Why was the Libertarian Party of the US not more successful (1972-1996)?

Home Forums History Why was the Libertarian Party of the US not more successful (1972-1996)?

Viewing 53 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #174582
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Why was the Libertarian Party of the US not more successful (1972-1996)? A platform combining economic and cultural libertarianism with foreign policy non-interventionism sounds like it would be popular in those times, particularly the 90s.

    • #174583
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Libertarians have always been a joke

      • #174585
        Anonymous
        Guest

        This. A perfect illustration of this imo is the description of the 1987 Libertarian Party Convention in the book "Ron Paul’s Revolution" by Brian Doherty. Paul was absolutely stunned by the fact that he almost lost the 1988 nomination to an American Indian domestic terrorist Russell Means.

        • #174729
          Anonymous
          Guest

          >Paul was absolutely stunned by the fact that he almost lost the 1988 nomination to an American Indian domestic terrorist Russell Means.
          The Last of the Mohicans guy? Why was Paul stunned? It seems somewhat strange to me that a self-described libertarian like Ron Paul is "stunned" at the attraction of libertarians to a guy at odds with the U.S. federal government. Because he’s "Injun?"

          Because most "libertarians" aren’t actually libertarian, but larpers who want to use "freedom" for their gain, but without the consequences of it.
          >Oh yeah! I’m totally pro-second ammendment guys! Fuck gungrabbers!
          >W-Wait, why does that black guy have a rocket launcher in his shoulders..?
          As a result, The Republican Party is more appealing as you can just scream "states rights" instead since the state can specify the freedom more so that it’s convenient to you, but not necessarily towards everyone else.

          >Because most "libertarians" aren’t actually libertarian, but larpers who want to use "freedom" for their gain, but without the consequences of it.
          I think there are two forks of libertarianism between the modernist Ayn Rand ideologues and a kind of 19th-century white paleolibertarianism in which "freedom" basically means white supremacy but nestled comfortably within the context of a kind of Apartheid liberalism with whites as the privileged land-owning and business-owning class. This is a pre-fascist conception of the world and tied up with a kind of original "Americanism" and where "freedom" means freedom from federal laws that prohibit segregating a privately-owned gated community and privately-owned businesses. It’s not the same thing as submitting to the national will and I think it’s why some really hard-right European fascists on /poo/ who really do believe in a big, powerful state get really confused by Americans who believe in what I was just talking about.

          Incidentally, I think the "libertarian-to-fascist pipeline" is not so simple, as some also become socialists. Ayn Rand is interesting because she grew up in the USSR and her philosophy is basically the first third of Marxism in terms of methodological questions and the nature of man, but Rand flipped some things around, so capitalists become a "productive" class who are held back from unleashing human potential by the state and literally go on strike in one of her books. Even the aesthetics are kinda similar to socialism.

          https://youtu.be/uCTvfBqHDzM

          • #174736
            Anonymous
            Guest

            >This is a pre-fascist conception of the world and tied up with a kind of original "Americanism" and where "freedom" means freedom from federal laws that prohibit segregating a privately-owned gated community and privately-owned businesses
            Excepting that said Federal laws were never constitutional.

    • #174584
      Anonymous
      Guest

      1. Third parties have always done poorly in U.S. elections.

      2. The Libertarian Party is full of, and run by, people who want to smoke weed, jerk off to extreme porn, and not pay taxes. In practice, this leads to letting corporations run our lives, which results in social degeneracy.

      • #174675
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Kind of like what’s happened with non-libertarian administrations? Just say you’re scrotebrained next time

      • #174716
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >1. Third parties have always done poorly in U.S. elections

        Perot did pretty good and Jesse Ventura won governor of Minnesota

        • #174772
          Anonymous
          Guest

          The US uses the same electoral system as the UK, which is characterized by first-past-the-post elections and single-seat small voting districts.
          This systems unequivocally ends up with bipartidism between moderate parties that cater to the centrists without deviating too much.

          The fact that third parties of any kind are politically irrelevant in America is not something unique to America, it would happen anywhere if those electoral rules were put in place. In the UK third parties are almost irrelevant, and the only reason they have some degree of importance is because the UK is a parliamentarian government, not a presidential one like the US.

          Any other answer is bullshit.

          >Perot did pretty good
          Percentage of votes is an irrelevant metric, the only thing that matters is percentage of political positions. In that regard Perot was a complete failure.
          The difference between electoral systems boils down to how they translate votes into positions.

    • #174586
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Third parties have a huge structural disadvantage in a first past the post electoral system, because there’s never any incentive to vote for anybody other than the top two candidates.

      Also, libertarianism is scrotebrained from a policy standpoint, because you’re basically saying to return to the economic policy and foreign policy of the 1920s, despite the fact that that led to the Great Depression and WW2 the last time we tried it.

      • #174589
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >Also, libertarianism is scrotebrained from a policy standpoint, because you’re basically saying to return to the economic policy and foreign policy of the 1920s, despite the fact that that led to the Great Depression and WW2 the last time we tried it.
        gave yourself away, LBJscrote

        • #174590
          Anonymous
          Guest

          > LBJscrote
          obsessed

        • #174592
          Anonymous
          Guest

          Anon, no Republican president has wanted to return to the 1920s either.

          Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan and Bush all tacitly agreed that some elements of New Deal policy were politically and practically indispensable. Not to mention the fact that the GOP hate communists with a passion and libertarian’s answer to global communism is just to go nothing.

          Both major parties have very valid reasons to dislike libertarians.

          • #174593
            Anonymous
            Guest

            >Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan and Bush all tacitly agreed that some elements of New Deal policy were politically and practically indispensable
            Was not it a Democrat president Bill Clinton that did abolish the Glass-Steagle Act?

            • #174596
              Anonymous
              Guest

              >Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan and Bush all tacitly agreed that some elements of New Deal policy were politically indispensable
              "Politically indispensable" is a far cry from "economically viable", also you’re talking out your ass because both Nixon and Reagan were harsh critics of New Deal policy, which was basically just progressive era pork barrel politics.

              Yeah, but every postwar president

              >kept social security
              >kept an interventionist monetary policy
              >kept a federal government that was much, much larger as a percentage of GDP than before FDR

              Even further than that, when LBJ passed Medicare and Medicaid, the Republicans quickly decided that those were unassailable.

              • #174600
                Anonymous
                Guest

                Very disingenuous, there were 90 New Deal programs created by FDR and dozens more proposed. Only 7 exist today

                • #174601
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  The size and scope of the government ballooned a fuckload more under LBJ and Nixon.

                  • #174603
                    Anonymous
                    Guest

                    You mean under LBJ’s Great Society? Which was basically just a revival of FDR’s pork barrel politics?

                • #174604
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  Yeah, but no postwar president has ever seriously considered returning to what US government was like before the New Deal.

                  Even under GOP administrations, government spending as a percentage of GDP stays static or even rises.

                  Libertarians represent something that has been a fringe view in American politics since the 1940s.

                  • #174610
                    Anonymous
                    Guest

                    Very disingenuous, there were 90 New Deal programs created by FDR and dozens more proposed. Only 7 exist today

                    Other than a few things like Social Security and Federal unemployment insurance there’s not a lot let of the New Deal policies today.

