TheHill: Could our next President be a Libertarian?

[dannno]

It is Trump who is trying to ban flavours and he is not considered a liberal

That's incorrect. Trump said he was going to look into vaping, which means he was trying to appease somebody (Melania or Ivanka) and so ultimately he is NOT going to ban flavors. The guy who said they were going to ban flavors was some toolbag who spoke after Trump. Always look at the source material, never trust the media.. I don't know how many times I have to say this. Don't be fake newsd.

It doesn't take much looking into to figure out that having vaping leads us in a positive direction.

[UWDude]

And that's odd that he isn't. He won the election in 2016 by promising to strengthen our federal gun control laws, by praising single-payer healthcare, by saying his extreme left-wing sister would make an ideal Supreme Court justice, by criticizing conservatives for not wanting to spend enough on welfare programs and farm subsidies, by being in favor of letting crossdressers use the bathrooms of the opposite sex at precisely the moment when that question was at the forefront of the culture wars, and by making protectionist economic ideas central to his campaign. There wasn't a single issue where he ran to the right of his Republican opponents in the party primaries. By the older meanings of the words, it would be fair to call him the most extreme left-wing nominee the GOP has ever nominated in its history. But these words switched their meanings coinciding with the 2016 race and icons of conservatism like Sean Hannity becoming so enamored with Trump.

It just goes to show how ever-changing and ultimately meaningless the labels liberal and conservative have become.

what a total load of horse $#@!. then juleswin joins in accepting your retarded assertion. You people are so $#@!ing delusional.

How about I start with trumps list of possible Supreme court picks did not include his sister? How about the fact both his supreme court picks were not "ultra-liberal" in the least.

you are such a dishonest little toolbag. Not to mention you suck off mainstream media every day.

[Brian4Liberty]

TheHill: Could our next President be a Libertarian?

Possible. As likely as a given individual buying a lottery ticket today and winning $50 million. An unabashed, full blown communist/Marxist might have a better chance.

[eleganz]

If the next to impossible chance that a libertarian wins election, almost none of you would be satisfied with the policies anyways.

Thats purist libertarianism for ya~

[Swordsmyth]

If the next to impossible chance that a libertarian wins election, almost none of you would be satisfied with the policies anyways.

Thats purist libertarianism for ya~

Especially if he found ways to get things done incrementally because he couldn't get perfection immediately.

[devil21]

Especially if he found ways to get things done incrementally because he couldn't get perfection immediately.

I don't ask for perfection. I asked not to be lied to every single day as if I'm a moron that'll believe anything. That's where I start. ymmv

[UWDude]

I don't ask for perfection. I asked not to be lied to every single day as if I'm a moron that'll believe anything. That's where I start. ymmv

You wont believe anything except your own conspiracy within a conspiracy within a conspiracy worldview. No matter how ridiculous.

[devil21]

You wont believe anything except your own conspiracy within a conspiracy within a conspiracy worldview. No matter how ridiculous.

It's not too much to ask to be treated as a grown man. People closer to me than you are sure do. I'd like the same respect from the people on the teevee. That's not too much to ask, is it?

[UWDude]

It's not too much to ask to be treated as a grown man. People closer to me than you are sure do. I'd like the same respect from the people on the teevee. That's not too much to ask, is it?

The world is run by various groups of power in various regions all vying for power.

[Swordsmyth]

The world is run by various groups of power in various regions all vying for power.

That is always true of even the most universal of empires.

It's human nature, there can only be one top dog and many puppies dream of getting to be it.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

No. Never happening. Not big L or small l. Libertarians have no understanding of power and as such, will never possess power. It really is that simple.

[Swordsmyth]

No. Never happening. Not big L or small l. Libertarians have no understanding of power and as such, will never possess power. It really is that simple.

One day there could be one that does.
But he would also need to be positioned to be able to act on his understanding and as yet I do not know of one with both the understanding and the position required.

[devil21]

The world is run by various groups of power in various regions all vying for power.

