(05-03-2018 08:32 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(05-03-2018 07:32 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-03-2018 07:15 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(05-03-2018 01:26 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Bill Weld has two very important thing no Libertarian nominee in my lifetime has had:
- Proven fundraising experience
- The ability to sound calm, reasonable, and avoid the intellectual traps of a Libertarian nomination (legalize heroin! get rid of the border!)

I get it. Im a pragmatic Libertarian. I said all along the Weld should have topped the last ticket...albeit lousy. Im not sold on him at this point. If he can show that he truly understands and can articulate LP principles..pragmatically? Ill start listening.
I think really just would need to stick to a basic platform.
Address our military overseas empire and prudently reduce our footprint.
Pitch a consumption tax paradigm in a manner people can understand.
Pitch reasonable solutions to immigration using LP principles.
Pitch Bismarck healthcare in a manner people can understand.
Promise to remove Cannabis from schedule One...day One.
I think that is enough for a start.

I'd vote for anyone who ran on that platform.

True Dat...regardless of the gang they represented.

I’m all in on whoever would run on that platform.

(05-04-2018 06:36 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(05-03-2018 08:39 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  

(05-03-2018 07:27 AM)solohawks Wrote:  Now that the Libertarians are on the ballot pretty much everywhere I could see establishment, moderate leaning politicians trying to take it over to create a middle of the road 3rd party.

I could see that happening as well. Unfortunately most of the core Libertarians would find "middle of the road" to be just as unpalatable as the current parties.

I've always thought that if a party was formed that expounded fiscal conservatism and was moderate on social issues, they could become a real force. Most people I know choose their party because either fiscal or social issues are most important to them and they "hold their nose" in regards to the other.

A party that ran on keeping their nose out of the bedroom and keeping their hands off your wallet would be a winner.

That general philosophy plus an absolute disgust with Killary is what lead me to vote Libertarian this past election. As a person on the outside but interested in Libertarianism it seems like they get into huge fights among themselves about who is the most pure and get bogged down in hypotheticals about how little government there actually should be and not about how to actually grow the party. It seems like some have a mentality of you have to either be all the way in or all out. That has to change or the party will never become what it could be.

I voted for Gary Johnson in 2016 because I didn't trust Trump and I'd NEVER vote for the lying crook that ran against him.

Where the "pure" Libertarian loses me is with their open borders philosophy. You can't have people flooding into the country with no skills/education, expect the safety net to be cover them, and run a "lean" government with low taxes. It's just not realistic. It's also not realistic to think that with the ever increasing number of fanatics and zealots that a large percentage of them would use "open borders" as the perfect cammo to commit acts of terrorism. Protecting our citizens and our country is more important than letting whatever walk/crawl cross our borders.

I also part company with them over their whole "legalize drugs" belief. I've always been from the camp of "you can do what you want, but if you screw up, don't expect me to pay for it". In theory, those who choose to "use" would be responsible for themselves, but in reality, that will NEVER happen so once again, will we be expected to pay for "rehab" once the "users" ruin their lives?

They're close to my overall beliefs, but those are two massive holes that need to be addressed before I'm completely on board.

(05-04-2018 07:53 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  

(05-04-2018 06:36 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(05-03-2018 08:39 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  

(05-03-2018 07:27 AM)solohawks Wrote:  Now that the Libertarians are on the ballot pretty much everywhere I could see establishment, moderate leaning politicians trying to take it over to create a middle of the road 3rd party.

I could see that happening as well. Unfortunately most of the core Libertarians would find "middle of the road" to be just as unpalatable as the current parties.

I've always thought that if a party was formed that expounded fiscal conservatism and was moderate on social issues, they could become a real force. Most people I know choose their party because either fiscal or social issues are most important to them and they "hold their nose" in regards to the other.

A party that ran on keeping their nose out of the bedroom and keeping their hands off your wallet would be a winner.

That general philosophy plus an absolute disgust with Killary is what lead me to vote Libertarian this past election. As a person on the outside but interested in Libertarianism it seems like they get into huge fights among themselves about who is the most pure and get bogged down in hypotheticals about how little government there actually should be and not about how to actually grow the party. It seems like some have a mentality of you have to either be all the way in or all out. That has to change or the party will never become what it could be.

I voted for Gary Johnson in 2016 because I didn't trust Trump and I'd NEVER vote for the lying crook that ran against him.

Where the "pure" Libertarian loses me is with their open borders philosophy. You can't have people flooding into the country with no skills/education, expect the safety net to be cover them, and run a "lean" government with low taxes. It's just not realistic. It's also not realistic to think that with the ever increasing number of fanatics and zealots that a large percentage of them would use "open borders" as the perfect cammo to commit acts of terrorism. Protecting our citizens and our country is more important than letting whatever walk/crawl cross our borders.

I also part company with them over their whole "legalize drugs" belief. I've always been from the camp of "you can do what you want, but if you screw up, don't expect me to pay for it". In theory, those who choose to "use" would be responsible for themselves, but in reality, that will NEVER happen so once again, will we be expected to pay for "rehab" once the "users" ruin their lives?

They're close to my overall beliefs, but those are two massive holes that need to be addressed before I'm completely on board.

No, true Libertarians believe you do you and I do me. Nobody pays for anybody else's anything. Now, charity would (and should) pay for it, but that's not a government mandated taxation responsibility of the citizens.

I almost voted for Gary Johnson (because I felt safe enough about Tennessee's electoral college votes going to Trump), that is until I heard his interview with Glenn Beck. He was not knowledgeable enough on some pretty common knowledge stuff. I can't remember the exact subject, but I remember coming away from that interview thinking he's ignorant on something very basic to the job of POTUS.