                    • #174612
                      Anonymous
                      Guest

                      I believe Federal farm subsidies? Those should definitely go and Reagan is to my knowledge the only president who ever proposed it.

                    • #174614
                      Anonymous
                      Guest

                      >no postwar president has ever seriously considered returning to what US government was like before the New Deal.
                      >93% of all new deal programs have been deleted

                      Yeah, but the libertarian platform is to restore government spending as a percentage of GDP to minarchist levels, which is something that the US has never done at any point since the New Deal.

                      • #174615
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        And what’s wrong with that? The system has quite a few freeloaders

                      • #174620
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        and?
                        Do our government need to be a giant pated piece of shit? leftists are delusional they see a a giant unwieldy inhuman system that they themselves decry as oppressive, yet they are seemingly convinced the solution is to expand, change, control and otherwise regulate the monstrosity into submission (to them in particular) rather than starving it of it’s life blood.
                        The government can only be as corrupt and wasteful as it is opaque, wealthy, and massive

                      • #174634
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Government is the only thing keeping you from being exploited by corporations, dude.

                      • #174641
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        the government and cooperation hold hands while they Eiffel-tower all of us, they are one the in same. Cooperations become large, dominate a specific market, then use lobbying, bribes, nepotism, blackmail and every other tool to get a say in making regulations for their own industries.
                        These rarely do anything but add poison to the water, not enough that it effects giant multinationals that are constrained by no single government, but more than enough to keep any real competition from forming.

                      • #174726
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >then use lobbying, bribes, nepotism, blackmail and every other tool to get a say in making regulations for their own industries.
                        It’s like economic power is political power, or something.

                      • #174700
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Yeah because the New Deal literally made the society we are in.

                  • #174613
                    Anonymous
                    Guest

                    >no postwar president has ever seriously considered returning to what US government was like before the New Deal.
                    >93% of all new deal programs have been deleted

                    • #174618
                      Anonymous
                      Guest

                      >93% of all new deal programs have been deleted

                      The bullshit that LBJ and Nixon created however…I have yet to see anyone call for abolishing the EPA and all the other shit they made.

                      • #174622
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >EPA
                        >new deal program
                        You’re really reaching scrote

                • #174830
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  Because they were created to recover from the Depression scrotebrain.

            • #174606
              Anonymous
              Guest

              >Was not it a Democrat president Bill Clinton that did abolish the Glass-Steagle Act?
              It was an act of a veto-proof congress

          • #174594
            Anonymous
            Guest

            >Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan and Bush all tacitly agreed that some elements of New Deal policy were politically indispensable
            "Politically indispensable" is a far cry from "economically viable", also you’re talking out your ass because both Nixon and Reagan were harsh critics of New Deal policy, which was basically just progressive era pork barrel politics.

            • #174595
              Anonymous
              Guest

              You do realize when Reagan first entered politics in the 60s he was a Goldwater-tier libertarian who wanted to turn the clock back to 1928 and abolish Social Security, right? He only managed to become a viable presidential candidate when he moderated his stances on that stuff.

              • #174598
                Anonymous
                Guest

                >dude when Reagan was young he worshiped FDR for employing his dad
                >but when he grew up he realized his heroes were false which pushed him into politics
                It’s only and interesting story if you tell all of it

              • #174617
                Anonymous
                Guest

                >Reagan first entered politics in the 60s he was a Goldwater-tier libertarian
                Now describe Democrat’s of the 60s and how terrible they were. If you want to be fair. Reagan was practically a saint even then.
                >when he moderated his stances on that stuff.
                New Deal is and was still a terrible idea that threatens to bankrupt the US. You can’t argue that cocaine is good because threatening to take it away is bad.

                • #174637
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  The new deal directly led to the US overwhelming economic boom in WW2 and the post war period. The problem is we don’t have a new deal every few decades.

                  • #174640
                    Anonymous
                    Guest

                    I’m pretty sure WWII did that and realistically prosperity didn’t return until the 50s when we had a more-or-less hands-off Republican administration.

                    • #174642
                      Anonymous
                      Guest

                      >I’m pretty sure WWII did that

                      WW2 was another, even larger bout of Keynesian stimulus

                      >realistically prosperity didn’t return until the 50s

                      No

                      >when we had a more-or-less hands-off Republican administration

                      Eisenhower? That entire generation got rich off of the GI bill and union jobs.

                      • #174644
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >WW2 was another, even larger bout of Keynesian stimulus
                        At the expense of millions dying or being mentally or physically damaged for their life.

                      • #174658
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        I agree war is a good economic stimulus (the Civil War was as much of one as WWII) but do you really want to do that?

                      • #174665
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        I agree war is a good economic stimulus (the Civil War was as much of one as WWII) but do you really want to do that?

                        Just do the part where you’re spending money without the part where you’re killing people.

                        2ez

                      • #174668
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        The New Deal amounted to throwing tons of money down a sinkhole so you tell me.

                      • #174891
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Are you seriously arguing against our involvement in the second world war?

                    • #174646
                      Anonymous
                      Guest

                      we would have gotten out of the Depression by 1935 but for FDR’s fuckery

                    • #174701
                      Anonymous
                      Guest

                      Jesus Christ read a book. The New Deal literally brought a massive chunk of America from subsistence farming. It brought power to regions with none. Those regions still live by those programs (TVA motherfucker). The New Deal made our economic boom possible by modernizing huge chunks of America and laying infrastructure to enable trade. To think that somehow a war that pulled resources from the nation and called for rationing created a boom is silly. Even the post war boom could only be leveraged thanks to the New Deal reforms that made living easier and better.

                      • #174702
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Subsistence farming during the dust bowl?

                      • #174703
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        the New Deal was just pork barrel projects to FDR’s supporters, it did nothing but squander money. what did create something was the massive industrial over-capacity built as a result of the war.

                      • #174706
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >the New Deal was just pork barrel projects
                        This, the oldest corrupt politician play in the book. Build a bridge with borrowed money and have citizens pay for it and then tell them that it’s a gift

                  • #174647
                    Anonymous
                    Guest

                    >The new deal directly led to the US overwhelming economic boom
                    People actually believe this

      • #174619
        Anonymous
        Guest

        It always seemed to me Trump was big fan of returning to 1920s isolationist foreign policy so you tell me.

        • #174621
          Anonymous
          Guest

          Tell that to Yemen.

          • #174625
            Anonymous
            Guest

            What?
            They are poor and isolationist because they are a a fractured collection of tribes barley able to function ad a modern nation state who have been at war with the Saudis for ever

            Comparing the two is pointless and softmoric

            • #174627
              Anonymous
              Guest

              I didn’t know isolationism had a ‘but they suck, so it’s cool’ cop-out.

              • #174630
                Anonymous
                Guest

                It always had. When usa was "isolationist" it was not involved much in europe because it was busy blowing up south america.

              • #174636
                Anonymous
                Guest

                I am pointing out that your whole argument is backwards and it it’s pointless to compare the two (USA and Yemen) saying:
                >"they are they are poor and isolationist, therefore a more isolationist USA would also be poor"
                isnt a good argument.

