Why don't Libertarians get invited to the debates????????

 
Unfortunately, the two major parties control the debates and have effectively made it nearly impossible for third party candidates to participate.
 
I'll let the guy with the "I'm a libertarian, so, technically, 'f--- the feds'" (lol) profile pic explain more on this and have him disagree where he sees fit, if he wants to.

It's a combination of the rules to qualify (bad system, IMO) but also the fact the Libertarian Party is... virtually obsolete. They had issues in 2016 even getting Gary Johnson on the ballot in some states (Ohio was one of them, although they eventually made it on.) Justin Amash is the only politician in national, or even state (?) office with a Libertarian party registration and he was basically a GOP defection. They really didn't pick up any momentum nationally on what Ron Paul was starting to talk about late '00s.

Part of the problem is libertarianism gets mocked. It's not a horrible political philosophy, but America is pretty baked-in on liberalism vs conservatism. It also really hasn't amounted at all to be a nationally relevant "new" Republican party, especially not in the age of Trump. Let alone a party that is winning voters over in droves. Jo Jorgenson is probably a weaker candidate this year than Gary Johnson was in '16. And this election was going to be dead on arrival for the libertarians. It's not an election to elect the next president, it's basically the national referendum on Trump. It also really isn't an election with any real similarity to 2016, tbh. No avenue or pathway to viability for a promising third-party candidate this year.
 
There is nothing stopping Libertarians from running for political offices, once they start winning enough to form a political base of elected officials, they might be relevant. As of today, they at least need to win some statewide offices somewhere, otherwise they are a footnote in the political process.
 
JcksnPlrBrs2002 said:
I think the Libertarian Party should be irrelevant, but because they're hilarious, not because of some arbitrary gate-keeping scheme that has been put into place by Democrats and Republicans. I really hope ranked-choice voting becomes established in the next decade or so, so that people can actually realistically vote their conscience without the "first-past-the-pole" game theory stuff virtually suppressing votes for "3rd parties".
Click to expand...


Ranked-choice voting is a joke, you vote for 1 candidate either rest blank or all the same candidate; depending upon the ranked system being used. let the ignorant rank their choices.
 
The Dock said:
I'll let the guy with the "I'm a libertarian, so, technically, 'f--- the feds'" (lol) profile pic explain more on this and have him disagree where he sees fit, if he wants to.

It's a combination of the rules to qualify (bad system, IMO) but also the fact the Libertarian Party is... virtually obsolete. They had issues in 2016 even getting Gary Johnson on the ballot in some states (Ohio was one of them, although they eventually made it on.) Justin Amash is the only politician in national, or even state (?) office with a Libertarian party registration and he was basically a GOP defection. They really didn't pick up any momentum nationally on what Ron Paul was starting to talk about late '00s.

Part of the problem is libertarianism gets mocked. It's not a horrible political philosophy, but America is pretty baked-in on liberalism vs conservatism. It also really hasn't amounted at all to be a nationally relevant "new" Republican party, especially not in the age of Trump. Let alone a party that is winning voters over in droves. Jo Jorgenson is probably a weaker candidate this year than Gary Johnson was in '16. And this election was going to be dead on arrival for the libertarians. It's not an election to elect the next president, it's basically the national referendum on Trump. It also really isn't an election with any real similarity to 2016, tbh. No avenue or pathway to viability for a promising third-party candidate this year.
Click to expand...

Under the current party-controlled debate system I think it's virtually impossible for a third party candidate to qualify unless it's somebody like Ross Perot, Donald Trump, or some celebrity mogul down the road (i.e. Dwayne Johnson) that has massive personal coffers to burn on their campaign as well as name brand recognition. It's an awful system.

I think libertarianism as a political philosophy has some major problems that have effectively rendered it obsolete as a philosophical alternative in our present society. From a "pure" perspective of libertarianism, it's difficult to take it seriously in the midst of multiple decades of exploding economic inequality, government debt, and social program liabilities. You have to wipe out a lot of financial and social problems for libertarianism to have any possibility of attracting more than a miniscule following.
 
nwwarrior09 said:
Under the current party-controlled debate system I think it's virtually impossible for a third party candidate to qualify unless it's somebody like Ross Perot, Donald Trump, or some celebrity mogul down the road (i.e. Dwayne Johnson) that has massive personal coffers to burn on their campaign as well as name brand recognition. It's an awful system.

