CDZ What choice have folks who find Trump detestable and Mrs. Clinton unacceptable?

[flacaltenn]

How long can you sing the same song?

It’s always another person’s fault, another entity’s fault, another ________’s fault.

About 10 years ago, I heard that the libertarians were going to focus on one state. I think it was New Hampshire or Vermont and show the world what a libertarian controlled state would look like.

Free State Project | Liberty in Our Lifetime

I don’t want to derail the OP’s thread but really, I’ve been hearing about 3rd parties all my life. At some point, the man in the mirror is to blame

Off topic the remarks above are; however, they are the kind of remarks that cannot be too often repeated.

Red:
I appreciate your being respectful enough to expressly note that you don't aim to create a new line of discussion deriving from your remarks above. The maturity you've shown in your discussions thus far indicate to me that you sincerely mean that. I just hope others will take the cue and limit their comments in response to the comments above to just one post.

Perhaps YOU should read the title of the thread and the OP. The debate HERE is about alternative choices. Don't know how DISCUSSING 3rd parties would worry anyone about derailment. Except for the rabid partisans who feel they OWE their votes to the 2 main parties.

Are you truly of the mind the other member's remarks quoted in this post are themed on third parties?

BTW, I wrote the OP and thread title.

Of course I am "of the mind". And clearly her dismissal of 3rd party efforts is "on topic".

I've spent 20 years of my life working on 3rd party ballot access and choice. Most of us that do -- consider it a civic duty to OPEN up access to the political system so that we don't have to cower in fear over choices like ClinTrump.. OR -- the next random draw of arrogant, power hungry meglomaniacs.

The party duopoly has BECOME the tyranny that the founders warned us about.

What grade would you give your “movement”?
Who is to be credited/blamed for that grade?
Why do they get the credit/blame?

We've made a LOT of progress in the courts. That's why a wimpy party like the Greens can be on 60% of the state ballots with minimal effort. And why the LParty has consistently made the 50 state ballot hurdle for the last 6 or 8 cycles. AND there is a LOT of support for opening up the Federal debates which is controlled right now by Rabid Dems/Reps...

 

[candycorn]

Off topic the remarks above are; however, they are the kind of remarks that cannot be too often repeated.

Red:
I appreciate your being respectful enough to expressly note that you don't aim to create a new line of discussion deriving from your remarks above. The maturity you've shown in your discussions thus far indicate to me that you sincerely mean that. I just hope others will take the cue and limit their comments in response to the comments above to just one post.

Perhaps YOU should read the title of the thread and the OP. The debate HERE is about alternative choices. Don't know how DISCUSSING 3rd parties would worry anyone about derailment. Except for the rabid partisans who feel they OWE their votes to the 2 main parties.

Are you truly of the mind the other member's remarks quoted in this post are themed on third parties?

BTW, I wrote the OP and thread title.

Of course I am "of the mind". And clearly her dismissal of 3rd party efforts is "on topic".

I've spent 20 years of my life working on 3rd party ballot access and choice. Most of us that do -- consider it a civic duty to OPEN up access to the political system so that we don't have to cower in fear over choices like ClinTrump.. OR -- the next random draw of arrogant, power hungry meglomaniacs.

The party duopoly has BECOME the tyranny that the founders warned us about.

What grade would you give your “movement”?
Who is to be credited/blamed for that grade?
Why do they get the credit/blame?

We've made a LOT of progress in the courts. That's why a wimpy party like the Greens can be on 60% of the state ballots with minimal effort. And why the LParty has consistently made the 50 state ballot hurdle for the last 6 or 8 cycles. AND there is a LOT of support for opening up the Federal debates which is controlled right now by Rabid Dems/Reps...

As someone who works for the movement, would you not concede that you may be a bit biased? If you’re not willing to grade your performance, one would wonder what grade a truly impartial observer would give.

Moving forward, When can we see an electoral impact?

 

[flacaltenn]

Perhaps YOU should read the title of the thread and the OP. The debate HERE is about alternative choices. Don't know how DISCUSSING 3rd parties would worry anyone about derailment. Except for the rabid partisans who feel they OWE their votes to the 2 main parties.

Are you truly of the mind the other member's remarks quoted in this post are themed on third parties?

BTW, I wrote the OP and thread title.

Of course I am "of the mind". And clearly her dismissal of 3rd party efforts is "on topic".

I've spent 20 years of my life working on 3rd party ballot access and choice. Most of us that do -- consider it a civic duty to OPEN up access to the political system so that we don't have to cower in fear over choices like ClinTrump.. OR -- the next random draw of arrogant, power hungry meglomaniacs.

The party duopoly has BECOME the tyranny that the founders warned us about.

What grade would you give your “movement”?
Who is to be credited/blamed for that grade?
Why do they get the credit/blame?

We've made a LOT of progress in the courts. That's why a wimpy party like the Greens can be on 60% of the state ballots with minimal effort. And why the LParty has consistently made the 50 state ballot hurdle for the last 6 or 8 cycles. AND there is a LOT of support for opening up the Federal debates which is controlled right now by Rabid Dems/Reps...

As someone who works for the movement, would you not concede that you may be a bit biased? If you’re not willing to grade your performance, one would wonder what grade a truly impartial observer would give.

Moving forward, When can we see an electoral impact?

You're seeing some right now. LParty has gotten 3 full hours of cable news specials so far. With another one scheduled next week. RATINGS for those "town halls" are doubling at every showing. We have had 5 or 6 State level elected representatives declare a switch to the Lib Party in the past 18 months. And ONE US congressional rep.. So we now have a full fledged Libertarian in congress. Of course we've ALWAYS had a few -- like Ron Paul. They just hijacked another party to get in.. It's that "brand name" bias that keeps RC Cola from being a giant success...

But more importantly, we've been CORRECT on most issues and AHEAD of public sentiment by about 25 years. WE haven't changed, but we've been proven correct on most every domestic and international position that the party holds on principle. And we ASK for votes. We don't arrogantly EXPECT votes. Which is a concept that should catch on when you have CHOICE on the ballot.. And people start to EXERCISE that choice. Instead of voting out of blind allegiance and fear for arrogant power whores.