                One is a content spanning nation with entrenched internal subdivisions the other is a small desert badland that has always been an impoverished backwater, who have also been at war with the Saudi’s for decades.
                You might as well try to make the same argument with China and the DPRK simply because they both are/were communist

                • #174638
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  I meant to United States supporting Saudi Arabia with weapons and logistics in their war with Yemen.

                  • #174643
                    Anonymous
                    Guest

                    ah I completely misunderstood your argument, I thought you were trying to compare a potentially isolationist USA to modern day Yemen. Not making a point about US foreign interventionism

                    • #174645
                      Anonymous
                      Guest

                      Easy mistake to make, don’t sweat it.

      • #174624
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >Third parties have a huge structural disadvantage in a first past the post electoral system, because there’s never any incentive to vote for anybody other than the top two candidates.
        Well that just means that you need your party to win more grass root and local elections in order to get people to like your ideas and spread its message. Not just decide to run for president with a literal who party that no one cares about.

      • #174679
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >libertarianism is scrotebrained from a policy standpoint, because you’re basically saying to return to the economic policy and foreign policy of the 1920s, despite the fact that that led to the Great Depression and WW2

        if the US actually had libertarianism, the US wouldn’t have been involved in WW1 and the US wouldn’t have created the Federal Reserve to inflate the money supply to pay for WW1, so there wouldn’t have been any excess funds to create the massive speculation that caused Great Depression.

        • #174682
          Anonymous
          Guest

          Even with the Civil War they had to cheat by printing fiat greenbacks and enacting a temporary income tax.

        • #174683
          Anonymous
          Guest

          >and the US wouldn’t have created the Federal Reserve to inflate the money supply to pay for WW1
          The Federal Reserve was created in 1913 before WWI had even started.

        • #174688
          Anonymous
          Guest

          Kind of questionable to say that government intervention created the Great Depression when there was a constant boom-bust cycle of overspeculation and panics before that.

          • #174689
            Anonymous
            Guest

            Most economic downturns in American history were caused by the government doing something scrotebrained.

        • #174696
          Anonymous
          Guest

          The great depression was caused by shitty agricultural practices depleting the topsoil.

    • #174587
      Anonymous
      Guest
      • #174629
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >Libertarian
        >iron cross tattoo

        EVERYTIME

    • #174588
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Because it’s not actually libertarianism, it’s anarco-capitalism. Fun fact, their first candidate was a garden gnome from new York who married a distant cousin

      • #174623
        Anonymous
        Guest

        > who married a distant cousin
        Nothing wrong with that.

        • #174626
          Anonymous
          Guest

          It is when you’re a garden gnome and you’re already inbred

          • #174697
            Anonymous
            Guest

            says the redneck

    • #174591
      Anonymous
      Guest

      I feel that they didn’t do themselves a favor by talking about stuff like abolishing Social Security.

      • #174597
        Anonymous
        Guest

        dont americans love freedom?

        • #174686
          Anonymous
          Guest

          Old people love free money when they retire.

          • #174740
            Anonymous
            Guest

            >free money
            t. underaged poster. You pay into social security with every check you make. It comes out of your paycheck and goes into a trust that you can access after a certain age. It’s basically a guaranteed retirement fund and you better believe I’m cashing those checks when I’m old enough.

            • #174831
              Anonymous
              Guest

              It’s not going to exist when you’re old enough

      • #174712
        Anonymous
        Guest

        In all fairness a lot of Ron Paul’s positions have been grossly distorted over the past 30+ years by Clintonites and their media bullhorn.

        • #174713
          Anonymous
          Guest

          To be fair I’m not sure exactly what he did stand for beyond some mumbling about abolishing the Federal Reserve and reviving the gold standard.

    • #174599
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Most people I suppose aren’t against some sort of basic social safety net. However there are a lot of letter agencies that very much should be axed because they’re useless/corrupt/unconstitutional.

      • #174890
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Yeah I agree.
        Part of Libertarianism’s problem is that it’s an a very rigid and dogmatic party fully dedicated to either AnCap shit or Ayn Randism, both of which are hugely unpopular.

        If they moderated and were just a small government, non interventionalist, liberal party they would do better and maybe even win elections.

    • #174602
      Anonymous
      Guest

      I don’t think libertarians have had a real coherent road map or vision for the country beyond a few vague remarks about legalizing weed. Ron Paul’s obsession with the gold standard was dumb too.

      • #174741
        Anonymous
        Guest

        The Ron Paul scrotes of 2012 were even more annoying than Bernie Bros in 2016

    • #174605
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Because most "libertarians" aren’t actually libertarian, but larpers who want to use "freedom" for their gain, but without the consequences of it.
      >Oh yeah! I’m totally pro-second ammendment guys! Fuck gungrabbers!
      >W-Wait, why does that black guy have a rocket launcher in his shoulders..?
      As a result, The Republican Party is more appealing as you can just scream "states rights" instead since the state can specify the freedom more so that it’s convenient to you, but not necessarily towards everyone else.

      • #174607
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >pointlessly bringing race into this
        Dropped.

        • #174687
          Anonymous
          Guest

          Literally the definition of the left. Their entire worldview and view of the republician party comes from /poo/ posts. Meanwhile actual american right wingers stay in the youtube comment section of fox news.

      • #174608
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >why does that black guy have a rocket launcher in his shoulders
        that sounds badass

      • #174611
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >why does that black guy have a rocket launcher in his shoulders..?
        Sounds like my freaking sis

      • #174684
        Anonymous
        Guest

        I want that black guy to have a rocket launcher in his shoulders. It implies he’s willing to work out, and it implies he’s willing to put himself at risk to fight for the things he believes in, unlike traditional leftie subhuman scrotes. That black dude is our guy. scrotebrain.

    • #174609
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Because Republicans branded themselves as fiscal conservatives and
      ‘libertarian-leaning" while also picking up the mantle of social/religious conservatism to appeal to evangelicals.

      Just say ‘abortion bad and welfare bad’, and you can be as crony capitalist as much as they want to be. Because the average republican voter knows shit about anything and doesn’t actually care about Austrian economics enough to vote libertarian over republican and maybe doesn’t even know that the republicans are not librarians in the first place, if they could even define roughly what libertarianism is asides from ‘government bad’ in vague emotional descriptions.

      • #174633
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >librarians
        kek

      • #174661
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Ask me how I know you come from reddit

    • #174616
      Anonymous
      Guest

      our system makes it so that if you vote 3rd party you’re actively hurting your own interests

    • #174628
      Anonymous
      Guest

      American system doesnt allow for a 3rd party.
      And libertarianism is simply unpopular.

    • #174631
      Anonymous
      Guest

      why does looneytoonarian policy always boil down to "I want the freedom to get high and look at CP?"

      • #174639
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >why does looneytoonarian policy always boil down to "I want the freedom to get high and look at CP?"
        Those should be regulated at the state level; any Federal level regulations on them should be removed because they are unconstitutional and it is not and has never been the Federal government’s place to play vice squad.

    • #174632
      Anonymous
      Guest

      IDK mang, Goldwater got shellacked at the ballot box for advocating going back to pre-New Deal times.

    • #174635
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Lost your job? learn to code.

    • #174648
      Anonymous
      Guest
    • #174649
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Reminder to all potheads who voted for Obama in 2008 because you thought he’d legalize weed.

