Libertarians have a long way to go before they're as condescending and arrogant as the two majors. They have to win to get where Dems and Reps take turns being the worst.

Can't say they're smarter though. All 3 parties make it a contest to see who can nominate the biggest ass.

Don't know much about her but she's smokin'.

She's attractive, but wouldn't really say "hot". Looks like a run or the mill housewife at the country club pool.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

(03-30-2019 01:42 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  She's attractive, but wouldn't really say "hot". Looks like a run or the mill housewife at the country club pool.
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Depends on context. When you lean left, and are therefore used to looking at the like of Hilldawg and Pelosi and Maddow, she's hot.

(03-30-2019 01:55 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-30-2019 01:42 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  She's attractive, but wouldn't really say "hot". Looks like a run or the mill housewife at the country club pool.
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Depends on context. When you lean left, and are therefore used to looking at the like of Hilldawg and Pelosi and Maddow, she's hot.

;-) I see what you did there.

(03-30-2019 01:42 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  She's attractive, but wouldn't really say "hot". Looks like a run or the mill housewife at the country club pool.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

So a southern trophy wife?

(03-29-2019 11:30 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  THIS is exactly what keeps me from siding with them on almost any issue. They walk in a room assured that they will be the smartest person in the room and if you don't believe it just ask them.

Commentary of this to no particular person:

Being a libertarian in my experience is similar to being an atheist .... which is to say most of the fellow travelers you meet will tell you a book or two that led them on their journey to where they are today. With Atheism it is almost always something written by Dawkins or Hitchens or Harris. With libertarianism it is almost always something written by Hayek, Rand, Friedman, or Rothbard. This is because libertarianism is a relatively new political philosophy (first coined and labeled in the 1970's) even if it has great historical things to draw on particularly on economics (Friedman, Smith, etc). In addition it isn't like it is taught in schools. I had civics in high school. And I took it as an elective again in college. Neither class even touched libertarianism or any of its intellectual influences (named previously here), even though they are important enough to be mentioned stand alone in any civics class.

Now ... with that out of the way ...

The quality level on your standard political discourse in this country is very low in my opinion. Let's just be realistic here ... how many people in the United States could even tell you who Adam Smith or FA Hayek were, let alone read their works? This is where the LP gets its reputation as a debate club. Because if you walk into a group of libertarians talking policy, and all you're armed with is what Hannity or Limbaugh or Madcow or Wolf Blitzer said last night you're going to be so lost. It might as well be a debate club given the gulf between that (IMO stereotypical standard issue American) and anybody who has read even one policy paper from a think tank.

And, at least in my experience, most libertarians come to their position from one of "I don't know" instead of "This is what is best for you". Because the more you know the more blindingly complicated it all becomes. If you'd like to immerse yourself in that viewpoint read FA Hayek's Fatal Conceit ... his book where he sought to completely destroy socialism as an argument for a form a government. It talks at great lengths about the fatal conceit of being arrogant enough to think you can run everybody else's lives better than they can themselves.

Now ... to the topic at hand ... Tulsi Gabbard's problem is she'd have to win a Democratic Primary to be put on the ballot. The inmates are running the asylum over there, so good luck with that.

Gosh! I didn't know that libertarians were held in such low esteem. I consider myself a libertarian, note the small "l". My philosophy is simple. You don't tell me how to live and I don't tell you how to live. Or you can reverse the phrases.

As to Tulsi, at this point of my life nothing short of a cocked pistol would get me to vote for any Democrat.

(03-30-2019 07:53 PM)TheDancinMonarch Wrote:  As to Tulsi, at this point of my life nothing short of a cocked pistol would get me to vote for any Democrat.

I don't know if that would be enough for me.

Cocked gun? Even Trump can't get me to vote for one. Cocked gun wouldn't get me to vote for him either though.

(03-30-2019 11:43 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(03-29-2019 11:15 PM)EagleX Wrote:  

(03-29-2019 11:13 PM)king king Wrote:  What's a libertrian/Libertariarin?

if you have to ask, then the reply is not for you

at the risk (in someone's mind) of proving your point... I think he was asking about
Liber-TRAIN and Libertar-IARIN
Low hanging fruit, for sure... but still.