 

[candycorn]

Are you truly of the mind the other member's remarks quoted in this post are themed on third parties?

BTW, I wrote the OP and thread title.

Of course I am "of the mind". And clearly her dismissal of 3rd party efforts is "on topic".

I've spent 20 years of my life working on 3rd party ballot access and choice. Most of us that do -- consider it a civic duty to OPEN up access to the political system so that we don't have to cower in fear over choices like ClinTrump.. OR -- the next random draw of arrogant, power hungry meglomaniacs.

The party duopoly has BECOME the tyranny that the founders warned us about.

What grade would you give your “movement”?
Who is to be credited/blamed for that grade?
Why do they get the credit/blame?

We've made a LOT of progress in the courts. That's why a wimpy party like the Greens can be on 60% of the state ballots with minimal effort. And why the LParty has consistently made the 50 state ballot hurdle for the last 6 or 8 cycles. AND there is a LOT of support for opening up the Federal debates which is controlled right now by Rabid Dems/Reps...

As someone who works for the movement, would you not concede that you may be a bit biased? If you’re not willing to grade your performance, one would wonder what grade a truly impartial observer would give.

Moving forward, When can we see an electoral impact?

You're seeing some right now. Party has gotten 3 full hours of cable news specials so far.
With another one scheduled next week. RATINGS for those “town halls" are doubling at every showing.
We have had 5 or 6 State level elected representatives declare a switch to the Lib Party in the past 18 months. And ONE US congressional rep.. So we now have a full fledged Libertarian in congress.

Okay. If you’re happy with the results, as someone who knows, I’m in no position to argue.

But more importantly, we've been CORRECT on most issues and AHEAD of public sentiment by about 25 years. WE haven't changed, but we've been proven correct on most every domestic and international position that the party holds on principle. And we ASK for votes. We don't arrogantly EXPECT votes. Which is a concept that should catch on when you have CHOICE on the ballot.. And people start to EXERCISE that choice. Instead of voting out of blind allegiance and fear for arrogant power whores.

Oh brother.

 

[flacaltenn]

Of course I am "of the mind". And clearly her dismissal of 3rd party efforts is "on topic".

I've spent 20 years of my life working on 3rd party ballot access and choice. Most of us that do -- consider it a civic duty to OPEN up access to the political system so that we don't have to cower in fear over choices like ClinTrump.. OR -- the next random draw of arrogant, power hungry meglomaniacs.

The party duopoly has BECOME the tyranny that the founders warned us about.

What grade would you give your “movement”?
Who is to be credited/blamed for that grade?
Why do they get the credit/blame?

We've made a LOT of progress in the courts. That's why a wimpy party like the Greens can be on 60% of the state ballots with minimal effort. And why the LParty has consistently made the 50 state ballot hurdle for the last 6 or 8 cycles. AND there is a LOT of support for opening up the Federal debates which is controlled right now by Rabid Dems/Reps...

As someone who works for the movement, would you not concede that you may be a bit biased? If you’re not willing to grade your performance, one would wonder what grade a truly impartial observer would give.

Moving forward, When can we see an electoral impact?

You're seeing some right now. Party has gotten 3 full hours of cable news specials so far.
With another one scheduled next week. RATINGS for those “town halls" are doubling at every showing.
We have had 5 or 6 State level elected representatives declare a switch to the Lib Party in the past 18 months. And ONE US congressional rep.. So we now have a full fledged Libertarian in congress.

Okay. If you’re happy with the results, as someone who knows, I’m in no position to argue.

But more importantly, we've been CORRECT on most issues and AHEAD of public sentiment by about 25 years. WE haven't changed, but we've been proven correct on most every domestic and international position that the party holds on principle. And we ASK for votes. We don't arrogantly EXPECT votes. Which is a concept that should catch on when you have CHOICE on the ballot.. And people start to EXERCISE that choice. Instead of voting out of blind allegiance and fear for arrogant power whores.

Oh brother.

Really?? Before Clinton bombed 3 Arab countries in a year. Before his Sec State said that 300,000 deaths from US containment was "acceptable collateral damage". Before Bush got us entangled in Democratic Imperialism and nation building and before Obama/Clinton helped to create 3 or 4 sucking vacuums of power in the Mid East as terrorist havens --- we were telling folks that Arab states NEEDED SOB dictators for stability. And it was not in our interest to step between their tribal wars.

Same deal on domestic issues like domestic spying, asset forfeiture, gay issues, abuses out of the drug wars and ending corporate handouts. HECK -- we agree with Bernie on about half of his issues. Just that Bernie doesn't really know how things work in the Capitalist system so he can;'t IMPROVE it -- only attack it.

 

[candycorn]

What grade would you give your “movement”?
Who is to be credited/blamed for that grade?
Why do they get the credit/blame?

We've made a LOT of progress in the courts. That's why a wimpy party like the Greens can be on 60% of the state ballots with minimal effort. And why the LParty has consistently made the 50 state ballot hurdle for the last 6 or 8 cycles. AND there is a LOT of support for opening up the Federal debates which is controlled right now by Rabid Dems/Reps...

As someone who works for the movement, would you not concede that you may be a bit biased? If you’re not willing to grade your performance, one would wonder what grade a truly impartial observer would give.

Moving forward, When can we see an electoral impact?

You're seeing some right now. Party has gotten 3 full hours of cable news specials so far.
With another one scheduled next week. RATINGS for those “town halls" are doubling at every showing.
We have had 5 or 6 State level elected representatives declare a switch to the Lib Party in the past 18 months. And ONE US congressional rep.. So we now have a full fledged Libertarian in congress.

Okay. If you’re happy with the results, as someone who knows, I’m in no position to argue.

But more importantly, we've been CORRECT on most issues and AHEAD of public sentiment by about 25 years. WE haven't changed, but we've been proven correct on most every domestic and international position that the party holds on principle. And we ASK for votes. We don't arrogantly EXPECT votes. Which is a concept that should catch on when you have CHOICE on the ballot.. And people start to EXERCISE that choice. Instead of voting out of blind allegiance and fear for arrogant power whores.

Oh brother.

