The existing Libertarian Party needs a serious makeover if it's to ever become a significant electorate challenger. Yes, Johnson and Weld are experienced ex-governors who are pragmatic and moderate, but they're kinda guilty by LP association. The party's image is one of anarcho nutters who are too far in the anti-government deep end to attract a chunk of the mainstream.

I've seen the cliches in social media comments - Johnson is the Libertarian Party nominee, so we'd become a law of the jungle Somalia if he were elected. That's a nasty stereotype to overcome.

Ideally, I'd like to see an alternate party for those with a conservative lean in fiscal matters while liberal in social/lifestyle matters, shuttering off the inflexible hard cores and "Star Wars Cantina" segment of the LP.

Won't happen, unfortunately.

So we have the more realistic route of trying to make noise within the two major parties, like the Paul and Amash within the GOP.

(08-12-2016 09:00 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-11-2016 11:39 PM)EagleX Wrote:  effective? the whole notion is ridiculous. the american electorate can't make rational decisions regarding their leadership when faced with a simple binary choice for federal office. toss in a a third choice, and the whole steaming mess would vaporize. honestly, think about it. do you really want to send to national office the choice of, say, 34% of the electorate? it's ******* horrifying. 18% of the electorate believes in bigfoot, FFS.

want more proof? we, the people, already can't handle the current primary process. in the last primary election cycle, the democrats flirted with a geriatric socialist for a year, finally settling in a candidate that even democrats admit is probably a criminal. and republicans, faced with the richest field of candidates in a several generations . . . well, everyone knows what the **** we just did.

it's a drug induced delusion to think that this pile of retards, aka "we, the people", would make better decisions when faced with more complicated choices.

quit blaming the parties. it's passive aggressive, sanctimonious bull****, and it's more than just a little spineless. we did this to ourselves, and we aim to continue to do this to ourselves. deal with it. at least try to be honest about how we got here.

I wouldn't be so negative.

But there is definitely some truth in your rant.

wait, there's more (as they say) . . .

before we nominated the criminal and the psychopath, we elected the most redistributionist, government activist president since FDR. maybe ever. we immediately saddled him with the most zealously anti-government congress since the anti-federalists. before that, we elected and reelected the guy that initiated the GWoT to our roaring approval, only to abandon him when it turned out to be harder than a video game.

. . . that's when we whipsawed to the redistributionist/activist, who also just happened to be neurotically opposed to anything that even resembled military action, irrespective of the justification.

before that we punished the party that controlled congress for the perfectly reasonable act of impeaching a president that committed a felony while in office.

before that, we elected a guy president that was widely known to be a serial sexual predator, and then fell over in shock when he turned the oval office into the oral office.

I could go on, but I think I've demonstrated that negativity is absolutely called for. we're no longer qualified to govern ourselves. we're just not smart enough any longer -- if we ever were smart enough.

(08-11-2016 09:27 PM)solohawks Wrote:  If the Libertarians could get enough in to deprive the Dems or GOP a majority and force a coalition majority you would see some major changes

That's essentially what we are saying. Whether 'proportional representation' is the design or the outcome is immaterial.

(08-12-2016 08:58 AM)bullet Wrote:  Libertarians could be a 4th party, but not a 3rd party. They are more extreme both to the left and right than the Democrats and Republicans. A third party would need to be like the Liberals in the UK, somewhere in the middle. In Canada you have a spectrum as well-Conservatives (like moderate Republicans), Liberals (like the left wing of the Democrats), New Democrats (Socialist), in addition to the regional Quebec party.

I think you misunderstand what a libertarian is.... in no small part but because of the way we define liberal and conservative.

Being a libertarian isn't about your own personal choices... no matter WHAT they are. They are about whether or not you want your choices to be enforced upon others. If you do, you're not a libertarian.

A libertarian is a liberal OR a conservative who doesn't need to enforce their will on someone who disagrees with them. Yes, that might be an extremist, but since they aren't asking you to join them, why does that matter? I'm not an extremist... neither is Owlnumbers... and we're both libertarians. Ron Paul is sort of the recent founder of it, and he's not one.

