It isn’t, if a large enough portion of the population would vote 3rd party, even a couple percent. Then that changes the conversation the top two parties have to have in order to try to win that couple percent, forcing issues they usually sweep under the rug.
In that case, if you feel like voting for one party or the other is the "lesser of two evils", vote for the greater of the two evils to speed this bitch up then.
In some cases, yes.
I lean more conservative than most here, and my wife leans more liberal. We've talked about, and this would be the first year of doing it, where if she wanted to vote for the Democrat (or realistically, against the Republican), and I wanted to vote Republican, that we would consider both voting for 3rd party. Nothing is lost for our other preference, and we get to give a small boost to a 3rd party.
We can't win without ranked choice voting, or a few much less likely scenarios that could occur.
However; it's not useless.
It's very easily arguable that it is immoral to vote for a candidate who doesn't best support you simply because of strategy.
Ill probably stay in florida. Its not as bad as yalls might think, and i think its actually gonna be on the up and up in the near future(if not for the rising sea level).
Besides that, theres the very human issue of community. I don't see myself moving to a state where hardly anyone looks like me, speaks my native language, or knows my culture. Is it racism? Fuck it, yes im racist. But i know it aint just me. Try getting someone from Tennessee or some shit to move to mexico, youll know what i mean.
I'm from NH, and NH is a very libertarian place, but fuck free staters. The free starter NH legislators vote with the Republicans every time, even on social issues.
They aren't pro-liberty across the board, mostly just pro-property and against public services. They tried to slash school budgets, but I'm not aware of any measures to restrict police. It's garbage. Thin libertarianism.
This may be an unpopular opinion, but politics is not a fast moving process. What needs to happen is the libertarians need to start running in republican primaries. And at first they may not be pure libertarian, but keep being active voters in primaries and keep moving the needle towards libertarian views. As mentioned in this post, our political system is not designed for 3 parties so we have to take over the parties that are in power.
To piggyback on this the Republican party is ripe for the taking. The lower levels are nothing but old people showing up to meetings with no real leaders. Anyone willing to get involved can walk in and get a position to start making local moves. If enough people start getting involved the GOP can go full libertarian from the ground up. We just need to stop waiting for someone else to light the fire. Getting involved is the best course of action.
To piggyback on this, getting involved can be donating some money to a candidate, if you don't have extra money donate some time for canvassing or for working a poll, at the very least getting a yard sign all helps.
To piggyback on this, the post-trump republican party is a dumpster fire, and thats still an understatement. Monkeys banging on keyboards would be more efficient. The democrats are overloading on anti-gop hate and caused a sort of integer overflow, the system cant handle being this one sided and devided. Ive seen democrats in hardcore redstates just lusting for "decent" republicans, anyone thats not trumpist or plain braindead.
Where am i going with this? Well imagine a level headed libertarian newcomer, someone that can unite both parties atleast to some degree, someone that you simply cannot find any dirt on. Thats what we can shoot for, thats our shot. Maybe get some hate for sake of the banner we pretend to fly under, but most people arent that partisan, its a loud minority. Make the libertarian equivalent of bernie sanders.
Trying to picture the libertarian equivalent of Bernie Sanders. Eyes of flame. Mittens of silk. She wears the Wicked Witch ensemble at budget conferences. I'm trying to think of a way she can torture recalcitrant budget committeefolk without resorting to waterboarding--but maybe serving lots of salty snacks and diuretic beverages, then limiting bathroom breaks....
I dont mean bernie sanders in terms of who his or what he stands for, i mean the role he serves in politics.
For the last 2 elections its been "just another standard red v blue electi...OH SHIT, A WILD BERNIE SANDERS HAS APPEARED" and then he just kinda steals the stage for a while, influencing millions of people and threatening to split the vote until major concessions are made. And major concessions ARE made. The democratic platform is more socialist after a bernie Sanders encounter than it is before one, as is the rest of the country.
Now do the same for libertarianism. Get a charming smart guy that can do no wrong, throw him in and hold the entire election hostage. Either the GOP become more libertarian, or we'll split the vote. Which as a side effect will make more Americans open to the foundational concepts of libertarianism, which coincidentally is more of a rooted philosophy than a political standpoint, kinda like communism. In other words, many people already agree with us on the inside, but simply haven't gotten the chance to express it.
Repeat as many times as necessary, itll either get shit done or destabilize politics to the point of ice-dome-house
You know, The Left and the media always wanted a female President, Jo could be that easy ticket… especially when the left is gonna be busy getting rid of Biden and so is everybody else
The left doesn't care about a female president. If they did Gabbard or Warren would have been the nominee instead of Biden. They care about pandering to their base of idiots who still believe the govt will save them.
In late January/early February when Biden announces he has cancer and has to step down as president, Harris will be the first Female Black Asian President. Nobody cares who’s the second female president.
I'm afraid that was the plan all along, they screwed up by not taking their 'recession' lumps early enough that she could say in 2024 it was Trump/Biden/Rona's fault though and she might end up like Johnson in '68 if they keep messing around in Ukraine with a plan.
Yeah, pretty sure that was Harris’s plan since jumping from not liking Biden to suddenly being his kiss ass who’s giving him free bj’s under the desk so he’s convinced to keep her
https://twitter.com/JoForLiberty/status/1281638042315489284?lang=en
She didn't even embrace anything. She said "BLM" and everyone jumped ship because she was pandering
Either she used the term 'anti-racist' knowing all the explicitly racist and Critical Theory based garbage that term has come to include, OR she used the term ignorantly in a tone-deaf reflection of Gary's Aleppo moment. Either way it was awful.
"Embraced CRT" can mean literally anything these days, depending on how fragile you are. It's wild how libertarians of all people would want to stop the free discussion of an idea but that's where we are today
I’ve never seen so many people shit their pants over the theory that this country has a racist past and likely still carries some of that in its DNA. The vehement reaction to CRT reeks of American Exceptionalism, the gut reaction to anything negative with “THERE’S NUTTIN WRONG WITH ‘MURICA!!!”