Really?? Before Clinton bombed 3 Arab countries in a year. Before his Sec State said that 300,000 deaths from US containment was "acceptable collateral damage". Before Bush got us entangled in Democratic Imperialism and nation building and before Obama/Clinton helped to create 3 or 4 sucking vacuums of power in the Mid East as terrorist havens --- we were telling folks that Arab states NEEDED SOB dictators for stability. And it was not in our interest to step between their tribal wars.

Same deal on domestic issues like domestic spying, asset forfeiture, gay issues, abuses out of the drug wars and ending corporate handouts. HELL -- we agree with Bernie on about half of his issues. Just that Bernie doesn't really know how things work in the Capitalist system so he can;'t IMPROVE it -- only attack it.

Spoken as someone who never had a candidate that had to worry about re-election, public opinion, or a political agenda. Its easy to criticize those who have called the plays. I’ll be interested to see how a libertarian reacts when there is skin in the game.

I wish you and your party well. But the American people have spoken by having two flawed choices and not paying much attention to the Libertarians.

 

[flacaltenn]

We've made a LOT of progress in the courts. That's why a wimpy party like the Greens can be on 60% of the state ballots with minimal effort. And why the LParty has consistently made the 50 state ballot hurdle for the last 6 or 8 cycles. AND there is a LOT of support for opening up the Federal debates which is controlled right now by Rabid Dems/Reps...

As someone who works for the movement, would you not concede that you may be a bit biased? If you’re not willing to grade your performance, one would wonder what grade a truly impartial observer would give.

Moving forward, When can we see an electoral impact?

You're seeing some right now. Party has gotten 3 full hours of cable news specials so far.
With another one scheduled next week. RATINGS for those “town halls" are doubling at every showing.
We have had 5 or 6 State level elected representatives declare a switch to the Lib Party in the past 18 months. And ONE US congressional rep.. So we now have a full fledged Libertarian in congress.

Okay. If you’re happy with the results, as someone who knows, I’m in no position to argue.

But more importantly, we've been CORRECT on most issues and AHEAD of public sentiment by about 25 years. WE haven't changed, but we've been proven correct on most every domestic and international position that the party holds on principle. And we ASK for votes. We don't arrogantly EXPECT votes. Which is a concept that should catch on when you have CHOICE on the ballot.. And people start to EXERCISE that choice. Instead of voting out of blind allegiance and fear for arrogant power whores.

Oh brother.

Really?? Before Clinton bombed 3 Arab countries in a year. Before his Sec State said that 300,000 deaths from US containment was "acceptable collateral damage". Before Bush got us entangled in Democratic Imperialism and nation building and before Obama/Clinton helped to create 3 or 4 sucking vacuums of power in the Mid East as terrorist havens --- we were telling folks that Arab states NEEDED SOB dictators for stability. And it was not in our interest to step between their tribal wars.

Same deal on domestic issues like domestic spying, asset forfeiture, gay issues, abuses out of the drug wars and ending corporate handouts. HELL -- we agree with Bernie on about half of his issues. Just that Bernie doesn't really know how things work in the Capitalist system so he can;'t IMPROVE it -- only attack it.

Spoken as someone who never had a candidate that had to worry about re-election, public opinion, or a political agenda. Its easy to criticize those who have called the plays. I’ll be interested to see how a libertarian reacts when there is skin in the game.

I wish you and your party well. But the American people have spoken by having two flawed choices and not paying much attention to the Libertarians.

Why SHOULD we "worry" about re-election? We are not a monarchy or dynasty. And we don't NEED a political "agenda". We have a set of principles that anyone can learn about. If they don't like those principles, we don't FORCE them or bribe them to re-elect us by comprising those principles. A foreign concept to the party animals for sure. But you don't get 4 different position statements from us within the same election cycle.

The ideals of principles, citizen service, and a BIG dose of humility about serving in public office will EVENTUALLY be very attractive to America. Given the ride we're on sliding into a large bucket of political horsecrap and slime.

America has not yet spoken. In fact, MAYBE they won't even show up. Would be an even BIGGER partisan defeat if the Prez was determined by a historic low number of voters. LOTS of possibilities when you drag politics to THIS low of a level.. And you only offer candidates that will make this polarization and mistrust infinitely greater =-- Regardless of which damaged lunatic you choose. It's a race to the bottom. And the bottom is in sight.

America is in a leadership crisis. And we need an intervention..

 

[Fair&Balanced]

As someone who works for the movement, would you not concede that you may be a bit biased? If you’re not willing to grade your performance, one would wonder what grade a truly impartial observer would give.

Moving forward, When can we see an electoral impact?

You're seeing some right now. Party has gotten 3 full hours of cable news specials so far.
With another one scheduled next week. RATINGS for those “town halls" are doubling at every showing.
We have had 5 or 6 State level elected representatives declare a switch to the Lib Party in the past 18 months. And ONE US congressional rep.. So we now have a full fledged Libertarian in congress.

Okay. If you’re happy with the results, as someone who knows, I’m in no position to argue.

But more importantly, we've been CORRECT on most issues and AHEAD of public sentiment by about 25 years. WE haven't changed, but we've been proven correct on most every domestic and international position that the party holds on principle. And we ASK for votes. We don't arrogantly EXPECT votes. Which is a concept that should catch on when you have CHOICE on the ballot.. And people start to EXERCISE that choice. Instead of voting out of blind allegiance and fear for arrogant power whores.

Oh brother.

Really?? Before Clinton bombed 3 Arab countries in a year. Before his Sec State said that 300,000 deaths from US containment was "acceptable collateral damage". Before Bush got us entangled in Democratic Imperialism and nation building and before Obama/Clinton helped to create 3 or 4 sucking vacuums of power in the Mid East as terrorist havens --- we were telling folks that Arab states NEEDED SOB dictators for stability. And it was not in our interest to step between their tribal wars.

Same deal on domestic issues like domestic spying, asset forfeiture, gay issues, abuses out of the drug wars and ending corporate handouts. HELL -- we agree with Bernie on about half of his issues. Just that Bernie doesn't really know how things work in the Capitalist system so he can;'t IMPROVE it -- only attack it.

Spoken as someone who never had a candidate that had to worry about re-election, public opinion, or a political agenda. Its easy to criticize those who have called the plays. I’ll be interested to see how a libertarian reacts when there is skin in the game.