I can't speak for others, but for me...
She's better than most Democrats. By far. She DOES seem country over party... which is rare in ALL politics these days and honestly where most of the 'holier than thou' conversations come about Libertarians.

I fully understand (as do many others) that a Libertarian has virtually no chance of winning the general election (in the Presidential race and many state races)... so votes for Libertarians are almost always symbolic... and this always seems to frustrate the hell out of the parties... but we're usually not so stupid to throw the election to someone whose policies we completely abhor... See Owl's description.

That said.... I am far more socially liberal than the religious right... but I am also religious. I have a very clear view of freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM it... and have no problem with the idea that there are more Christians here than any other religion now, but that could always change... I want rules and practices that I wouldn't mind if I were in the minority. Not that I'd necessarily LIKE them, but that they wouldn't impact me.... I am fiscally conservative and neither party really is now... though I DO side with the general financial policies of the right over the left... especially the 'justice democrats'... it's not even close.... but let's not pretend that the right doesn't have its loons and 'bought and paid for' reps. I think politics in general (especially with the media being 'for sale') is a place where anyone with the most remote of skeletons in their closets (which anyone who has really tried to do well but failed will have) has to think REALLY hard about wanting to be part of... so we end up with puppets while the REAL power hides in the shadows

So yeah, I can throw stones at either side from time to time, but clearly I lean right economically. Doesn't make me better... just not remotely a straight ticket as so many are these days.

"virtually no chance"....how about zero...go waste more time....should serve yaz wellzy....

we live in a two party system....it's pretty simple...

you currently have your third party pragmatic rep in the oval....you guys simply don't like him....oh wellzy...

that's a ewes problem....

(03-30-2019 08:35 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-30-2019 07:53 PM)TheDancinMonarch Wrote:  As to Tulsi, at this point of my life nothing short of a cocked pistol would get me to vote for any Democrat.

I don't know if that would be enough for me.

that I believe....

(03-30-2019 07:53 PM)TheDancinMonarch Wrote:  Gosh! I didn't know that libertarians were held in such low esteem. I consider myself a libertarian, note the small "l". My philosophy is simple. You don't tell me how to live and I don't tell you how to live. Or you can reverse the phrases.

As to Tulsi, at this point of my life nothing short of a cocked pistol would get me to vote for any Democrat.

according to some, there's a difference between a centrist and libertard.....you're easily a centrist....

#muhlabels

(03-30-2019 09:22 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Cocked gun? Even Trump can't get me to vote for one. Cocked gun wouldn't get me to vote for him either though.

Didn't vote Trump in '16 but the way things are going I may be forced to vote for him in '20. Cocked gun or no.

This insight is not original to me. I saw it in the comments to a wholly different article in a wholly different forum. But it strikes me as accurate:

==> Liberals sanctify their candidates first and then rationalize away the positions they take.

==> Conservatives sanctify their positions first and then rationalize away the behavior of their candidates who share those positions.

So where does that leave an independent -- defined as someone (like me) who is either too cowardly or too confused to commit to one side or the other?

Mostly having to deal with a lot of self-hatred: from either having to defend the statements and behavior of a repulsive idiot who is unfit for the office of president, or instead from the temptation to turn a blind eye to potentially catastrophic policy stances spouted by progressives.

Tulsi Gabbard is not going to win the Democratic Party nomination. There are not enough liberal males with a functioning libido to allow her looks to work in her favor. But if, somehow, she won the nomination, I would give her every chance to back away from some of the worst of the progressive stances. If she could pull that off, I would happily vote for her.

I am instead left with the fantasy of President Trump suddenly announcing that he's personally tired of all this winning and has decided not to run for reelection in 2020. He instead will urge all of his unquestioning supporters to cast their lot with Nikki Haley.

Now THERE'S a good looking future president.

(03-31-2019 07:14 AM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  This insight is not original to me. I saw it in the comments to a wholly different article in a wholly different forum. But it strikes me as accurate:

==> Liberals sanctify their candidates first and then rationalize away the positions they take.