      >the first Federal level restrictions on narcotics happened under Wilson (Democrat) when heroin and cocaine were put on the Federal controlled substances list
      >the forerunner of the ATF was created by FDR (Democrat)
      >Weed was put on the Federal controlled substances list when FDR (Democrat) was president thanks to a lobbying campaign by William Randolph Hearst (Democrat) as a favor to his sis-in-law Henry Anslinger (Democrat) who headed the DEA and was also a raging racist
      >The War on Drugs was started under a Republican president but greenlighted by a Democrat House and Senate

    • #174650
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Any mutts here care to explain how in the UK there is a third party that even managed to get elected a few times but there’s no third party in the US?

      • #174651
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Our election system is first-past-the-post, which weeds out everyone except for two giant Frankenstein parties.

        • #174707
          Anonymous
          Guest

          UK is first past the post too scrotebrain

      • #174652
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Every time a third part could have been created they just joined the other party

      • #174654
        Anonymous
        Guest

        the electoral college

        • #174656
          Anonymous
          Guest

          I love how the electoral college is still a thing yet people pretend like states shouldn’t have any power. The country would be a better palce if every scrote that complained about the electoral college was executed, starting with the politicians

          • #174657
            Anonymous
            Guest

            What’s your opinion on the ‘National Popular Vote Interstate Compact’?

            Also, the senate also exists btw, two senators per state no matter how populated they are.

            • #174659
              Anonymous
              Guest

              then again, Senators weren’t even directly elected for the first 124 years of the nation

            • #174660
              Anonymous
              Guest

              The senate existing is also why popular vote-tards want to create more states (loyal to them) since the inception of the country

              • #174662
                Anonymous
                Guest

                It’s speculated that the Dakotas were made into two states rather than one so the Republicans would have two additional Senators.

          • #174663
            Anonymous
            Guest

            Who’s complaining? It’s an undeniable fact the the electoral college prevents a third party candidate from being elected president.

            • #174680
              Anonymous
              Guest

              the electoral college prevents mob rule where states like California and new york would control all the other states, the founding fathers foresaw this problem and created the electoral college. Because the obvious thing state would do if they had no representation would be to fuck off out of the union.

              • #174817
                Anonymous
                Guest

                >the electoral college prevents mob rule where states like California and new york would control all the other states, the founding fathers foresaw this problem and created the electoral college.
                >Because the obvious thing state would do if they had no representation would be to fuck off out of the union.
                Its funny that you point that out because, the concept of any state leaving the union is non existent to people who bitch about the electoral college. In their minds states are just whimsical lines on a map and have no actual power.

            • #174699
              Anonymous
              Guest

              >It’s an undeniable fact the the electoral college prevents a third party candidate from being elected president.
              Imagine being this oblivious about how electoral systems work.

      • #174875
        Anonymous
        Guest

        When? Hasn’t it been Conservative or Labour for the past 100 years?

      • #174892
        Anonymous
        Guest

        The way our system works, with an outright majority being needed to elect a candidate, otherwise going to a version of the house where each state only gets one vote, it is basically impossible for a third party to win an election on the federal level.
        Because to beat two super huge institutions, which already have at least 60% of the population as partisans for them, is not an easy feat.

        On local elections it is much easier to win as a third party. As long as people like you and your beliefs more than any other candidate you will win.
        As long as you aren’t in like Chicago where people just vote Democrat all the way down.

    • #174653
      Anonymous
      Guest

      As others have said Ron Paul just didn’t have a coherent message or knew how to market to middle America, he didn’t have a slogan like Reagan’s "get the government off everyone’s back."

    • #174655
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >A platform combining economic and cultural libertarianism with foreign policy non-interventionism sounds like it would be popular in those times, particularly the 90s.
      As much as they might try to deny otherwise, a huge amount of people are closer to being culturally right-wing and economically left-wing. The Republicans only use "small government" and "libertarian" as buzzwords, in practice they have no problem expanding government when it suits their interests. The number of genuinely libertarian people is vastly overstated.

      • #174664
        Anonymous
        Guest

        No most people are freaking afraid of welfare lmao

        Infact there are more instances of people being economically right wong and culturally left wing (accepting of transgenders, racial equality but against high taxes and government intervention)

        • #174666
          Anonymous
          Guest

          Government spending goes so far beyond just welfare.

          Most Republicans support spending on the military, keeping medicare and medicaid, farming and domestic production subsidies, reforming but maintaining social security. It was Trump who first started the rounds of stimulus checks and he was widely praised for it.

          You’ll also find a lot of people aren’t super socially liberal. Again they’ll claim to be and pay lip service to it like they do being economically conservative. They’ll talk abut how the country should take in more refugees, but won’t want them to live in their own neighborhood. They’ll say racism should be dead and gone, but wouldn’t be comfortable with their daughter dating outside their race. Are fine with gay people getting married, but aren’t comfortable giving kids puberty blockers. Almost all of them have gotten around to supporting legalized pot, but almost no one could imagine ending all drug laws.

          Look less at what people say, and more at what they actually do. You’ll see that economically conservative/socially libertarian ideals aren’t actually that popular in the polls. Which is why they’ve remained a fringe party.

          • #174667
            Anonymous
            Guest

            >Most Republicans support spending on the military
            To a reasonable extent, not to the point where there is so much waste and graft that the F-35 cost about $30 billion more than expected.
            >farming and domestic production subsidies
            No small government conservative would support corporate welfare such as this.
            >Are fine with gay people getting married
            No.
            >but almost no one could imagine ending all drug laws.
            Drugs should be a state not a Federal level thing to regulate. If Oregon wants weed and Alabama doesn’t, bless ’em, that should be their choice. However that also ignores the real issue which is that drug laws cannot be practically enforced except perhaps at a staggering cost. When enough people want to do something they’re gonna do it and no laws on the planet are going to deter them.

            • #174669
              Anonymous
              Guest

              You’re mixing your personal beliefs and ideals with majority opinion and reality. Both Republicans and Democrats either actively or tacitly support large military spending, even if they disagree on specific levels. Conservative politicians claim to be for small government all the time, but almost always vote in support when a new corn subsidy for their constituency comes up.

              Whether you like it or not, most people are supportive/ambivalent about gay people marrying. But they’re not really on board with the new wave of trans bullshit, and the vast, vast majority do not support legalizing all drugs, or even letting individual states legalize all drugs.

            • #174672
              Anonymous
              Guest

              the guy you’re replying to is an intern at a Federal agency

            • #174705
              Anonymous
              Guest

              >Drugs should be a state not a Federal level thing to regulate
              For one thing it’s unconstitutional and regulating drug possession isn’t an enumerated Federal power, unless it was added in there with a Constitutional amendment.