(08-12-2016 12:31 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(08-11-2016 09:27 PM)solohawks Wrote:  If the Libertarians could get enough in to deprive the Dems or GOP a majority and force a coalition majority you would see some major changes

That's essentially what we are saying. Whether 'proportional representation' is the design or the outcome is immaterial.

(08-12-2016 08:58 AM)bullet Wrote:  Libertarians could be a 4th party, but not a 3rd party. They are more extreme both to the left and right than the Democrats and Republicans. A third party would need to be like the Liberals in the UK, somewhere in the middle. In Canada you have a spectrum as well-Conservatives (like moderate Republicans), Liberals (like the left wing of the Democrats), New Democrats (Socialist), in addition to the regional Quebec party.

I think you misunderstand what a libertarian is.... in no small part but because of the way we define liberal and conservative.

Being a libertarian isn't about your own personal choices... no matter WHAT they are. They are about whether or not you want your choices to be enforced upon others. If you do, you're not a libertarian.

A libertarian is a liberal OR a conservative who doesn't need to enforce their will on someone who disagrees with them. Yes, that might be an extremist, but since they aren't asking you to join them, why does that matter? I'm not an extremist... neither is Owlnumbers... and we're both libertarians. Ron Paul is sort of the recent founder of it, and he's not one.

This is pretty much right on. Are there extremist members of the LP? Of course. There are extremists in every party. But as a whole, the LP wants government to stay out of people's business. They're very much believers in the Constitution and that the federal government has way overstepped and gotten way too big. There's a lot of diversity within the LP but essentially as long as your choices don't infringe upon the rights of others, then government shouldn't be involved.

Is that really that extreme? The thought that people can make better decisions for themselves than government can? That if you aren't harming other people then government shouldn't be telling you can or can't do?

That may be a little simplistic but it is what it is.

To other points, the LP runs candidates at state and local levels. The problem is, they get very little if any publicity and Americans as a whole are brainwashed to believe that they can only vote for someone who has an R or D next to their name. And many voters don't educate themselves. I may be a Libertarian but I will find out who is on the ballot from every party and do my research and vote for who I feel is best. L, R, D, G, I or whoever. I know I have voted for a number of LP candidates in KS so they're trying to get in. I don't think we have any at the state level yet but the LP is growing within our borders. I do know some states have Libertarian representatives at local levels and that's where it starts and where they can grow. But you can't fault them for trying to make an impact on the biggest stage.

If the media took them more seriously and if they are allowed to debate and given a fair shot, I think a lot of people would realize that they're more libertarian than they think.

Personally, I think any candidate on enough ballots to mathematically win the election should be on the debate stage. That would go a long way I think in allowing the LP and even the Green Party recognition to reach those that don't really fall into the two major parties.

libertarians are conservatives. no ifs ands or buts about it. they are just so partisan they don't even realize how crazy they are.

(08-12-2016 12:31 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(08-11-2016 09:27 PM)solohawks Wrote:  If the Libertarians could get enough in to deprive the Dems or GOP a majority and force a coalition majority you would see some major changes

That's essentially what we are saying. Whether 'proportional representation' is the design or the outcome is immaterial.

(08-12-2016 08:58 AM)bullet Wrote:  Libertarians could be a 4th party, but not a 3rd party. They are more extreme both to the left and right than the Democrats and Republicans. A third party would need to be like the Liberals in the UK, somewhere in the middle. In Canada you have a spectrum as well-Conservatives (like moderate Republicans), Liberals (like the left wing of the Democrats), New Democrats (Socialist), in addition to the regional Quebec party.

I think you misunderstand what a libertarian is.... in no small part but because of the way we define liberal and conservative.

Being a libertarian isn't about your own personal choices... no matter WHAT they are. They are about whether or not you want your choices to be enforced upon others. If you do, you're not a libertarian.

A libertarian is a liberal OR a conservative who doesn't need to enforce their will on someone who disagrees with them. Yes, that might be an extremist, but since they aren't asking you to join them, why does that matter? I'm not an extremist... neither is Owlnumbers... and we're both libertarians. Ron Paul is sort of the recent founder of it, and he's not one.

