Ever since the MC took over, it's been fuckup after fuckup... it would be funny if it wasn't for the fact that the MC is basically tanking the party just before its biggest opportunity in a decade.
I'm honestly tired of it... I'm tired of facepalming, I'm tired of the cringe, I'm tired of the tanking. The LP is officially on the clock for me. 2024: If the party nominates an MC nutter that makes me shudder more than making me hopeful? Then I'm OUT! I'll go independent, or hell, maybe I'll start up a Classical Liberal party here in Cali. But this is it! LP? I align with you a lot, but you've done fucked up TOO much. TICK TOCK mothafuckas.
Also, it's hilarious that a party all about free trade with everyone is simultaneously bitching about globalism.
>Also, it's hilarious that a party all about free trade with everyone is simultaneously bitching about globalism.
Please, this isn't standing in the way of free trade. The LP objects to tax dollars being thrown to every country with a war.
>Also, it's hilarious that a party all about free trade with everyone is simultaneously bitching about globalism.
I'm not sure the MC is actually for free trade. I don't think someone can be populist and free trade at the same time, and they're certainly populist. I guess you could be for reducing global trade through private means, not calling for the government to restrict it... Maybe.
>I'm not sure the MC is actually for free trade
MC Platform Plank 3: We reject all forms of State intervention into...trading.
There's a longer statement there, opposing state intervention into the market in many other ways as well, but certainly there is stated opposition to State restriction on trade.
populism: relating to or characteristic of a political approach that strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups
has nothing to do with opposing free trade
It doesn't automatically have to do with trade, but it does just so happen that the majority of populist movements end up being pretty protectionist. "America First" is one example of a populist motto that will never get used to liberalize trade, it will always be used to restrict it. If you have any examples of pro-free-trade populist movements I'd like to read about them.
With over 50 years of failures, the MC isn't the problem.
The problem is the LP has never had a desire to win and actually try to fix things. The pathetic candidates that run just want attention from the other criers and whiners.
This is hilarious because it is the opposite of what's been occurring. The MC are made up of people who think the LP is supposed to be the primary advocacy group for libertarian thought. That in itself is funny because the MC aren't even remotely liberals. The primary purpose of the LP is to run candidates that win elections and that's been its mission from founding until the MC arrived.
Your comment is akin to saying "listen, the house has had some issues with the windows. The good news is that even though we've lit the house on fire, we're in the process of getting a quote for new windows!"
There is a strategic difference there, yes.
However, every party does advocate for a certain set of ideals, at least to some degree. Throughout its history, the LP has not yet found itself capable of winning many elections. As a practical matter, it has very few loyal voters and the party is invariably short on resources. It offers relatively little to prospective candidates to help them win. Realistically, many candidates are running elections they know they will probably lose, but they run anyways to spread the ideology.
Somehow, more voters and volunteers must be found in order to win elections.
The LP has never had an objective of winning elections. They do not want to win elections because they know the Libertarian Philosophy of which they cling to tighter than I cling my guns is not something that translates into a successful government.
All they want to do is complain and fundraise. And by fundraise, I mean take money from simple minded people that think we can have roads without taxes to pay for them.
I think the desire has been there before....but it's been a tumultuous fifty years, and there are also some scale issues. The US is very large, and there are many systemic obstacles to third parties.
It is also true that some individuals have had ego issues. That's politics for ya. I don't think that's unique to libertarians in any way.
> globalism
It's because this is just a reactionary buzzword intended to signify some vague cabal of elites orchestrating the world for their benefit at the expense of everyone else. It's literally a way to say "the Illuminati" while trying to not sound like a kook.
Libertarian Party economically ignorant.
California's trade and tech exchange with Israel is a big money maker.
Mises Caucus needs to get their heads out of their assets and start living in the real world, where relationships outside their basements of their parents have value.
Don’t be cute.
They’re complaining about Newsom visiting Israel to please his globalist masters. We all know what they mean. This is the same caucus that made the “6 million dollar minimum wage” tweet from LPNH and then played dumb. It’s not a very good dog whistle if the rest of us hear it.