          • #174670
            Anonymous
            Guest

            >but wouldn’t be comfortable with their daughter dating outside their race. Are fine with gay people getting married, but aren’t comfortable giving kids puberty blockers

            Not him but this is so freaking backwards you just convinced me people on the left want this totalitarian dystopia. Saying you can’t pick a partner woke af on race is like those incels who think they should be mandated women. The point of ending racism is never having a policy which divides or classes different races as different. But you’re allowed to shit talk them, or prefer not to date them and so on within close circles and your family. Can you imagine if muslims can’t bash Christians anymore? That’d be freaking crazy. There’s nothing wrong with saying christians are dirty because they eat pork to a close friend, but there is something wrong with religiously motivated attacks against another group. The same applies for ethnicity. What you described isn’t libertarianism at all. For the transgender issue with children, it’s a hard choice akin to stuatory rape because children have a harder time making decisions for themselves.

            People being majorly left wing economically you are right, though.

            • #174671
              Anonymous
              Guest

              I’m not arguing in favor of being socially liberal, lmao. I’m saying people claim to be socially liberal, but usually are much more conservative when it comes to their own lives and families.

              • #174674
                Anonymous
                Guest

                That’s how it should be… Do you think all of the people at gay pride rallies or transgender rallies want the same for their children? Fuck no but they’d gladly be against institutional prejudice against gays or transgenders

                Muslims don’t want christians killed, but they don’t want to be christians themselves

                • #174677
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  You’re missing my point. I’m not arguing for or against anything, I’m making an observation.

                  People like to say they’re for vague libertarian ideals about being for small government and for social liberalism, but their actions and votes say otherwise. A huge part of the voting demographic is for generally economically left-wing and socially right-wing policies, even if they would claim otherwise in front of strangers.

                  • #174678
                    Anonymous
                    Guest

                    people want stuff until they realize they have to pay for it. gibes are not free, no, not at all.

                    • #174681
                      Anonymous
                      Guest

                      That is one of the big arguments towards reducing the size and scope of government that libertarians never managed to utilize in that you can make an easy case to voters for saving millions in taxpayer dollars a year. Appeal to pocketbook is a pretty failsafe strategy that rarely loses elections and it’s why most third parties don’t go anywhere.

          • #174730
            Anonymous
            Guest

            I think that’s mostly right but I think opposition to miscegenation is pretty much dead in America. The last poll I saw on this had acceptance of interracial marriage at 94% in the U.S., and while you can say that’s just what people tell the pollsters, or they might be uncomfortable with it on some level, back in the 1950s that was around 4% so I don’t think it’s totally made up.

            In terms of welfare, I think something that would be popular is a program like Nixon’s "Family Assistance Program" (literally FAP) which a form of UBI that offered around $12,000 in today’s currency per year for a married family with two kids. It didn’t make it through Congress though because of opposition from within his own party and conservative Southern Democrats. Basically, Nixon wanted to replace welfare with the FAP, push unemployed welfare recipients into the workforce and then supplement working families’ incomes with it. And limiting the FAP to *families* in particular was Nixon’s way of trying to attract conservative support. Today, I think it’d quite seriously be like something Tucker Carlson might propose.

            Incidentally, racial issues played a role in preventing it from passing since it would’ve *expanded* welfare to the working poor (which included many blacks, and disproportionately so, as they had larger families back then), albeit cutting welfare for the unemployed and single people. The irony is that blue-collar white working families would’ve benefited from the program as well. Then the U.S. got Reagan and Clinton and RIP and here we are.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Assistance_Plan

            • #174732
              Anonymous
              Guest

              So only dumb normalscrotes get free money?

            • #174734
              Anonymous
              Guest

              >In terms of welfare, I think something that would be popular is a program like Nixon’s "Family Assistance Program" (literally FAP) which a form of UBI that offered around $12,000 in today’s currency per year for a married family with two kids. It didn’t make it through Congress though because of opposition from within his own party and conservative Southern Democrats. Basically, Nixon wanted to replace welfare with the FAP, push unemployed welfare recipients into the workforce and then supplement working families’ incomes with it. And limiting the FAP to *families* in particular was Nixon’s way of trying to attract conservative support. Today, I think it’d quite seriously be like something Tucker Carlson might propose.
              >Incidentally, racial issues played a role in preventing it from passing since it would’ve *expanded* welfare to the working poor (which included many blacks, and disproportionately so, as they had larger families back then), albeit cutting welfare for the unemployed and single people. The irony is that blue-collar white working families would’ve benefited from the program as well. Then the U.S. got Reagan and Clinton and RIP and here we are.

              Very good, Senator Sanders. And how will you be paying for this?

              • #174893
                Anonymous
                Guest

                We should half the amount of money we spend on the military, abolish the ATF and other useless agencies, shrink other agencies and have a protective tariff to help our domestic industry and raise money for the federal government.
                End the department of Energy and Education and with all that cash UBI and Free Healthcare

            • #174735
              Anonymous
              Guest

              Can you stop trying to sell this "actually the republicans are the socialists" crap? He wanted to delete New Deal era welfare and replace it with something new, not add another layer of welfare on top of it. Specifically the welfare would only be for working families, if you didn’t work you wouldn’t get the benefits. The original legislation is a unilateral incentive for "welfare queens". Black women teach their daughters to get knocked up and have children so that they can get family assistance from the government. Nixon was trying to stop this

              • #174815
                Anonymous
                Guest

                I didn’t say Nixon was a socialist. I just think something like would be popular with the American public today.

    • #174673
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Media oligarchy
      The telecommunications act of 1996
      The entire deepstate
      Wall street enjoying fractional reserve banking

    • #174676
      Anonymous
      Guest

      So now ask yourself why Texas is having to do what the Feds apparently cannot when it comes to border security.

    • #174685
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >why isn’t the greed good party more successful?

      • #174695
        Anonymous
        Guest

        It’s more of the pure markets are less greedy because they exist with only voluntary transactions rather than overt theft backed by violence.

      • #174887
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Wdym? Republicans have been doing great

    • #174690
      Anonymous
      Guest

      The Libertarians and Greens are run by complete nutcases. It’s why the only halfway successful candidates they ever have usually jump ship to the main two parties the second they get any traction.

      • #174692
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Like someone said Ron Paul didn’t do himself any favors by wanting to abolish Social Security and pushing the gold standard. I don’t know the whole ins and outs of their platforms but I do know those two particular things were not a recipe for success at the ballot box.

    • #174694
      Anonymous
      Guest

      People only like the word freedom when it means they are safe and their needs met. They don’t like responsibility.

    • #174704
      Anonymous
      Guest

      1) Economically conservative, socially liberal is actually a pretty small bloc. It seems bigger than it is because a lot of elites fall in it, though. Economically liberal, socially conservative is much bigger, but tends to be ignored because not a lot of elites were in it.

      2) They were pretty successful. Libertarian economic ideas were a key part of the Republican platform up until Trump. The country is a lot more socially liberal, too. I guess that non-intervention was a failure, but IMO that was never a key libertarian belief anyway. Just because they weren’t winning elections doesn’t mean they didn’t have influence.

    • #174708
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Different brand of human same brand of stupidity

      • #174710
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Government intervention caused the rent crisis we see today

        And with free market capitalism there is competition. If company A sells lemonade for $50, I will go to company B who sells it for $5

      • #174714
        Anonymous
        Guest

        In a libertarian society, you would be able to get a rifle and blow the CEO or landlord’s head off. In a statist society the state bans guns and jails you if you blow the CEO or landlord’s head off with a rifle.