I wish you and your party well. But the American people have spoken by having two flawed choices and not paying much attention to the Libertarians.

Why SHOULD we "worry" about re-election? We are not a monarchy or dynasty. And we don't NEED a political "agenda". We have a set of principles that anyone can learn about. If they don't like those principles, we don't FORCE them or bribe them to re-elect us by comprising those principles. A foreign concept to the party animals for sure. But you don't get 4 different position statements from us within the same election cycle.

The ideals of principles, citizen service, and a BIG dose of humility about serving in public office will EVENTUALLY be very attractive to America. Given the ride we're on sliding into a large bucket of political horsecrap and slime.

America has not yet spoken. In fact, MAYBE they won't even show up. Would be an even BIGGER partisan defeat if the Prez was determined by a historic low number of voters. LOTS of possibilities when you drag politics to THIS low of a level..

If elected , your altruistic libertarians would suddenly start caring for nothing but keeping their own power. Human nature.

Not sure what the answer is, but just saying "we need new parties" certainly isn't it.

Maybe what we really need is NO parties. I mean seriously, it is ludicrous the way there are check boxes and if you don't check all the right ones, you are considered a flip flopper or whatever because you don't align perfect with any one party.

I could take some of what the Dems support, some of what the GOP supports and some of what the libertarians support, and jettison the rest from each and come up with a pretty good platform for governing this nation.

And anyone who couldn't is simply a blind fool.

 

[flacaltenn]

You're seeing some right now. Party has gotten 3 full hours of cable news specials so far.
With another one scheduled next week. RATINGS for those “town halls" are doubling at every showing.
We have had 5 or 6 State level elected representatives declare a switch to the Lib Party in the past 18 months. And ONE US congressional rep.. So we now have a full fledged Libertarian in congress.

Okay. If you’re happy with the results, as someone who knows, I’m in no position to argue.

But more importantly, we've been CORRECT on most issues and AHEAD of public sentiment by about 25 years. WE haven't changed, but we've been proven correct on most every domestic and international position that the party holds on principle. And we ASK for votes. We don't arrogantly EXPECT votes. Which is a concept that should catch on when you have CHOICE on the ballot.. And people start to EXERCISE that choice. Instead of voting out of blind allegiance and fear for arrogant power whores.

Oh brother.

Really?? Before Clinton bombed 3 Arab countries in a year. Before his Sec State said that 300,000 deaths from US containment was "acceptable collateral damage". Before Bush got us entangled in Democratic Imperialism and nation building and before Obama/Clinton helped to create 3 or 4 sucking vacuums of power in the Mid East as terrorist havens --- we were telling folks that Arab states NEEDED SOB dictators for stability. And it was not in our interest to step between their tribal wars.

Same deal on domestic issues like domestic spying, asset forfeiture, gay issues, abuses out of the drug wars and ending corporate handouts. HELL -- we agree with Bernie on about half of his issues. Just that Bernie doesn't really know how things work in the Capitalist system so he can;'t IMPROVE it -- only attack it.

Spoken as someone who never had a candidate that had to worry about re-election, public opinion, or a political agenda. Its easy to criticize those who have called the plays. I’ll be interested to see how a libertarian reacts when there is skin in the game.

I wish you and your party well. But the American people have spoken by having two flawed choices and not paying much attention to the Libertarians.

Why SHOULD we "worry" about re-election? We are not a monarchy or dynasty. And we don't NEED a political "agenda". We have a set of principles that anyone can learn about. If they don't like those principles, we don't FORCE them or bribe them to re-elect us by comprising those principles. A foreign concept to the party animals for sure. But you don't get 4 different position statements from us within the same election cycle.

The ideals of principles, citizen service, and a BIG dose of humility about serving in public office will EVENTUALLY be very attractive to America. Given the ride we're on sliding into a large bucket of political horsecrap and slime.

America has not yet spoken. In fact, MAYBE they won't even show up. Would be an even BIGGER partisan defeat if the Prez was determined by a historic low number of voters. LOTS of possibilities when you drag politics to THIS low of a level..

If elected , your altruistic libertarians would suddenly start caring for nothing but keeping their own power. Human nature.

Not sure what the answer is, but just saying "we need new parties" certainly isn't it.

Maybe what we really need is NO parties. I mean seriously, it is ludicrous the way there are check boxes and if you don't check all the right ones, you are considered a flip flopper or whatever because you don't align perfect with any one party.

I could take some of what the Dems support, some of what the GOP supports and some of what the libertarians support, and jettison the rest from each and come up with a pretty good platform for governing this nation.

And anyone who couldn't is simply a blind fool.

Hell no.. We're not BUILDING a dynasty. Don't have coronations like some parties do. Not about getting re-elected. Scary thing to party animals is that these 2 governors just MIGHT perform. And defuse the partisan time bomb. And get stuff done by offering new insights and plans.

Watch the Johnson/Weld "c'mon" ad. They are ASKING for your vote. Not expecting it. They say right in the ad -- "if you don't like us in four years --- you can go back to the other guys". The fact that partisans don't understand humility and civic duty anymore is a sign of how low we've sunk..

Ain't no way -- we're gonna nominate panderers and compromisers. We'll just try harder to actually FIX things.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Okay. If you’re happy with the results, as someone who knows, I’m in no position to argue.


Oh brother.

Really?? Before Clinton bombed 3 Arab countries in a year. Before his Sec State said that 300,000 deaths from US containment was "acceptable collateral damage". Before Bush got us entangled in Democratic Imperialism and nation building and before Obama/Clinton helped to create 3 or 4 sucking vacuums of power in the Mid East as terrorist havens --- we were telling folks that Arab states NEEDED SOB dictators for stability. And it was not in our interest to step between their tribal wars.

Same deal on domestic issues like domestic spying, asset forfeiture, gay issues, abuses out of the drug wars and ending corporate handouts. HELL -- we agree with Bernie on about half of his issues. Just that Bernie doesn't really know how things work in the Capitalist system so he can;'t IMPROVE it -- only attack it.

Spoken as someone who never had a candidate that had to worry about re-election, public opinion, or a political agenda. Its easy to criticize those who have called the plays. I’ll be interested to see how a libertarian reacts when there is skin in the game.

