Is this the year of the Libertarian Party?

[Harpy Eagle]

If a third party could not gain any traction in the last election with two hugely unpopular and unqualified candidates I am not sure they ever can


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[The Derp]

He's done a few things as POTUS that libertarians might agree with (deregulation (not nearly enough yet), tax reduction (not nearly enough yet)) but he's also done and said a lot of things that run counter to the non-aggression principle.

All Trump's deregulation did was lead to the fewest jobs created since 2012 and depending on December's jobs numbers, possibly the fewest since 2010.

 

[The Derp]

If a third party could not gain any traction in the last election with two hugely unpopular and unqualified candidates I am not sure they ever can

Until we abolish private campaign donations, and then remove money from politics, we will always be beholden to this two-party system.

 

[g5000]

If a third party could not gain any traction in the last election with two hugely unpopular and unqualified candidates I am not sure they ever can


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Right. One of the two major parties would have to completely implode for a successful third party to rise to the top.

What happens instead is the major parties roll over on their principles to seduce voters away from the third parties.

 

[g5000]

If a third party could not gain any traction in the last election with two hugely unpopular and unqualified candidates I am not sure they ever can

Until we abolish private campaign donations, and then remove money from politics, we will always be beholden to this two-party system.

I've lived in countries with multiple parties. It's not any better.

In many ways, it is worse. Just ask Mexico.

 

[g5000]

Until we abolish private campaign donations, and then remove money from politics, we will always be beholden to this two-party system.

You know what baffles the shit out of me about the Left?

You whine and whine and whine about money in politics, and then you demand we give more power to our central government. Power which incentivizes the very bribery you complain about!

You don't give money to someone unless they have a lot of power to affect our lives.

So STOP GIVING THEM POWER!!!!

Jesus, you are treating the symptoms while feeding the disease!

 

[alang1216]

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.

You're thinking of a parliamentary system I think. I'm sure it's different, I'm not sure it's any better.

As for the Libertarian Party, they want liberty but not what is required to maintain it. For instance the free market is a great ideal but it takes government oversight to keep it free.

 

[The Derp]

If a third party could not gain any traction in the last election with two hugely unpopular and unqualified candidates I am not sure they ever can

Until we abolish private campaign donations, and then remove money from politics, we will always be beholden to this two-party system.

I've lived in countries with multiple parties. It's not any better.

In many ways, it is worse. Just ask Mexico.

Or how about Canada? Seems to work fine for them there.

 

[NightFox]

If a third party could not gain any traction in the last election with two hugely unpopular and unqualified candidates I am not sure they ever can

If all the third parties pooled their money and put it all behind one candidate they still couldn't come close to what the Republicrats and Demopublicans spend EACH on a POTUS campaign, so aside from catching lightning in a bottle (e.g. Ross Perot) don't expect anything to change with respect to POTUS campaigns and third parties no matter how much the Shithead-R Candidate and Shithead-D Candidate suck; the sheeple are completely indoctrinated by the duopoly when it comes to national politics.

 

[The Derp]

You whine and whine and whine about money in politics, and then you demand we give more power to our central government. Power which incentivizes the very bribery you complain about!

How so? If politicians are no longer seeking donations from the wealthy and corporations, and they each get the same amount from the government with which to campaign, how does it incentivize bribery?

You don't give money to someone unless they have a lot of power to affect our lives.

So then how are politicians supposed to campaign? We both agree that the current system is bad. What makes switching to publicly-funded campaigns worse than not?

YSo STOP GIVING THEM POWER!!!!
Jesus, you are treating the symptoms while feeding the disease!

Right now, most politicians spend 80-90% of their time raising money. And from whom are they doing that raising? From the wealthy, special interests, and corporations. So if a politician no longer had to spend time raising money, what will they spend their time doing? Their job. If they no longer solicit campaign donations, then where does the bribery happen? By "bribery" do you mean "passing legislation that people want"? And that politicians, in order to stay in office, have to actually legislate according to their constituents wants and needs? That's a bad thing, why and how?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

As for the Libertarian Party, they want liberty but not what is required to maintain it. For instance the free market is a great ideal but it takes government oversight to keep it free.

Libertarianism is not Anarchy, if such a thing can even exist. That is a gross mischaracterization of the maximized liberty ideal.

 

[g5000]

You whine and whine and whine about money in politics, and then you demand we give more power to our central government. Power which incentivizes the very bribery you complain about!