That is your understanding and it may have been true at one time. Mine is more akin to various mafia families, who previously warred with each other, instead deciding to cooperate and share the pie. Some family's pieces may be larger than others but they all share the pie of the sun rising over the mountains. If you don't know the significance of the italicized phrase and associated imagery, read up.

[Working Poor]

I'll be surprised if our next president is human.

I wonder if our generation has ever had a human for president.

[angelatc]

Most of the declared LP candidates so far are not even trying.

Adam Kokesh at least you know where he stands on a couple issues on his Presidential website and I believe he would be good on 2A although there is scant information overall about where he stands on issues. I have concerns about his proposal to switch the US dollar to a crypto like Bitcoin, since would it be untraceable like cash? None of anyone's business how I decide to spend my money. @angelatc?

Max Abramson - elected official in NH who does not strike me as libertarian if you read here. http://www.maxabramson.org/issues.html and he is another LP candidate that does not list his issues on his Presidential campaign website. So basically he gives me no clue where he stands.

McAfee and others, joke candidates.

Would you like to talk to him? I can give you his phone number. He likes to talk about his positions.

[angelatc]

Oh yeah I forgot that.

Far as I know that is about it.

Gay marriage as well. IMHO, and I am only speaking for myself here - these two issues being decided are the worst possible outcome for the LP. because now they don't have any real issues to campaign on. Anti-interventionism isn't popular.

[r3volution 3.0]

Libertarian ideas on social policy appeal to Democrats, while libertarian ideas on economic policy appeal to Republicans

The GOP at one time, not so long ago, pretended to care about free markets (they never actually cared).

They no longer even pretend to care.

libertarian ideas are about as widely held as consistent liberal or conservative views by the general public

That's based on flawed polling. I wish it were true, but it isn't.

Currently, it’s not a complete stretch to think that many Republicans might abandon their president to vote for a third-party candidate.

No, this is now Trump's party.

All that matters is nationalism and cultures wars.

No one cares even a little about free markets, the PATRIOT act, the endless wars, etc.

Gotta pwn libz...

President Trump is not that popular with House Republicans, judging by the significant numbers of GOP lawmakers who have announced they will not be seeking re-election.

That means he's not very popular with their constituents, which means he might lose (I think he will).

But these people aren't going to vote for a libertarian.

If the Democratic nominee is way outside the mainstream – as is easy to picture given the party’s current field of candidates — then a coalition of Democrats might join with some Republicans to support the third-party candidate.

The old Kucinich type Democrats are gone, as far as I can tell (and I never trusted or valued them much anyway).

For a Libertarian to win the presidency, the first step is for the Libertarian Party to choose a candidate who appears more reasonable to Americans, and especially to members of the House of Representatives, than the major-party candidates.

Regardless of the rest, the LP should indeed choose more viable candidates.

They're never going to win a Presidential election, but they can influence people and events.

...but not if a naked dancing fat man is their mascot.

[devil21]

The GOP at one time, not so long ago, pretended to care about free markets (they never actually cared).

They no longer even pretend to care.



That's based on flawed polling. I wish it were true, but it isn't.



No, this is now Trump's party.

All that matters is nationalism and cultures wars.

No one cares even a little about free markets, the PATRIOT act, the endless wars, etc.

Gotta pwn libz...



That means he's not very popular with their constituents, which means he might lose (I think he will).

But these people aren't going to vote for a libertarian.



The old Kucinich type Democrats are gone, as far as I can tell (and I never trusted or valued them much anyway).



Regardless of the rest, the LP should indeed choose more viable candidates.

They're never going to win a Presidential election, but they can influence people and events.

...but not if a naked dancing fat man is their mascot.

All I can say is that the sheep that were relatively easy to herd into supporting Trump, despite all evidence showing he's a snake (and even his own admission of it), can be just as easily turned against him. The Media controls that perception, along with online propaganda ops, like we see here from a few. It would actually be pretty easy...

