"you are against demoralizing major parties, but demoralizing minor ones is fair game?"
Who's talking about demoralizing the party itself? I'm talking about demoralizing potential voters, donors, activists, organizers into doing nothing instead.
"Libertarians" are nothing but Losers and spoiLers for the reasons I laid out. They really don'…
"you are against demoralizing major parties, but demoralizing minor ones is fair game?"
Who's talking about demoralizing the party itself? I'm talking about demoralizing potential voters, donors, activists, organizers into doing nothing instead.
"Libertarians" are nothing but Losers and spoiLers for the reasons I laid out. They really don't even try to win. I ran a college Libertarian club long ago, was campaign manager for several libertarian campaigns, ran a Libertarian presidential office, and have followed "L" candidates closely over the decades, including New Mexico clown Gary Johnson and Massachusetts RINO gun grabber Weld, so I'm confident I know whereof I speak. And they're not real libertarians anyway. As discussed, they're de facto globalists and socialists. Is that what you want?
The only hope is for loyal conservatives to take over the Republican party, purge the corrupt RINOs, and align the party with true Republican principles.
It sounds like you are projecting. You are doing the very thing that you are against people who are critical of Republicans as doing. Replace Libertarian with Republican and it is almost an identical criticism.
I guess I am a loser then, not that I want to lose, I think if anything has demonstrated the need for less government it is the last three years.
Dave Smith, who strikes me as libertarian doesn't sound like he wants to lose, he also doesn't sound like a globalist or socialist. But then again, he isn't a candidate either. But it sounds to me like there has been a recent sea change in the libertarian party recently for the reasons you outlined. You're right in that the examples you mentioned are not libertarians. I would like to think most libertarians agree with you.
Your assertion sounds almost like the bandwagon logical fallacy. "Most people, or a majority of people act this way, so if you aren't going to join them, then your ideas don't matter at all."
How about no? No that I will not join a majority if that majority does not represent my views.
A big part of sacrifice is doing something on principle because it is the right thing to do regardless of how popular it is. I am sorry that your experience as a libertarian has left you so hopeless in that regards. It's not an easy road to have principles that go against the very way reality currently is. If I lived in China, I'd probably already be in a quarantine camp.
If I could, I would run for office, and continuously propose more and more absurd laws hopelessly clogging the system until people finally understood how arbitrary and capricious our current society has become. If enough lawmakers did this, maybe we would enact a law that made it difficult to create absurd laws.
I am sure you know of what you speak in terms of libertarians, but that doesn't mean that is all that is, or could be. If convincing people that wearing masks has taught me anything, it's that there is far more possible than we believe.
Loyalty has nothing to do with it. If you nail down most conservatives, you will find in a lot of ways they align with libertarian thinking. I think there was a recent podcast with Dave Smith who was doing this very bit of deconstruction over a criticism of libertarians by a conservative. The problem was they were criticizing libertarians but the points they were making were the very talking points of the libertarian party.
Finally, it is not a throw away vote to vote libertarian if the opposition makes the assertion that "If you vote libertarian it could cause the opposing side to win." That sounds like the libertarian vote in that case is very important. If a few percentage points make that much a difference, then I would say it is a great reason to vote libertarian.
If it is a throwaway vote, and does not matter, then why care at all what the libertarian or independent does?
Here's the rub though: we know the swamp that generated the tyranny enacted on us were not voted into powe and thus can equally be removed from power in a similar fashion. Aside from the one issue for voting, this is something that I would love to look into finding the answer to.
Also "Jury Box, Ballot Box, Ammo Box" sounds suspiciously like a mantra, which means the truth again, is more nuanced and complex.