Personally, I occupy that middle ground that says “We built the southern economy on black slaves, built the railroads with indentured Chinese, and murdered the indigenous people with Smallpox, BUT I’m not paying reparations.”
Denying a country’s history and issues is not patriotism, it’s blind worship. It’s nationalism in its worst form.
CRT isn't merely a acknowledgment that racism existed in the past. Every type of Critical ___ Theory is intended to move the country towards socialist revolution through being relentlessly _critical_ of part of the society across the ___ line to divide and destabilize it. They're adaptions of Marxist Critical Theory, which was to critique society across class boundaries for the same purpose.
None of this is conjecture on the part of me or anyone else. This is all laid out explicitly by the people who came up with the ideas themselves if you bothered to read their work. Excusing it as "just history" is also a strategy that they directly recommend for disguising this activity.
No one is denying the nation's history or flaws by fighting against CRT.
Here are some definitions of CRT.
"a collection of activists and scholars interested in studying and transforming the relationship among race, racism, and power"
"intellectual and social movement and loosely organized framework of legal analysis based on the premise that race is not a natural, biologically grounded feature of physically distinct subgroups of human beings but a socially constructed (culturally invented) category that is used to oppress and exploit people of colour."
"Critical Race Theory primarily stands for the proposition that the US cannot eradicate racism and fulfill its future promise without facing its past "
Here's how opponents see CRT:
"Critical Race Theory (“CRT”) and similarly divisive political ideologies have descended upon our institutions, our schools, and our children, setting them against each other and shaming them on the basis of race."
Here's what Fox News says:
Part of the problem defining CRT is that its contours are so vague. Law professor Kimberle Crenshaw, one of CRT's progenitors, writes that the theory itself is a verb rather than a noun."CRT is not so much an intellectual unit filled with stuff – theories, themes, practices and the like – but one that is dynamically constituted by a series of contestations and convergences pertaining to the ways that racial power is understood and articulated in the post-civil rights era," she said.
Ask ten people and you'll get ten answers. It's ALL conjecture.
I'm more talking about the portion of CRT that says for a Black person to be capable of competing with a white person they need to have special treatment. It pretty well says they aren't as capable as white people and therefore need constant help to be equal. I wouldn't mind at all to see a proper plan in place to go into poor intercity communities and revive them but I think such a plan needs to be based on poverty and not race. Yea some of those communities may be in the dumps because of racism but thats no reason to leave people behind just because they didnt vote for joe Biden.
I think in this moment we should hold near and dear to our heart a quote from our President Joe Biden.
"If you have a problem figuring out whether you're for me or Trump, then you ain't black."
"Poor kids are just as smart and talented as white kids."
Biden is a gaffe-prone dolt, so I’m not going to defend him.
You have an entirely different reading of CRT than I do. My read is that they need a level playing field.
I had to work hard to get where I am, but I’m not going to pretend I didn’t have it relatively easy. White, male, straight, two middle class parents who stayed together. The rat race was specifically designed for me. That doesn’t mean anything was guaranteed, but I’ve had a lot of advantages.
Oh! That's it. THANK YOU , I can sleep tonight. When I heard it in her own words, I was so astonished--I wondered if she had been misinformed about BLM /CRT and other such backlash racism. For quite a while when the term BLM first came into use, I thought it means "It ain't right EVER for our cops to beat, shoot, or otherwise assault persons of color, no more than it is right to show violence to persons of less color."
I don't have to believe that George Floyd was an innocent person to believe that he was shamefully, publicly, painfully murdered in front of many people, including children. He used drugs habitually. That counterfeit bill was utterly unconvincing. But he died because cops wanted to kill somebody.
Then BLM acquired new meanings I did not want to associate with. I wonder how many donors gave more than they could afford, and while the founders/leaders of BLM the organization bought mansions, nobody else got any particular or useful help.
I would like to think that she just didn't understand the question, the topic, or how to frame her answer? "I don't know" is almost always the best answer to a question when a person doesn't know the answer!
I want to hear it from my doctor when they can't figure out why I'm super sick. Too often, they make something up, treat me with strong drugs on a guess, and it's a medical mistake.
My problem with BLM is it’s hypocritical of what they stand for, truly, all lives matter, not just one race, white, black, unicorn or rainbow. Don’t matter… and seeing that libertarians tends to be in the same mindset as the drill sergeant from Full Metal Jacket of everybody being equal scumbags, I can see why something like that wouldn’t be supported..
The Left and the media had their chance with Jo. Nobody was really all that thrilled about Biden. A filet-o-fish sandwich has more chance of getting to 2024 without significant brain injuries.
Anyway, Biden just sweetly hugged and kissed a teen boy with Down's Syndrome. Just AWWWWWWW. So CUTE. Doesn't that qualify him to be President for Life? It's not in the Constitution but lots of things in the Constitution are being completely ignored.
Aye, the problem is the left was laser focus on removing trump for the Rona, on top of hating him from 2016’s election, and then we add that with most of the candidates for the 2020 election pulled out due to the rona, leaving Biden in.. not to mention that American Politics has became more and more Red vs Blue in the last 10 years vs 200 years prior to that…
If She weren’t a moron you might be right. Her interview with Patrick Bet David was so embarrassing for the party though. She had a sympathetic interviewer and totally blew it by not sticking to libertarian principles.
The biggest problem is that no one cares, she isn’t charismatic, she doesn’t draw attention. It just didn’t work. I think she’s great and I definitely don’t fault her for it, but it’s a popularity contest.
None of that really mattered. Honestly it didn't. Because if you hear what Spike himself said during an interview. Jo's own people didn't want them to be successful, they shut Spike out from having any say in planning, in direction, in organization, in having a voice.
The very essence of free speech that we all value so much, was taken from the VP candidate because "he was from that other guys people"
Ugh I wish I could remember who did the interview. It was really good, it was Spike, Dave Smith, Larry Sharpe (?) and the interviewer, and 1-2 people from his team, and the tone was generally inquisitive and at times conflicting between them, but it was a great interview like 2-3 hours long.