[r3volution 3.0]

All I can say is that the sheep that were relatively easy to herd into supporting Trump, despite all evidence showing he's a snake (and even his own admission of it), can be just as easily turned against him. The Media controls that perception, along with online propaganda ops, like we see here from a few. It would actually be pretty easy...

In principle, I agree; they can be herded to support just about anyone/anything.

In practice, that takes resources (e.g. huge amounts of money and control of key institutions) which we don't have.

I'm not trying to be pessimistic, but we need to temper our expectations.

I see many opportunities for libertarians to make progress, but we're not getting into the White House anytime soon.

[kahless]

Would you like to talk to him? I can give you his phone number. He likes to talk about his positions.

That would be great but I think it would be better for him to reach a wider audience rather than one person and communicate his positions here. I thought he had an RPF account at some point?

At the very least if you or he could post his response to what I asked about privacy and his proposed crypto currency to replace the US dollar? If I even have that right and perhaps he has addressed this somewhere.

thx

[Brian4Liberty]

what a total load of horse $#@!. then juleswin joins in accepting your retarded assertion. You people are so $#@!ing delusional.

How about I start with trumps list of possible Supreme court picks did not include his sister? How about the fact both his supreme court picks were not "ultra-liberal" in the least.

you are such a dishonest little toolbag. Not to mention you suck off mainstream media every day.

Guidelines reminder:

If you take issue with another member:

Do:

Debate the issues. Attack bad ideas and questionable information.
If a user keeps rehashing the same debate, call for a "Site Issue Evaluation" debate thread on the issues in accordance with our "Site Issue Evaluations - Managing Contentious Issues" policy. Message the staff for details if needed.
Put the user on your ignore list.

Don't:

Do not call other members names such as idiot, troll, liberal (unless self-labeled) or other names.
Do not antagonize other members by calling them out in thread titles.
Do not hunt down random posts by a user to apply negative reputation points.
Do not use PMs or rep messages as a backhanded way to break the guidelines.
Do not attempt to rally a negative campaign against the member.
Do not accuse others of violating the guidelines.
Do not retaliate if attacked; refocus the discussion to the topic, call for the discussion to be kept civil or do not respond.
...
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/content.php?1989

[angelatc]

That would be great but I think it would be better for him to reach a wider audience rather than one person and communicate his positions here. I thought he had an RPF account at some point?

At the very least if you or he could post his response to what I asked about privacy and his proposed crypto currency to replace the US dollar? If I even have that right and perhaps he has addressed this somewhere.

thx

I can't send you a PM but if you want to email me, it's treasurer at thefreedomline .com . I will text him and post his reply here. Yes, he used to have an account here but he left it many years ago. Typical libertarian in-fighting. Half of us like him, half of us deteste him.

[kahless]

I can't send you a PM but if you want to email me, it's treasurer at thefreedomline .com . I will text him and post his reply here. Yes, he used to have an account here but he left it many years ago. Typical libertarian in-fighting. Half of us like him, half of us deteste him.

Got it. I have not had allot of time to post or do anything here lately, did you post his reply at some point on the crypto privacy question? If not can we get a thread on that here?

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/forumdi...yptocurrencies

[devil21]

In principle, I agree; they can be herded to support just about anyone/anything.

In practice, that takes resources (e.g. huge amounts of money and control of key institutions) which we don't have.

I'm not trying to be pessimistic, but we need to temper our expectations.

I see many opportunities for libertarians to make progress, but we're not getting into the White House anytime soon.

FWIW, I meant the power of the controlled media and shill ops, not so much libertarian's ability to do it. I think it's pretty clear that if the controlled media decided, en masse including Fox News, to turn against Trump it wouldn't be difficult to channel his supporters elsewhere. Same for the Dems. This may be an academic discussion we're having but theoretically it is possible for something really heinous about Trump to be released into the mainstream (say, Epstein kiddie diddling related) that even his most ardent supporters couldn't spin away. Similar unspinnable dirt about a Dem released also. Then a "What do we do now?" narrative injected....and a viable LP candidate thrust into the spotlight. Who knows? To me, it's really about what TPTB that control the media, and the perception the media creates, decide they want to happen. They clearly can and do engineer major elections to desirable outcomes...