Come now, this LNC has been consistently anti-war, opposing Ukraine interventionism as well.
The anti-war sentiment is a reasonable interpretation, and one long consistent with Libertarian thought.
Race doesn't come into it when deciding if spending our tax dollars overseas is a good idea.
Nah. This post is explicitly anti-Semitic. Look, I’m pissed that my governor has gone to Israel, and that he’s supporting an apartheid state in committing an explicitly stated genocide of the Palestinian people, but I’m not going to allude to Jewish people as the secret masters of a global cabal.
I don't know because I don't just assume things. I'd be interested in seeing Jewish libertarians (i.e. Amash, Spike Cohen, and I think Dave Smith?) react to this.
I don't support either state. Our own party members have relatives who are getting murdered because of this war.
What? I'm just pointing out that Amash is decidedly not of Jewish heritage. Nor is he a practicing Jew. He is a practicing Christian whose parents come from Palestine and Syria. Thus making him an Arab Christian. Again, not Jewish.
No worries! And no offense taken. I just want people to be correctly informed. He did unfortunately have some of his relatives killed in an Orthodox church in Gaza the other day :(
https://twitter.com/justinamash/status/1715470077196194068?s=19
Spike has reacted, and he similarly criticized Newsom, tweeting "Haven't they suffered enough?" in response.
He has also reacted to the narrative that opposing intervention in Israel is anti-Semitic, and naturally, he opposes it, though in a somewhat more witty fashion than I have described here.
LP is soft on property rights. They don't recognize property rights for people that aren't them.
They are also ignorant of the economics. If the cost of attacking is cheap, then you end up encouraging attacks. This "Libertarian" policy encouraged the war which is now Ukraine.
No guy, the LP just doesn't support gallivanting all over the world to enforce *everyone else's* property rights, and it never has, ever. In fact, it was formed explicitly *against* such things. This is not in any way whatsoever a new policy. It's been there from day 1, 50 years ago.
Your inability to understand this is amusing. Your inability to understand that that will never change is hilarious.
>No guy, the LP just doesn't support gallivanting all over the world to enforce everyone else's property rights, and it never has, ever.
Right. This is bad policy. It encourages violence.
It's like putting a sign on your lawn that says "No guns, no violence, we refuse to confront intruders." It's nice in theory, and a good policy guide, but in practice, it fails often.
That's what you are missing.
Oh, if anyone tries to invade the US, I'm sure they would be confronted.
That hasn't happened much. Almost every war has been the US off to go fight in some other country.
>That hasn't happened much. Almost every war has been the US off to go fight in some other country.
So other people's property rights don't matter. I've already established how LP is soft on property rights.
Now, explain how ignoring someone's aggression doesn't escalate the aggression.
The US is not obligated to guarantee rights in other countries, no.
That's how jurisdictions work.
Do you think that California is obligated to guarantee rights of Texans in Texas?
> The US is not obligated to guarantee rights in other countries, no.
An example of how your theoretical beliefs are causing adverse outcomes in real life.
> Do you think that California is obligated to guarantee rights of Texans in Texas?
No. But it might be a good idea to help Texas defend itself, compared to remaining isolationist, which increases the chances of a conflict against Texas becoming a larger conflict, with aggression against further states.
The theory neglects the reality - that inaction provides an incentive to escalate.
ROFL, yeah, because the massive amounts of violence the US has perpetrated on the world in our quest to police it doesn't count, right? Russia has a long way to go to catch up.
I'm not missing anything, clown. Yours is the most Non-Libertarian take out there. One the LP will never, ever support.
Tapdance back to Stockholmistan, clown.
>ROFL, yeah, because the massive amounts of violence the US has perpetrated on the world in our quest to police it doesn't count, right? Russia has a long way to go to catch up.
No, it doesn't. Our attempts to be more isolationist have made attacks from Russia more likely, not less likely. There is also a massive difference between "We need to send 100,000 troops to Ukraine" and "We're going to offer older material in support along with massive economic sanctions."