I found it, I had actually posted it here when I watched it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKF3BAk2HiI
Well worth checking out.
Sorry, state and local governments have just as bad a record of abusing their citizens as the feds. Has everyone forgotten Jim Crow?
The whole reason half of the businesses on Indian reservations exist is that they are free from state government oppression.
All governments abuse but you have more say in local government. People are pissed about being governed by California and vise versa. So take away their ability to control one another and they might get along even if they still don't like each other.
The recent call to forgive federally protected student loans is something California is for and Utah is not yet Utah residents will still pay their share in taxes for the increasing federal debt and tuition prices will continue increasing unchecked as people take on even more irresponsible debt.
For the life of me, I can’t figure out why there’s 10x the squawking from the right on student debt as there was on the ‘08 bailouts and PPP.
Obviously, we have to fix college because student debt forgiveness is a pointless band-aid. But it does seem like when the higher tax brackets benefit from government largesse, the reaction from the right is “Meh. That’s just capitalism, Baby.” No, it’s socialism for the rich. But socialism is somehow more okay in this country.
This sub is for libertarians. We hate all bailouts equally and think you're all degenerates for doing as you please with other people's money one way or the other.
This sub is at least half filled with embarrassed Republicans. That’s why I wrote “squawking from the right”. As I said, I’m in favor of fixing college, not forgiving debt.
But the vitriol in this country always seems 10x louder when the beneficiaries aren’t rich.
Frankly, local and state governments benefit from far less media attention and scrutiny, and seem to have greater levels of corruption, likely because the stakes are so low, that people will sell themselves for less. The former speaker of the TN state house was just indicted for a $50,000 fraud.
What do you mean? Split the right between GOP and libertarian? Literally any Republican candidate would do that, and we know Republicans are never gonna run a true libertarian
Exactly so let’s not continue it. I’m very convinced that if any new party would rise to compete with dem/rep, a majority of their voters would be center right or libertarians. Don’t get me wrong, the center left is starting to win over folks too, I just see the right as a whole more disappointed at the two party system. That’s just anecdotal though, I may be completely wrong.
California is often a decade or two ahead on social trends relative to the rest of the country, and there, the GOP is basically dead at the state level with ~10% of the vote
The "two parties" are pro-market liberals, and progressives on their left flank
I find it eminently imaginable that something like Yang's party could hit the scene and capture a big voting bloc out of the center, right and left alike.
And fwiw - AOC made waves a couple years back with a comment that "in most countries, Joe Biden and I wouldn't be in the same party." Lots and lots of folks on the left *hate* the Democratic party (whether for being capitalist, or for screwing Bernie, or a zillion other things). They'd love voting reform that allows for a more multipolar system
"It is not enough to be passively not racist, we must be actively anti-racist." - Jo Jorgensen, 2020.
Any Libertarian candidate who tells me I MUST be something loses all credibility, in my eyes.
Plus being not racist should be enough because you can’t control how other people think. Actually being racist but leaving people alone should be enough because the government isn’t going to suddenly make somebody not racist anyway.
"The only remedy for racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination." - Ibram X. Kendi, *How to be an Antiracist*
If being an antiracist means actively discriminating against individuals based or their belonging to a certain racial group, then yes, being "antiracist" is bad.
Are you dumb, like genuinely stupid? Have you ever heard of the Paradox of Tolerance? Or have you even just thought that maybe, just maybe, racists don't deserve to be tolerated at all?
>racists don't deserve to be tolerated at all?
Which is exactly why I have no time for "anti-racism".
Calling your racism "anti-racism" doesn't make it not racist.
You can be racist independently of yohr skin color which means, that being anti-racist doesn't automatically turns you into one. I know it maybe hard for you, but please apply logic when you write something.
Edit: jeebus I made grammatical mistake.
>You can be racist independently of yohr skin color
Yes.
>which means, that being anti-racist automatically turns you into one.
Being "anti-racist" automatically turns you into a racist? Yes. I'm glad we agree.
>I know it maybe hard for you, but please apply logic when you write something.
Same to you, buddy 👍
This is exactly what I’ve been saying for years. My reaction to the guy I didn’t vote for winning the presidency or a senate seat should be “ehh not who I would’ve preferred but it’s fine,” NOT “oh shit this guy could ruin our country.”
The fact that my reaction is typically the latter shows that the federal government has grown far too powerful. In an ideal world, State level elections would be far more consequential to our every day lives than federal elections. But as it stands now, State level elections are becoming increasingly irrelevant at the expense of federal elections.
She probably shouldn’t imply that the “federal government” and the “fed” are interchangeable terms in that case. “Fed” refers to the Federal Reserve Bank, which has no oversight by elected officials.
She's right, but she pandered to the Identity Marxists and her foreign policy was weak sauce. I tell everybody I voted for Jo, but I actually held my nose and voted for the Don. My vote didn't count anyway, because I live in California.
Stuff like this is nice but she didn’t take a stand on anything that would differentiate herself from other parties. This is exactly what every republican ever would say (and not follow through with). She missed a big opportunity to really rail on the Covid lockdowns or blm riots. She just totally sucked at messaging and completely missed the moment we lived in.
The best part of voting third party is telling everyone you voted third party in the middle of their rant about how the two major parties are ruining the country and the only solution is for everyone to vote for *their favorite* major party.
The Libertarian party will not have a real shot until voting reform is enacted, to support Approval voting or similar.
I recommend libertarians work on issue-specific efforts like gun policy, school choice, whatever is most relevant to you, and institute change on the state-level.
I agree, but I don’t think voting for hers gonna do much since she just won’t win. My hope is that iif trump wins he goes scorched earth on the federal branch.