[r3volution 3.0]

FWIW, I meant the power of the controlled media and shill ops, not so much libertarian's ability to do it. I think it's pretty clear that if the controlled media decided, en masse including Fox News, to turn against Trump it wouldn't be difficult to channel his supporters elsewhere. Same for the Dems. This may be an academic discussion we're having but theoretically it is possible for something really heinous about Trump to be released into the mainstream (say, Epstein kiddie diddling related) that even his most ardent supporters couldn't spin away. Similar unspinnable dirt about a Dem released also. Then a "What do we do now?" narrative injected....and a viable LP candidate thrust into the spotlight. Who knows? To me, it's really about what TPTB that control the media, and the perception the media creates, decide they want to happen. They clearly can and do engineer major elections to desirable outcomes...

I'd like to think that would have an effect, but I'm really not so sure.

So long as he publicly insults Mexicans and pretends to be doing something about immigration..., his base will stick with him.

When he said he could walk down 5th avenue shooting people and still win, he was right.

[shakey1]

One day there could be one that does.
But he would also need to be positioned to be able to act on his understanding and as yet I do not know of one with both the understanding and the position required.

To every season there is a reason.

[Superfluous Man]

what a total load of horse $#@!. then juleswin joins in accepting your retarded assertion. You people are so $#@!ing delusional.

How about I start with trumps list of possible Supreme court picks did not include his sister? How about the fact both his supreme court picks were not "ultra-liberal" in the least.

you are such a dishonest little toolbag. Not to mention you suck off mainstream media every day.

The list you're referring to was one that Trump released after he had been provided it by establishment Republicans with the Heritage Foundation in the early summer of 2016. Of course he didn't know who any of these people were, he just asked the Heritage Foundation to give him a list and they did, and he released it.

But that didn't happen until after he had already won the Republican nomination. When the primary race was ongoing, the only guidance his lemmings had with respect to Supreme Court nominees was his remark about his leftist sister, and the more general impression he repeatedly made of having a general disdain for the Constitution and the fetish he thought other Republicans inexplicably had with smaller government. It was this more anti-constitutional approach that proved to be a successful selling point in winning over enough Republican voters to get that party's nomination.

[devil21]

They do?

Which ideas?

LP generally supports LGBTQ individuality, cannabis reform, softer on pro-choice stances, immigration, generally anti-war, pro-civil liberties. Individual choices...that liberty thing. A lot of what Dems associate with. But at the same time, advocating fiscal restraint which Dems generally ignore and Republicans pretend to want. The article is correct that the majority of those who can vote, though not necessarily do, fall into a socially liberal/fiscally conservative mindset. "Leave people alone and stop pissing away our money." While the article may be far-fetched as an outcome, the author's analysis isn't wrong, imo.

[devil21]

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/...mocratic-party

History is full of ironies, and perhaps it will suit the irony gods for The Donald to take down the Republican Party and the Clinton dynasty to destroy the Democratic Party.

Hallelujah! Now let us pray... (rumors floating around of Hillary announcing another run)

[devil21]

Recent polling in NC: (CJ is right-leaning John Locke Foundation publication)

https://www.carolinajournal.com/news...22MKMz6KjMFIoY

A new poll from Meredith College shows 40% of North Carolinians would rather vote for someone who’s randomly selected from a phone book than for President Trump. Democratic candidates fare little better.
.......................
Trump comes out on top in every matchup with the top five Democratic candidates. But at least one in five respondents in each matchup wanted someone other than Trump or the listed Democratic candidate.

Trump just barely beats a randomly selected person from the phone book in a hypothetical matchup. Just above 42% picked the president; 40% said they would vote for the random person.

Poll info:
https://www.meredith.edu/assets/imag...t_oct_2019.pdf