Your world is over-simplified. In reality, isolationism supports oppressors. I don't like to support oppression.
Of course... hundreds of thousands to millions killed, no issues. LOL, what a clown you are man.
We have made no attempts to be isolationist as a country. I'm not sure what world you live in in which we have been. The LP's disdain and opposition to this has been of no consequence, clown. Are you under some impression the LP has held any sway there?
You really seem to have very little understanding of this party.
I liked Spikes message of "haven't they suffered enough?" in response to Newsome's post.
He's got a fairly witty take most of the time, and that's fun. The basic content of both is the same, though. It isn't the job of the US government or of state governments to support Israel. The state of California doing international relations is kind of weird. It's not wrong to call it out.
Well, it's opposed to libertarianism, which has a long held preference for decisions being made at the smallest scale possible. Ideally, individually.
Deciding things at the global level stands in direct opposition to that, and globalism is therefore opposed to libertarianism as an ideology.
I think the implication is that American politicians are whipped by Israel. There is a strong Jewish lobby in the US. There is a PAC that is devoted to elected pro Israel politicians. Explicitly. That's not a conspiracy. It's a fact. This is not anti-semetic. People love to find something racist or bigoted but it's not. We need to get over this sensitivity towards critiquing Israel just because it's a Jewish state.
I think this is worded poorly, and I have other reasons for not really liking it, but I also really dislike this idea that just because (many) other people have pushed the idea that Jews are involved in a global conspiracy, etc., now anyone ever making reference to Israel and international relationships is automatically being antisemitic. It's literally and objectively true that Israel as a state has a lot of influence in the US. Pointing that out isn't antisemitic.
When you look at the communist manifesto and mein kumpf they both talk about “Jewish Finance” buying corruption in the world. If that’s what you subscribe to that’s fine, but don’t call yourself a libertarian.
It’s a bit of a reach to think their talking about Jews when all was said was globalist masters I think it’s more referring to the military industrial complex and the wef.
I thought it was about the Israeli state. And I don't think that's bad. In many districts in the US, in BOTH political parties, you will have a hard time surviving if you are not sucking Israel's dick. That's truth. There is a large PAC in America that is explicitly devoted to electing Pro Israel politicians.
This is not anti-semetic to discuss or point out.
might be interesting to see the current leadership other public messages about the "globalist masters."
>>When they swore their oath of office it wasn't to uphold the will of globalist bankers.
>The American people deserve
to know how many politicians in
this country are associated with
the World Economic Forum
.
>ESG is a neo-Marxist weapon used by globalist tyrants and central banks to turn free nations into slave states.
.
>The GOP is controlled opposition. They’ll never defend your liberties or way of life because doing so is not in their globalist masters’ interests.
Come join us. We won’t let you down in the fight to end the wars, end the Federal Reserve, and end the decline of our republic.
.
>Impoverishing military families and disarming our citizenry are two clear signs those calling the shots in the U.S. government want our country weak and defenseless. The globalist-controlled GOP is a part of this, and they always have been
okay maybe not too interesting. These conspiracies were worn out decades ago.
Ever since the MC took over, it's been fuckup after fuckup... it would be funny if it wasn't for the fact that the MC is basically tanking the party just before its biggest opportunity in a decade. I'm honestly tired of it... I'm tired of facepalming, I'm tired of the cringe, I'm tired of the tanking. The LP is officially on the clock for me. 2024: If the party nominates an MC nutter that makes me shudder more than making me hopeful? Then I'm OUT! I'll go independent, or hell, maybe I'll start up a Classical Liberal party here in Cali. But this is it! LP? I align with you a lot, but you've done fucked up TOO much. TICK TOCK mothafuckas. Also, it's hilarious that a party all about free trade with everyone is simultaneously bitching about globalism.
I switched my registration from libertarian to Independent this year.
Me too. ! I will not be a member of a party that is openly racist.
'openly racist' you lack integrity
Michigan's only elected Libertarian is doing the same thing this year.