How so? If politicians are no longer seeking donations from the wealthy and corporations, and they each get the same amount from the government with which to campaign, how does it incentivize bribery?

You don't give money to someone unless they have a lot of power to affect our lives.

So then how are politicians supposed to campaign? We both agree that the current system is bad. What makes switching to publicly-funded campaigns worse than not?

YSo STOP GIVING THEM POWER!!!!
Jesus, you are treating the symptoms while feeding the disease!

Right now, most politicians spend 80-90% of their time raising money. And from whom are they doing that raising? From the wealthy, special interests, and corporations. So if a politician no longer had to spend time raising money, what will they spend their time doing? Their job. If they no longer solicit campaign donations, then where does the bribery happen? By "bribery" do you mean "passing legislation that people want"? And that politicians, in order to stay in office, have to actually legislate according to their constituents wants and needs? That's a bad thing, why and how?

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!

Wow.

Just...wow.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Until we abolish private campaign donations, and then remove money from politics, we will always be beholden to this two-party system.

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

 

[Manonthestreet]

If they can't make some progress in this environment they should close shop.

 

[TNHarley]

If a third party could not gain any traction in the last election with two hugely unpopular and unqualified candidates I am not sure they ever can


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Normally i would agree with that assessment but they put up a borderline retard and the GP put up a crazy ***** that defaces private property.
They had a ******* firecracker running too... Oh well. He is running for Senate this year. I hope he wins.
I am the bomb shit mother ******

 

[g5000]

We have an American Politiboro. For members of the House who choose to run for re-election, they have enjoyed a 98 percent success rate for half a century! In the Senate, they have a better than 90 percent success rate.

This despite decades of court decisions and campaign finance "reform" legislation. NONE of these treatments of the symptoms have had any effect on the disease of centralized power.

It is much easier to capture power when it is in one central location, instead of spread among the People and the States.

Money goes to where the power is. If you want money out of politics, you need to dilute the power. As it was intended by our Founders. This is precisely why they wanted a de-centralized government to as great an extent as possible.

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.

This is ******* amazing. The federal government pre-empts state power on a daily basis, and no "conservative" talking head, and certainly no liberal talking head, ever complains about it.

I don't think a single pseudocon on this forum even knows what "federal pre-emption" is. And if by some miracle one does, they can't name a single piece of legislation which contains such language. Their propagandists keep them completely in the dark on just how often their ******* heroes do such things.

The Right is just as guilty as the Left on this seizure of power. Bigly.

Federal funding of campaigns won't stop this. Stop trying to cure the ******* symptom of the disease you are feeding!

 

[TNHarley]

If a third party could not gain any traction in the last election with two hugely unpopular and unqualified candidates I am not sure they ever can

Until we abolish private campaign donations, and then remove money from politics, we will always be beholden to this two-party system.

Im with ya there. I hate the way we fund elections.

 

[TNHarley]

We have an American Politiboro. For members of the House who choose to run for re-election, they have enjoyed a 98 percent success rate for half a century! In the Senate, they have a better than 90 percent success rate.

This despite decades of court decisions and campaign finance "reform" legislation. NONE of these treatments of the symptoms have had any effect on the disease of centralized power.

It is much easier to capture power when it is in one central location, instead of spread among the People and the States.

Money goes to where the power is. If you want money out of politics, you need to dilute the power. As it was intended by our Founders. This is precisely why they wanted a de-centralized government to as great an extent as possible.

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.

This is ******* amazing. The federal government pre-empts state power on a daily basis, and no "conservative" talking head, and certainly no liberal talking head, ever complains about it.

Federal funding of campaigns won't stop this. Stop trying to cure the ******* symptom of the disease you are feeding!

I like you when you dont sound like a loony nut job

 

[whitehall]

John Stossel? Isn't he the guy who uncovers fraudulent advertising scams? Why is he suddenly an expert in politics? Because you hate the President?

 

[alang1216]

As for the Libertarian Party, they want liberty but not what is required to maintain it. For instance the free market is a great ideal but it takes government oversight to keep it free.

Libertarianism is not Anarchy, if such a thing can even exist. That is a gross mischaracterization of the maximized liberty ideal.

Are there any examples of countries that are libertarian? I'm thinking the US of the 19th century comes close but it was a lawless time that I would not wish to trade for ours.