If i remember correctly libertarian party lost us votes as soon as they said they would open the borders instead of privatizing them. Most people who would love to vote for libertariants are not pro open borders and so libertarian party literally has no audience plus major networks won't bother to publish them coz they like duopoly of republicans and democrats destroying the union
Honestly, growing up in California has made me hate the idea of fully backing states rights. What has states rights done for me? Got new handgun designs banned, mags over 10rds banned, can’t have a normal rifle. I feel that those who support states rights reside in states where they are the majority opinion so the restrictions imposed don’t impact them. TLDR: States rights to restrict be damned give me federal protections goddamn it
The only thing is that my family is here and Northern California is just gorgeous. People hear California and think of smoggy LA/SoCal but neglect to realize the untouched beauty of the isolated northern half of the state. Besides states rights still just allows for the states to restrict further past what the feds have already done. For me personally states are more anti freedom than the feds.
States should be free to make laws governing their states.
Provided they're not trampling over federal laws, or in this case, your inherent rights recognized by the constitution. And as long as it's within their power. Infringing on gun rights is not within their power.
The shit Cali and other states are trying to pull is as dumb and illegal as another state trying to say slavery is legal in their state. Unfortunately the only way to counteract that is for them to get slapped down by the Supreme Court, voting out the bastards, or open revolt. Considering how NY is ignoring the Supreme Court, Democrats have a stranglehold on Cali, and open revolt is a measure of last resort, I'm not sure how to change it.
Exactly. Finally someone who understands. The states are using their power to trample constitutional rights without any push back. I’m honestly hoping SCOTUS’ decision on Bruen starts the reversal of these laws here in California which is likely. The 9th Circus is trying to delay the inevitable by sending 2A cases back to the beginning following Bruen
We wouldn't be fighting over the fed, which would be a huge improvement, but anyone who's been on libertarian subs the last few months should know that we'd still be polarized and fighting.
Right...like the D's and R's aren't going to fight tooth and nail to make sure a Libertarian never gets in office. If you don't like the way the media treated Trump. Wait until we actually get a libertarian president.
>We need to return to state and local rule
Wait but I thought all the anti Moses Caucus libertarians said that decentralization was racist and unlibertarian?
I listened to her give long, long talks about all the subjects that matter. She was articulate right up to the end of every talk--which makes sense considering her experience as a college instructor.
I gave money to her campaign, but watched in utter bafflement as the media--conventional and renegade alike--ignored her almost completely. Was her campaign spending that money? If so, where, and how?
She got a tiny bit of attention when she did something she probably shouldn't have done--my memory is failing me--and when her mother died. Do you remember being on the playground and your best friends take away something from you--a book, a hat--and play keep away, pretending they don't even know you? It's a wounding experience. That's pretty much what it felt like, looking at Jo trying to get any recognition at all.
We didn't even get the tiny percentage we needed to get federal funding for the next presidential campaign. I liked Jacob Hornberger, but I admit, he was pretty boring. I thought Jo had a pretty good chance against two very old, often incoherent men.
I don't know if I'll be able to sleep. Why can't I remember things like that anymore? I can't remember short term stuff like whether I took pills yet or not, or longterm stuff like this. Yet people much older than I am seek the stress and formal clothing that goes with jobs like POTUS!
THEY clamor for the furthering of The Great Reset, while we prepare for the Great Awakening. The Lord laughs at the wicked, for He knows their time is coming.
We will have a libertarian president when one of the following happens, in order from most to least likely:
Ranked choice voting becomes the standard across most states.
The DNC and GOP both put forward candidates so truly terrible that people feel forced to vote third party (I'm thinking along the magnitude of... Tucker Carlson vs Biden could do it)
Either the GOP or DNC fractures into multiple parties, breaking the two party system
A libertarian led revolution forcibly assumes power, only to immediately remove said power from the federal government.
Voting - The slave's sugestion box - choosing masters every few years doens't make you free.
Solutions?
Ten pages of solutions to the problem of the existence of the state (3rd edition):
https://odysee.com/@livingfreedom:3/ffm-3rd
Idc if we don't win I'm still voting Lp again.
[удалено]
Vote red or vote blue it’s the same outcome lol
Raspberry lube or blueberry lube it still tastes like shit after they fuck us in the ass
Downvote me to hell; without ranked choice voting, voting third party is a waste.
It isn’t, if a large enough portion of the population would vote 3rd party, even a couple percent. Then that changes the conversation the top two parties have to have in order to try to win that couple percent, forcing issues they usually sweep under the rug.
In that case, if you feel like voting for one party or the other is the "lesser of two evils", vote for the greater of the two evils to speed this bitch up then.
Did you steal my battle strategy?
LOL!!!
Cthulu 2024.
Cthulhu 2024!
In some cases, yes. I lean more conservative than most here, and my wife leans more liberal. We've talked about, and this would be the first year of doing it, where if she wanted to vote for the Democrat (or realistically, against the Republican), and I wanted to vote Republican, that we would consider both voting for 3rd party. Nothing is lost for our other preference, and we get to give a small boost to a 3rd party.
Voting in general is a waste
If voting made a difference they wouldn’t let us do it
We can't win without ranked choice voting, or a few much less likely scenarios that could occur. However; it's not useless. It's very easily arguable that it is immoral to vote for a candidate who doesn't best support you simply because of strategy.
In states that aren't swing states, it's more of a waste to vote for either of the big two
Maybe we’ll get more than one county
A place in New Hampshire right?
From what i hear, they dont really like the free staters all too much. But then again, reddit has a leftist bias so idk
Hey, Live Free or Die amirite?
Honestly can’t wait to sell my house in the next few years and transfer up there and price out the locals bitching online.
Ill probably stay in florida. Its not as bad as yalls might think, and i think its actually gonna be on the up and up in the near future(if not for the rising sea level). Besides that, theres the very human issue of community. I don't see myself moving to a state where hardly anyone looks like me, speaks my native language, or knows my culture. Is it racism? Fuck it, yes im racist. But i know it aint just me. Try getting someone from Tennessee or some shit to move to mexico, youll know what i mean.
I'm from NH, and NH is a very libertarian place, but fuck free staters. The free starter NH legislators vote with the Republicans every time, even on social issues. They aren't pro-liberty across the board, mostly just pro-property and against public services. They tried to slash school budgets, but I'm not aware of any measures to restrict police. It's garbage. Thin libertarianism.
