Somewhat...the idea of getting back to a new deal coalition makes more sense than libertarian or GOP ideas to me, but they aren't very good at doing it.
Murray Rothbard, one of the most important figures in the history of libertarianism and principal founder of the Libertarian Party, was an anarchist. There are many other prominent libertarian anarchists, such as Lysander Spooner, Herman Hans Hoppe, Benjamin Tucker, Henry David Thoreau, Walter Block, Lew Rockwell, David Friedman, Herbert Spencer, Stefan Molyneux, and Robert Nozick (albeit some on what I consider to be evil or unsupportable grounds). Other libertarians, such as Frederick Douglass, Thomas Jefferson, Tom Woods, and Frederic Bastiat ultimately became anarchists.
putting this as the thread title is going to get more people coming in fwiw feel like for the most part it's been people wanting to figure out the political leanings of the "libertarians" in here because it's such a catch all group but you guys do you
It's not that at all. I'm tired of it. Every SINGLE thread has to become political now. But there is a large group of left thread guys that just go around a circle jerk each other. It's very apparent if you look at the start of this thread, as well as the Bernie thread. They come in and try to shame people for their political beliefs. They only serve the purpose of talking down to people who aren't voting their way, as if it's some sort of travesty people don't find either of the two main parties' attractive, suitable candidates. It's pathetic. All it does is stifle creative, productive discussion.
Yeah I would avoid making shitty thread titles or being shitty or whatever. I was just making an observation.
That dark elf rolled a 15 on his 20 sided die. Arkie Proud had no choice but to grant access to his cavern of echoes.
take the discussion to a big pm then? it's a public message board. and it's not that hard to just ignore people who you don't want to talk to. there's probably some joke to be made about a safe space
Hey now, they need to be free to express themselves and their opinion that anyone who thinks anything different is a bigoted racist.
I really don't see the next 4 years being vastly different regardless of whether it is any Democrat or GOP candidate in office. The Federal government will continue to expand its power, Central Banking/The Fed will continue to go basically unchecked, and the military industrial complex will continue to not be acknowledged as a huge problem. So I'd continue to vote on principal, and spread the smugness with plenty of "I told you so"s
I think the most important thing is a 3rd party gets 5%. I don't care if it is Libertarian party. It's a start. Incidentally, I was looking at 4-way polling on RCP yesterday and it looks like both Libertarian and Green could get 5%, at least right now. That would be glorious.
Fair. I just consider the potential risk of Trump winning to be such an issue for me that I'll vote against him (therefore HRC) over not voting for him. But you're right. There are still problems that will permeate regardless of who wins
The one major decision the next president will have is the nomination of at least one Supreme Court justice which I think will push people who don't want to vote for Trump to vote for him solely because he is the republican candidate and will nominate a conservative.
I honestly have no clue about this, but I know a lot of people voice a desire for a prominent third party...what would be the end game there? If there were a very viable third party wouldn't that result in congress() choosing the president? Edit: I do understand the desire for a third party operating in congress but I still fail to see what exactly it would accomplish
I know multiple people that will vote for him that thought he was a joke in the primary and really don't like him for this exact reason. And that's the only reason. That or they just hate Hillary Clinton that much and would vote for a rotted out stump if it was running against her.
Problems that are critical to the sustainability of our nation. I don't believe a libertarian president is the quick fix, but it certainly would be a move in a positive direction (I shouldn't limit that to a Libertarian candidate, really any 3rd party that is not socialist/fascist leaning). The quick, and never going to happen, fix would be congressional term limits.
A winner take all system makes it pretty hard for a third party to emerge, especially when the two parties are so entrenched and well-funded (and the voters are so apathetic). Most likely the Republicans would change slightly and just absorb whatever gains a libertarian third party made.
The third party would remain viable for about one election cycle and would then get absorbed by whichever of the big two it more closely resembles after they got tired of getting their asses kicked by the outgroup party. The Constitution doesn't allow for an effective multi-party system.
