Post: #201

Johnson actually did have an answer: Vicente Fox, the "terrific" former president of Mexico.

Damn, this guy is an idiot.

Post: #202

(09-29-2016 11:08 AM)Slim Shady Wrote:  At the recent town hall, when Gary Johnson couldn't come up with the name of one current foreign leader he admires (to be honest, there aren't many, I would personally go with Putin in Russia, or Modi in India) his mate Bill Weld chimed in, saying FUCKING MERKEL.

That tells you all you need to know.

Quote:Libertarian Party are a bunch of frauds:

https://twitter.com/MSNBC/status/781278922201718784

Voting for these clowns basically means you don't give a shit about America's future and would put it in the hands of totally incompetent people.

Easy Answer.

Duterte in the Phillipines

Post: #203

Wow, they really did find a real choice fuckup to lead their party. I'm guessing this guy is the inspiration for the Family Guy character Mayor West .

Post: #204

Even Ron Paul would be doing better than Gary Johnson right now. I hope he doesn't drop out though, the majority of his voters would probably choose Hillary over Trump.

Post: #205

That guy is high as giraffe pussy. People think smoking dope doesn't affect the way you act. Look at him.

He swears if he's elected he'll stop smoking dope. I think that's hilarious.

Trump: I promise to build a wall

Hillary: I promise to fix the economy

Gary: I promise to stop getting high

On top of that, he hates cronyism. He's the president of a huge marijuana company. Anybody that knows anything about that business knows its the biggest who-you-know kickback situation out there.

Aloha!

Post: #206

More proof that the Libertarian party candidates are complete shills.

Weld says that he "definitely doesn't want Donald Trump to be President", and that "he's not sure anyone's more qualified that Hillary Clinton to be President".

They're not even trying to hide it anymore.





Libertarian cucks crying out for "freedom".

Post: #207

I started this discussion because I was hoping to have a discussion thread for libertarians to discuss the campaign and the party. Instead, I just got a bunch of trolls posting misinformed comments about libertarians, our beliefs, and just about everything else.

Post: #208

(10-23-2016 11:57 AM)puckerman Wrote:  I started this discussion because I was hoping to have a discussion thread for libertarians to discuss the campaign and the party. Instead, I just got a bunch of trolls posting misinformed comments about libertarians, our beliefs, and just about everything else.

Are those trolls Johnson and Weld themselves?

Post: #209

(10-23-2016 11:57 AM)puckerman Wrote:  I started this discussion because I was hoping to have a discussion thread for libertarians to discuss the campaign and the party. Instead, I just got a bunch of trolls posting misinformed comments about libertarians, our beliefs, and just about everything else.

I know a number of Libertarians. I think they are of naive and unreasonably optimistic, but I'll try to avoid being a troll.

You should start attending the "Texans for Accountable Government" and the "Speaking of Liberty Toastmasters" meetings.

Post: #210

(10-23-2016 01:20 PM)chicane Wrote:  I know a number of Libertarians. I think they are of naive and unreasonably optimistic

I think if as a libertarian, you think voting for Johnson and his Libertarian Party will improve liberty in the US, you're beyond naive and unreasonably optimistic. You're probably mad as a hatter.

Real libertarians, those who actually want more liberty for all, instead of just an outlet for sperging out or a place to find fellow stoners, should be campaigning for two things only and simultaneously: the election of Donald Trump; and the invocation of Article V.

I also think OP is what I call a "failed member". 1200 posts, only deserving of a total of 4 reps. One banned rep, and one for a quite farcical statement: /thread-44252...#pid933134 . Everybody justifiably attacked this joke of a party, and so he got triggered and had a little whinge about it.

OP: Johnson is a fucking stoner headcase wierdo and you should disavow him and his party.

Post: #211

I'm embarrassed to have once been a libertarian.

(10-25-2016 02:33 PM)Phoenix Wrote:  Real libertarians, those who actually want more liberty for all, instead of just an outlet for sperging out or a place to find fellow stoners, should be campaigning for two things only and simultaneously: the election of Donald Trump; and the invocation of Article V.

