If a third party could win, what would your party of choice be?

[flacaltenn]

If you've read Chomsky like I used to do as a reformed leftist -- you'd KNOW he is not an anarchist. He only wants to mold the "powers of state" to social justice and unicorn farming and playing field leveling.

Only party that EXISTS that would truly put ending corporate/govt collusion into it's top 10 of priorities is the Libertarian party. MEANINGFUL workable reforms -- as opposed to the communal fantasies of the Greens, the far left and Chomsky.

We already have the ultimate in 'Libertarianism' now; it's as laissez faire as it will ever get right now, with everything going to the highest bidders like any other privatized system. Just because they leave you out when divvying up all the spoils doesn't mean you aren't getting what 'Libertarianism' offers, it's just that you can't pay enough and got outbid, so quit whining.

My despair is with the morons who keep REWARDING this bad behavior. Those who refuse to vote for a slate (for instance) of TWO qualified and successful 2 term state governors like Johnson/Weld. And instead take the bait to vote out of FEAR of the other party. MULTIPLE choices on the menu would fix a lot of that IF the voters weren't so focused on WINNING and achieving power and maintaining power. It's a SUPERBOWL for the keys to power -- rather than a contest of ideas and competency and civil service.

Got nothing to do with what I can pay. I could "buy" myself a great Ayn Randian retreat in the mtns. And maybe anarchos are just underemployed libertarians. Always focused "on the money" and missing the gigantic struggle over power that politics has become..

 

[Mac1958]

Boy, I love the "Trump party" answers. It would be nice if those people would split off like that.

 

[flacaltenn]

Boy, I love the "Trump party" answers. It would be nice if those people would split off like that.

Problem is Mac -- the Donald's name licensing fees are too high. And the Trump Party would have to raise $100M a year just to pay off the rights to their own name.

 

[toxicmedia]

Libertarian!!!!!!!!

That would make them the big government party of small government.

No way that could go wrong.

True....

I've always made the argument that big countries cannot have small governments.

 

[toxicmedia]

Libertarian!!!!!!!!

That would make them the big government party of small government.

No way that could go wrong.

What kind of snide remark is that coming from a Chomsky fan? How the fuck did WE (LParty) screw up and become the "big government party of small government." ?? LOL...

At the moment -- working with what EXISTS and being a pragmatist -- I'd settle for a slightly less "Big Govt" that actually works to incentives and civil service and isn't completely inept and corruptible.

See, I don't think Libertarians should be preoccupied with the size of a government.

I'm really more of a Fiscal Conservative and a Social Libertarian. I believe that with social issues....if your behavior kills you, then you're dead, and I'm okay with that, or not. And I'm also a huge foreign policy non interventionist, but at the same time, I'm all for secret spy stuff that we should do and keep completely secret.

Gosh...should I even have said "Libertarian Party"?????

What does it sound like I am???

Don't be mean!

 

[Onyx]

So in the 1st paragraph you have some hazy shady general anarchist BS that excludes consideration of a law and justice system, nation defense or a MYRIAD other "pipe dream" crap that Anarchists thrive on.

So you are attacking something Noah Chomsky wrote and falsely applying it to me? Intellectual dishonesty noted.

Basically JUNKS individual protections from Constitutiona viewpoint or guarantee of rights

The government cannot protect rights. That is some whimsical bullshit that you loons believe.

Come to terms with reality. Constitutions are not magical pieces of paper. They do not check power or abuse.

You anarchos have a lot guts -- talking about "pot smoking Libertarian pipe dreams"

Correction. Pot smoking state libertarian pipe dreams.

Real libertarians are not state libertarians. You guys are just a bunch of nutters, but sadly most people are.

when you belch out this nonsense and fucking BURN the Constitution

The constitution should be burned.

My rights do not come from a piece of paper. Therefore I am not dependent on a piece of paper to give me what I am entitled to as a human being.

reality of govt.