        • #174715
          Anonymous
          Guest

          You are saying it’s right to shoot people for being rich?

          • #174717
            Anonymous
            Guest

            If they violate the nonaggression principle, yes.

            • #174718
              Anonymous
              Guest

              Why not just take your business elsewhere?

              • #174720
                Anonymous
                Guest

                The nonaggression principle indicates overt violence. Like how the state corporation steals money from you at the threat of throwing you in prison at gunpoint.

                • #174721
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  But jacks lands and co wont do that they’ll just evict you… maybe at gun point or by a court

                  • #174723
                    Anonymous
                    Guest

                    Rent shouldn’t even exist in the first place. It is not a true product or service and in the event of lease to own competition would die off. Rent is the dumbest most cucked thing you can do.

                • #174878
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  >Corporations steal money from you
                  You’re not a libertarian.

              • #174751
                Anonymous
                Guest

                Because human beings make better customers than beavers.

        • #174877
          Anonymous
          Guest

          >In a libertarian society, you would be able to get a rifle and blow the CEO or landlord’s head off.
          In a libertarian society; you could shoot rich people? How fuck stupid are you son? Landlordism is a legitmate form of wealth generation, especially in a libertaria society, because its peaceful and completely voluntary.

    • #174709
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Identical problem to all other third parties in the US, lack of funding. Popularity of platform is totally irrelevant.

    • #174711
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Libertarians are the exact opposite of what would make good politics and what most people actually want. They’re socially left wing and economically right wing, when the answer is left wing economics with right wing social policies. Take the NatSoc pill.

      • #174719
        Anonymous
        Guest

        There is nothing in libertarian philosophy that dictates social liberalism. Quite the opposite really. Fundamentally the reason they are accused of that is because they don’t want the government to enslave people for victimless crimes.

        • #174728
          Anonymous
          Guest

          The problem is that most of those "victimless crimes" corrode social cohesion and do massive damage to society in the long run, but since these are indirect externalities and not immediate consequences they refuse to see it and enact preventative measures. So whether they’re explicitly advocating social liberalism or not, their policies of letting people shoot up heroin in the streets or promote homosexuality because it’s "not hurting anyone" ultimately has the same effect on society.

          • #174731
            Anonymous
            Guest

            The current model of throwing people into convict college and then making them felons thus destroying their ability for career advancement and any corrective life course is far worse and more destructive and evil than allowing someone to self medicate because their life sucked in the first place.

            Oh your life sucks so you do drugs? Allow me to rob 15 years of your youth and then make you a janitor for the rest of your life.

            • #174737
              Anonymous
              Guest

              >We the jury agree the defendant was shooting up heroin but the law was injust therefore he is innocent of all charges.
              The system doesn’t want you to know about jury nullification but it’s your friend.

              • #174738
                Anonymous
                Guest

                Too bad the republitards are even more complicit and scrotebrained when it comes to drugs thanks to their regan worship despite his regime being the one that banned the future ownership of automatic weapons.

                • #174739
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  >actually it was the republicans
                  Wasn’t anti drug legislation started by democrats?

                  • #174742
                    Anonymous
                    Guest
                  • #174746
                    Anonymous
                    Guest

                    Yeah but Democrats are pretty transparent and open about how evil they are. Fundamentally most republican values like smaller government and more human rights and free markets are actually good. The problem is they don’t actually do any of those things. So I hate republican politicians far more.

                    • #174747
                      Anonymous
                      Guest

                      That’s cool but can you stop posting so many factually wrong thing here like a schizo

                      • #174748
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Any boomercon you meet is for the police state and against drug rights. And any jury will be mostly boomercons because they aren’t smart enough to get out of jury duty and are good statist dogs who would enjoy serving on a jury.

                      • #174750
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >Any boomercon you meet is for the police state and against drug rights
                        This isn’t the 70s, if anything we’ve seen more push for drug legalization simply because all the people who grew up pre 60s-70s are pretty much dead now. Nearly everyone around today has lived in a world where recreational drug use has been a normal part of life.

                      • #174755
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Most convictions for drugs or weapons or whatever never actually go to court, usually a plea deal gets struck because the court systems are horribly overburdened and simply do not have the ability to handle everyone who gets charged with a crime.

                    • #174754
                      Anonymous
                      Guest

                      >republican values like smaller government and more human rights and free markets

                      Fuck I hope Bitcoin takes off and Republicans are revealed to be full of shit as they tax and spend when they no longer can print money.

                      • #174757
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >memecoin
                        Only good for buying drugs on tor

                      • #174758
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        It’s possible I guess, but I’ve never heard a good argument against Bitcoin.

                      • #174760
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        You have, you just don’t want to believe them. The value fluctuates too rapidly to ever be used as a replacement for stable fiat currency. The fluctuation is even more unpredictable and rapid than the stock market so it’s not even a good investment unless you look at it as a literal gamble. The only positive is that it can be used for untraceable purchases on Tor.

                      • #174765
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        There are blockchain ledgers for physical gold now that combine the transparency and backing of precious metals with the liquidity and ease of use of blockchain.

                      • #174771
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Cool, except that hasn’t actually done anything to stabilize crypto. The truth about memecoins is that they are too unstable to ever replace fiat currency. Even if they were to become stable enough to replace the dollar, there would be literally no reason to use them over fiat unless you were trying to hide your purchase from the government. That’s the only reason they were created and it is the main reason why they still exist. For every normie and zoomer “investing” in bitcoin, there are 100 people using it to buy drugs/CP/malware on Tor.

                      • #174778
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Well that and because it does the opposite of fiat currency. The problem with the federal reserve constantly inflating currency is it fucks over the middle class. Unless you are smart enough to invest in assets purely like real estate and you have a normal retirement account your money will shrivel in retirement to nothing especially people on fixed incomes. It punishes people who save money. Having your liquid assets in blockchains is more likely to grow rather than depreciate. Fiat currency is only stable in that it is guaranteed to depreciate.

                      • #174762
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Most republicans don’t even understand the federal reserve. They just think big budget bad small budget good. What annoys me more is democrats who blame capitalism for cronyism when the entire problem is the government protects crooked businesses so they don’t have to actually compete in a free market. Average republicans are just dupes kept on a idiot plantation for bad policies in practice. Democrats are thoroughly evil ideologically and in practice.

                    • #174756
                      Anonymous
                      Guest

                      >smaller government
                      >more human rights
                      >free markets
                      >republican values

                      • #174759
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        It is if you talk to people on the ground. It’s just the politicians are liars and the telecommunications act of 1996 ensures there is no representation of 3rd party alternatives.

                      • #174761
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >It is if you talk to people on the ground. It’s just the politicians are liars

                        You give the trumpists too much slack, they deserve their politicians.

                      • #174763
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Trump was nearly a 3rd party candidate who ran on "drain the swamp" as in rid the corruption. It was a maladaptive middle finger to the system and only happened because those old fucks underestimated new media. Now they objectively censor and control new media.

                      • #174764
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Yeah, and if Trump said his shit don’t stink the Republicans would be sniffing his farts all day.

                      • #174766
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Don’t you wonder why exactly? Because he is the closest thing to a third party choice since Ross Perot. Republicans are inarticulate but their gut feelings are correct.