I thought this would happen 4 years ago and now things are so much worse in the Republican party. It makes sense but I don't know what to think anymore.
you see your vote for HRC as mitigation of the risk of Trump winning? You think your vote will have weight in that outcome?
Yes. I'm a Florida voter in a key county. It's a two party system, a vote for no party is essentially throwing it away (per the thread title). Voting for her is voting for the opposition of him just as much as it's voting for the dems IMO. But I get voting for Johnson or Stein too. There's a message in choosing neither
How? And I'm not sure the GOP could absorb the LP in it's current state. Hell, with Trump as the nominee, there's quite a few Zachary Taylor-Whig Party parallels going on.
After the elections are over, and the ballots are counted, play a little game and see what the outcome would have been had you voted for Trump instead of HRC. or Gary Johnson. Or me. See what effect you have on the outcome.
Honestly don't think that's the case in here right now. The Bernie thread was more ridiculing Naganole imo
By your logic what's the point of voting then? Also, talking down to someone because of who they're voting for? *gasp*
People only shit on the Bernie thread because his primary proponent claimed there was a vast, nation-wide conspiracy, that included thousands of people, to deny Bernie the nomination. That's what people were shaming him for, not for liking Bernie as a candidate or his ideas.
Mostly because we don't have proportional representation in our legislature. Makes it really difficult to have three different parties have actual voices in important areas of government. I do agree that the GOP couldn't absorb the libertarian base. But elected libertarians would 100% caucus with the GOP.
totally agree, if there were no viable candidates that you agreed with I'd completely support abstaining. The point of voting? I see my vote as a statement of support, not the 1 in millions, thousands, or hundreds that will tip the scales one way or another. I'm not talking down to you because of who you're voting for, I'm challenging the idea that your vote is going to matter. If you said you were voting for Trump or Gary Johnson or Ron Paul because it would change the outcome of the election I'd make the same argument.
Yes, it would. In the beginning a viable third party would probably produce some chaos. But real change has to come from chaos.
That's inherently flawed logic, you're basically saying all voters don't matter when it's clear each does because you said your vote is a way of supporting someone And you absolutely are by saying it won't matter either way. I'm not saying my vote will change the outcome like that trash Kevin Costner movie. With a two party system and the reality that nearly 95 percent of voters are going either/or, I find it more prudent to get the person who I find to be the most harmful candidate further away from the white house. And the best way to do that is to vote for HRC. Luckily it fits that my voting lines align with her but I dislike a lot of her policies
It's fine I'll move on, this idea of your vote truly mattering is not to be discussed ITT Do you guys have literature about the platform for Johnson
That's a fair opinion. I won't tangent off arguing mine on that... No offense, but I initially thought that was an off the cuff, regurgitated talking head statement.
For some reason there's people here that hate Joe Rogan (I get it to an extent but I don't listen to him because of him) but his guests can be top notch. Can't believe he had a 3 hour longform convo with an actual Presidential candidate, even if it's one of the 3rd parties. Even though Johnson tends to still sound like a politician when he's talking it's really pretty good.
When I say "supporting someone", what I mean is my vote matters merely as a demonstration, as a voice saying - I support this person or idea. Who you vote for is irrelevant to me. Why you vote is what I'm challenging. I get the idea of hating someone so much or thinking they are harmful, and not wanting them to be president. Trump and Hillary illustrate that clearly to me, so believe me, I get that. But if my vote moves that person one nanometer away from the white house, and that's the sole purpose of voting the way I do, the impact is so negligible that it's as if it never happened at all. It's irrelevant.
I mostly vote because until like 1965 I would have had to go through a bunch of bs to vote. And that's not my sole purpose but it's damn relevant this cycle
Cavern of Echoes is my next adventure title. I'll give you thanks in the preface. Sir Bobandi of T'Embee.
In my defense, I didn't know I wasn't allowed itt. I post in a lot of threads so if someone could get me a list of one's I'm not allowed to go in and talk about the subject of the thread, that'd be great.