The Libertarian Party Is Losing It

[Harpy Eagle]

You argue like a kid and you disdain honesty.

I have been willing to give you chance after chance. I thought I saw a glimmer in you of integrity. Maybe.

But if it was there, you must have let it loose. Too bad.

Wow, how will I ever be able to sleep tonight knowing I let that chance go by?

It still amazes me there are people like you on here that think other people actually give a fuck what you think of them.

You are just a mindless paritsan drone that lashes out at anyone hat does not toe the party line....in other words just like 80% of the people on this forum.

 

[BackAgain]

Wow, how will I ever be able to sleep tonight knowing I let that chance go by?

It still amazes me there are people like you on here that think other people actually give a fuck what you think of them.

Another example of you being wrong. Of course, that’s a damn long list. I don’t imagine you care about my low opinion of you. I certainly don’t give a hoot about the opinion of a scumbag like you.

I only share it with you since you found it necessary to share your opinion with me.

See how that works, gigi?

You are just a mindless paritsan drone that lashes out at anyone hat does not toe the party line..

False. But this is a message board and what we all tend to do (you fucking asshole) is express our own views and express our disagreement with the rambling bullshit that morons like you offer as a “view.”

..in other words just like 80% of the people on this forum.

Your assessment of the majority of this Board is also wrong. But that’s par for the course with a jerkoff like you, gigi.

Gfy. Eat shit. And get a bad case of Fire-AIDS.

 

[Couchpotato]

Calm down. I’m working on it.

Are you still working on it?

 

[Couchpotato]

See that? Unlike our dopey buddies MalcolmExLax and gigi, YOU at least have the sense to just ask a simple (and politely asked) relevant question.

The answer is yes. I can explain why I say that. And I will.

The longer answer will have to wait a bit.

But the shorter answer is that it serves only to magnify a particular bias. It also undercuts the prospect that the candidate ultimately most desired actually wins.

I’ll dig up a piece I read a while ago. I think I saved it. But even so, I acknowledge the pros and cons.

I have no "buddies" on this board.

 

[BackAgain]

I have no "buddies" on this board.

Or in life apparently.

 

[BackAgain]

Are you still working on it?

I already answered it.

 

[Couchpotato]

I already answered it.

Not that I saw. Care to share which post number had your explanation?

 

[Couchpotato]

Or in life apparently.

I promise I care whethr you think I have any friends on here or in real life. Seriously. I really do.

 

[Couchpotato]

I already answered it.

I apologize. Didnt see the link in the post you mentioned me in.

 

[BackAgain]

I promise I care whethr you think I have any friends on here or in real life. Seriously. I really do.

I don’t care whether you care or not.

Really. I don’t.

 

[BackAgain]

I apologize. Didnt see the link in the post you mentioned me in.

Ok. I went back and found it again. It is why I had used the “@couchpotato” for that reason.

It was post 97. The Libertarian Party Is Losing It

 

[Couchpotato]

I already answered it.

Ok so here's the issue I have with your article. It makes a bunch of assumptions that I dont think are valid.


1. That people are stupid. Basically people are too stupid to vote for the candidate they actually prefer and vote for the more "extreme" candidate.

2. That moderate candidates inherently are better than "extreme" ones. Why?

Im not sure how ranked choice necessarily results in more extreme candidates than having multiple elections where candidates are excluded when they are at the bottom of the vote getting pile. I would guess that people are far more likely to vote for the more "party line" candidate in that type of election than a ranked choice system for fear of their vote "not counting". What happens in the current system is that far less people vote in the subsequent elections allowing more extreme candidates to be elected.

In the example given in the article the "moderate candidate" would have been excluded from the run-off between Palin and Peltola and Alaska would have likely ended up with Peltola anyway.

 

[scruffy]

Wrong.

Lincoln did not start the Civil War to end slavery.
He was as racist as anyone, and participated in the illegal Blackhawk wars to commit genocide against plains Natives, and violate treaties.
No other country had to resort to a civil war to end slavery.
They all did it slowly, by financial incentives.
Only the US deliberately started an unnecessary war, where Sherman's March to the sea was deliberate war crimes against civilians.

The Libertarians are wrong about some things, but not this.

Agreed.

Lincoln was a tyrant.

 

[Couchpotato]

I don’t care whether you care or not.

Really. I don’t.

