The LP can't win any elections, how can they expect to win the Presidency?

[SpiritOf1776_J4]

LOL. You've been listening too much to TheTexan.

The strongest position Congressman Ron Paul of Texas ever took against force is that you are free to associate with or believe anything you want without being forced otherwise.

Forcing people to bake gay wedding cakes against their will is dramatically opposed to this. It is the same as homosexuals raping others in spirit.

If you believe that government should use force to do this, you are a fascist.

[Bossobass]

This is how irrelevant the LP is; the Trump haters derail the LP thread to hate Trump.

I believe they're (THs) all paid Clinton shills. Nothing else makes sense.

[SpiritOf1776_J4]

Great, then you can provide post links or copy and paste. No biggie. I can confidently say for instance that Hillary Clinton is easily the most hated of all the candidates on RPF. She is most in need of your defense out of all the candidates. How many posts have you spent trying to get people to wise up to her very libertarian positions? I would surmise it's a lot less than trump.

Is the forum talking about hillary 60-100% of the time?

[SpiritOf1776_J4]

This is how irrelevant the LP is; the Trump haters derail the LP thread to hate Trump.

I believe they're (THs) all paid Clinton shills. Nothing else makes sense.

CPUd has said he was a hillary supporter. So yes, a few are.

[undergroundrr]

This is how irrelevant the LP is; the Trump haters derail the LP thread to hate Trump.

He might not have ever shown up in it, but good ole @SpiritOf1776_J4 brought up trump in post #12 (the first to do so), praising his winning and authentic personality.

[acptulsa]

I've given libertarian views in discussions about each of these candidates. It's not necessary to be either for or against candidates to discuss news items about the candidates.

As I've said many times, I'm not for any of the candidates, and most likely will write in "ask Jesus" on my ballot.

If any forum is blindly 60-100% against anything, I will very likely take the other side, because I'm not interested in truth determined by herd feelings, but truth discovered by reasoning.

You are denigrating Gary Johnson and defending the 'self-funded' myth about Trump because you like to run around playing white knight in defense of underdogs?

[SpiritOf1776_J4]

I ran for statewide office as a libertarian in 2000 and felt extremely conflicted. our candidate for lt. gov. got over 8% of the vote, and essentially had the easiest lp message to deliver about her position: eliminate the office. we ran a full slate of candidates and we qualified as a "major' party due to how well we did here. then the state changed the rules to a "top 2" system and the state party (and voters) suffered.

I leaped on the RP bandwagon in 2007 and have loathed having any association with republicans. our goal in 2000 was to destroy the ring of power and minimize the influence of gov't on peoples lives, both financially and socially. that's still my goal. I see that as a goal for Massie and Amash, and I would vote for them if I could. but I'm going to vote for just about any lp candidate I can because of principles (wrote in RP in 2008 because Barr is not a libertarian).

I honestly haven't decided whether Bernie or Cruz would be better for liberty (or which would be worse), but I do know they both suck. my lp vote won't decide this election, but I think it will send more of a liberty message than any vote for a republicrat ever would.

still not sure what point Collins is trying to make, but "wasted vote" seems to be where he's going. my viewpoint is vastly different.

I wrote Ron Paul's name in, and felt the same about Bob Barr.

I don't think it's necessary to assault the gates of Mordor directly, but it's a good diversion tactic by running principled candidates*1. Win or lose, the ring of power inches closer and closer to that forge where it was wrought - the heats of men, and they finally wake up with the ideas in their heart. initiation of force is wrong. Boom. Down goes Mount Doom, so ends the state.

Blessed are the meek!

(*1 the candidates have to really be libertarian candidates!)

[SpiritOf1776_J4]

He might not have ever shown up in it, but good ole @SpiritOf1776_J4 brought up trump in post #12 (the first to do so), praising his winning and authentic personality.

post #12

Yes, well Gary Johnson ran on that last time, and only got 1% of the vote.

John Mcafee would get 5% of the vote by just by being himself. Learn a lesson from Trump.

Looks like you are a liar undergroundrr. You are almost on my ignore list - repeating things you know are not true over and over and use of insults instead of libertarian discussion will get you on it - anything that replaces real discussion with something else. If everyone did this for themselves (and themselves only), pretty soon they'd only be libertarians discussing things among themselves.