I wish you and your party well. But the American people have spoken by having two flawed choices and not paying much attention to the Libertarians.

Why SHOULD we "worry" about re-election? We are not a monarchy or dynasty. And we don't NEED a political "agenda". We have a set of principles that anyone can learn about. If they don't like those principles, we don't FORCE them or bribe them to re-elect us by comprising those principles. A foreign concept to the party animals for sure. But you don't get 4 different position statements from us within the same election cycle.

The ideals of principles, citizen service, and a BIG dose of humility about serving in public office will EVENTUALLY be very attractive to America. Given the ride we're on sliding into a large bucket of political horsecrap and slime.

America has not yet spoken. In fact, MAYBE they won't even show up. Would be an even BIGGER partisan defeat if the Prez was determined by a historic low number of voters. LOTS of possibilities when you drag politics to THIS low of a level..

If elected , your altruistic libertarians would suddenly start caring for nothing but keeping their own power. Human nature.

Not sure what the answer is, but just saying "we need new parties" certainly isn't it.

Maybe what we really need is NO parties. I mean seriously, it is ludicrous the way there are check boxes and if you don't check all the right ones, you are considered a flip flopper or whatever because you don't align perfect with any one party.

I could take some of what the Dems support, some of what the GOP supports and some of what the libertarians support, and jettison the rest from each and come up with a pretty good platform for governing this nation.

And anyone who couldn't is simply a blind fool.

Hell no.. We're not BUILDING a dynasty. Don't have coronations like some parties do. Not about getting elected.

Watch the Johnson/Weld "c'mon" ad. They are ASKING for your vote. Not expecting it. They say right in the ad -- "if you don't like us in four years --- you can go back to the other guys". The fact that partisans don't understand humility and civic duty anymore is a sign of how low we've sunk..

Ain't no way -- we're gonna nominate panderers and compromisers. We'll just try harder to actually FIX things.

Yes, because it's real easy to say "oh no we won't want to be in power forever" when you not in power LOL

I'm sure that at one time both the Dems and the GOP bleated the same thing "look at those guys , entrenched in their power, give us a chance and if it doesn't work out, kick us out of office"

Again it's human nature.
Just like its human nature that you are defending the Libertarians just the same as Candy defends the Democrats.

 

[flacaltenn]

Getting ELECTED

Really?? Before Clinton bombed 3 Arab countries in a year. Before his Sec State said that 300,000 deaths from US containment was "acceptable collateral damage". Before Bush got us entangled in Democratic Imperialism and nation building and before Obama/Clinton helped to create 3 or 4 sucking vacuums of power in the Mid East as terrorist havens --- we were telling folks that Arab states NEEDED SOB dictators for stability. And it was not in our interest to step between their tribal wars.

Same deal on domestic issues like domestic spying, asset forfeiture, gay issues, abuses out of the drug wars and ending corporate handouts. HELL -- we agree with Bernie on about half of his issues. Just that Bernie doesn't really know how things work in the Capitalist system so he can;'t IMPROVE it -- only attack it.

Spoken as someone who never had a candidate that had to worry about re-election, public opinion, or a political agenda. Its easy to criticize those who have called the plays. I’ll be interested to see how a libertarian reacts when there is skin in the game.

I wish you and your party well. But the American people have spoken by having two flawed choices and not paying much attention to the Libertarians.

Why SHOULD we "worry" about re-election? We are not a monarchy or dynasty. And we don't NEED a political "agenda". We have a set of principles that anyone can learn about. If they don't like those principles, we don't FORCE them or bribe them to re-elect us by comprising those principles. A foreign concept to the party animals for sure. But you don't get 4 different position statements from us within the same election cycle.

The ideals of principles, citizen service, and a BIG dose of humility about serving in public office will EVENTUALLY be very attractive to America. Given the ride we're on sliding into a large bucket of political horsecrap and slime.

America has not yet spoken. In fact, MAYBE they won't even show up. Would be an even BIGGER partisan defeat if the Prez was determined by a historic low number of voters. LOTS of possibilities when you drag politics to THIS low of a level..

If elected , your altruistic libertarians would suddenly start caring for nothing but keeping their own power. Human nature.

Not sure what the answer is, but just saying "we need new parties" certainly isn't it.

Maybe what we really need is NO parties. I mean seriously, it is ludicrous the way there are check boxes and if you don't check all the right ones, you are considered a flip flopper or whatever because you don't align perfect with any one party.

I could take some of what the Dems support, some of what the GOP supports and some of what the libertarians support, and jettison the rest from each and come up with a pretty good platform for governing this nation.

And anyone who couldn't is simply a blind fool.

Hell no.. We're not BUILDING a dynasty. Don't have coronations like some parties do. Not about getting elected.

Watch the Johnson/Weld "c'mon" ad. They are ASKING for your vote. Not expecting it. They say right in the ad -- "if you don't like us in four years --- you can go back to the other guys". The fact that partisans don't understand humility and civic duty anymore is a sign of how low we've sunk..

Ain't no way -- we're gonna nominate panderers and compromisers. We'll just try harder to actually FIX things.

Yes, because it's real easy to say "oh no we won't want to be in power forever" when you not in power LOL

I'm sure that at one time both the Dems and the GOP bleated the same thing "look at those guys , entrenched in their power, give us a chance and if it doesn't work out, kick us out of office"

Again it's human nature.
Just like its human nature that you are defending the Libertarians just the same as Candy defends the Democrats.

If the ONLY thing we accomplished in a Presidency was to detoxify the partisan standoffs and show how simply stuff COULD be fixed --- it would be a monumental success. We're offering 2 successful governors that DID get re-elected in heavily oppositional states. And I have very high confidence that they could "mediate" the situation instead of pouring gasoline on fire by electing either volatile, divisive lunatic that the other parties are offering.

There would BE no pandering or selling out. Because the LParty would do everything we could to primary them out if they "compromise" or pander.. You'd have to be a member to understand what political convictions are. American politics is too far gone for that be "common knowledge" or even understood anymore..

 

[GaryDog]

If you want a 3rd party to make inroads in politics, you have to get a yearlong ground game. You have to start with annual dogcatcher elections and move up. It always makes me laugh when the Libertarians and Greens come out and say "it's time for a revolution!" every 4 years and then go away during the midterms.