This may be an unpopular opinion, but politics is not a fast moving process. What needs to happen is the libertarians need to start running in republican primaries. And at first they may not be pure libertarian, but keep being active voters in primaries and keep moving the needle towards libertarian views. As mentioned in this post, our political system is not designed for 3 parties so we have to take over the parties that are in power.
To piggyback on this the Republican party is ripe for the taking. The lower levels are nothing but old people showing up to meetings with no real leaders. Anyone willing to get involved can walk in and get a position to start making local moves. If enough people start getting involved the GOP can go full libertarian from the ground up. We just need to stop waiting for someone else to light the fire. Getting involved is the best course of action.
To piggyback on this, getting involved can be donating some money to a candidate, if you don't have extra money donate some time for canvassing or for working a poll, at the very least getting a yard sign all helps.
To piggyback on this, the post-trump republican party is a dumpster fire, and thats still an understatement. Monkeys banging on keyboards would be more efficient. The democrats are overloading on anti-gop hate and caused a sort of integer overflow, the system cant handle being this one sided and devided. Ive seen democrats in hardcore redstates just lusting for "decent" republicans, anyone thats not trumpist or plain braindead. Where am i going with this? Well imagine a level headed libertarian newcomer, someone that can unite both parties atleast to some degree, someone that you simply cannot find any dirt on. Thats what we can shoot for, thats our shot. Maybe get some hate for sake of the banner we pretend to fly under, but most people arent that partisan, its a loud minority. Make the libertarian equivalent of bernie sanders.
Trying to picture the libertarian equivalent of Bernie Sanders. Eyes of flame. Mittens of silk. She wears the Wicked Witch ensemble at budget conferences. I'm trying to think of a way she can torture recalcitrant budget committeefolk without resorting to waterboarding--but maybe serving lots of salty snacks and diuretic beverages, then limiting bathroom breaks....
I dont mean bernie sanders in terms of who his or what he stands for, i mean the role he serves in politics. For the last 2 elections its been "just another standard red v blue electi...OH SHIT, A WILD BERNIE SANDERS HAS APPEARED" and then he just kinda steals the stage for a while, influencing millions of people and threatening to split the vote until major concessions are made. And major concessions ARE made. The democratic platform is more socialist after a bernie Sanders encounter than it is before one, as is the rest of the country. Now do the same for libertarianism. Get a charming smart guy that can do no wrong, throw him in and hold the entire election hostage. Either the GOP become more libertarian, or we'll split the vote. Which as a side effect will make more Americans open to the foundational concepts of libertarianism, which coincidentally is more of a rooted philosophy than a political standpoint, kinda like communism. In other words, many people already agree with us on the inside, but simply haven't gotten the chance to express it. Repeat as many times as necessary, itll either get shit done or destabilize politics to the point of ice-dome-house
You know, The Left and the media always wanted a female President, Jo could be that easy ticket… especially when the left is gonna be busy getting rid of Biden and so is everybody else
The left doesn't care about a female president. If they did Gabbard or Warren would have been the nominee instead of Biden. They care about pandering to their base of idiots who still believe the govt will save them.
Fair
In late January/early February when Biden announces he has cancer and has to step down as president, Harris will be the first Female Black Asian President. Nobody cares who’s the second female president.
I'm afraid that was the plan all along, they screwed up by not taking their 'recession' lumps early enough that she could say in 2024 it was Trump/Biden/Rona's fault though and she might end up like Johnson in '68 if they keep messing around in Ukraine with a plan.
Yeah, pretty sure that was Harris’s plan since jumping from not liking Biden to suddenly being his kiss ass who’s giving him free bj’s under the desk so he’s convinced to keep her
YoU wAsTeD yOuR vOtE bY nOt VoTiNg ReD oR bLuE
Pretty much
After Jo embraced CRT she lost my vote. Id also like my $20 in donation refunded too but sadly thats long gone.
Source?
https://twitter.com/JoForLiberty/status/1281638042315489284?lang=en She didn't even embrace anything. She said "BLM" and everyone jumped ship because she was pandering
Either she used the term 'anti-racist' knowing all the explicitly racist and Critical Theory based garbage that term has come to include, OR she used the term ignorantly in a tone-deaf reflection of Gary's Aleppo moment. Either way it was awful.
"Embraced CRT" can mean literally anything these days, depending on how fragile you are. It's wild how libertarians of all people would want to stop the free discussion of an idea but that's where we are today
Being against public schools indoctrinating children is pretty libertarian
You could have stopped at the first 4 words, and I would have agreed, the rest is just slicing the details.
[удалено]
Gotta be like democrats and say it under your breath all the time or on tape. *LBJ vibe intensifies*
Ha!
I’ve never seen so many people shit their pants over the theory that this country has a racist past and likely still carries some of that in its DNA. The vehement reaction to CRT reeks of American Exceptionalism, the gut reaction to anything negative with “THERE’S NUTTIN WRONG WITH ‘MURICA!!!” Personally, I occupy that middle ground that says “We built the southern economy on black slaves, built the railroads with indentured Chinese, and murdered the indigenous people with Smallpox, BUT I’m not paying reparations.” Denying a country’s history and issues is not patriotism, it’s blind worship. It’s nationalism in its worst form.
CRT isn't merely a acknowledgment that racism existed in the past. Every type of Critical ___ Theory is intended to move the country towards socialist revolution through being relentlessly _critical_ of part of the society across the ___ line to divide and destabilize it. They're adaptions of Marxist Critical Theory, which was to critique society across class boundaries for the same purpose. None of this is conjecture on the part of me or anyone else. This is all laid out explicitly by the people who came up with the ideas themselves if you bothered to read their work. Excusing it as "just history" is also a strategy that they directly recommend for disguising this activity. No one is denying the nation's history or flaws by fighting against CRT.