[undergroundrr]

Is the forum talking about hillary 60-100% of the time?

No, but I don't think it would be far off to calculate you're posting about trump 60-100% of the time. Your started threads are almost invariably pro-Trump or anti-Cruz, which at this point is the same thing. Since you've become the equal time warrior for trump, a guy you're supposedly not even for, it would be inconsistent not to spend reciprocal forum space posting about how great Ted Cruz is, since you're not for him either, right?

[SpiritOf1776_J4]

Looks like somewhen forgot to say, you're right, your post was really about McAfee.

Talking with someone is a pleasure, not a right. None of the few people on my ignore list I will miss - because I've never seen them say anything interesting to hear, and they don't act like libertarians. Being a libertarian is more than saying it, it's in the heart. Not using force is a big part of libertarianism, and when you try to use other things besides reasoning to persuade people, and you're more interested in what others think then what the truth is, getting anything beneficial from you ceases to be.

John McAfee is authentic and seems a real libertarian in the heart. Austin Petersen is more bookishly libertarian (which may be better), but I'm not sure he gets it in the heart, and Johnson is a disaster. McAfee isn't actually eligible - but neither are Cruz and Obama, so there may be a lesson in that.

In my own opinion as a small l libertarian, of course.

[SpiritOf1776_J4]

But if McAfee wins it, I'm going to start the anti-birther libertarian movement for him!

[Ronin Truth]

But if McAfee wins it, I'm going to start the anti-birther libertarian movement for him!

What is your guesstimate on the odds for that one?

[SpiritOf1776_J4]

The point is that those voting for the LP should be under no delusions of actually having any chance to win anything.

You mean they can't win the hearts of men

[SpiritOf1776_J4]

What is your guesstimate on the odds for that one?

Of me making arguments about how we abandoned the constitution a long time ago and a lot of candidates aren't
any more eligible? almost a certainty

[Ronin Truth]

Of me making arguments about how we abandoned the constitution a long time ago and a lot of candidates aren't
any more eligible? almost a certainty

No, of McAfee winning.

[SpiritOf1776_J4]

No, of McAfee winning.

Not much. But his expression of libertarian principles is better then Johnson's - so in winning people over, greater.

[undergroundrr]

Looks like somewhen forgot to say, you're right, your post was really about McAfee.

My pants were on fire. Too busy putting it out. But no, I don't see any disagreement between what I wrote and your post as quoted.

John McAfee is authentic and seems a real libertarian in the heart.

I'm presuming that's to correct your previous suggestion that McAfee needed need personality lessons from trump. Nice of you.

Johnson is a disaster.

You do realize who that phrase evokes, right? I'm trying to keep his name out of this post.

Anyhow, if it's a judgement and not a parody - are you saying you have pointed out the libertarian strengths of Hillary Clinton elsewhere (you claimed it but never linked a thread) but won't do the same for Gary Johnson, but simply dismiss him as a "disaster?"

I'll agree he's not my ideal. But gee whiz

[SpiritOf1776_J4]

Vote for me, I'll make Jewish bakers make this!
Johnson, Libertarian candidate.

[Ronin Truth]

Not much. But his expression of libertarian principles is better then Johnson's - so in winning people over, greater.

Which libertarian principles are you comparing and referring to? Certainly not the Voluntaryist's statement of purpose.

Statement of Purpose: Voluntaryists are advocates of non-political, non-violent strategies to achieve a free society. We reject electoral politics, in theory and in practice, as incompatible with libertarian principles. Governments must cloak their actions in an aura of moral legitimacy in order to sustain their power, and political methods invariably strengthen that legitimacy. Voluntaryists seek instead to delegitimize the State through education, and we advocate withdrawal of the cooperation and tacit consent on which State power ultimately depends.

http://voluntaryist.com/

[SpiritOf1776_J4]

Which libertarian principles are you comparing and referring to? Certainly not the Voluntaryist's statement of purpose.

Johnson? His cake principle is one example.



I'm not supporting any of the candidates. As I've said many times before, I won't be voting for them, I'm just commenting on them.