The reality is that the state is fucked up and savage

You haven't realized that because you are stuck in an echo chamber; Completely consumed by patriotic claptrap.

In the 2nd paragraph -- you have a HEAD-SPINNING Chomsky waffle number about "adapting to the EXISTING system". Which sounds a shitload more like vanilla Progressive than Anarcho..

Again, I am not Noah Chomsky.

If you want to rail against Noah Chomsky, then start a thread whining about him. We are not the same person.

Can never make it to any satisfying discussion with Anarchos. They ATTACK, they fling pipe dreams,

Like what you are doing?

You believe you can check the system, which shows that you have zero understanding of human nature or how the system works.

and they got no CLUE how free people govern themselves.

What free people?

Statists, yourself included, are willful slaves. The state controls "your" capital and regulates "your" liberty. You are neither self governing or independent.

So when are you gonna answer your OWN OP Question there Sparky??

I can't wait to here what alt-pipe party or movement that you support.

Your post broken down....

 

[Onyx]

I'm really more of a Fiscal Conservative and a Social Libertarian. I believe that with social issues....if your behavior kills you, then you're dead, and I'm okay with that, or not..

This is the problem. A libertarian is not a moderate.

Modern posers have completely butchered the classical philosophy of libertarianism.

 

[whitehall]

Haven't you been paying attention? While y'all low information jerks dream about a 3rd party candidate that can break up the freaking established crooked political system you have Trump who might as well be a is a freaking 3rd party candidate fighting criminal enterprise of the political establishment. Then again low information jerks would rather make marijuana legal.

 

[bodecea]

Which party would you support, if any?

I'd vote Romney.

 

[Onyx]

Haven't you been paying attention? While y'all low information jerks dream about a 3rd party candidate that can break up the freaking established crooked political system you have Trump who might as well be a is a freaking 3rd party candidate fighting criminal enterprise of the political establishment. Then again low information jerks would rather make marijuana legal.

A third party would never be allowed into power. If a third party did get into power, they would be no better than the Democrats or the Republicans. It does not matter who they are.

"People believe they can change the system. They forget that the system ends up changing them." Can't exactly remember where I heard that from, but that is not the point.

 

[Onyx]

I'd vote Romney.

Romney is liberal. Just pointing that out.

 

[flacaltenn]

Haven't you been paying attention? While y'all low information jerks dream about a 3rd party candidate that can break up the freaking established crooked political system you have Trump who might as well be a is a freaking 3rd party candidate fighting criminal enterprise of the political establishment. Then again low information jerks would rather make marijuana legal.

You think a bully who can break people by suing their pants off isn't gonna LOVE big govt and executive privilege? He's already had to be told why we don't use tactical nuclear weapons if we have them laying around. Think he's NOT gonna use the power of the IRS, OSHA, EPA, SEC, DOJ, NSA, and all those other 3 letter agencies to FORCE his "deals" on unwilling companies and hold-outs?

He's a meglomaniac. When this country needs humility and principles. And a RETURN to the REASONABLE limits of Federal power.

 

[yiostheoy]

Which party would you support, if any?

I voted for reform Republican Evan McMullin.

He has a better chance to be elected by the House Of Reps than any of the other 3rd parties.

When/If he wins Utah, and then Hillary and Donald tie, then the House will surely elect McMullin rather than either of the other two.

 

[yiostheoy]

I'd vote Romney.

Romney is liberal. Just pointing that out.

Romney is not running.

And if he were his changeling history would kill him again.

 

[Onyx]

He's a meglomaniac.

Who pursues political power that isn't a megalomaniac?

When this country needs humility and principles.

What does humility and principle look like within the framework of the state?

And a RETURN to the REASONABLE limits of Federal power.

When was the federal government ever reasonable? What does reasonable power look like?

 

[Onyx]

When/If he wins Utah, and then Hillary and Donald tie, then the House will surely elect McMullin rather than either of the other two.

Democrat representatives would not vote for conservaitve Mcmullin. He could not pull away enough votes from Republican representatives voting for Trump.