Not sure the complete platform of the Libertarian party but I don't think these posts claiming open borders is a part of it.

(05-04-2018 09:54 AM)Paul M Wrote:  Not sure the complete platform of the Libertarian party but I don't think these posts claiming open borders is a part of it.

https://www.lp.org/issues/immigration/

The only requirement being "peaceful".

They do make the caveat of denying people who have a history or plans for "violence", but don't say as to how they plan on doing comprehensive background checks on people coming here.

Sorry, I don't trust the "word" or some hand written "document" from a supposed "official" representing a third-world country. If I was required to pass a background check to get my job, some goat-herder from the sticks of nowhere should have to do the same to come here.

Thanks.
My caveats would be limiting to the numbers we can actually use for jobs available, not allowing them in just to undercut American pay putting citizens out of work and no one from areas belligerent to us. Open borders for anyone to come and go unchecked? No.

Needed guest workers and easing of the process for legal immigration, yes.

(05-03-2018 12:44 PM)bobdizole Wrote:  

(05-03-2018 12:15 PM)Paul M Wrote:  So you've been voting Libertarian.

I voted for Johnson in 2012 and 2016 and will continue to vote Libertarian, Obama in 2008(I was sucker for the fluff). Not that it particularly matters in TN. Not seeing anything swaying this state from the hard red anytime soon.

On paper, Johnson's platform was very appealing to me. He was pretty centrist by LP standards (which obviously alienated a lot of the party's hard cores).

In front of a live camera... oh boy. Even putting "Aleppo" aside, he was not crafty enough to roll with the big leagues. In some cases he'd seem to pass the 'hard' questions over to Weld if they both were on stage.

(05-04-2018 06:44 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(05-03-2018 08:32 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(05-03-2018 07:32 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-03-2018 07:15 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(05-03-2018 01:26 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Bill Weld has two very important thing no Libertarian nominee in my lifetime has had:
- Proven fundraising experience
- The ability to sound calm, reasonable, and avoid the intellectual traps of a Libertarian nomination (legalize heroin! get rid of the border!)

I get it. Im a pragmatic Libertarian. I said all along the Weld should have topped the last ticket...albeit lousy. Im not sold on him at this point. If he can show that he truly understands and can articulate LP principles..pragmatically? Ill start listening.
I think really just would need to stick to a basic platform.
Address our military overseas empire and prudently reduce our footprint.
Pitch a consumption tax paradigm in a manner people can understand.
Pitch reasonable solutions to immigration using LP principles.
Pitch Bismarck healthcare in a manner people can understand.
Promise to remove Cannabis from schedule One...day One.
I think that is enough for a start.

I'd vote for anyone who ran on that platform.

True Dat...regardless of the gang they represented.

I’m all in on whoever would run on that platform.

So when 2020 rolls around and Weld wants to run, what direction will the LP go?

Gut feeling is the purists begrudgingly "allowed" a moderate pragmatic to run in 2012 and 2016, but won't let that happen at their nutty convention again.

I don't think they'll go as crazy as John McAfee, but an Austin Peterson has a good shot, imo: More of a charasmatic Libertarian blue-blood and better at 'selling' traditional LP principles in media circles.

IF Weld gets the nod, there's no way in Hades he'll get the media coverage that he got in 2016. The media gave Johnson/Weld a big platform at the beginning, believing they'll siphon off Trump votes. When it became apparent that they were scoring pretty well with Independents and some Dems, they quickly brought out pitchforks.

(05-04-2018 12:53 PM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  

(05-04-2018 06:44 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(05-03-2018 08:32 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(05-03-2018 07:32 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-03-2018 07:15 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  I get it. Im a pragmatic Libertarian. I said all along the Weld should have topped the last ticket...albeit lousy. Im not sold on him at this point. If he can show that he truly understands and can articulate LP principles..pragmatically? Ill start listening.
I think really just would need to stick to a basic platform.
Address our military overseas empire and prudently reduce our footprint.
Pitch a consumption tax paradigm in a manner people can understand.
Pitch reasonable solutions to immigration using LP principles.
Pitch Bismarck healthcare in a manner people can understand.
Promise to remove Cannabis from schedule One...day One.
I think that is enough for a start.

I'd vote for anyone who ran on that platform.

True Dat...regardless of the gang they represented.

I’m all in on whoever would run on that platform.

So when 2020 rolls around and Weld wants to run, what direction will the LP go?

Gut feeling is the purists begrudgingly "allowed" a moderate pragmatic to run in 2012 and 2016, but won't let that happen at their nutty convention again.

I don't think they'll go as crazy as John McAfee, but an Austin Peterson has a good shot, imo: More of a charasmatic Libertarian blue-blood and better at 'selling' traditional LP principles in media circles.

IF Weld gets the nod, there's no way in Hades he'll get the media coverage that he got in 2016. The media gave Johnson/Weld a big platform at the beginning, believing they'll siphon off Trump votes. When it became apparent that they were scoring pretty well with Independents and some Dems, they quickly brought out pitchforks.

Austin Peterson is running to fill Flake's Senate seat in Arizona right now. If he runs for POTUS, it will be with an already tapped out fundraising arm and a fresh major loss.

(05-04-2018 08:46 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Austin Peterson is running to fill Flake's Senate seat in Arizona right now. If he runs for POTUS, it will be with an already tapped out fundraising arm and a fresh major loss.

Missouri actually, but the point remains.