So far, the Republicans are the best at getting their aging demo to show up every year and vote for state senator.

 

[candycorn]

As someone who works for the movement, would you not concede that you may be a bit biased? If you’re not willing to grade your performance, one would wonder what grade a truly impartial observer would give.

Moving forward, When can we see an electoral impact?

You're seeing some right now. Party has gotten 3 full hours of cable news specials so far.
With another one scheduled next week. RATINGS for those “town halls" are doubling at every showing.
We have had 5 or 6 State level elected representatives declare a switch to the Lib Party in the past 18 months. And ONE US congressional rep.. So we now have a full fledged Libertarian in congress.

Okay. If you’re happy with the results, as someone who knows, I’m in no position to argue.

But more importantly, we've been CORRECT on most issues and AHEAD of public sentiment by about 25 years. WE haven't changed, but we've been proven correct on most every domestic and international position that the party holds on principle. And we ASK for votes. We don't arrogantly EXPECT votes. Which is a concept that should catch on when you have CHOICE on the ballot.. And people start to EXERCISE that choice. Instead of voting out of blind allegiance and fear for arrogant power whores.

Oh brother.

Really?? Before Clinton bombed 3 Arab countries in a year. Before his Sec State said that 300,000 deaths from US containment was "acceptable collateral damage". Before Bush got us entangled in Democratic Imperialism and nation building and before Obama/Clinton helped to create 3 or 4 sucking vacuums of power in the Mid East as terrorist havens --- we were telling folks that Arab states NEEDED SOB dictators for stability. And it was not in our interest to step between their tribal wars.

Same deal on domestic issues like domestic spying, asset forfeiture, gay issues, abuses out of the drug wars and ending corporate handouts. HELL -- we agree with Bernie on about half of his issues. Just that Bernie doesn't really know how things work in the Capitalist system so he can;'t IMPROVE it -- only attack it.

Spoken as someone who never had a candidate that had to worry about re-election, public opinion, or a political agenda. Its easy to criticize those who have called the plays. I’ll be interested to see how a libertarian reacts when there is skin in the game.

I wish you and your party well. But the American people have spoken by having two flawed choices and not paying much attention to the Libertarians.

Why SHOULD we "worry" about re-election? We are not a monarchy or dynasty.

Uhh….if you think you have the best ideas for the nation, you should, by definition, be trying to get elected/re-elected. If you don’t care about the future of the nation, why run at all?

And we don't NEED a political "agenda". We have a set of principles that anyone can learn about. If they don’t like those principles, we don't FORCE them or bribe them to re-elect us by comprising those principles.

Sounds as if you’re not willing to compromise.

A foreign concept to the party animals for sure. But you don't get 4 different position statements from us within the same election cycle.

I doubt on many un-nuanced topics, you get 4 PPs from most candidates.

The ideals of principles, citizen service, and a BIG dose of humility about serving in public office will EVENTUALLY be very attractive to America. Given the ride we're on sliding into a large bucket of political horsecrap and slime.

Not worried. There are always those who think the end is going to happen any old day now. The major parties will co-opt the Libertarian ideas that poll well and claim them for their own.

America has not yet spoken. In fact, MAYBE they won't even show up. Would be an even BIGGER partisan defeat if the Prez was determined by a historic low number of voters. LOTS of possibilities when you drag politics to THIS low of a level.. And you only offer candidates that will make this polarization and mistrust infinitely greater =-- Regardless of which damaged lunatic you choose. It's a race to the bottom. And the bottom is in sight.

America is in a leadership crisis. And we need an intervention..

We have a person running who has served in the federal government as Senator and SoS. She’s doing very well. Not worried about that at all.

What we have are intractable “principles” on both sides. More unwillingness to compromise is the last thing we need.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Getting ELECTED

Spoken as someone who never had a candidate that had to worry about re-election, public opinion, or a political agenda. Its easy to criticize those who have called the plays. I’ll be interested to see how a libertarian reacts when there is skin in the game.

I wish you and your party well. But the American people have spoken by having two flawed choices and not paying much attention to the Libertarians.

Why SHOULD we "worry" about re-election? We are not a monarchy or dynasty. And we don't NEED a political "agenda". We have a set of principles that anyone can learn about. If they don't like those principles, we don't FORCE them or bribe them to re-elect us by comprising those principles. A foreign concept to the party animals for sure. But you don't get 4 different position statements from us within the same election cycle.

The ideals of principles, citizen service, and a BIG dose of humility about serving in public office will EVENTUALLY be very attractive to America. Given the ride we're on sliding into a large bucket of political horsecrap and slime.

America has not yet spoken. In fact, MAYBE they won't even show up. Would be an even BIGGER partisan defeat if the Prez was determined by a historic low number of voters. LOTS of possibilities when you drag politics to THIS low of a level..

If elected , your altruistic libertarians would suddenly start caring for nothing but keeping their own power. Human nature.

Not sure what the answer is, but just saying "we need new parties" certainly isn't it.

Maybe what we really need is NO parties. I mean seriously, it is ludicrous the way there are check boxes and if you don't check all the right ones, you are considered a flip flopper or whatever because you don't align perfect with any one party.

I could take some of what the Dems support, some of what the GOP supports and some of what the libertarians support, and jettison the rest from each and come up with a pretty good platform for governing this nation.

And anyone who couldn't is simply a blind fool.

Hell no.. We're not BUILDING a dynasty. Don't have coronations like some parties do. Not about getting elected.

Watch the Johnson/Weld "c'mon" ad. They are ASKING for your vote. Not expecting it. They say right in the ad -- "if you don't like us in four years --- you can go back to the other guys". The fact that partisans don't understand humility and civic duty anymore is a sign of how low we've sunk..

Ain't no way -- we're gonna nominate panderers and compromisers. We'll just try harder to actually FIX things.

Yes, because it's real easy to say "oh no we won't want to be in power forever" when you not in power LOL

I'm sure that at one time both the Dems and the GOP bleated the same thing "look at those guys , entrenched in their power, give us a chance and if it doesn't work out, kick us out of office"

Again it's human nature.
Just like its human nature that you are defending the Libertarians just the same as Candy defends the Democrats.