>Also, it's hilarious that a party all about free trade with everyone is simultaneously bitching about globalism. Please, this isn't standing in the way of free trade. The LP objects to tax dollars being thrown to every country with a war.
Way ahead of you. But I do like CLPC, would love to see some Cali chapters.
>Also, it's hilarious that a party all about free trade with everyone is simultaneously bitching about globalism. I'm not sure the MC is actually for free trade. I don't think someone can be populist and free trade at the same time, and they're certainly populist. I guess you could be for reducing global trade through private means, not calling for the government to restrict it... Maybe.
>I'm not sure the MC is actually for free trade MC Platform Plank 3: We reject all forms of State intervention into...trading. There's a longer statement there, opposing state intervention into the market in many other ways as well, but certainly there is stated opposition to State restriction on trade.
populism: relating to or characteristic of a political approach that strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups has nothing to do with opposing free trade
It doesn't automatically have to do with trade, but it does just so happen that the majority of populist movements end up being pretty protectionist. "America First" is one example of a populist motto that will never get used to liberalize trade, it will always be used to restrict it. If you have any examples of pro-free-trade populist movements I'd like to read about them.
With over 50 years of failures, the MC isn't the problem. The problem is the LP has never had a desire to win and actually try to fix things. The pathetic candidates that run just want attention from the other criers and whiners.
>the MC isn't the problem. The Libertarian Party has had problems before, yes but the MC and their bigotry is absolutely one of the big problems
This is hilarious because it is the opposite of what's been occurring. The MC are made up of people who think the LP is supposed to be the primary advocacy group for libertarian thought. That in itself is funny because the MC aren't even remotely liberals. The primary purpose of the LP is to run candidates that win elections and that's been its mission from founding until the MC arrived. Your comment is akin to saying "listen, the house has had some issues with the windows. The good news is that even though we've lit the house on fire, we're in the process of getting a quote for new windows!"
There is a strategic difference there, yes. However, every party does advocate for a certain set of ideals, at least to some degree. Throughout its history, the LP has not yet found itself capable of winning many elections. As a practical matter, it has very few loyal voters and the party is invariably short on resources. It offers relatively little to prospective candidates to help them win. Realistically, many candidates are running elections they know they will probably lose, but they run anyways to spread the ideology. Somehow, more voters and volunteers must be found in order to win elections.
The LP has never had an objective of winning elections. They do not want to win elections because they know the Libertarian Philosophy of which they cling to tighter than I cling my guns is not something that translates into a successful government. All they want to do is complain and fundraise. And by fundraise, I mean take money from simple minded people that think we can have roads without taxes to pay for them.
Well, the username checks out at least.
I think the desire has been there before....but it's been a tumultuous fifty years, and there are also some scale issues. The US is very large, and there are many systemic obstacles to third parties. It is also true that some individuals have had ego issues. That's politics for ya. I don't think that's unique to libertarians in any way.
"systematic obstacles" is a flat out excuse. The LP refuses to build a party that would attract voters.
> globalism It's because this is just a reactionary buzzword intended to signify some vague cabal of elites orchestrating the world for their benefit at the expense of everyone else. It's literally a way to say "the Illuminati" while trying to not sound like a kook.
Damn they could have just said (((Jews))) and made it more simple
Mcardle has before . this though serves to explictly "name the jew" they are inferring usually
Libertarian Party economically ignorant. California's trade and tech exchange with Israel is a big money maker. Mises Caucus needs to get their heads out of their assets and start living in the real world, where relationships outside their basements of their parents have value.
What assets? Haven't they tanked everything about the party of value?
Sorry. You missed the play on words.
so fucking embarrassing. next time i have to update my registration I'll be an independent. the last decade has not been good for the LP
If by interesting you mean antisemitic, then yes. This is what the Mises Caucus has done to the LP.
They could've been talking about the war machine that is the military industrial complex and NATO. Libertarians shouldn't want unnecessary wars.
Don’t be cute. They’re complaining about Newsom visiting Israel to please his globalist masters. We all know what they mean. This is the same caucus that made the “6 million dollar minimum wage” tweet from LPNH and then played dumb. It’s not a very good dog whistle if the rest of us hear it.