Although there are libertarians against open borders, the libertarian 'party line' is open borders all the way. They stomp their feet impetuously, refusing to see that the welfare isn't going anywhere, so open borders is an untenable policy for that reason alone. Also, they have no understanding of the importance of culture whatsoever (spergy autism, as mentioned above). We're all interchangeable parts to them. I would consider them dangerous if only they weren't so ineffectual.

Post: #212

I feel it's a good time to post this Dinesh D'Souza speech from a few weeks ago. Give it a listen. It starts slow but gets better all the way until the end.




There is a difference in the Republican and the Democrat party. The reason the Dems have Hollywood, the Press, and Education is because conservatives have said "just don't bother with me and my life" (basically what I think) rather than standing up for the Republican party.

In the end, I get being annoyed with the political conversation between the two sides. I get having a stand-offish philosophy of don't mess with me, I don't want to play identity politics. At least understand the history of the two parties.

Post: #213

You can pound away at Johnson's idiotic gaffes all you want, but I'd argue it's not all that relevant. Some people just suck in front of an audience, but are brilliant when they sit down and think about things. The guy was a popular two-term governor, so he's capable of being an effective executive. The mainstream media decided he's a joke because polls began showing that he was pulling slightly more votes away from Hillary than from Trump. It's similar to how they actively dismiss someone like Jill Stein despite obviously agreeing with most of her positions.

Even if you dislike him, it's not like there's any chance of your vote electing him president. To me, it's more about raising awareness of third parties to eventually break up the duopoly.

Post: #214

Libertarian John Mcafee shames libertarians for being white males. Sad and low energy!

Post: #215

(11-13-2016 11:16 AM)SirTimothy Wrote:  Libertarian John Mcafee shames libertarians for being white males. Sad and low energy!

What a fucking faggot. Isn't this guy supposed to be smart? He has a tenuous grasp on the concept of cause and effect, I have to say.

Post: #216

(11-13-2016 11:16 AM)SirTimothy Wrote:  

Dear Libertarian Party,

STOP TRYING TO APPEAL TO SJW'S. They are never becoming libertarians. Just take one look at a comments thread on reason.com. It is pure, unanimous contempt for SJW's. Someone who thinks like a SJW will never think like a libertarian. Just face it. You have a much better chance recruiting people who are sick of this kind of bullshit. There is no shortage of such people. Forget about being trendy like your leftist friends and open your fucking eyes.

Post: #217

The libertarian party is a sad sack of shit. We've hijacked the Republican party with Trump and now we just need to finish the process at the local level. Stop wasting time and energy on the Libertarian party and redouble your efforts to transform the Republican party.

Post: #218

If only the Libertarian Party had nominated a principled anarcho-capitalist like Mr. Perry.

Post: #219

Perry was quite fun to watch at the Libertarian debate. He's very passionate about drugs to the point of slamming a pen on the desk about how hard it is to use drugs. His concession speech made him sound like a manchild just because he didn't win the nomination.

Yeah, the debate was interesting to say the least. I watched it last summer. McAfee looked like he was baked the whole time, Gary Johnson is wondering to himself "Why did I become a Libertarian again?" and whining, Austin Petersen reminds me of Jim DeMint for some reason, Perry actually reminded me of Eric Harris (one of the Columbine shooters) if he took a different path instead of shooting up his school and Dr. Feldman, how did they find him? Apparently, Dr. Feldman died afterwards in a motel room.

Why was there some fat guy stripping in the middle of the convention? It makes the other two parties look sane.

Jean, I've watched that video numerous times. If Sam maybe would stop being a little arrogant, Perry might have had something rational to say instead of interrupting him the whole time.

Post: #220

(04-16-2017 08:07 PM)Kurgan Wrote:  Perry was quite fun to watch at the Libertarian debate. He's very passionate about drugs to the point of slamming a pen on the desk about how hard it is to use drugs. His concession speech made him sound like a manchild just because he didn't win the nomination.

Yeah, the debate was interesting to say the least. I watched it last summer. McAfee looked like he was baked the whole time, Gary Johnson is wondering to himself "Why did I become a Libertarian again?" and whining, Austin Petersen reminds me of Jim DeMint for some reason, Perry actually reminded me of Eric Harris (one of the Columbine shooters) if he took a different path instead of shooting up his school and Dr. Feldman, how did they find him? Apparently, Dr. Feldman died afterwards in a motel room.