==> Conservatives sanctify their positions first and then rationalize away the behavior of their candidates who share those positions.

So where does that leave an independent -- defined as someone (like me) who is either too cowardly or too confused to commit to one side or the other?

Mostly having to deal with a lot of self-hatred: from either having to defend the statements and behavior of a repulsive idiot who is unfit for the office of president, or instead from the temptation to turn a blind eye to potentially catastrophic policy stances spouted by progressives.

Tulsi Gabbard is not going to win the Democratic Party nomination. There are not enough liberal males with a functioning libido to allow her looks to work in her favor. But if, somehow, she won the nomination, I would give her every chance to back away from some of the worst of the progressive stances. If she could pull that off, I would happily vote for her.

I am instead left with the fantasy of President Trump suddenly announcing that he's personally tired of all this winning and has decided not to run for reelection in 2020. He instead will urge all of his unquestioning supporters to cast their lot with Nikki Haley.

Now THERE'S a good looking future president.

I'm with you on Haley moving forward....she's top shelf....

however, I could also back Cuban if he decided to run as well (which he most likely will not)

those are the two best options I see maintaining the strength of #DJTexperiment

it's also interesting to watch how Pence has stepped up his game over the last couple of years....he's becoming more polished by the day....

(03-30-2019 10:06 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  "virtually no chance"....how about zero...go waste more time....should serve yaz wellzy....

we live in a two party system....it's pretty simple...

you currently have your third party pragmatic rep in the oval....you guys simply don't like him....oh wellzy...

that's a ewes problem....

Actually I was going to add that the election of Trump and the ALMOST nomination of Bernie, plus the invasion of the left by the 'justice democrats' actually proves that a libertarian CAN (under the right conditions) win the election.

A pragmatic rep is not a libertarian. If you support everything that Trump does, good on you... but I don't. I DO support his policies more than I did Hillary's and certainly more than what's out there now... but that's a different question.

as to wasting my time... My vote for president in the last few elections was a COMPLETE waste of time no matter whom I voted for.... but the millisecond it took for me to vote libertarian in the top box does not compare to the time I spent down the ballot.

I know we live in a two party system and that's a problem for me because neither is fiscally responsible and that's my main priority. The republican party was split this last election, as were somewhat the democrats


Even if Trump DID represent all of my priorities, the Republican party does not.

(03-31-2019 07:14 AM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  Tulsi Gabbard is not going to win the Democratic Party nomination. There are not enough liberal males with a functioning libido to allow her looks to work in her favor.

You win the internet

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

(03-31-2019 12:03 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(03-30-2019 10:06 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  "virtually no chance"....how about zero...go waste more time....should serve yaz wellzy....

we live in a two party system....it's pretty simple...

you currently have your third party pragmatic rep in the oval....you guys simply don't like him....oh wellzy...

that's a ewes problem....

Actually I was going to add that the election of Trump and the ALMOST nomination of Bernie, plus the invasion of the left by the 'justice democrats' actually proves that a libertarian CAN (under the right conditions) win the election.

A pragmatic rep is not a libertarian. If you support everything that Trump does, good on you... but I don't. I DO support his policies more than I did Hillary's and certainly more than what's out there now... but that's a different question.

as to wasting my time... My vote for president in the last few elections was a COMPLETE waste of time no matter whom I voted for.... but the millisecond it took for me to vote libertarian in the top box does not compare to the time I spent down the ballot.

I know we live in a two party system and that's a problem for me because neither is fiscally responsible and that's my main priority. The republican party was split this last election, as were somewhat the democrats


Even if Trump DID represent all of my priorities, the Republican party does not.

fair enough....

however, the question then becomes,, "what is good enough to satisfy oneself?"

you have to understand my hatred for career politicians....therefore, #henceDJT

and after ZERO, the low hangin' fruit was everywhere....

again, we live in a two party system.....and in the end, they're nothing but mere 'labels' at this point...there's a reason DJT threatened to run (I) as the pubs yielded....