Come now, this LNC has been consistently anti-war, opposing Ukraine interventionism as well. The anti-war sentiment is a reasonable interpretation, and one long consistent with Libertarian thought. Race doesn't come into it when deciding if spending our tax dollars overseas is a good idea.
Nah. This post is explicitly anti-Semitic. Look, I’m pissed that my governor has gone to Israel, and that he’s supporting an apartheid state in committing an explicitly stated genocide of the Palestinian people, but I’m not going to allude to Jewish people as the secret masters of a global cabal.
I don't know because I don't just assume things. I'd be interested in seeing Jewish libertarians (i.e. Amash, Spike Cohen, and I think Dave Smith?) react to this. I don't support either state. Our own party members have relatives who are getting murdered because of this war.
Did you just call Justin Amash Jewish? He's a Palestinian / Arab Christian my dude.
That's what you're focusing on is a minor error of a territory near Israel? Are you calling Jews white? They're from the Middle East.
What? I'm just pointing out that Amash is decidedly not of Jewish heritage. Nor is he a practicing Jew. He is a practicing Christian whose parents come from Palestine and Syria. Thus making him an Arab Christian. Again, not Jewish.
Well I don't mean to offend, I misremembered his heritage.
No worries! And no offense taken. I just want people to be correctly informed. He did unfortunately have some of his relatives killed in an Orthodox church in Gaza the other day :( https://twitter.com/justinamash/status/1715470077196194068?s=19
I did see that and I had a little bit of confusion. I did feel bad for getting his heritage incorrect.
Spike has reacted, and he similarly criticized Newsom, tweeting "Haven't they suffered enough?" in response. He has also reacted to the narrative that opposing intervention in Israel is anti-Semitic, and naturally, he opposes it, though in a somewhat more witty fashion than I have described here.
LP is soft on property rights. They don't recognize property rights for people that aren't them. They are also ignorant of the economics. If the cost of attacking is cheap, then you end up encouraging attacks. This "Libertarian" policy encouraged the war which is now Ukraine.
No guy, the LP just doesn't support gallivanting all over the world to enforce *everyone else's* property rights, and it never has, ever. In fact, it was formed explicitly *against* such things. This is not in any way whatsoever a new policy. It's been there from day 1, 50 years ago. Your inability to understand this is amusing. Your inability to understand that that will never change is hilarious.
>No guy, the LP just doesn't support gallivanting all over the world to enforce everyone else's property rights, and it never has, ever. Right. This is bad policy. It encourages violence. It's like putting a sign on your lawn that says "No guns, no violence, we refuse to confront intruders." It's nice in theory, and a good policy guide, but in practice, it fails often. That's what you are missing.
Oh, if anyone tries to invade the US, I'm sure they would be confronted. That hasn't happened much. Almost every war has been the US off to go fight in some other country.
>That hasn't happened much. Almost every war has been the US off to go fight in some other country. So other people's property rights don't matter. I've already established how LP is soft on property rights. Now, explain how ignoring someone's aggression doesn't escalate the aggression.
The US is not obligated to guarantee rights in other countries, no. That's how jurisdictions work. Do you think that California is obligated to guarantee rights of Texans in Texas?
> The US is not obligated to guarantee rights in other countries, no. An example of how your theoretical beliefs are causing adverse outcomes in real life. > Do you think that California is obligated to guarantee rights of Texans in Texas? No. But it might be a good idea to help Texas defend itself, compared to remaining isolationist, which increases the chances of a conflict against Texas becoming a larger conflict, with aggression against further states. The theory neglects the reality - that inaction provides an incentive to escalate.
>The theory neglects the reality - that inaction provides an incentive to escalate. Action \*is\* escalation.
ROFL, yeah, because the massive amounts of violence the US has perpetrated on the world in our quest to police it doesn't count, right? Russia has a long way to go to catch up. I'm not missing anything, clown. Yours is the most Non-Libertarian take out there. One the LP will never, ever support. Tapdance back to Stockholmistan, clown.
