The Forward Party

[Harpy Eagle]

She was a nobody that no one ever heard of.

Which in my book is a good thing.

The LP made a big mistake picking Johnson just because of his name recognition.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

What was wrong with Jo Jorgensen

she's terrible.

She has no sense of libertarianism. Liberty is the last thing on her mind.

This is the problem with most libertarians. They're not actually libertarians.

The party is a fucking joke and so is she.

Remember Austin Petersen? He dominated the debates and was a much more polished candidate than Gary Johnson.

I firmly believe the party torpedoed Austin because it never wants to win.

Winning is not the purpose of the libertarian party.

Siphoning votes is the purpose of the libertarian party.

 

[Independent thinker]

We have to change the system before it's too damn late. The Forward Party is the only one that is serious about that.

We can try to fix this, or we can just keep bending over for it.

www.ForwardParty.com

Isn't that what every third party says, and where does it get them?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Which in my book is a good thing.

The LP made a big mistake picking Johnson just because of his name recognition.

It was not a mistake, gator. It was purposeful.

The libertarian party does not want to win. It wants to siphon votes.

You know good and damn well that Austin Petersen would have been 1 million times better than iJohnson.

You have to admit that it is a worthless party run by people who have no desire to actually affect change.

 

[Mac1958]

Isn't that what every third party says, and where does it get them?

No, not every third party has a specific plan for changing the system.

Where does it get what?

 

[Votto]

she's terrible.

She has no sense of libertarianism. Liberty is the last thing on her mind.

This is the problem with most libertarians. They're not actually libertarians.

The party is a fucking joke and so is she.

Remember Austin Petersen? He dominated the debates and was a much more polished candidate than Gary Johnson.

I firmly believe the party torpedoed Austin because it never wants to win.

Winning is not the purpose of the libertarian party.

Siphoning votes is the purpose of the libertarian party.

A true libertarian is a small government individual that is not interested in manipulating the populace in order to increase their power over it.

How can such a pacifist movement outmaneuver such fascism?

The issue is the collective power within the Federal government. States need to rise up and create Constitutional amendments to take back their power so that there is no centralized power to fight over anymore.

Power corrupts, so take it away.

This is why a third party is not the answer.

 

[Independent thinker]

It’s not that they’re incapable. It’s the system. The oligarchy, deep state, and corporate media collude to make sure a candidate of the people is prevented access. Only candidates that support the corporatist warmongering establishment are allowed to win.

It’s not that they’re incapable. It’s the system. The oligarchy, deep state, and corporate media collude to make sure a candidate of the people is prevented access. Only candidates that support the corporatist warmongering establishment are allowed to win.

While a lot of that may be true, in the last election over 80 million people voted for Biden and another 80 million voted for Trump. It's hard to claim that they were not candidates of the people.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

It was not a mistake, gator. It was purposeful.

The libertarian party does not want to win. It wants to siphon votes.

You know good and damn well that Austin Petersen would have been 1 million times better than iJohnson.

You have to admit that it is a worthless party run by people who have no desire to actually affect change.

I do agree that Austin Petersen was far better, but the LP felt someone known was more important.

 

[Independent thinker]

You can be assured whoever the candidates are they won’t be any different from the prior ones.

While I agree with that I think people are fooling themselves by thinking that a vote for "other" will be voting for something different.

 

[Independent thinker]

So far their only platform is election reforms that they need done to give them a chance at winning, but they have to win first to try to implement those reforms.....

Very true. Before this just announced "marriage" the Forward Party headed by Yang had a platform of basic income for all Americans. If that remains then they don't have me on board.

 

[Votto]

Very true. Before this just announced "marriage" the Forward Party headed by Yang had a platform of basic income for all Americans. If that remains then they don't have me on board.

Again, they are democrats just trying to hide their stink.

There will be no viable third party that is not for increasing the size and scope of the Federal government.

If it does not work, they will simply slither away and try something new and devious, just like they did when they have up on their ministry of disinformation when they saw it was not going to work either.

 

[Mac-7]

“The party, which is centrist, has no specific policies yet.”

Yahoo is full of shit

Yang already published a party platform that Mac1958 used to proudly display and it was not centrist

Compared to total socialist radical democrats such as AOC it was less lefty

But far from centrist

 

[Independent thinker]

No, not every third party has a specific plan for changing the system.

Where does it get what?

Since Democrats and Republicans own and manage "the system" it can't be changed unless they change it. As much as we hate that, it is the reality. The Democrats and the Republicans, and the third parties all make the very same mistake in thinking that if they win a contest it gives them a mandate to do whatever the hell they want. Translation: if the Forward Party were to actually win they may claim a mandate but whipping Democrats and Republicans into changing a system which favors them, is simply not going to happen.

 

[Independent thinker]

I do agree that Austin Petersen was far better, but the LP felt someone known was more important.

I didn't know either Austin Peterson or Jo Jorgenson. The truth is, people aren't going to vote for Joe or Jane Schmoe.

 

[Independent thinker]

“The party, which is centrist, has no specific policies yet.”

Yahoo is full of shit

Yang already published a party platform that Mac1958 used to proudly display and it was not centrist

Compared to total socialist radical democrats such as AOC it was less lefty

But far from centrist

Some of these people just refer to someone as centrist if they are not far right and not full blown communist socialists.

 

[Mac1958]

Since Democrats and Republicans own and manage "the system" it can't be changed unless they change it. As much as we hate that, it is the reality. The Democrats and the Republicans, and the third parties all make the very same mistake in thinking that if they win a contest it gives them a mandate to do whatever the hell they want. Translation: if the Forward Party were to actually win they may claim a mandate but whipping Democrats and Republicans into changing a system which favors them, is simply not going to happen.

We're going to try anyway.

America used to do that.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I didn't know either Austin Peterson or Jo Jorgenson. The truth is, people aren't going to vote for Joe or Jane Schmoe.

Which is a major problem in our country. Names mean more than policy

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I do agree that Austin Petersen was far better, but the LP felt someone known was more important.

Then why did they go for Jo Jorgensen?

Talk about a nobody.

Did they have a change of heart on "known" candidates?

No. They didn't. They picked the candidate they knew would be the worst candidate.

The party is nothing but a vote drain.

Given the drain is way more "red" than "blue" I have my suspicions about who really runs the Libertarian party.

 

[dblack]

Yes. Unfortunately.

They don't see the serious problem with allowing anyone and everyone to walk across our border uncheck.

That's not what libertarians are after. We want open, but secure, borders. There are legitimate reasons to keep bad actors out of the country. But "they took er jerbs" isn't one. Some people want the security, status and privilege of living in a "gated community". Fuck them.

If the libertarians would maintain that stance subject to removing a whole bunch of other bullshit I would be more likely to stick with them.

Like what?

There's also the problem with them being absolutely not serious about doing a goddamn thing like winning elections. They have no interest. It's just a game to the main players.

And in your view, what would they do differently, if they were "serious"? The bottom line is that until we change the voting system, or voters actually grow up and quit falling for LO2E, a third party has very little chance of winning, or even getting a meaningful minority of the votes. So their goals are different.

I get frustrated with it too. Part of it is just built in to the libertarian ethos. People committed to the idea of live-and-let-live don't have quite as much "civic ambition" as those with grand plans for society. But mostly it's the stranglehold that the two parties have on the process. Libertarians start out the race a lap down, bound and gagged, and you criticize them for not being "serious"? C'mon.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Which is a major problem in our country. Names mean more than policy

It's also a huge problem for the libertarian party, but that is a self-inflicted wound, which I believe is a purposeful self-inflicted wound.