Hardly the exact thing, and I'm far from hopeless, just very realistic about the "Libertarian" party based on actual knowledge vs wishful thinking and ignorance. The "Libertarian" party chose William Weld, a gun grabber, as it's Presidential candidate. The "Libertarian" platform is for unlimited immigration, which CLEARLY, inevitably, leads to globalism and socialism, wealth "redistribution" and destruction, crappy rat-race sardine-can quality of life. You are evading these issues, facts. EVERY Libertarian candidate I've ever seen in the last 42 years was for deluge immigration = NO USA. Those are FACTS you want to avoid. On the other hand, they pull enough votes from ignorant voters and true believers now to hand many elections to Democratic communists.
Actual knowledge does not mean that it will stay that way. Using your logic, I could argue that because our government is mandate happy on Vaccine passports and masks, that I would be realistic in saying "that's it, get vaxxed, wear your mask, and send in your absentee ballot for whatever blue check candidate in your district.
If I looked through sad moments in history, I imagine there were many similar sentiments to the way things were. How many people do you think were behind the mask mandates these past three years? Do you think it was eighty million Americans? What percentage thought up the mantras "build back better" "stay home/stay safe?" How many people actually buy into our "progressive energy policies?"
What percentage of Germans were really the evil behind the Genocide and how many went along to get along?
What percentage of Russians were ardent advocates of the policies enacted and explained in the book "Gulag Archipelego?"
How many North Koreans love all the ideas and policies perpetuated by their leader?
The Libertarian Party is not into unlimited immigration. Maybe parts of it are/were. As you know there are many different wings of each party. Again, doesn't this sound to your protests regarding critics of he Republican party? (I will beat you to the punch and assert that no, you don't think it is the same at all).
Yes, there is the sentiment "wish in one hand, s in the other and see which fills up first" but I know there are a lot of people that believe this way. Are we all "wishful thinkers?"
Look at it another way, a very small segment of our society actually believes in Wokeism. I imagine twenty years ago, the early intentions of less stigmatization of alternative lifestyles was considered "wishful thinking" but now look, Disney will probably come out with a 3D cartoon of a handicapped lesbian biracial trans princess.
Sadly, a lot of times, people think in terms of binary thinking. Did you ever stop and think that maybe the people who have a vision of the way things could be might not be merely wishful thinkers and or ignorant. That they may have actual experience of knowing how things are, but that doesn't stop them from seeing how they could be? And it starts with treating others as if it already was.
I know myself the problems with the libertarian party. You think Dave Smith, Tom Woods, and other libertarians I listen to don't talk about this or recognize its existence? You think they are teeming with wishful thinking and ignorance. I would be the first to plead ignorance, but I've known I was libertarian in nature as early as eighteen. The idea of a laissez faire government sounded great. To be left alone — sign me up.
Socialism and Globalism is as far from libertarian as Individualism is from collectivism. Those who have perpetuated globalism and socialism in its name don't know what it means any more than the left who talk about democracy also talk about policies concerning the tyranny of caring know what they are talking about.
When you were part of these different college libertarian groups, did you believe in socialism and globalism?
Freedom to make decisions means freedom to make bad decisions, unsafe decisions, etc.
At the center of it, libertarianism is into private ownership, how is that congruent with socialism and globalism? While all are welcome into this country, it is obvious they can't be simply allowed to walk in and go anywhere as that would infringe on an individuals right to do what they want on their property.
Also at the center of Libertarianism is free market/enterprise. It sounds to me that the type of libertarians you are hanging around sound like leftists, who in parlance of our time, have hijacked and attempted to redefine libertariansm in the same way that they have redefined vaccine, immunity, and a number of other words.
Just so we are on the same page, I googled libertarian and this is the definition I am talking about:
an advocate or supporter of a political philosophy that advocates only minimal state intervention in the free market and the private lives of citizens.
As opposed to socialism which is:
a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
I am not evading these issues, nor am I ignoring their existence, just understand this is not what libertarian means. Just as the real policies of Covid that exist were predicated on Falsehood, so also the candidates who advocated for these socialistic and globalist policies were based on a false definition of what they asserted was "libertarian."
But the left is good at that, isn't it? Co-opting definitions and redefining them as the opposite of what they actually are.