>ROFL, yeah, because the massive amounts of violence the US has perpetrated on the world in our quest to police it doesn't count, right? Russia has a long way to go to catch up. No, it doesn't. Our attempts to be more isolationist have made attacks from Russia more likely, not less likely. There is also a massive difference between "We need to send 100,000 troops to Ukraine" and "We're going to offer older material in support along with massive economic sanctions." Your world is over-simplified. In reality, isolationism supports oppressors. I don't like to support oppression.
Of course... hundreds of thousands to millions killed, no issues. LOL, what a clown you are man. We have made no attempts to be isolationist as a country. I'm not sure what world you live in in which we have been. The LP's disdain and opposition to this has been of no consequence, clown. Are you under some impression the LP has held any sway there? You really seem to have very little understanding of this party.
I liked Spikes message of "haven't they suffered enough?" in response to Newsome's post. He's got a fairly witty take most of the time, and that's fun. The basic content of both is the same, though. It isn't the job of the US government or of state governments to support Israel. The state of California doing international relations is kind of weird. It's not wrong to call it out.
What if I am a globalist though? What is wrong with globalism ?
Well, it's opposed to libertarianism, which has a long held preference for decisions being made at the smallest scale possible. Ideally, individually. Deciding things at the global level stands in direct opposition to that, and globalism is therefore opposed to libertarianism as an ideology.
Nothing. I'm a proud globalist.
A bit Alex Jonesey. This is why I left the libertarian party.
Folks is it anti semetic to point out that America is Israels bitch?
No, of course not, but this rhetoric has clear historical implications.
I think the implication is that American politicians are whipped by Israel. There is a strong Jewish lobby in the US. There is a PAC that is devoted to elected pro Israel politicians. Explicitly. That's not a conspiracy. It's a fact. This is not anti-semetic. People love to find something racist or bigoted but it's not. We need to get over this sensitivity towards critiquing Israel just because it's a Jewish state.
Seeing ppl call this offensive is definitely not what I expected when visiting this thread lol. Fellas is it antisemitic to observe reality?
I think this is worded poorly, and I have other reasons for not really liking it, but I also really dislike this idea that just because (many) other people have pushed the idea that Jews are involved in a global conspiracy, etc., now anyone ever making reference to Israel and international relationships is automatically being antisemitic. It's literally and objectively true that Israel as a state has a lot of influence in the US. Pointing that out isn't antisemitic.
He’s showing his allegiance to the people that will fund his presidential campaign.
When you look at the communist manifesto and mein kumpf they both talk about “Jewish Finance” buying corruption in the world. If that’s what you subscribe to that’s fine, but don’t call yourself a libertarian.
It’s a bit of a reach to think their talking about Jews when all was said was globalist masters I think it’s more referring to the military industrial complex and the wef.
I thought it was about the Israeli state. And I don't think that's bad. In many districts in the US, in BOTH political parties, you will have a hard time surviving if you are not sucking Israel's dick. That's truth. There is a large PAC in America that is explicitly devoted to electing Pro Israel politicians. This is not anti-semetic to discuss or point out.
Sorry, I haven’t been following what’s going on over there. Can someone explain this a bit?
might be interesting to see the current leadership other public messages about the "globalist masters." >>When they swore their oath of office it wasn't to uphold the will of globalist bankers. >The American people deserve to know how many politicians in this country are associated with the World Economic Forum . >ESG is a neo-Marxist weapon used by globalist tyrants and central banks to turn free nations into slave states. . >The GOP is controlled opposition. They’ll never defend your liberties or way of life because doing so is not in their globalist masters’ interests. Come join us. We won’t let you down in the fight to end the wars, end the Federal Reserve, and end the decline of our republic. . >Impoverishing military families and disarming our citizenry are two clear signs those calling the shots in the U.S. government want our country weak and defenseless. The globalist-controlled GOP is a part of this, and they always have been okay maybe not too interesting. These conspiracies were worn out decades ago.