Why was there some fat guy stripping in the middle of the convention? It makes the other two parties look sane.

Jean, I've watched that video numerous times. If Sam maybe would stop being a little arrogant, Perry might have had something rational to say instead of interrupting him the whole time.

The problem there was very clearly not with Sam. Perry came off as a loon.

Post: #221

(04-16-2017 08:07 PM)Kurgan Wrote:  Perry was quite fun to watch at the Libertarian debate. He's very passionate about drugs to the point of slamming a pen on the desk about how hard it is to use drugs. His concession speech made him sound like a manchild just because he didn't win the nomination.

Yeah, the debate was interesting to say the least. I watched it last summer. McAfee looked like he was baked the whole time, Gary Johnson is wondering to himself "Why did I become a Libertarian again?" and whining, Austin Petersen reminds me of Jim DeMint for some reason, Perry actually reminded me of Eric Harris (one of the Columbine shooters) if he took a different path instead of shooting up his school and Dr. Feldman, how did they find him? Apparently, Dr. Feldman died afterwards in a motel room.

Why was there some fat guy stripping in the middle of the convention? It makes the other two parties look sane.

Jean, I've watched that video numerous times. If Sam maybe would stop being a little arrogant, Perry might have had something rational to say instead of interrupting him the whole time.

I remember watching the James Weeks concession speech on live TV and thinking, "He isn't going to... oh my god, he is..."

With regard to the Perry video, I think even a minarchist could argue that sending someone to prison for tax evasion is dumb. The taxpayers have been victimized by their fellow citizen's tax evasion, so now they must be victimized further by having to pay for incarceration? In many cases, the tax evader is a businessperson with property that could be seized.

Or the tax evader could simply be exiled. If you don't pay your rent, the punishment is that your landlord evicts you. Taxes are similar to rent.

Running on any kind of platform that calls for change is hard, because people can hit you with all sorts of "what-ifs". It's much easier to be in Sam's position, in which all you have to do is argue for the status quo.

Perry could've responded, "What happens if the state arbitrarily decides to revoke your property deed, for example, because they want to demolish your home and build something else there? What recourse do you have? Oh, you can sue in the government courts? Isn't that a conflict of interest? Oh, you can appeal to the electorate? What if the electorate are the ones who want to seize your property for their own use?" Etc., etc.

Almost everything that Sam was pointing out could be a problem under anarcho-capitalism, could also be a problem under government. The only advantage of having a superpower run everything is that as long as there's political stability within that superpower, the markets can operate without too much uncertainty.

Post: #222

Now that I think about it SamuelBRoberts, you're right. Which parts did Perry come off as a loon to you?

Post: #223

I think the biggest example of screaming lunacy is the end, where he tries to force Sam into admitting that he thinks that Perry should be jailed for not paying his taxes "to support Middle East Wars". That's an old libertarian rhetorical gambit that plays off the human desire to avoid confrontation: most people aren't willing to say, "Yes, you should be jailed if you don't pay your taxes." to someone's face, particularly if that someone is likable and friendly, and particularly if "paying your taxes" is framed as supporting something the listener disagrees with (I.E. endless wars in the middle east).

In the script in Perry's head, Sam is unwilling to put him in jail, and Perry gets to use that as a starting point to bring Sam around to his way of thinking.

When Sam doesn't fall for his gambit, Perry totally loses control, hurls a bunch of insults, and hangs up. You can hear the laughter in the studio, and it's not the funny kind of laughter, it's the nervous laughter you hear when someone totally violates social conventions, that indicates "That man was a scary maniac."

We can contrast this with the post you just made. Imagine if instead of saying, "What parts did you find off?" you said, "Perry's not the lunatic! You're the lunatic, you despicable pig-fucker!" and then posted a bunch of lemon party and tubgirl JPGs. The effect would've been mostly the same.

This is a recurring problem with libertarians that dates all the way back to Buckley's review of Ayn Rand, with the famous quote, "“To a gas chamber — go!” They're so convinced of the obvious rightness of their dogma that anybody who doesn't immediately fall in line becomes a subject of ridicule and insults. By and large they're just unlikable, weird people, which is unfortunate because I think there's some value in the ideology. It's certainly preferable to the massive surveillance state we have now.