With that said, a tie in the electoral college isn't likely to begin with.

 

[flacaltenn]

The constitution should be burned.

My rights do not come from a piece of paper. Therefore I am not dependent on a piece of paper to give me what I am entitled to as a human being.

reality of govt.

The reality is that the state is fucked up and savage

You haven't realized that because you are stuck in an echo chamber; Completely consumed by patriotic claptrap.

Great way for me to make an excuse and run. That's last response is gonna clear most every room you come into. NO ONE is gonna thank-you for being an anarchist.

If you are pro-burning of the Constitution -- I would assume then that YOUR 3rd party would NOT be the Constitution Party.. No where to go with your refusal to play your own game and tells us WHO you would pick as a 3rd party. Do you think I'm stupid and don't know when I've been baited into a discussion by an anarcho SO LONELY -- he has to use gimmicks to get folks to sit down and chat?

 

[flacaltenn]

He's a meglomaniac.

Who pursues political power that isn't a megalomaniac?

When this country needs humility and principles.

What does humility and principle look like within the framework of the state?

And a RETURN to the REASONABLE limits of Federal power.

When was the federal government ever reasonable? What does reasonable power look like?

The temptation to pursue power increases exponentially with the AMOUNT of power that's been usurped by previous precedent. So -- you need humble Libertarians who want to serve. Who will really HACK BACK some of that lucrative influence that shouldn't be in political hands. Who will HAVE to appoint QUALIFIED NON-PARTY members to all the critical agencies. Defuse the political appointments used to KEEP govt unaccountable.

Wait --- am I talking to you? Big mistake.

 

[Onyx]

Great way for me to make an excuse and run. That's last response is gonna clear most every room you come into.

Were you planning on refuting it, or appealing to argumentum ad populum?

NO ONE is gonna thank-you for being an anarchist.

Of course not. The population consists of tools, nuts, crooks, and sychopants. Which are you?

I would assume then that YOUR 3rd party would NOT be the Constitution Party..

Anarchists do not have political parties. That would be a complete oxymoron.

You are giving strong indications that you do not even understand what anarchism is about.

No where to go with your refusal to play your own game and tells us WHO you would pick as a 3rd party.

That's because I do not have a political party. Only tools, nuts, crooks, and sycophants have political parties.

I never voted and I never will. It would be against my moral principles and ideological beliefs.

Do you think I'm stupid and don't know when I've been baited into a discussion by an anarcho SO LONELY -- he has to use gimmicks to get folks to sit down and chat?

Were you laid off? Did you get a divorce? Did somebody close to you die?

Those are the only explanations for your ostracizing antisocial behavior

 

[Onyx]

The temptation to pursue power increases exponentially with the AMOUNT of power that's been usurped by previous precedent.

False.

If that were the case, then there would not be fluctuations in those that "usurp" power throughout history. Andrew Jackson, the seventh president, violated that magical constitution three times during his office. George Washington forcibly conscripted men into service to put down their tax protesting countrymen.

You talk about a return to reasonable powers. News flash: Power hiearchies were never reasonable. The useful idiots just didn't know any better, or did not care enough to question authority.

So -- you need humble Libertarians who want to serve.

Right, out of the kindness of their hearts?

Who will really HACK BACK some of that lucrative influence that shouldn't be in political hands. Who will HAVE to appoint QUALIFIED NON-PARTY members to all the critical agencies. Defuse the political appointments used to KEEP govt unaccountable.

That is naive thinking that completely ignores the reality of the sociopolitical complex.

The US state has operated the exact same way since it was initially founded. Nothing has changed, except greater exposure to what is happening behind the scenes. Of course, anyone with even the slightest understanding of human history would already know this.

We live in an inverted totalitarian oligarchy, and people like you have had their minds conditioned. You have faith in the government and our institutions simply because you do not know any better. I implore you to start questioning the abstractions and arbitrary social constructions that you rely upon.