If the ONLY thing we accomplished in a Presidency was to detoxify the partisan standoffs and show how simply stuff COULD be fixed --- it would be a monumental success. We're offering 2 successful governors that DID get re-elected in heavily oppositional states. And I have very high confidence that they could "mediate" the situation instead of pouring gasoline on fire by electing either volatile, divisive lunatic that the other parties are offering.

There would BE no pandering or selling out. Because the LParty would do everything we could to primary them out if they "compromise" or pander.. You'd have to be a member to understand what political convictions are. American politics is too far gone for that be "common knowledge" or even understood anymore..

LOL they would HAVE to compromise.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

flacaltenn assume you did manage to get Jonhson/Weld elected, how would you go about getting Congress to do ANYTHING they wanted done?

 

[JimBowie1958]

If you detest Trump and can never vote for him, then I strongly encourage you to vote Third Party.

 

[sakinago]

You're seeing some right now. Party has gotten 3 full hours of cable news specials so far.
With another one scheduled next week. RATINGS for those “town halls" are doubling at every showing.
We have had 5 or 6 State level elected representatives declare a switch to the Lib Party in the past 18 months. And ONE US congressional rep.. So we now have a full fledged Libertarian in congress.

Okay. If you’re happy with the results, as someone who knows, I’m in no position to argue.

But more importantly, we've been CORRECT on most issues and AHEAD of public sentiment by about 25 years. WE haven't changed, but we've been proven correct on most every domestic and international position that the party holds on principle. And we ASK for votes. We don't arrogantly EXPECT votes. Which is a concept that should catch on when you have CHOICE on the ballot.. And people start to EXERCISE that choice. Instead of voting out of blind allegiance and fear for arrogant power whores.

Oh brother.

Really?? Before Clinton bombed 3 Arab countries in a year. Before his Sec State said that 300,000 deaths from US containment was "acceptable collateral damage". Before Bush got us entangled in Democratic Imperialism and nation building and before Obama/Clinton helped to create 3 or 4 sucking vacuums of power in the Mid East as terrorist havens --- we were telling folks that Arab states NEEDED SOB dictators for stability. And it was not in our interest to step between their tribal wars.

Same deal on domestic issues like domestic spying, asset forfeiture, gay issues, abuses out of the drug wars and ending corporate handouts. HELL -- we agree with Bernie on about half of his issues. Just that Bernie doesn't really know how things work in the Capitalist system so he can;'t IMPROVE it -- only attack it.

Spoken as someone who never had a candidate that had to worry about re-election, public opinion, or a political agenda. Its easy to criticize those who have called the plays. I’ll be interested to see how a libertarian reacts when there is skin in the game.

I wish you and your party well. But the American people have spoken by having two flawed choices and not paying much attention to the Libertarians.

Why SHOULD we "worry" about re-election? We are not a monarchy or dynasty.

Uhh….if you think you have the best ideas for the nation, you should, by definition, be trying to get elected/re-elected. If you don’t care about the future of the nation, why run at all?

And we don't NEED a political "agenda". We have a set of principles that anyone can learn about. If they don’t like those principles, we don't FORCE them or bribe them to re-elect us by comprising those principles.

Sounds as if you’re not willing to compromise.

A foreign concept to the party animals for sure. But you don't get 4 different position statements from us within the same election cycle.

I doubt on many un-nuanced topics, you get 4 PPs from most candidates.

The ideals of principles, citizen service, and a BIG dose of humility about serving in public office will EVENTUALLY be very attractive to America. Given the ride we're on sliding into a large bucket of political horsecrap and slime.

Not worried. There are always those who think the end is going to happen any old day now. The major parties will co-opt the Libertarian ideas that poll well and claim them for their own.

America has not yet spoken. In fact, MAYBE they won't even show up. Would be an even BIGGER partisan defeat if the Prez was determined by a historic low number of voters. LOTS of possibilities when you drag politics to THIS low of a level.. And you only offer candidates that will make this polarization and mistrust infinitely greater =-- Regardless of which damaged lunatic you choose. It's a race to the bottom. And the bottom is in sight.

America is in a leadership crisis. And we need an intervention..

We have a person running who has served in the federal government as Senator and SoS. She’s doing very well. Not worried about that at all.

What we have are intractable “principles” on both sides. More unwillingness to compromise is the last thing we need.

Uhh….if you think you have the best ideas for the nation, you should, by definition, be trying to get elected/re-elected. If you don’t care about the future of the nation, why run at all?

One person, or a group of people thinking that they "have the best ideas for the nation," is part of the cancer that's been growing in this country. There aren't many people in this country who believe in actual freedom, what they believe is their version of "freedom" should pressed upon all. These versions of "freedom" are nothing more than a superiority complex that's saying "I know what's best for the individual and/or the collective, and I'm going to pass legislation make sure it happens." Would y'all not agree with that characterization?

To me the statement, "if you think you have the best ideas for the nation, you should, by definition, be trying to get elected/re-elected," is a scary notion. To quote tears for fears "everybody wants to rule the world." That doesn't mean that every one is a great ruler, simply that they wish to rule. Someone who thinks they have a better way to rule, then must impose it. Even with the best of intentions, that ruler is now playing a giant game of chess, where the pieces are groups and demographics of people. The individual disappears in this giant game of chess, because there is no other way for the person in charge to grasp the concept of 320 million individual people, so they have to simplify us into the form of demographics and statistics, even though it is not representative of who we are as individuals. It's like Stalins famous quote (and im paraphrasing) one death is a tragedy, one million deaths is a statistic...that's so true because there is no way for our brains to grasp the fact that one million individuals died, we understand one million have died, but there is no way to personify and empathize with that many people.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Okay. If you’re happy with the results, as someone who knows, I’m in no position to argue.


Oh brother.

Really?? Before Clinton bombed 3 Arab countries in a year. Before his Sec State said that 300,000 deaths from US containment was "acceptable collateral damage". Before Bush got us entangled in Democratic Imperialism and nation building and before Obama/Clinton helped to create 3 or 4 sucking vacuums of power in the Mid East as terrorist havens --- we were telling folks that Arab states NEEDED SOB dictators for stability. And it was not in our interest to step between their tribal wars.

