Is this the year of the Libertarian Party?

[TNHarley]

Thats what gets me! They just regurgitate duopoly talking points.
If every person that said that, voted for someone else, our elections could make a MAJOR shift.

It needs to be a political rebellion where everyone agrees to vote against the UniParty. Trump's win is evidence that people will rebel, but he chose to run on the "R" ticket and is, therefore, beholden to those assholes to some extent.

I feel it getting closer bro. I really do. Maybe in the next few elections.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I wonder if part of the problem is that, if left to their own devices, people deciding how to live their lives would be a total fucking mess.

We wouldn't know. Children who must make good decisions without a safety net end up becoming very responsible, productive citizens. Treating people like adults usually results in them behaving accordingly.

 

[Indeependent]

Stossel: Is 2018 the Year of the Libertarian Party?

No.

 

[OldLady]

There needs to be a major movement to convince Americans that they have more than a choice of the democrats or the republicans. I don’t see that happening.

There are always candidates running as Independents somewhere. If people weren't so brainwashed into thinking that voting for them is a "wasted" vote, they could do okay. One of our senators is an Independent; of course, 40% of our voters are, too.

Thats what gets me! They just regurgitate duopoly talking points.
If every person that said that, voted for someone else, our elections could make a MAJOR shift.

I remember one Presidential election I voted for the third party candidate. The morning after the election my Dad and I started on a very long road trip and when I told him who I voted for, I seriously thought he was going to kick me out of the car. LOL
That was the year Clinton won, so he was in no great mood that morning.

 

[OldLady]

Is this the year of the Libertarian Party?

Not likely, the LP is good for many things but it's too disorganized, underfunded and unfocused to make a real dent in the Crime Family Duopoly.

It's difficult for an ideology that stands on the principle of not telling others how to live their lives to "win" politically which explains why we libertarians don't have any political power and probably never will.

I wonder if part of the problem is that, if left to their own devices, people deciding how to live their lives would be a total fucking mess.

Now it might because people are used to having their asses wiped for them. Our country used to cherish individual liberty. Obviously it still had problems (like slaves and shit) but the countrymen were A LOT more responsible.

You need to read more history. Mega rich guys and capitalists were running all over the people. Corruption was rampant. It wasn't actually like Daniel Boone. Or maybe some people were, but a whole lot of people took advantage, as they would do now.

 

[The Derp]

Your big government has gotten so out of control, the only way you can think to save it is to preserve it by funding campaigns with yet MORE taxpayer money

Candidates can opt to take taxpayer-funded campaigns now. In fact, Obama was the first nominee to eschew the practice. Why? Because he had success raising money from Wall Street in 2008.

 

[The Derp]

Who decides how those funds are spent or allocated? It sounds like a whole lot more government manipulation and corruption than the current system.

Maybe...but if politicians are no longer having to solicit campaign donations, how would they then campaign? If a politician didn't have to raise money anymore, then don't you think they'd concern themselves with what's most popular for voters, and not most popular for donors?

 

[The Derp]

Money goes to where the power is. If you want money out of politics, you need to dilute the power.

If you're removing money from politics, and the need for politicians to suck up to special interests, the rich, and corporations, why do you think that makes them more susceptible to corruption?

 

[The Derp]

There is no longer a dividing line between the power of the people and the power of the central government. No one can point to it. The federal government seizes power from the people and the states at will.

We need a strong central government because our economy is centralized. You sit at your computer in Seattle, order a product from Miami, pay for it with a credit card based in Wilmington, and have it shipped by a Dallas company. So that's economic centralization. How does it benefit the centralized economy to dilute federal power for 50 myriad different state laws and powers? That's fucking stupid.

Whether you like it or not, we already live in a centralized, globalized economy.

 

[TNHarley]

Is this the year of the Libertarian Party?

Not likely, the LP is good for many things but it's too disorganized, underfunded and unfocused to make a real dent in the Crime Family Duopoly.

It's difficult for an ideology that stands on the principle of not telling others how to live their lives to "win" politically which explains why we libertarians don't have any political power and probably never will.

I wonder if part of the problem is that, if left to their own devices, people deciding how to live their lives would be a total fucking mess.

Now it might because people are used to having their asses wiped for them. Our country used to cherish individual liberty. Obviously it still had problems (like slaves and shit) but the countrymen were A LOT more responsible.

You need to read more history. Mega rich guys and capitalists were running all over the people. Corruption was rampant. It wasn't actually like Daniel Boone. Or maybe some people were, but a whole lot of people took advantage, as they would do now.

I know. I was referring more to individuals.

