The Libertarian Party isn't trying to attract miscreants like Broke Loser.The Libertarian Party isn't trying to attract voters like you.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The Libertarian Party isn't trying to attract miscreants like Broke Loser.The Libertarian Party isn't trying to attract voters like you.
No, it doesn't. It asks why Libertarians aren't "viable"? It's the same reason any third party candidate has the cards stacked against them. People fall for the lesser-of-two-evils fear mongering. Positions and platforms don't enter into it.
For the second term, absolutely.I'm going to assume that you were alive during the Obama run to the Presidency.
Obama was beloved by half of the country.
He was to be the messiah.
He was the hope and change candidate.
They were building statues and giving him peace prizes right from the start.
Do you think that anyone that voted for Barack Obama considered him "the lesser of two evils"?
The Libertarian Party isn't trying to attract miscreants like Broke Loser.
For the second term, absolutely.
I didn't admit that. Lesser-of-two-evils dominates the electoral landscape, in every election. Things won't change until we wake up and reject it.Doubtful
But, you admit, not the first.
LOL - utter horseshit.None of us that voted for President Trump considered him to be the lesser of two evils, either.
Not what I asked....But you rigged choice cultists can never answer a question straight.Because you can’t get elected with only 49%. Did you miss math class on percentages day?
If you can't 'splain it in plain language, that shows that it's YOU who doesn't have any fucking idea how it really works.Look if you're not interested that's fine. Just don't act like you are and expect someone to go through the trouble of discussing it with you.
I did not say it was a law but a law suit another in a series of suits dating back to the 1974 so called reform law.Citizens United wasn’t a law. It was a SC ruling, that expanded the law in an unexpected direction due to activist judges.
Well for starters the libertarians are just republicans who don't want to be associated with the bigotry and the greens have always been kinda nutty.Can the opportunity to win get any better than now? Wouldn’t now be the time to run and give it all you got?
Lib-lites have to beat two 80 year olds…the incumbent has an approval rating of 38% and a shit record across the board and the other candidate is a twice impeached, fraud committing rapist game show host with really bad hair and felony charges up the ass.
COME ON MAN…..if you don’t have a chance now YOU NEVER WILL.
You know fuckall about libertarians, dullard.Well for starters the libertarians are just republicans who don't want to be associated with the bigotry and the greens have always been kinda nutty.
Who else is there?
LOL - and the Republicans are on here saying the opposite, that we're liberals. You might want to consider that both sides are wrong.Well for starters the libertarians are just republicans who don't want to be associated with the bigotry and the greens have always been kinda nutty.
Who else is there?
Oh, I know what they are supposed to be, and even what they claim to be, but none of them really are any of those things.You know fuckall about libertarians, dullard.
They want Democommie leaning individuals more than they want Conservatives ?Ima leave this here -
The Libertarian Party isn't trying to attract voters like you.
Pretty universal in this threadYou know fuckall about libertarians, dullard.
FuckallOh, I know what they are supposed to be, and even what they claim to be, but none of them really are any of those things.
The only way a person who got 49% of the vote in a 3 person race wouldn’t win with RCV is if everyone who voted for the second place finisher had the 3rd place finisher as their second choice. So the original first place finisher wouldn’t increase their vote total. Do you think those people who put candidate 2 as their second choice in a three man race would vote for candidate 1 in a run off election? Or do you just not understand how RCV works? I’m gonna go with option 2.Not what I asked....But you rigged choice cultists can never answer a question straight.
Yeah, I already know the theory...It's just a way to get more fucking sub-mediocrities with (D)s by their names elected....The only exception this far has been Murkowski, who might as well be a (D), and she's certainly a sub-mediocrity.The only way a person who got 49% of the vote in a 3 person race wouldn’t win with RCV is if everyone who voted for the second place finisher had the 3rd place finisher as their second choice. So the original first place finisher wouldn’t increase their vote total. Do you think those people who put candidate 2 as their second choice in a three man race would vote for candidate 1 in a run off election? Or do you just not understand how RCV works? I’m gonna go with option 2.
Jesus you’re fcking stupid.Yeah, I already know the theory...It's just a way to get more fucking sub-mediocrities with (D)s by their names elected....The only exception this far has been Murkowski, who might as well be a (D), and she's certainly a sub-mediocrity.