Libertarians are extreme right in that they want very limited government.
Libertarians are extreme left in their non-interventionist foreign policy and drug decriminalization policies.
They go much, much farther than most Republicans or Democrats on those issues.
I respect Rand Paul, but he was #16 out of the 17 Republican candidates on my list, ahead of only Trump.

(08-12-2016 01:01 PM)bullet Wrote:  Libertarians are extreme right in that they want very limited government.
Libertarians are extreme left in their non-interventionist foreign policy and drug decriminalization policies.
They go much, much farther than most Republicans or Democrats on those issues.
I respect Rand Paul, but he was #16 out of the 17 Republican candidates on my list, ahead of only Trump.

I would disagree with the way you phrased the 2nd point. I wouldn't call that an "extreme left" position at all. You would be VERY surprised by how many people in the country hold similar view. The problem that Libertarians have is that the Establishment and Neocon GOP demonizes and mischaracterizes their position and they've done a piss poor job of communicating it.

(08-12-2016 01:01 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-12-2016 12:31 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(08-11-2016 09:27 PM)solohawks Wrote:  If the Libertarians could get enough in to deprive the Dems or GOP a majority and force a coalition majority you would see some major changes

That's essentially what we are saying. Whether 'proportional representation' is the design or the outcome is immaterial.

(08-12-2016 08:58 AM)bullet Wrote:  Libertarians could be a 4th party, but not a 3rd party. They are more extreme both to the left and right than the Democrats and Republicans. A third party would need to be like the Liberals in the UK, somewhere in the middle. In Canada you have a spectrum as well-Conservatives (like moderate Republicans), Liberals (like the left wing of the Democrats), New Democrats (Socialist), in addition to the regional Quebec party.

I think you misunderstand what a libertarian is.... in no small part but because of the way we define liberal and conservative.

Being a libertarian isn't about your own personal choices... no matter WHAT they are. They are about whether or not you want your choices to be enforced upon others. If you do, you're not a libertarian.

A libertarian is a liberal OR a conservative who doesn't need to enforce their will on someone who disagrees with them. Yes, that might be an extremist, but since they aren't asking you to join them, why does that matter? I'm not an extremist... neither is Owlnumbers... and we're both libertarians. Ron Paul is sort of the recent founder of it, and he's not one.

Libertarians are extreme right in that they want very limited government.
Libertarians are extreme left in their non-interventionist foreign policy and drug decriminalization policies.
They go much, much farther than most Republicans or Democrats on those issues.
I respect Rand Paul, but he was #16 out of the 17 Republican candidates on my list, ahead of only Trump.

how is non-intervention a left wing philosophy? I would say non intervention is basically isolationism which is without a doubt a right wing ideology.

it is supported by people who basically believe "the rest of the world doesn't matter" whereas intervention is "there is a problem and we should help with social aide etc."

last I checked the GOP not the dems were more against the UN than the libs and the brexit was again a conservative championed event.

Large difference in terms.

Non-interventionism is militarily minding our own business in the affairs of other countries (unless directly provoked or attacked). Think Switzerland.

Isolationism is wanting nothing to do with other countries, in all facets of life, which includes opposing immigration and trade. Think North Korea.

(08-12-2016 08:21 AM)EagleX Wrote:  

(08-12-2016 06:14 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(08-11-2016 11:39 PM)EagleX Wrote:  effective? the whole notion is ridiculous. the american electorate can't make rational decisions regarding their leadership when faced with a simple binary choice for federal office. toss in a a third choice, and the whole steaming mess would vaporize. honestly, think about it. do you really want to send to national office the choice of, say, 34% of the electorate? it's ******* horrifying. 18% of the electorate believes in bigfoot, FFS.

want more proof? we, the people, already can't handle the current primary process. in the last primary election cycle, the democrats flirted with a geriatric socialist for a year, finally settling in a candidate that even democrats admit is probably a criminal. and republicans, faced with the richest field of candidates in a several generations . . . well, everyone knows what the **** we just did.

it's a drug induced delusion to think that this pile of retards, aka "we, the people", would make better decisions when faced with more complicated choices.

quit blaming the parties. it's passive aggressive, sanctimonious bull****, and it's more than just a little spineless. we did this to ourselves, and we aim to continue to do this to ourselves. deal with it. at least try to be honest about how we got here.