Words like "safe and effective" describe something that is leaky and harmful.
"Inflation Reduction Act" is something that describes policies that will lead to more government bloat, and inflation.
I know liberals who are as against the Leftist agenda that has hijacked the democrat party, as well as Conservatives who are against the anemic response of the Republican party, and there is a growing grass roots movement of libertarians who resent the socialistic wing of those who have hijacked the libertarian party.
First things first, list all the libertarian candidates you have seen over the last 42 years.
Finally, if libertarians are a throw-away vote, then why should you care if they vote for pie-in-the-sky ideals. Consider this, they weren't going to vote for your candidate anyhow. I certainly have no overriding desire to vote Kemp "Let' extend the emergency powers just a little bit longer."
No. Busy here, and you're just being evasive, tossing strawman diversions and deflections and smokescreens like a leftist because you haven't a clue what you're on about. Just spouting opinions with no research, no experience. Bad faith arguments. And projection too, but you preemptively made the accusation, like a leftist would. Moreover, I suspect you yourself support mass immigration.
What am I diverting and deflecting? And isn't saying you are "busy" a deflection? What opinions am I spouting without research or experience?
What are the bad faith arguments? What is the projection in my case? What accusation have I made preemptively?
But let me see here if I have all the things you have called me thus far...
Ignorant
Leftist
Inexperienced
Supporter of Mass Immigration
Projector
Lazy
Clueless
Using Bad Faith Arguments
I do support immigration, but not mass immigration. While I don't like walls, they do work. If they didn't work, then why all the pushback against them? What do you define as mass immigration?
If you scroll up your original criticism was on "Tarring every single R with the same brush, e.g. Marjory Taylor Green & Steve Bannon, is a ridiculous, simplistic, self-serving excuse for doing nothing."
And yet here is what you said regarding libertarians:
'Voting "Libertarian" sure won't do it. The "L" stands for Loser (and spoiLer). And if there's no free elections, "Ls" would never be allowed to win anyway.'
"you are against demoralizing major parties, but demoralizing minor ones is fair game?"
Who's talking about demoralizing the party itself? I'm talking about demoralizing potential voters, donors, activists, organizers into doing nothing instead.
"Libertarians" are nothing but Losers and spoiLers for the reasons I laid out. They really don't even try to win. I ran a college Libertarian club long ago, was campaign manager for several libertarian campaigns, ran a Libertarian presidential office, and have followed "L" candidates closely over the decades, including New Mexico clown Gary Johnson and Massachusetts RINO gun grabber Weld, so I'm confident I know whereof I speak. And they're not real libertarians anyway. As discussed, they're de facto globalists and socialists. Is that what you want?
The only hope is for loyal conservatives to take over the Republican party, purge the corrupt RINOs, and align the party with true Republican principles.
It sounds like you are projecting. You are doing the very thing that you are against people who are critical of Republicans as doing. Replace Libertarian with Republican and it is almost an identical criticism.
I guess I am a loser then, not that I want to lose, I think if anything has demonstrated the need for less government it is the last three years.
Dave Smith, who strikes me as libertarian doesn't sound like he wants to lose, he also doesn't sound like a globalist or socialist. But then again, he isn't a candidate either. But it sounds to me like there has been a recent sea change in the libertarian party recently for the reasons you outlined. You're right in that the examples you mentioned are not libertarians. I would like to think most libertarians agree with you.
Your assertion sounds almost like the bandwagon logical fallacy. "Most people, or a majority of people act this way, so if you aren't going to join them, then your ideas don't matter at all."
How about no? No that I will not join a majority if that majority does not represent my views.
A big part of sacrifice is doing something on principle because it is the right thing to do regardless of how popular it is. I am sorry that your experience as a libertarian has left you so hopeless in that regards. It's not an easy road to have principles that go against the very way reality currently is. If I lived in China, I'd probably already be in a quarantine camp.