Wow. How will I sleep at night knowing you dont care.....

 

[Billiejeens]

Horrible analogy. There are more than "2 teams" competing.

There are not.
There are Other teams on the sidelines watching.

 

[BackAgain]

Ok so here's the issue I have with your article. It makes a bunch of assumptions that I dont think are valid.


1. That people are stupid. Basically people are too stupid to vote for the candidate they actually prefer and vote for the more "extreme" candidate.

I don’t read the piece that way.

However, it is obviously true that some people are stupid. So complicating a simple ballot with this additional gibberish could confuse them quite a bit.

2. That moderate candidates inherently are better than "extreme" ones. Why?

I don’t believe that’s what it says either.

Instead, f the artificial process of voting itself leads to some unwarranted advantage to an extreme candidate, it is the awarding of an unjust preference that is the problem.

Im not sure how ranked choice necessarily results in more extreme candidates than having multiple elections where candidates are excluded when they are at the bottom of the vote getting pile. I would guess that people are far more likely to vote for the more "party line" candidate in that type of election than a ranked choice system for fear of their vote "not counting". What happens in the current system is that far less people vote in the subsequent elections allowing more extreme candidates to be elected.

In the example given in the article the "moderate candidate" would have been excluded from the run-off between Palin and Peltola and Alaska would have likely ended up with Peltola anyway.

As I said before, there are pros and cons.
And some of the arguments either way come with their own problems. But let’s simplify it. Over simplify it.

Three candidates. A, B and C. Each one votes for himself and don’t use the rank voting alternative option at all.

Now the general voters also weigh in. There are three non-candidates eligible voters and each shows up at the polling station. They are voters “”1,” “2” and “3.”

“1” votes for A but casts the alternative vote for C.
“2” votes for B but casts the alternative vote for C.
“3” votes for C but also chooses not to cast any alternative vote.
The tally of the votes doesn’t use Dominion .

Votes for A = two votes.
Votes for B = two votes.
Votes for C = two votes.

Oh oh. No one has the majority. However, by now using the alternative ranking, we see that

A has no alternative votes.
B has no alternative votes. But …
C does have some. He has the alternative vote of both A and B.

C wins the election.

Did the voters truly want C? Nope. In fact, all together A and B combined have 4 votes. But C got only 4, also. Yet C wins.

Why?

 

[Billiejeens]

So there are more than 2 parties competing.
We are trapped because of people like billie and many other people in this thread.
Think about what would happen, if people actually voted for who they liked, instead of lesser of 2 evils in the duopoly. They are trapped by this duopoly rhetoric. "if you vote for them, thats a vote for the repubs. You dont want those people to take over do you? Sure our candidate sucks but muh WHITE supremacy!""
"If you vote for them, thats a vote for the Dems. You dont want those people to take over do you? Sure our candidate sucks greasy prison balls but TRANNIES!"
You think 80 something million people wanted that senile dipshit to be president? Hell no. They just didnt want the orange shit stain in office.

Pick another election to whine about.

Biden was installed due to unverifiable mail-in-ballots.

People loved the Trump Presidency.
His vote totals went up.

 

[EMH]

If Libertarians had been in control of DC the past 30 years we would have

a budget surplus
a national debt under $5 trillion
a stable currency
low interest rates staying low
low end wage inflation
no Covid nothing because Libertarians would never have funded Wuhan or Fauci
no legal opium pills from Pfizer legalized by FDA
no US wars in Iraq or Afghan
no 911 hate hoax
no Dominion or any other brand of programmable voting machines
an FBI interested in truth and justice, and patriotic to America, not Zionist Fascism
the end of the bastion of treason that is the CIA
no Co2 fraud

Instead, some of you love more and more and MORE GOVERNMENT, and as you make government bigger and BIGGER, it gets more and MORE CORRUPT and creates

FRAUDS

like Covid, Co2, and 911 that it uses to exterminate that which is great about America

 

[TNHarley]

Pick another election to whine about.

Biden was installed due to unverifiable mail-in-ballots.

People loved the Trump Presidency.
His vote totals went up.

My point remains.

 

[Leviticus]

I have never seen many libertarian candidates who were actually libertarian.

Most of them are completely fine with States that abuse their authority and our religious and Are really just Anti-Federalists.

They rightfully Oppose the federal government Overstepping its authority, But way too often they will completely overlook when state governments do the same.