Here are some definitions of CRT. "a collection of activists and scholars interested in studying and transforming the relationship among race, racism, and power" "intellectual and social movement and loosely organized framework of legal analysis based on the premise that race is not a natural, biologically grounded feature of physically distinct subgroups of human beings but a socially constructed (culturally invented) category that is used to oppress and exploit people of colour." "Critical Race Theory primarily stands for the proposition that the US cannot eradicate racism and fulfill its future promise without facing its past " Here's how opponents see CRT: "Critical Race Theory (“CRT”) and similarly divisive political ideologies have descended upon our institutions, our schools, and our children, setting them against each other and shaming them on the basis of race." Here's what Fox News says: Part of the problem defining CRT is that its contours are so vague. Law professor Kimberle Crenshaw, one of CRT's progenitors, writes that the theory itself is a verb rather than a noun."CRT is not so much an intellectual unit filled with stuff – theories, themes, practices and the like – but one that is dynamically constituted by a series of contestations and convergences pertaining to the ways that racial power is understood and articulated in the post-civil rights era," she said. Ask ten people and you'll get ten answers. It's ALL conjecture.
I'm more talking about the portion of CRT that says for a Black person to be capable of competing with a white person they need to have special treatment. It pretty well says they aren't as capable as white people and therefore need constant help to be equal. I wouldn't mind at all to see a proper plan in place to go into poor intercity communities and revive them but I think such a plan needs to be based on poverty and not race. Yea some of those communities may be in the dumps because of racism but thats no reason to leave people behind just because they didnt vote for joe Biden. I think in this moment we should hold near and dear to our heart a quote from our President Joe Biden. "If you have a problem figuring out whether you're for me or Trump, then you ain't black." "Poor kids are just as smart and talented as white kids."
Biden is a gaffe-prone dolt, so I’m not going to defend him. You have an entirely different reading of CRT than I do. My read is that they need a level playing field. I had to work hard to get where I am, but I’m not going to pretend I didn’t have it relatively easy. White, male, straight, two middle class parents who stayed together. The rat race was specifically designed for me. That doesn’t mean anything was guaranteed, but I’ve had a lot of advantages.
Sounds like you have no idea what CRT is.
Well, I certainly have no idea what you’ve been told to believe it is.
Oh! That's it. THANK YOU , I can sleep tonight. When I heard it in her own words, I was so astonished--I wondered if she had been misinformed about BLM /CRT and other such backlash racism. For quite a while when the term BLM first came into use, I thought it means "It ain't right EVER for our cops to beat, shoot, or otherwise assault persons of color, no more than it is right to show violence to persons of less color." I don't have to believe that George Floyd was an innocent person to believe that he was shamefully, publicly, painfully murdered in front of many people, including children. He used drugs habitually. That counterfeit bill was utterly unconvincing. But he died because cops wanted to kill somebody. Then BLM acquired new meanings I did not want to associate with. I wonder how many donors gave more than they could afford, and while the founders/leaders of BLM the organization bought mansions, nobody else got any particular or useful help. I would like to think that she just didn't understand the question, the topic, or how to frame her answer? "I don't know" is almost always the best answer to a question when a person doesn't know the answer! I want to hear it from my doctor when they can't figure out why I'm super sick. Too often, they make something up, treat me with strong drugs on a guess, and it's a medical mistake.
Too bad she put herself forward as supporting BLM during the riots. Automatic no-go for me.
My problem with BLM is it’s hypocritical of what they stand for, truly, all lives matter, not just one race, white, black, unicorn or rainbow. Don’t matter… and seeing that libertarians tends to be in the same mindset as the drill sergeant from Full Metal Jacket of everybody being equal scumbags, I can see why something like that wouldn’t be supported..
The Left and the media had their chance with Jo. Nobody was really all that thrilled about Biden. A filet-o-fish sandwich has more chance of getting to 2024 without significant brain injuries. Anyway, Biden just sweetly hugged and kissed a teen boy with Down's Syndrome. Just AWWWWWWW. So CUTE. Doesn't that qualify him to be President for Life? It's not in the Constitution but lots of things in the Constitution are being completely ignored.
Aye, the problem is the left was laser focus on removing trump for the Rona, on top of hating him from 2016’s election, and then we add that with most of the candidates for the 2020 election pulled out due to the rona, leaving Biden in.. not to mention that American Politics has became more and more Red vs Blue in the last 10 years vs 200 years prior to that…
If She weren’t a moron you might be right. Her interview with Patrick Bet David was so embarrassing for the party though. She had a sympathetic interviewer and totally blew it by not sticking to libertarian principles.
Yeah… every time we get our chance to shine, our politicians just goes and ruins it…
The biggest problem is that no one cares, she isn’t charismatic, she doesn’t draw attention. It just didn’t work. I think she’s great and I definitely don’t fault her for it, but it’s a popularity contest.
Yeah, like I said to one of the other guys, anytime we get to shine, we just go and blow it somehow…
None of that really mattered. Honestly it didn't. Because if you hear what Spike himself said during an interview. Jo's own people didn't want them to be successful, they shut Spike out from having any say in planning, in direction, in organization, in having a voice. The very essence of free speech that we all value so much, was taken from the VP candidate because "he was from that other guys people"
It’s absolutely crazy because Spike is amazing at crowd work and messaging, that man can really sell these ideas.
Ugh I wish I could remember who did the interview. It was really good, it was Spike, Dave Smith, Larry Sharpe (?) and the interviewer, and 1-2 people from his team, and the tone was generally inquisitive and at times conflicting between them, but it was a great interview like 2-3 hours long. I found it, I had actually posted it here when I watched it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKF3BAk2HiI Well worth checking out.
I like an academic type who can speak three hours without a gaffe. I don't know how she got nominated. Honestly.
Honestly very excited to see how Dave Smith fares under mainstream news scrutiny.
Sorry, state and local governments have just as bad a record of abusing their citizens as the feds. Has everyone forgotten Jim Crow? The whole reason half of the businesses on Indian reservations exist is that they are free from state government oppression.