Post: #224

Thanks SamuelBRoberts, I never looked at it like that before.

Post: #225

(04-16-2017 08:28 PM)SamuelBRoberts Wrote:  I think the biggest example of screaming lunacy is the end, where he tries to force Sam into admitting that he thinks that Perry should be jailed for not paying his taxes "to support Middle East Wars". That's an old libertarian rhetorical gambit that plays off the human desire to avoid confrontation: most people aren't willing to say, "Yes, you should be jailed if you don't pay your taxes." to someone's face, particularly if that someone is likable and friendly, and particularly if "paying your taxes" is framed as supporting something the listener disagrees with (I.E. endless wars in the middle east).

In the script in Perry's head, Sam is unwilling to put him in jail, and Perry gets to use that as a starting point to bring Sam around to his way of thinking.

When Sam doesn't fall for his gambit, Perry totally loses control, hurls a bunch of insults, and hangs up. You can hear the laughter in the studio, and it's not the funny kind of laughter, it's the nervous laughter you hear when someone totally violates social conventions, that indicates "That man was a scary maniac."

We can contrast this with the post you just made. Imagine if instead of saying, "What parts did you find off?" you said, "Perry's not the lunatic! You're the lunatic, you despicable pig-fucker!" and then posted a bunch of lemon party and tubgirl JPGs. The effect would've been mostly the same.

This is a recurring problem with libertarians that dates all the way back to Buckley's review of Ayn Rand, with the famous quote, "“To a gas chamber — go!” They're so convinced of the obvious rightness of their dogma that anybody who doesn't immediately fall in line becomes a subject of ridicule and insults. By and large they're just unlikable, weird people, which is unfortunate because I think there's some value in the ideology. It's certainly preferable to the massive surveillance state we have now.

I don't think that's what Perry was doing. I think he made a decision that if Sam crossed a line of offensiveness, he was going to immediately dissociate from him by hanging up, so he asked him the question to see on which side of that line he stood. It wouldn't surprise me if Perry has done that to many other people.

I think it would be interesting to analyze, why do libertarians like Perry run for office, while more "normal" libertarians don't? It's not as though running for office is all that hard. It's just a matter of putting in the time or the money to gather the necessary signatures and slap together a website with a photo and a few political positions.

Still, every election season you have a choice to spend your Sundays either knocking on doors with petition in hand, or doing something else. Since there isn't a lot of support from the Party, it tends to be lonely work, so you have to provide your own motivation. I think most political involvement of that kind is driven by anger (maybe even outrage), or some sort of fanatical belief that an idea people haven't heard before could change the world.

I've run for office a couple times, and what I notice is that each time, it was because I had an idea I wanted to put before the public, that I felt I couldn't draw their attention to any other way. I would say that this method is somewhat effective. You can't get more than a few people to read your full manifesto (because the media won't publish it or in most cases even link to it), but you can raise awareness of your ideology's existence.

It's also a method that's accessible to a layperson. If you don't want to become an economics professor or work for a libertarian think tank, you can still run for office while holding a job in the field of your choice.

I think one reason why the Republican Party is better able to get its supporters to turn out to vote in off-year elections, is that Democrats tend to be more laid-back people, while Republicans have more of a sense of moral indignation (at abortion, cannabis use, etc.) You have to get people angry if you want them to go out of their way to take political action. Republicans tend to be more uptight and chronically angry people, generally. Democrats vent their anger once every four years and then are done.

This election cycle, we're seeing an exception, in that large numbers of Democrats (especially women) are angry about Trump's election, for some reason. I don't really see what the big deal is. I don't see how he could be any more damaging to their cause than, say, George W. Bush was.

Perry, too, is obviously a guy who feels strongly that he's being wronged and wants to do something (or at least say something) about it. So that would explain his candidacy.

When I think of running for office again, the thought that crosses my mind is, "What do I have to say, that I haven't already said?" I don't really feel like going to a lot of trouble just to repeat myself, when I've already made my beliefs and opinions a matter of public record.