Same deal on domestic issues like domestic spying, asset forfeiture, gay issues, abuses out of the drug wars and ending corporate handouts. HELL -- we agree with Bernie on about half of his issues. Just that Bernie doesn't really know how things work in the Capitalist system so he can;'t IMPROVE it -- only attack it.

Spoken as someone who never had a candidate that had to worry about re-election, public opinion, or a political agenda. Its easy to criticize those who have called the plays. I’ll be interested to see how a libertarian reacts when there is skin in the game.

I wish you and your party well. But the American people have spoken by having two flawed choices and not paying much attention to the Libertarians.

Why SHOULD we "worry" about re-election? We are not a monarchy or dynasty.

Uhh….if you think you have the best ideas for the nation, you should, by definition, be trying to get elected/re-elected. If you don’t care about the future of the nation, why run at all?

And we don't NEED a political "agenda". We have a set of principles that anyone can learn about. If they don’t like those principles, we don't FORCE them or bribe them to re-elect us by comprising those principles.

Sounds as if you’re not willing to compromise.

A foreign concept to the party animals for sure. But you don't get 4 different position statements from us within the same election cycle.

I doubt on many un-nuanced topics, you get 4 PPs from most candidates.

The ideals of principles, citizen service, and a BIG dose of humility about serving in public office will EVENTUALLY be very attractive to America. Given the ride we're on sliding into a large bucket of political horsecrap and slime.

Not worried. There are always those who think the end is going to happen any old day now. The major parties will co-opt the Libertarian ideas that poll well and claim them for their own.

America has not yet spoken. In fact, MAYBE they won't even show up. Would be an even BIGGER partisan defeat if the Prez was determined by a historic low number of voters. LOTS of possibilities when you drag politics to THIS low of a level.. And you only offer candidates that will make this polarization and mistrust infinitely greater =-- Regardless of which damaged lunatic you choose. It's a race to the bottom. And the bottom is in sight.

America is in a leadership crisis. And we need an intervention..

We have a person running who has served in the federal government as Senator and SoS. She’s doing very well. Not worried about that at all.

What we have are intractable “principles” on both sides. More unwillingness to compromise is the last thing we need.

Uhh….if you think you have the best ideas for the nation, you should, by definition, be trying to get elected/re-elected. If you don’t care about the future of the nation, why run at all?

One person, or a group of people thinking that they "have the best ideas for the nation," is part of the cancer that's been growing in this country. There aren't many people in this country who believe in actual freedom, what they believe is their version of "freedom" should pressed upon all. These versions of "freedom" are nothing more than a superiority complex that's saying "I know what's best for the individual and/or the collective, and I'm going to pass legislation make sure it happens." Would y'all not agree with that characterization?

To me the statement, "if you think you have the best ideas for the nation, you should, by definition, be trying to get elected/re-elected," is a scary notion. To quote tears for fears "everybody wants to rule the world." That doesn't mean that every one is a great ruler, simply that they wish to rule. Someone who thinks they have a better way to rule, then must impose it. Even with the best of intentions, that ruler is now playing a giant game of chess, where the pieces are groups and demographics of people. The individual disappears in this giant game of chess, because there is no other way for the person in charge to grasp the concept of 320 million individual people, so they have to simplify us into the form of demographics and statistics, even though it is not representative of who we are as individuals. It's like Stalins famous quote (and im paraphrasing) one death is a tragedy, one million deaths is a statistic...that's so true because there is no way for our brains to grasp the fact that one million individuals died, we understand one million have died, but there is no way to personify and empathize with that many people.

Nail meet hammer.

Our BIGGEST problem is that no one on either side cares about freedoms of those with whom they disagree, and are just unwilling to listen to reason.

gay marriage and gun rights are two great examples of people ignoring freedom in favor of what they think is best.

 

[flacaltenn]

flacaltenn assume you did manage to get Jonhson/Weld elected, how would you go about getting Congress to do ANYTHING they wanted done?

What does a mediation team do? They listen to both sides, see how that lines up with THEIR knowledge of how things work and propose an alternative. NOT a compromise. Because a little socialism and a little laissez faire is inedible.

On THEIR priority items --- they just go to the people. If Johnson comes out and asks America why Whirlpool or GE should get a $40 tax credit for every washing machine they sell -- and EXPLAINS that's the nutz of "corporate welfare" --- which Congress critter is STUPID enough to object?

Or when they stick to their guns on MEast policy and start playing for STABILITY in the region rather than an "arab spring" or "blooms of democracy" --- you think there's STILL a case for unseating MORE tyrants and blowing smoking holes in those countries? Johnson/Weld poll VERY WELL with active military. Better than their "general" polls. There is a reason for that.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

flacaltenn assume you did manage to get Jonhson/Weld elected, how would you go about getting Congress to do ANYTHING they wanted done?

What does a mediation team do? They listen to both sides, see how that lines up with THEIR knowledge of how things work and propose an alternative. NOT a compromise. Because a little socialism and a little laissez faire is inedible.

On THEIR priority items --- they just go to the people. If Johnson comes out and asks America why Whirlpool or GE should get a $40 tax credit for every washing machine they sell -- and EXPLAINS that's the nutz of "corporate welfare" --- which Congress critter is STUPID enough to object?

Or when they stick to their guns on MEast policy and start playing for STABILITY in the region rather than an "arab spring" or "blooms of democracy" --- you think there's STILL a case for unseating MORE tyrants and blowing smoking holes in those countries? Johnson/Weld poll VERY WELL with active military. Better than their "general" polls. There is a reason for that.

I'm saying that I'm not sure our system can be saved . I mean seriously by any REASONABLE standard Hillary should be out of the running. Let's just be adults and admit that anyone who truly doesn't understand that she has broke laws and violated multiple policies in her grab for power is just a dolt. BUT she's protected by other people who have done similar and they aren't even about to let anyone upset that apple cart, that's why you see Republicans attacking Trump for saying mean things. Not saying Trump is an ideal candidate, just telling the truth.

Johnson would be POWERLESS as a President. The entrenched power structure would see to that, and you aren't going to get enough libertarians elected to change that.