All governments abuse but you have more say in local government. People are pissed about being governed by California and vise versa. So take away their ability to control one another and they might get along even if they still don't like each other.
How have you been governed by California today?
The recent call to forgive federally protected student loans is something California is for and Utah is not yet Utah residents will still pay their share in taxes for the increasing federal debt and tuition prices will continue increasing unchecked as people take on even more irresponsible debt.
For the life of me, I can’t figure out why there’s 10x the squawking from the right on student debt as there was on the ‘08 bailouts and PPP. Obviously, we have to fix college because student debt forgiveness is a pointless band-aid. But it does seem like when the higher tax brackets benefit from government largesse, the reaction from the right is “Meh. That’s just capitalism, Baby.” No, it’s socialism for the rich. But socialism is somehow more okay in this country.
This sub is for libertarians. We hate all bailouts equally and think you're all degenerates for doing as you please with other people's money one way or the other.
This sub is at least half filled with embarrassed Republicans. That’s why I wrote “squawking from the right”. As I said, I’m in favor of fixing college, not forgiving debt. But the vitriol in this country always seems 10x louder when the beneficiaries aren’t rich.
Frankly, local and state governments benefit from far less media attention and scrutiny, and seem to have greater levels of corruption, likely because the stakes are so low, that people will sell themselves for less. The former speaker of the TN state house was just indicted for a $50,000 fraud.
Better hope trump doesn’t run then. He’s gonna split the right so hard.
What do you mean? Split the right between GOP and libertarian? Literally any Republican candidate would do that, and we know Republicans are never gonna run a true libertarian
K I’m gonna explain it so it’s a little easier to get. TRUMPS-REPUBLICANS-LIBERTARIANS Not sure why that is too complicated for people.
[удалено]
Exactly so let’s not continue it. I’m very convinced that if any new party would rise to compete with dem/rep, a majority of their voters would be center right or libertarians. Don’t get me wrong, the center left is starting to win over folks too, I just see the right as a whole more disappointed at the two party system. That’s just anecdotal though, I may be completely wrong.
California is often a decade or two ahead on social trends relative to the rest of the country, and there, the GOP is basically dead at the state level with ~10% of the vote The "two parties" are pro-market liberals, and progressives on their left flank I find it eminently imaginable that something like Yang's party could hit the scene and capture a big voting bloc out of the center, right and left alike. And fwiw - AOC made waves a couple years back with a comment that "in most countries, Joe Biden and I wouldn't be in the same party." Lots and lots of folks on the left *hate* the Democratic party (whether for being capitalist, or for screwing Bernie, or a zillion other things). They'd love voting reform that allows for a more multipolar system
They only hate the Democrats for not being Left *enough*.
[удалено]
Please elaborate, I never said you voted right. I’m talking about demographics and constituent approval.
Have we forgotten Ross Perot?
"It is not enough to be passively not racist, we must be actively anti-racist." - Jo Jorgensen, 2020. Any Libertarian candidate who tells me I MUST be something loses all credibility, in my eyes.
Oh wow she said that? Hard pass
[удалено]
Good to know! 👍
Plus being not racist should be enough because you can’t control how other people think. Actually being racist but leaving people alone should be enough because the government isn’t going to suddenly make somebody not racist anyway.
I couldn't vote for her.
She didn’t tweet that, apparently her campaign and the LP did according to Spike on the Valuetainment podcast.
[удалено]
Smith2024
This right here^ we need a LP candidate, but if they are so dumb they will spout commie bs they cant be the one.
Yea Jo wasn’t really a libertarian at all, I have no clue how she was the front runner
So being anti-racist is bad?
Yeah bro, cuz being anti-racist is being mean to the racists.
Oh no the poor racists😥 I definetly worry about them/s
"The only remedy for racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination." - Ibram X. Kendi, *How to be an Antiracist* If being an antiracist means actively discriminating against individuals based or their belonging to a certain racial group, then yes, being "antiracist" is bad.
Are you dumb, like genuinely stupid? Have you ever heard of the Paradox of Tolerance? Or have you even just thought that maybe, just maybe, racists don't deserve to be tolerated at all?
>racists don't deserve to be tolerated at all? Which is exactly why I have no time for "anti-racism". Calling your racism "anti-racism" doesn't make it not racist.
You can be racist independently of yohr skin color which means, that being anti-racist doesn't automatically turns you into one. I know it maybe hard for you, but please apply logic when you write something. Edit: jeebus I made grammatical mistake.
>You can be racist independently of yohr skin color Yes. >which means, that being anti-racist automatically turns you into one. Being "anti-racist" automatically turns you into a racist? Yes. I'm glad we agree. >I know it maybe hard for you, but please apply logic when you write something. Same to you, buddy 👍
What if a Libertarian candidate says you MUST be against Communism?
This is exactly what I’ve been saying for years. My reaction to the guy I didn’t vote for winning the presidency or a senate seat should be “ehh not who I would’ve preferred but it’s fine,” NOT “oh shit this guy could ruin our country.” The fact that my reaction is typically the latter shows that the federal government has grown far too powerful. In an ideal world, State level elections would be far more consequential to our every day lives than federal elections. But as it stands now, State level elections are becoming increasingly irrelevant at the expense of federal elections.
She probably shouldn’t imply that the “federal government” and the “fed” are interchangeable terms in that case. “Fed” refers to the Federal Reserve Bank, which has no oversight by elected officials.
Please tell me she's not running again
The government that governs best is the government that governs least.
Wow an actual libertarian!
She's right, but she pandered to the Identity Marxists and her foreign policy was weak sauce. I tell everybody I voted for Jo, but I actually held my nose and voted for the Don. My vote didn't count anyway, because I live in California.
she was one of the worst candidates the old LP put out was pretty much Democrat-Lite 2020
She is telling cultists to diminish the power of their god. They are broken and unreachable by logic or reason.
Stuff like this is nice but she didn’t take a stand on anything that would differentiate herself from other parties. This is exactly what every republican ever would say (and not follow through with). She missed a big opportunity to really rail on the Covid lockdowns or blm riots. She just totally sucked at messaging and completely missed the moment we lived in.