I disagree.

The majority of eligible voters cannot/do not partcipate in the primary process including those who are independent and are not allowed to unless they change their registration. Also do the schedule by the time most people vote in the primary it is practically over, this year being an exception.

So by the time the general election roles around people are left choosing between two people they don't really like and had little to no say about why it's those two people in the ballot.

The parties are either private entities, therefore laws need to be changes that allow for easier and later ballot access or they are bedrock institutions of our government, in which laws need to be changed to allow more public control and prevention of independent exclusion in primaries from top to bottom of the ballot. Right now they have the best of both worlds.

with all due respect, and putting this as gently as I possibly can, I think perhaps you didn't completely grasp my full argument. I believe this because in your reply, right after you said "I disagree", there are several places that you actually proved my point.

I think 3rd parties can be effective, you don't.

(08-12-2016 01:34 PM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  Large difference in terms.

Non-interventionism is militarily minding our own business in the affairs of other countries (unless directly provoked or attacked). Think Switzerland.

Isolationism is wanting nothing to do with other countries, in all facets of life, which includes opposing immigration and trade. Think North Korea.

isolationism is "not my problem" aka non-interventionism. and are we really going to use korea as the standard here? I think pre pearl harbor america is a better example.

(08-12-2016 12:55 PM)john01992 Wrote:  libertarians are conservatives. no ifs ands or buts about it. they are just so partisan they don't even realize how crazy they are.

So it's crazy to think that the government shouldn't be involved in your bedroom or personal life as long as you aren't bothering anyone else?

What's crazy is to think that you can 'legislate' morality or opinions away.

(08-12-2016 01:01 PM)bullet Wrote:  Libertarians are extreme right in that they want very limited government.
Libertarians are extreme left in their non-interventionist foreign policy and drug decriminalization policies.
They go much, much farther than most Republicans or Democrats on those issues.
I respect Rand Paul, but he was #16 out of the 17 Republican candidates on my list, ahead of only Trump.

Politics is a circle, not a line. If you go far enough 'left', you end up 'right'.... and where you see that action depends on where YOU are relative to it.

But you're still judging libertarians by YOUR standards... not by OURS.

Even the term 'very' is in one's mind. Sure, people who want to live off the grid in a commune will gravitate to a party that doesn't think the government should be able to force you to live differently... but how does that person living in a commune guided by their interpretation of the Bible and praying during school hours stop you from having an abortion? The overwhelming majority of libertarians don't feel dramatically different about things than you do. Where they feel different is abut using the power of government to force compliance absent 'injury' to someone else.

I believe that discrimination is bad and should be punished. Discrimination is 'harm'. I don't believe that you can define such things through legislation. I think attempting to do so merely creates a pointless fight over 'how you define it' and does nothing to end it. The power to LET gay people get married arises from the SAME power to stop them... merely waiting on the pendulum of popular opinion to swing that way. Why should the government have the power to do either between consenting adults? That doesn't mean you can't protect children from such things, or protect people from discrimination for such things. In fact, if you spent less time arguing over how to define it universally through legislation, it seems that money and effort would be far better used identifying it and eliminating it.

MOST of the issues in this country stem from feeling powerless. From being forced by 'the government' to do something you don't want to do. Whether that be cater a gay wedding or 'don't tell' about your sexual preferences... or paying taxes to support wars or swear 'to God' in a court room or give tax breaks to oil or solar companies. It just seems self evident that while certain things are unavoidable in terms of government intervention, that there are PLENTY of things that we can do without wasting money arguing about.

I DO find it odd/telling that a number of people on here who AREN'T libertarians keep telling those who are, 'what they believe', in direct conflict with 'what they ACTUALLY believe'.