 

[Avatar4321]

No because they will sabotage themselves

 

[The Derp]

Federal laws affect corporations as much as you or me. Therefore, they should have a say as to who will have that kind of power over them.

Corporations are not people. And if corporations are people, then they should pay the same taxes people pay.

I'll believe corporations are people the day Texas executes one.

Corporations pour gobs of money into our totally corrupt system out of the same self-interest which moves you or I to donate to a campaign.

Into what part of the system are they pouring gobs of money? Into the campaign donations part. So if you remove that part, how are they able to pour gobs of money into the system?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Maybe...but if politicians are no longer having to solicit campaign donations, how would they then campaign? If a politician didn't have to raise money anymore, then don't you think they'd concern themselves with what's most popular for voters, and not most popular for donors?

What makes you think they would act in the best interest of voters or the people in general? If they are going to be shielded from the repercussions of their actions, they will never have incentive to act appropriately.

Wouldn't term limits eliminate a lot of the bullshit?

 

[The Derp]

You see, if a politician loses the power to put tax breaks for special interests in the tax code, then those special interests have just lost the reason for bribing the politician to do so..

Or, you could just remove the ability of special interests to lobby or donate for those tax breaks. Why is that not an option? If you remove the mechanism by which special interests donate to politicians, why would the politician then act in the special interests' best interests?

Instead of trying to force special interests to stop donating, take away the incentive!

Why can't we just stop them from donating by removing that ability completely? You're correct that there's an incentive there, but you're incorrect as to what that incentive is because it always comes back to the special interest donating money.

When you try to force them to stop donating, they always find a workaround.

If politicians can no longer accept donations, how is a business going to find a workaround to get their agenda through?

 

[The Derp]

A huge percentage of money in politics is spent buying tax deductions, exemptions, and credits.

So then remove a corporations' or special interests ability to do that. What's the problem?

 

[The Derp]

I don't want to fund Bernie Sanders' campaign. Or Trump's. Or Clinton's. Fuck off.

Well, you don't get to choose that yourself. So you gotta grow up and put on your big boy pants. Our tax dollars go to fund things we disagree with all the time. No one consulted me over spending my tax dollars in Iraq.

 

[The Derp]

God no. I havent developed the whole system yet (lol) but i always just leaned on the voters. Like a primary or something.
To be honest, the "government" already kinda does it anyways dont they? The one the party backs is usually the one the party gets. And those shitty parties are the govt, per se
IDK man, i just feel like something should change. We could come up with a better system

I think the best way is to shorten the primary season, shorten the campaign season, and make voting easy. Like, voting shouldn't be just one day, it should be an entire month. You should be able to vote at any post office, anywhere, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for 4-6 weeks leading up to Election Day, which should be a national holiday.

Do what they do in other Parliamentary Democracies...they ain't perfect but they sure as shit are better than ours.

 

[The Derp]

There are always candidates running as Independents somewhere. If people weren't so brainwashed into thinking that voting for them is a "wasted" vote, they could do okay. One of our senators is an Independent; of course, 40% of our voters are, too.

And public campaign financing will make it easier, not harder, for independent candidates to compete.

 

[TNHarley]

God no. I havent developed the whole system yet (lol) but i always just leaned on the voters. Like a primary or something.
To be honest, the "government" already kinda does it anyways dont they? The one the party backs is usually the one the party gets. And those shitty parties are the govt, per se
IDK man, i just feel like something should change. We could come up with a better system

I think the best way is to shorten the primary season, shorten the campaign season, and make voting easy. Like, voting shouldn't be just one day, it should be an entire month. You should be able to vote at any post office, anywhere, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for 4-6 weeks leading up to Election Day, which should be a national holiday.

Do what they do in other Parliamentary Democracies...they ain't perfect but they sure as shit are better than ours.

I like the first sentence very much. IDK about voting like that though. IDK...seems like voting integrity will take a backseat ride.

 

[The Derp]

What makes you think they would act in the best interest of voters or the people in general?

Because the vote is the only thing that matters if all campaigns are publicly-financed. They're not competing for donations, they're competing for votes. Right now, they compete for donations...that's why they spend all their time at fund-raisers and dinners. If they didn't have to compete for donations anymore, what do you think would happen to their message and platform?

If they are going to be shielded from the repercussions of their actions, they will never have incentive to act appropriately.

Not winning re-election is the repercussion of their actions.

Wouldn't term limits eliminate a lot of the bullshit?

Not if you're preserving the same finance system. Because parties will just use the seat as a revolving door. Term limits do nothing to break the two-party hold on the system. In fact, it makes it worse because the parties become the brokers of political power, not the voters.