero problems with the Libertarian Party position

Bill Maher leans stupid. That is all.

 

[NightFox]

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.

......and you think the Libertarian Party's views represent all or even a majority of libertarians?

You're even more ignorant than I suspected.

You're arguing that Libertarians have no set of core principles. .

LOL, Apparently you don't understand the difference between principles and opinions on public policy...

Of course it's about what I'd expect from a unprincipled hyper-partisan lemming.

Maybe THAT"S why they're a 5%er joke

"Many people, especially ignorant people, want to punish you for speaking the truth, for being correct, for being you. Never apologize for being correct, or for being years ahead of your time. If you’re right and you know it, speak your mind. Speak your mind. Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is still the truth." -- Mohandas K. Gandhi

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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?

This last election. Hillary stole it stupid.

At least, according to Bernie and the e-mails.

Not to worry, they plan on going full blown socialist next election cycle.

Doesn't matter! He is an independent, but ran using the Democrat's organization and that is ow Hillary stole it. If she had not stolen it, Trump might have had 400 electoral votes.

 

[dcbl]

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?

This last election. Hillary stole it stupid.

At least, according to Bernie and the e-mails.

Not to worry, they plan on going full blown socialist next election cycle.

Doesn't matter! He is an independent, but ran using the Democrat's organization and that is ow Hillary stole it. If she had not stolen it, Trump might have had 400 electoral votes.

This

Many people scream that Sanders would have won, but the truth is, he would have lost a lot worse

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

This last election. Hillary stole it stupid.

At least, according to Bernie and the e-mails.

Not to worry, they plan on going full blown socialist next election cycle.

Doesn't matter! He is an independent, but ran using the Democrat's organization and that is ow Hillary stole it. If she had not stolen it, Trump might have had 400 electoral votes.

This

Many people scream that Sanders would have won, but the truth is, he would have lost a lot worse

He'd have won the Rust Belt that Trump took.

 

[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.

To ever be a viable party the libertarians would have to win over millions from the established parties.

1. Libertarians are pro-choice on abortion. They can therefore get approximately NO support from the Right.

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

So where do the millions come from?

Not all libertarians are prochoice, that is a lie.

Libertarians are not going to dangle free phones or free anything to the populace for votes. Nor are they going to want to continue trillion dollar deficits, so probably no lower taxes either.

And yes, as a result no one will vote for them cuz Americans like free stuff and low taxes. Anything else is un-American.

When's the last time the Libertarians ran an anti-choice candidate for President?

Ron Paul ran as a Libertarian in the GOP party.

Of course, he was derided and ran out of town.

Ron Paul is a Republican, ran as a Republican.

You can't defend the Libertarians by claiming they have appeal to everyone regardless of the issues.

 

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

 

[dcbl]

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?

This last election. Hillary stole it stupid.

At least, according to Bernie and the e-mails.

Not to worry, they plan on going full blown socialist next election cycle.

Doesn't matter! He is an independent, but ran using the Democrat's organization and that is ow Hillary stole it. If she had not stolen it, Trump might have had 400 electoral votes.

This

Many people scream that Sanders would have won, but the truth is, he would have lost a lot worse

He'd have won the Rust Belt that Trump took.

You seriously underestimate the disdain that working lass Americans have for acual avowed socialism

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

This last election. Hillary stole it stupid.

At least, according to Bernie and the e-mails.

Not to worry, they plan on going full blown socialist next election cycle.

Doesn't matter! He is an independent, but ran using the Democrat's organization and that is ow Hillary stole it. If she had not stolen it, Trump might have had 400 electoral votes.

This

Many people scream that Sanders would have won, but the truth is, he would have lost a lot worse

He'd have won the Rust Belt that Trump took.

You seriously underestimate the disdain that working lass Americans have for acual avowed socialism

The most socialistic institutions/programs we have in this country are also some of the most strongly supported.

 

[Votto]

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

Gary Johnson is a pot head.



Unfortunately, pot heads either go libertarian or Dim.

All they care bout is getting high.

 

[OldLady]

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.

Yeah, 2016 was all sorts of fucked up with a bunch of outside factors influencing things (like Russia, for instance).

I like how Bernie proved you could run a viable campaign on small donations...it's a step in the right direction because it's saying, if the public -at large- can fund a campaign through small donations, then that same campaign could exist in a publicly-financed place too.

I think that when you spend 80-90% of your time raising money from the rich and corporations, your thinking starts skewing towards that of the rich and corporations. It's just a matter of immersion and/or osmosis. If I spend all my time around rich people, I'm going to think like rich people.

I don't care what they say, if you receive a lot of money from a corporation or rich donor, you will vote their way on critical issues. It's one of the most dangerous things about campaign finance right now.

 

[NightFox]

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.

 

[The Derp]

The first makes sense.
You lost me at getting rid of the EC. Thats a big NO NO for me lol

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.

Trump likes to say that if it was a popular vote, that he would have campaigned differently and I agree. Whether or not he would have won...well...I think Clinton's 3,000,000 popular vote edge was just too much for Trump to overcome, even if he campaigned to win the popular vote. It just doesn't make sense to me that the nation's leadership is determined by voters in loser states like Michigan and Wisconsin. That's kinda bullshit. And it's really patronizing too, for the voters in those states.

 

[The Derp]

I don't care what they say, if you receive a lot of money from a corporation or rich donor, you will vote their way on critical issues. It's one of the most dangerous things about campaign finance right now.

Exactly...the idea that there's no quid-pro-quo is ludicrous. It's one of the great fallacies of today.

 

[OldLady]

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.

 

[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.