                      • #174768
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >Because he is the closest thing to a third party choice since Ross Perot
                        He ended up being another run of the mill GOP Republican

                      • #174770
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        For gut feelings that are correct, he sure didn’t do much of anything he said he would, then lost against sleepy joe.

                        Facts don’t care about your feelings, sis.

                      • #174767
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >Trump was nearly a 3rd party candidate
                        Until he became another neocon
                        >continued support for Israel
                        >corporate tax cuts
                        >increased military spending
                        >environmental deregulation
                        Even his immigration policies ended up being similar to Bush’s and Obama’s. Anyone who actually thought a New York millionaire was “anti establishment” was a gullible rube.

                      • #174769
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >Because he is the closest thing to a third party choice since Ross Perot
                        He ended up being another run of the mill GOP Republican

                        Yeah I would say he did maybe 3 good things which were resist starting new wars besides yemen, cbd, and destroying trust in the GOP entirely.

                      • #174894
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        What about better trade deals and the host of smaller acomplishments like some criminal justice reform and right to try?

                • #174744
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  Which isn’t actually true. Prior to the AWB, there was a registry you had to sign onto to purchase automatic weapons. This wouldn’t have been touched by that bill except some Congressman (forget who) inserted a clause that stipulated no new automatic weapon registrations would be taken after a certain date.

                  • #174753
                    Anonymous
                    Guest

                    oh

                • #174749
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  Yeah Newsflash to lot’s of people, but Authoritarians like to pretend they have the same values as other people to get into power and then immediately flip as soon as convenient.

            • #174745
              Anonymous
              Guest
    • #174722
      Anonymous
      Guest

      The libertarians never really made a good argument for less government, at least convince a good portion of the population to adopt the idea. At least the republicans were a little less overt in their corporatism.

    • #174724
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Libertarians are the real American Conservatives. The founding fathers would be Libertarian today.

      • #174727
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Not the Federalists you dumb bimbo.

    • #174725
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Didn’t human society basically evolve from a libertarian system? No goverment, no nations etc. and yet tribes chose to organize, why is that?

    • #174733
      Anonymous
      Guest

      LULZ is literally

      […]

      • #174743
        Anonymous
        Guest

        How so

    • #174752
      Anonymous
      Guest

      the polarized mob is vicious and obtuse

    • #174773
      Anonymous
      Guest

      […]

      Yeah I’m from Arizona. The problem is the same people still buy into the two party system despite it bot actually being real. The difference when you vote is between a fast lane of more taxes and more government or slightly more taxes and more government. The two party system is a joke.

    • #174774
      Anonymous
      Guest

      […]

      >70% of people don’t think elections are fair anymore
      Source?

    • #174776
      Anonymous
      Guest

      […]

      >Something like 30-40% of democrats don’t think 2020 was legit.
      Source?

      • #174777
        Anonymous
        Guest

        I’m not going to spoodfeed you scrote, I’ve done enough of that today on here

        • #174781
          Anonymous
          Guest

          Yeah that’s what I thought

        • #174800
          Anonymous
          Guest

          if you don’t have a single source then it’s better to stop replying rather than embarrass yourself like this

    • #174779
      Anonymous
      Guest

      […]

      This. Trump had a Republican majority in the Senate and House for two years and decided to jerk off instead of pass legislation.

    • #174789
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Isn’t this board for discussion of events >25 years ago? Trump is not 25 years ago.

      • #174790
        Anonymous
        Guest

        The telecommunications act of 1996 just made it then

    • #174792
      Anonymous
      Guest

      just 80 more posts to the bump limit

      • #174793
        Anonymous
        Guest

        I’ll start another one don’t worry.

        • #174794
          Anonymous
          Guest

          kek

        • #174796
          Anonymous
          Guest

          woke af

    • #174795
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Crypto would likely do a lot of good if it takes off, although it won’t fix everything wrong with capitalism either. Namely capital flight and runaway capital accumulation. So it’s possibly going to be something, but not an ancap utopia or anything. Mix of good and bad I’d say.

    • #174797
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Didn’t have a viable, marketable platform.

    • #174809
      Anonymous
      Guest

      it’s no different with Mitch McConnell. better the devil you know than risk an ANTIFA-hugging Democrat getting his Senate seat.

      • #174811
        Anonymous
        Guest

        McConnel is old blood, I bet he has a framed picture of Lincoln in his office. He’ll die soon enough

        • #174813
          Anonymous
          Guest

          McConnell was smart and pragmatic enough to at least play ball with Trump and those supporting him. He realized that it was in some ways and injection of life into the party.
          He was willing to make deals, negotiate and put up a untied front against the democrats as a whole, with most disagreements being hashed out behind closed doors.
          McCain on the other hand acted like a petulant child

          • #174814
            Anonymous
            Guest

            Right. But he’s dedicated to the idea that the US is this imaginary egalitarian funhouse, which is probably why he’s so negotiable

            • #174819
              Anonymous
              Guest

              ofc I am not staying I 100% agree with him or particularly like his but you need to balance idealism with pragmatism and the reality that most people are fairly moderate. Overall the continued presence of McConnell m with his knowledge of the senate and it’s workings as well as his ability to work with many of the more typical yesteryear conservatives still in the GOP had been a very good thing for the part as a whole. He is shrewd and skilled at both establishing and the executing long term political strategies.
              He knows how to play the game

    • #174832
      Anonymous
      Guest

      the left in America seem to be gradually getting more toothless and lame. they don’t for example even pretend to be anti-capitalist, anti-deep state, or antiwar anymore. at least in the Bush years they were still screaming no war destroy KKKorporations CIA evil.

      • #174855
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >the left in America seem to be gradually getting more toothless and lame. they don’t for example even pretend to be anti-capitalist, anti-deep state, or antiwar anymore. at least in the Bush years they were still screaming no war destroy KKKorporations CIA evil.
        Well, it’s hard to be "anti-war" today compared to the Bush years for obvious reasons. It’s the same problem facing Die Linke, the left-wing party in Germany, which saw its best result in 2009 by taking a hard line against Bush’s wars and building momentum on the back of mass anti-war demonstrations going on at the time (Germany had a troop presence in Afghanistan), but the party has struggled to define itself since then — losing East German boomers to the AfD (due to immigration) while losing their younger voters to the SPD (social democrats) and Greens (green politics + cultural left-wing / identity politics concerns).

        In the U.S. meanwhile, the Democrats and Republicans are not really "parties" like other countries have. They’d be more like "fronts" or coalitions of different parties, associations (including business groups), NGOs, religious groups and ethnic factions. The DNC or RNC are stage-managed shows arranged in advance, not real party conventions. There are associated media outlets for both, and so forth. So while if you’re the left (or a far right group), you might be able to synchronize yourself with these larger fronts on some issues, like the far-right does with immigration, but no single faction like that is going to be able to overpower and control an entire "front." Either they will be made to conform or be pushed out, or they’ll just leave on their own accord because of the dissonance that is caused by contradicting some major priorities shared by the other factions.