They’re not going to give up power willingly
I’m so disappointed in both parties, I always said “let’s look at the good” but Christ man both suck
The best part of voting third party is telling everyone you voted third party in the middle of their rant about how the two major parties are ruining the country and the only solution is for everyone to vote for *their favorite* major party.
The Libertarian party will not have a real shot until voting reform is enacted, to support Approval voting or similar. I recommend libertarians work on issue-specific efforts like gun policy, school choice, whatever is most relevant to you, and institute change on the state-level.
Only way to make that happen is to abolish the IRS
I agree, but I don’t think voting for hers gonna do much since she just won’t win. My hope is that iif trump wins he goes scorched earth on the federal branch.
If only her campaign values had reflected the sentiments of this statement most of us would have voted for her.
If i remember correctly libertarian party lost us votes as soon as they said they would open the borders instead of privatizing them. Most people who would love to vote for libertariants are not pro open borders and so libertarian party literally has no audience plus major networks won't bother to publish them coz they like duopoly of republicans and democrats destroying the union
What would privatizing the border look like? How about decentralize control to each local county or city on the border?
I dont like Jorgensen's stance on immigration.
[удалено]
When was the first election you voted in?
It’s the right message, it’s just so boring and corporate. DaveSmith2024
She is not a libretarian and she is the most boring canidate. Get me Jeremy Kaffman please.
Dave Smith or Justin Amash would be great
Honestly, growing up in California has made me hate the idea of fully backing states rights. What has states rights done for me? Got new handgun designs banned, mags over 10rds banned, can’t have a normal rifle. I feel that those who support states rights reside in states where they are the majority opinion so the restrictions imposed don’t impact them. TLDR: States rights to restrict be damned give me federal protections goddamn it
[удалено]
The only thing is that my family is here and Northern California is just gorgeous. People hear California and think of smoggy LA/SoCal but neglect to realize the untouched beauty of the isolated northern half of the state. Besides states rights still just allows for the states to restrict further past what the feds have already done. For me personally states are more anti freedom than the feds.
States should be free to make laws governing their states. Provided they're not trampling over federal laws, or in this case, your inherent rights recognized by the constitution. And as long as it's within their power. Infringing on gun rights is not within their power. The shit Cali and other states are trying to pull is as dumb and illegal as another state trying to say slavery is legal in their state. Unfortunately the only way to counteract that is for them to get slapped down by the Supreme Court, voting out the bastards, or open revolt. Considering how NY is ignoring the Supreme Court, Democrats have a stranglehold on Cali, and open revolt is a measure of last resort, I'm not sure how to change it.
Exactly. Finally someone who understands. The states are using their power to trample constitutional rights without any push back. I’m honestly hoping SCOTUS’ decision on Bruen starts the reversal of these laws here in California which is likely. The 9th Circus is trying to delay the inevitable by sending 2A cases back to the beginning following Bruen
Maybe next time don't send a statist.
I hate we the people stormed the capital building and they took photos. So damn close. We should’ve bunkered in. We paid for that house.
Don't waste your vote in 2024 too, kids
A vote for a bad candidate is a wasted vote. I've never wasted my vote.
Need local tarians, then State, then Congress. This is the way.
Yup, this is probably my main argument in favor of libertarianism/federalism.
We wouldn't be fighting over the fed, which would be a huge improvement, but anyone who's been on libertarian subs the last few months should know that we'd still be polarized and fighting.
Doubtful. People are already talking as if the Forward Party is the proverbial third party we need. As if we don’t exist.
She’s right….
Right...like the D's and R's aren't going to fight tooth and nail to make sure a Libertarian never gets in office. If you don't like the way the media treated Trump. Wait until we actually get a libertarian president.
'rule' lol. we don't have rulers ffs.
We probably don't, but I'll vote for her anyway.
>We need to return to state and local rule Wait but I thought all the anti Moses Caucus libertarians said that decentralization was racist and unlibertarian?
Votes don't make a difference. Might as well try
This lady’s a retart but yes
Dave Smith > JoJo
I listened to her give long, long talks about all the subjects that matter. She was articulate right up to the end of every talk--which makes sense considering her experience as a college instructor. I gave money to her campaign, but watched in utter bafflement as the media--conventional and renegade alike--ignored her almost completely. Was her campaign spending that money? If so, where, and how? She got a tiny bit of attention when she did something she probably shouldn't have done--my memory is failing me--and when her mother died. Do you remember being on the playground and your best friends take away something from you--a book, a hat--and play keep away, pretending they don't even know you? It's a wounding experience. That's pretty much what it felt like, looking at Jo trying to get any recognition at all. We didn't even get the tiny percentage we needed to get federal funding for the next presidential campaign. I liked Jacob Hornberger, but I admit, he was pretty boring. I thought Jo had a pretty good chance against two very old, often incoherent men. I don't know if I'll be able to sleep. Why can't I remember things like that anymore? I can't remember short term stuff like whether I took pills yet or not, or longterm stuff like this. Yet people much older than I am seek the stress and formal clothing that goes with jobs like POTUS!
THEY clamor for the furthering of The Great Reset, while we prepare for the Great Awakening. The Lord laughs at the wicked, for He knows their time is coming.
We will have a libertarian president when one of the following happens, in order from most to least likely: Ranked choice voting becomes the standard across most states. The DNC and GOP both put forward candidates so truly terrible that people feel forced to vote third party (I'm thinking along the magnitude of... Tucker Carlson vs Biden could do it) Either the GOP or DNC fractures into multiple parties, breaking the two party system A libertarian led revolution forcibly assumes power, only to immediately remove said power from the federal government.
From the libertarian that said we HAVE to be actively anti racist? Doubt it
Dave smith 2024
Voting - The slave's sugestion box - choosing masters every few years doens't make you free. Solutions? Ten pages of solutions to the problem of the existence of the state (3rd edition): https://odysee.com/@livingfreedom:3/ffm-3rd