Said bluntly for clarity (at the risk of offending)... it seems that many try to define libertarians based on what 'control' they won't let either side continue to try and legislate away... and not on what FREEDOM they allow.

I agree with all sorts of liberal policies and positions (and against conservative policies and positions) on the basis that they are none of the government's business. It seems that liberals aren't happy that a 'conservative' supports their rights, unless we also seek to punish those who disagree with their opinions. Same for conservatives. The Christian right doesn't support libertarians because we don't support anti-gay legislation, even if we are anti-gay personally.

Hammy it's a line

also the bedroom thing isn't limited to libertarians

*I DO find it odd/telling that a number of people on here who AREN'T libertarians keep telling those who are, 'what they believe', in direct conflict with 'what they ACTUALLY believe'.*

wasn't it you who was cheerleading owl on when he was claiming a hardcore conservative wasn't really a conservative and actually a liberal?

(08-11-2016 08:19 PM)solohawks Wrote:  Why do third parties put no effort one in winning congressional representation. In our divided legislatures they could become king makers and really achieve some policy goals

IMHO the reason is that voters would rather have someone that they agree with 70% of the issues than risk getting someone they disagree with 80% of the issues , where there overall preference maybe a 3rd party candidate that they agree with 80+% of the issues.

I'm for instant runoff voting where I could vote for 3rd party A, 3rd party B , major party C, instead of voting for major party C to keep out major party D.

Note: it would not be first election that 3rd party candidates win but the 2nd (2-6 years later ) or 3rd ( 4-12 years later ) that the 3rd party candidates would win a few elections

(08-12-2016 02:23 PM)sparkomemphis Wrote:  

(08-11-2016 08:19 PM)solohawks Wrote:  Why do third parties put no effort one in winning congressional representation. In our divided legislatures they could become king makers and really achieve some policy goals

IMHO the reason is that voters would rather have someone that they agree with 70% of the issues than risk getting someone they disagree with 80% of the issues , where there overall preference maybe a 3rd party candidate that they agree with 80+% of the issues.

I'm for instant runoff voting where I could vote for 3rd party A, 3rd party B , major party C, instead of voting for major party C to keep out major party D.

Note: it would not be first election that 3rd party candidates win but the 2nd (2-6 years later ) or 3rd ( 4-12 years later ) that the 3rd party candidates would win a few elections

Excellent point! We tend to vote against people then for people.

I love the idea of instant runoff voting. We tried in in NC once in a race with 17 people. Of course the powers at be found it "to0 confusing." They also did not like how the guy in 1st place after round 1 ended up losing

Instant runoff voting makes too much sense, therefore it will never be put into action here.

(08-12-2016 01:34 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(08-12-2016 08:21 AM)EagleX Wrote:  

(08-12-2016 06:14 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(08-11-2016 11:39 PM)EagleX Wrote:  effective? the whole notion is ridiculous. the american electorate can't make rational decisions regarding their leadership when faced with a simple binary choice for federal office. toss in a a third choice, and the whole steaming mess would vaporize. honestly, think about it. do you really want to send to national office the choice of, say, 34% of the electorate? it's ******* horrifying. 18% of the electorate believes in bigfoot, FFS.

want more proof? we, the people, already can't handle the current primary process. in the last primary election cycle, the democrats flirted with a geriatric socialist for a year, finally settling in a candidate that even democrats admit is probably a criminal. and republicans, faced with the richest field of candidates in a several generations . . . well, everyone knows what the **** we just did.

it's a drug induced delusion to think that this pile of retards, aka "we, the people", would make better decisions when faced with more complicated choices.

quit blaming the parties. it's passive aggressive, sanctimonious bull****, and it's more than just a little spineless. we did this to ourselves, and we aim to continue to do this to ourselves. deal with it. at least try to be honest about how we got here.

I disagree.

The majority of eligible voters cannot/do not partcipate in the primary process including those who are independent and are not allowed to unless they change their registration. Also do the schedule by the time most people vote in the primary it is practically over, this year being an exception.

So by the time the general election roles around people are left choosing between two people they don't really like and had little to no say about why it's those two people in the ballot.