      • #174858
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Also, it’s hard to build a politics around being "anti-military" or "anti-deep state" when the U.S. military is one of the most popular institutions in American society. Much more popular than the politicians. That’s the irony of the Q-Anon people because they were against "the deep state" but, in their own mythos, believed there was a secretive group of JSOC operators who were preparing to launch a coup to install Trump as emperor-for-life or whatever while locking up all the "deep state" traitors. Not only was that not true as far as I’m aware, but that’s contradictory. You can hardly claim to be against the deep state while wanting military officers to intervene in politics.

        What I think has happened is that after the Cold War, political leaders, the media, the "intelligentsia" and perhaps the public have become more militaristic than the more "realist" military leaders and soldiers — who are not given clear missions by the doinks in Washington diverting national resources to warmaking at the expense of the domestic economy (other than for defense contractors), and that indeed played a role in driving Trump’s election against the neocons and liberal hawks. Trump did campaign as an anti-interventionist. Yet, Trump appointed a bunch of generals to his cabinet and boosted defense spending even more, and was so reckless, his top general went behind his back to coordinate with the PLA in case Trump tried to provoke a war with China to stay in power.

        While politics have become more "militarized," the military brass has become more "politicized" (inadvertently drawn into events against their will, like a sucking motion), they’re being drawn into politics or affairs that should be the domain of political leaders because the generals are a more-or-less neutral, "apolitical," stabilizing group of people — and generally respected. And Q-Anon types are outraged! But if you want the brass to get involved in non-military matters, be careful what you wish for…

    • #174833
      Anonymous
      Guest

      most of this thread seems to be filled with people whining about modern libertarians.
      Rothbard did not really care about politics he just want a political party to raise awareness.
      If you dont know who Rothbard is he was like the right wing karl marx. He founded the LP and the mises institute.
      https://mises.org/library/strategies-libertarian-victory
      TLDR: Rothbard says libertarians will win once the state collapses due to a crisis

      • #174835
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Except they wont. Crisis’ end result is the centralization of power, not its decentralization

        • #174838
          Anonymous
          Guest

          Well that is just what he believed. this is LULZ not /poo/

    • #174836
      Anonymous
      Guest

      My state has its own version of McCain; it’s called Pat Toomey, a guy who:

      >drank Obama’s cum and licked his nutsack every day from 2009 to 17
      >voted for Obamacare, the 2009 Porkulus bill, and more
      >is 40% owned by the Chinese Communist Party
      >spent every waking minute of the past 5 years trying to undermine Trump every chance he got

      • #174837
        Anonymous
        Guest

        The American government is owned by corporations, which in turn bow to the Chinese. There is no clean American politician

        • #174839
          Anonymous
          Guest

          But american politicians are extremely restricted in what they can do, you see. So it balances itself out.

          The President of the United States right now is having issues with just being able to turn on a printer. America’ system is the best it can be for minimizing corruption.

          • #174841
            Anonymous
            Guest

            if you lived in Mexico i don’t see how American can possibly complain about their politicians being incompetent, dictatorial, corrupt. the worst they do would still be 5x better than PRI on their best day.

            • #174843
              Anonymous
              Guest

              "well at least you aren’t mexico" is setting the bar really freaking low mate

              • #174867
                Anonymous
                Guest

                The Lockean perspective sets the bar at "well at least you aren’t alone in the wilderness." I’ve yet to come across a good argument to using any other criteria as a baseline for instituationalized group interactions.

          • #174842
            Anonymous
            Guest

            What? That isn’t remotely true. And even if it were, the fact that the government can’t enact any meaningful legislation is a bad thing, because they desperately need their infrastructure repaired and updated, they desperately need to reform their school system, they desperately need to solve their drug and obesity crises, and it is becoming imperative that they ween off fossil fuels.

            • #174866
              Anonymous
              Guest

              >can’t enact any meaningful legislation
              the system is working as intended by the founding fathers, not you

              >infrastructure
              only the california drought, which california should pay for, not the federal government. other than that, I would trust Amazon (or any other scroteMAN) to build infrastructure better and cheaper than the feds.

              >reform their school system
              lefties’s too busy brainwashing kids with critical race fallacy. rightie’s has too many bible thumping donors. neither side is interested in getting rid of common core math, or improving STEM education, or trades.

              >drug and obesity crises
              or nutritional education. Women’s liberation killed Home Economics curriculum for everybody. This is the future you wanted.

              >oil
              is best as plastic, but useless if left in the ground.

              • #174869
                Anonymous
                Guest

                >only the california drought, which california should pay for, not the federal government. other than that, I would trust Amazon (or any other scroteMAN) to build infrastructure better and cheaper than the feds.

                >After the Texas port city of Indianola was ravaged by a hurricane in 1886, President Cleveland declined to send Federal disaster relief on the grounds that he could find nothing in the Constitution authorizing it. "Although the people should support the government," he said, "the government should not support the people."[59]

                • #174870
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  And right he was. Meanwhile Nawlins got ravaged because the Federally-funded flood wall they were expecting never came.

                • #174876
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  >no not muh heckin constitutionarino

      • #174840
        Anonymous
        Guest

        remember the scrote from Ohio? John Kasich? The guy who said "I wrote in John McCain for president I’m not going to support Orange Hitler."

      • #174864
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >>spent every waking minute of the past 5 years trying to undermine Trump every chance he got
        Woke af

    • #174849
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Because cultural libertarianism is a bad thing.

    • #174854
      Anonymous
      Guest

      The one thing I will say is I agreed with Biden suspending Federal executions which Trump had revived the use of and I didn’t agree with him on that, I don’t think they were constitutional.

      • #174859
        Anonymous
        Guest

        really? I didn’t know that.

        • #174862
          Anonymous
          Guest

          I’m not sure if it was so much Trump as it was Bill Barr. But they executed a couple people over state level crimes including one where a guy kidnapped and murdered a 10 year old girl back in the 90s. Which was horrible but that was strictly a state level issue to deal with, it was completely unconstitutional to convict the guy in Federal court. Besides that it was in a death penalty state (Kansas) it’s not as if he couldn’t have been executed there.

          So yeah I didn’t agree with that all.

    • #174863
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Poor LBJscrote. All the minutes of his life spent writing walls of text that he will never get back.

    • #174871
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >Why was the Libertarian Party of the US not more successful (1972-1996)?

      Skimming the answers and I don’t see it.
      Of course the oligarchy would never ever ever ever let go of using the US government’s power over the planet after WWII.
      Also. I suspect Marxism and Libertarianism are controlled opposition. The kosher extreme Right and the Kosher extreme Left. Both probably funded by the Rothschilds like everything else.
      Does any White guy stay on the open borders cause for long?
      It seems like an ideology to create the NWO in the end.

    • #174874
      Anonymous
      Guest

      I don’t think the main parties had really polarized enough for there to be any place for a third party like that

    • #174883
      Anonymous
      Guest

      It is of course a fact that Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders were of military age during the Vietnam War and neither of them served.

      • #174884
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Biden should have served. Sanders? No, he literaly hates America. He’sa commie. He would have supported the Vietcong.

      • #174885
        Anonymous
        Guest

        bone spurs

      • #174886
        Anonymous
        Guest

        So was Trump. Your point?

    • #174888
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Because americans are scrotebrained thats why they call themselves "americans"
      also you block ips from other countries from posting scrotes

Viewing 53 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
startno id