If I could, I would run for office, and continuously propose more and more absurd laws hopelessly clogging the system until people finally understood how arbitrary and capricious our current society has become. If enough lawmakers did this, maybe we would enact a law that made it difficult to create absurd laws.
I am sure you know of what you speak in terms of libertarians, but that doesn't mean that is all that is, or could be. If convincing people that wearing masks has taught me anything, it's that there is far more possible than we believe.
Loyalty has nothing to do with it. If you nail down most conservatives, you will find in a lot of ways they align with libertarian thinking. I think there was a recent podcast with Dave Smith who was doing this very bit of deconstruction over a criticism of libertarians by a conservative. The problem was they were criticizing libertarians but the points they were making were the very talking points of the libertarian party.
Finally, it is not a throw away vote to vote libertarian if the opposition makes the assertion that "If you vote libertarian it could cause the opposing side to win." That sounds like the libertarian vote in that case is very important. If a few percentage points make that much a difference, then I would say it is a great reason to vote libertarian.
If it is a throwaway vote, and does not matter, then why care at all what the libertarian or independent does?
Here's the rub though: we know the swamp that generated the tyranny enacted on us were not voted into powe and thus can equally be removed from power in a similar fashion. Aside from the one issue for voting, this is something that I would love to look into finding the answer to.
Also "Jury Box, Ballot Box, Ammo Box" sounds suspiciously like a mantra, which means the truth again, is more nuanced and complex.
Hardly the exact thing, and I'm far from hopeless, just very realistic about the "Libertarian" party based on actual knowledge vs wishful thinking and ignorance. The "Libertarian" party chose William Weld, a gun grabber, as it's Presidential candidate. The "Libertarian" platform is for unlimited immigration, which CLEARLY, inevitably, leads to globalism and socialism, wealth "redistribution" and destruction, crappy rat-race sardine-can quality of life. You are evading these issues, facts. EVERY Libertarian candidate I've ever seen in the last 42 years was for deluge immigration = NO USA. Those are FACTS you want to avoid. On the other hand, they pull enough votes from ignorant voters and true believers now to hand many elections to Democratic communists.
Actual knowledge does not mean that it will stay that way. Using your logic, I could argue that because our government is mandate happy on Vaccine passports and masks, that I would be realistic in saying "that's it, get vaxxed, wear your mask, and send in your absentee ballot for whatever blue check candidate in your district.
If I looked through sad moments in history, I imagine there were many similar sentiments to the way things were. How many people do you think were behind the mask mandates these past three years? Do you think it was eighty million Americans? What percentage thought up the mantras "build back better" "stay home/stay safe?" How many people actually buy into our "progressive energy policies?"
What percentage of Germans were really the evil behind the Genocide and how many went along to get along?
What percentage of Russians were ardent advocates of the policies enacted and explained in the book "Gulag Archipelego?"
How many North Koreans love all the ideas and policies perpetuated by their leader?
The Libertarian Party is not into unlimited immigration. Maybe parts of it are/were. As you know there are many different wings of each party. Again, doesn't this sound to your protests regarding critics of he Republican party? (I will beat you to the punch and assert that no, you don't think it is the same at all).
Yes, there is the sentiment "wish in one hand, s in the other and see which fills up first" but I know there are a lot of people that believe this way. Are we all "wishful thinkers?"
Look at it another way, a very small segment of our society actually believes in Wokeism. I imagine twenty years ago, the early intentions of less stigmatization of alternative lifestyles was considered "wishful thinking" but now look, Disney will probably come out with a 3D cartoon of a handicapped lesbian biracial trans princess.
Sadly, a lot of times, people think in terms of binary thinking. Did you ever stop and think that maybe the people who have a vision of the way things could be might not be merely wishful thinkers and or ignorant. That they may have actual experience of knowing how things are, but that doesn't stop them from seeing how they could be? And it starts with treating others as if it already was.