The parties are either private entities, therefore laws need to be changes that allow for easier and later ballot access or they are bedrock institutions of our government, in which laws need to be changed to allow more public control and prevention of independent exclusion in primaries from top to bottom of the ballot. Right now they have the best of both worlds.

with all due respect, and putting this as gently as I possibly can, I think perhaps you didn't completely grasp my full argument. I believe this because in your reply, right after you said "I disagree", there are several places that you actually proved my point.

I think 3rd parties can be effective, you don't.

yeah, totally not what I said. it's more or less a consequence of my point, but wasn't my point.

anyway, peace, bro. I get that you third party guys are passionate, and you want this **** cleaned up, and you have a plan that you think will get us there. I just think that we, the people, will **** that all up, too.

ultimately, a third party isn't the solution, because the parties aren't the problem in the first place. we are.

(08-12-2016 02:09 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(08-12-2016 12:55 PM)john01992 Wrote:  libertarians are conservatives. no ifs ands or buts about it. they are just so partisan they don't even realize how crazy they are.

So it's crazy to think that the government shouldn't be involved in your bedroom or personal life as long as you aren't bothering anyone else?

What's crazy is to think that you can 'legislate' morality or opinions away.

(08-12-2016 01:01 PM)bullet Wrote:  Libertarians are extreme right in that they want very limited government.
Libertarians are extreme left in their non-interventionist foreign policy and drug decriminalization policies.
They go much, much farther than most Republicans or Democrats on those issues.
I respect Rand Paul, but he was #16 out of the 17 Republican candidates on my list, ahead of only Trump.

Politics is a circle, not a line. If you go far enough 'left', you end up 'right'.... and where you see that action depends on where YOU are relative to it.

But you're still judging libertarians by YOUR standards... not by OURS.

Even the term 'very' is in one's mind. Sure, people who want to live off the grid in a commune will gravitate to a party that doesn't think the government should be able to force you to live differently... but how does that person living in a commune guided by their interpretation of the Bible and praying during school hours stop you from having an abortion? The overwhelming majority of libertarians don't feel dramatically different about things than you do. Where they feel different is abut using the power of government to force compliance absent 'injury' to someone else.

I believe that discrimination is bad and should be punished. Discrimination is 'harm'. I don't believe that you can define such things through legislation. I think attempting to do so merely creates a pointless fight over 'how you define it' and does nothing to end it. The power to LET gay people get married arises from the SAME power to stop them... merely waiting on the pendulum of popular opinion to swing that way. Why should the government have the power to do either between consenting adults? That doesn't mean you can't protect children from such things, or protect people from discrimination for such things. In fact, if you spent less time arguing over how to define it universally through legislation, it seems that money and effort would be far better used identifying it and eliminating it.

MOST of the issues in this country stem from feeling powerless. From being forced by 'the government' to do something you don't want to do. Whether that be cater a gay wedding or 'don't tell' about your sexual preferences... or paying taxes to support wars or swear 'to God' in a court room or give tax breaks to oil or solar companies. It just seems self evident that while certain things are unavoidable in terms of government intervention, that there are PLENTY of things that we can do without wasting money arguing about.

I DO find it odd/telling that a number of people on here who AREN'T libertarians keep telling those who are, 'what they believe', in direct conflict with 'what they ACTUALLY believe'.

Said bluntly for clarity (at the risk of offending)... it seems that many try to define libertarians based on what 'control' they won't let either side continue to try and legislate away... and not on what FREEDOM they allow.

I agree with all sorts of liberal policies and positions (and against conservative policies and positions) on the basis that they are none of the government's business. It seems that liberals aren't happy that a 'conservative' supports their rights, unless we also seek to punish those who disagree with their opinions. Same for conservatives. The Christian right doesn't support libertarians because we don't support anti-gay legislation, even if we are anti-gay personally.

You just said the same thing I did simply using a lot more words.

They could be more effective if people voted for them rather than pushing a false narrative that is a choice between two evils. Fair coverage rather than a media blackout is also a nice pipe dream.