I believe the elections we are currently having tends to de-legitimize elections and governments in the eyes of voters as the establishment tries to use more and more force and fraud to prop them up. It's an assault on the gates of mordor, but only ultimately, a diversion. No, we can't win it that way - but we can use the power of the enemy against him - by causing him to show to everyone that it isn't legitimate.

[CPUd]

Johnson? His cake principle is one example.



And fyi - I'm not supporting any of the candidates. As I've said many times before, I won't be voting for them, I'm just commenting on them.

Aren't you Canadian anyway?

[undergroundrr]

Vote for me, I'll make Jewish bakers make this!
Johnson, Libertarian candidate.

Again, you're refusing to point out Johnson's libertarian positives, which I think you'd agree are many. This is in the wake of torrents of posts (attempting to) point out the positives of a certain other candidate. Why? Dwelling on negatives like this may not be conducive to pleasant conversation. Some might find it insulting.

FWIW, his Sharia law rant in the Mississippi debate was just as disturbing to me as the cake thing. He seems a little fuzzy-brained to many and I think both of those missteps together will make it fairly difficult for him to get the nomination of the party. But then again, Bob Barr.

I actually find it interesting that Johnson didn't do the PC thing and say that only socially acceptable messages would be forced to be put on cakes. It's not a good or sane position, but it's a consistent one.

[otherone]

Forcing people to bake gay wedding cakes against their will is dramatically opposed to this.

Cakes are gay by choice. They're not baked that way.

[SpiritOf1776_J4]

Just electing the "right group" to govern the government doesn't work. America has tried that for the last 200 years, and it just gets worse and worse.

Using government is a lot like using the ring of power - the longer you use it, the worse you get. It is completely perilous to use, and isn't my solution for anything.

The LP is a lot like Gondor. They aren't the idea or king whose time has not yet come, but they are acting as Stewards of it. They aren't altogether bad - they can divert Sauron's attention, nor altogether good - Boromir's trying to seize the ring of power to use for good was foolish.

[acptulsa]

Vote for me, I'll make Jewish bakers make this!
Johnson, Libertarian candidate.

Johnson? His cake principle is one example.

.

Of all the silly single-issue voters I've ever seen, you definitely take the cake.

[Ronin Truth]

Just electing the "right group" to govern the government doesn't work. America has tried that for the last 200 years, and it just gets worse and worse.

Using government is a lot like using the ring of power - the longer you use it, the worse you get. It is completely perilous to use, and isn't my solution for anything.

The LP is a lot like Gondor. They aren't the idea or king whose time has not yet come, but they are acting as Stewards of it. They aren't altogether bad - they can divert Sauron's attention, nor altogether good - Boromir's trying to seize the ring of power to use for good was foolish.

Sorry, "Lord of the Rings" analogies/metaphors, just don't carry much sway or do much for me. Carry on.

[SpiritOf1776_J4]

Sorry, "Lord of the Rings" analogies/metaphors, just don't carry much sway or do much for me. Carry on.

It's the perfect metaphor for this election when you don't have a liberty candidate in the race.

Frodo splits from the rest of the party, and heads off to mordor with Samwise Gamgee, because he just wants to destroy the ring of power, state; government, and the rest of the group will be tempted to use it.

[undergroundrr]

It's the perfect metaphor for this election when you don't have a liberty candidate in the race.

Frodo splits from the rest of the party, and heads off to mordor with Samwise Gamgee, because he just wants to destroy the ring of power, state; government, and the rest of the group will be tempted to use it.

Yeah, but so far trump has been Hank Rearden. The LP is Boromir. Who's Captain Kirk? How about Starbuck? Twiki?

[otherone]

Sorry, "Lord of the Rings" analogies/metaphors, just don't carry much sway or do much for me. Carry on.

[RJ Liberty]

trump's one consistent policy element is war. Military wars, trade wars, and culture wars are at the heart of all of his keystone proposals.

This deserves reiterating, because the Trumpettes gloss over this: Trump has advocated going to war in Iraq, Syria, North Korea, Iran, you name it. He is as hawkish as Hillary $#@!ing Clinton.