I know myself the problems with the libertarian party. You think Dave Smith, Tom Woods, and other libertarians I listen to don't talk about this or recognize its existence? You think they are teeming with wishful thinking and ignorance. I would be the first to plead ignorance, but I've known I was libertarian in nature as early as eighteen. The idea of a laissez faire government sounded great. To be left alone — sign me up.
Socialism and Globalism is as far from libertarian as Individualism is from collectivism. Those who have perpetuated globalism and socialism in its name don't know what it means any more than the left who talk about democracy also talk about policies concerning the tyranny of caring know what they are talking about.
When you were part of these different college libertarian groups, did you believe in socialism and globalism?
Freedom to make decisions means freedom to make bad decisions, unsafe decisions, etc.
At the center of it, libertarianism is into private ownership, how is that congruent with socialism and globalism? While all are welcome into this country, it is obvious they can't be simply allowed to walk in and go anywhere as that would infringe on an individuals right to do what they want on their property.
Also at the center of Libertarianism is free market/enterprise. It sounds to me that the type of libertarians you are hanging around sound like leftists, who in parlance of our time, have hijacked and attempted to redefine libertariansm in the same way that they have redefined vaccine, immunity, and a number of other words.
Just so we are on the same page, I googled libertarian and this is the definition I am talking about:
an advocate or supporter of a political philosophy that advocates only minimal state intervention in the free market and the private lives of citizens.
As opposed to socialism which is:
a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
I am not evading these issues, nor am I ignoring their existence, just understand this is not what libertarian means. Just as the real policies of Covid that exist were predicated on Falsehood, so also the candidates who advocated for these socialistic and globalist policies were based on a false definition of what they asserted was "libertarian."
But the left is good at that, isn't it? Co-opting definitions and redefining them as the opposite of what they actually are.
Words like "safe and effective" describe something that is leaky and harmful.
"Inflation Reduction Act" is something that describes policies that will lead to more government bloat, and inflation.
I know liberals who are as against the Leftist agenda that has hijacked the democrat party, as well as Conservatives who are against the anemic response of the Republican party, and there is a growing grass roots movement of libertarians who resent the socialistic wing of those who have hijacked the libertarian party.
First things first, list all the libertarian candidates you have seen over the last 42 years.
Finally, if libertarians are a throw-away vote, then why should you care if they vote for pie-in-the-sky ideals. Consider this, they weren't going to vote for your candidate anyhow. I certainly have no overriding desire to vote Kemp "Let' extend the emergency powers just a little bit longer."
"The Libertarian Party is not into unlimited immigration."
Wrong. Do your homework.
"Wrong, Do Your homework"
At some point this all starts to sound like ad nauseam ad hominem attacks does not not?
No. Busy here, and you're just being evasive, tossing strawman diversions and deflections and smokescreens like a leftist because you haven't a clue what you're on about. Just spouting opinions with no research, no experience. Bad faith arguments. And projection too, but you preemptively made the accusation, like a leftist would. Moreover, I suspect you yourself support mass immigration.
What am I diverting and deflecting? And isn't saying you are "busy" a deflection? What opinions am I spouting without research or experience?
What are the bad faith arguments? What is the projection in my case? What accusation have I made preemptively?
But let me see here if I have all the things you have called me thus far...
Ignorant
Leftist
Inexperienced
Supporter of Mass Immigration
Projector
Lazy
Clueless
Using Bad Faith Arguments
I do support immigration, but not mass immigration. While I don't like walls, they do work. If they didn't work, then why all the pushback against them? What do you define as mass immigration?
If you scroll up your original criticism was on "Tarring every single R with the same brush, e.g. Marjory Taylor Green & Steve Bannon, is a ridiculous, simplistic, self-serving excuse for doing nothing."
And yet here is what you said regarding libertarians:
'Voting "Libertarian" sure won't do it. The "L" stands for Loser (and spoiLer). And if there's no free elections, "Ls" would never be allowed to win anyway.'