I think libertarianism as a political philosophy has some major problems that have effectively rendered it obsolete as a philosophical alternative in our present society. From a "pure" perspective of libertarianism, it's difficult to take it seriously in the midst of multiple decades of exploding economic inequality and government debt.
Click to expand...
Donald Trump tried that route before and got nowhere with it.

You say Dwayne Johnson, I say Mark Cuban.
 
The Dock said:
Donald Trump tried that route before and got nowhere with it.

You say Dwayne Johnson, I say Mark Cuban.
Click to expand...

Mark Cuban is someone who I could see eventually trying to make a go of it.

In our seemingly rampant spiral into Idiocracy, I can't help but envision a future with Dwayne Johnson pulling off some in-character one liners as "The Rock" in a debate to roaring applause.
 
nwwarrior09 said:
Mark Cuban is someone who I could see eventually trying to make a go of it.

In our seemingly rampant spiral into Idiocracy, I can't help but envision a future with Dwayne Johnson pulling off some in-character one liners as "The Rock" in a debate to roaring applause.
Click to expand...
1) Idiocracy, Christ... half of that movie is pretty on the nose for the US in 2020

2) re: one-liners - Family Guy got this right in 2007. In the episode "It Takes a Village Idiot, and I Married One" Lois runs for mayor against Adam West. At the town hall, Lois begins answering questions in a well thought-out but long-strung manner that probably best resembles Amy Klobuchar. She gets gonged for time's up, no one is impressed. Mayor West answers a question in a way that is eerily prescient of Pete Buttigieg's roundabout "I didn't answer the question at all" way of answering questions, and it's thought of as smart. Lois, acting on the advice of Brian, then starts using simple answers and one-liners to roaring applause.

It's funny, but a shame that back in 2007 we thought we would be in a future where the debates and policy discussions were actually smart and engaging. Now it's a matter of how badly we want the Dilldozer to burst through the debate stage only for someone to knee Biden in the balls.
 
The Dock said:
2) re: one-liners - Family Guy got this right in 2007. In the episode "It Takes a Village Idiot, and I Married One" Lois runs for mayor against Adam West. At the town hall, Lois begins answering questions in a well thought-out but long-strung manner that probably best resembles Amy Klobuchar. She gets gonged for time's up, no one is impressed. Mayor West answers a question in a way that is eerily prescient of Pete Buttigieg's roundabout "I didn't answer the question at all" way of answering questions, and it's thought of as smart. Lois, acting on the advice of Brian, then starts using simple answers and one-liners to roaring applause.

It's funny, but a shame that back in 2007 we thought we would be in a future where the debates and policy discussions were actually smart and engaging. Now it's a matter of how badly we want the Dilldozer to burst through the debate stage only for someone to knee Biden in the balls.
Click to expand...

Way back in 2004, I think South Park managed to nail pretty well the future of debates and the two-party system.

 
JcksnPlrBrs2002 said:
Isn't that the working premise of those tables that you sometimes see at public events... ...where some sad doofy rando tries to get people to take the quick simplified version of the Political Compass test, and then tries to explain to them how their results mean either that they're actually a libertarian or are wrong and should just be a libertarian? ?

View attachment 8090
Click to expand...

So he's correct :)
 
JcksnPlrBrs2002 said:
I think one of the funnier ones I saw was just outside of ComFest in Columbus one year. Predictably, in the heart of the Short North, the "sticker sample" was decidedly NOT libertarian. The guy running the table looked disappointed.
Click to expand...


“As President, I will use my Constitutional authority to block any new borrowing. I will veto any spending bill that would lead to a deficit, and veto any debt ceiling increase. I will give every Cabinet secretary a specific spending reduction target to meet and hold them accountable. There is simply no excuse for sticking our children and grandchildren with the bill for these bipartisan bloated budgets.”

“Turn America into One Giant Switzerland: Armed and Neutral – with the military force to defend America’s shores and soil against any foreign attackers or invaders. Protected by an armed citizenry and by a military laser-focused on defending America. No US involvement in foreign wars. Bring home our 200,000+ American military personnel stationed in foreign countries. No US military aid to foreign governments. No US blockades or embargoes of non-military trade.

“I am appalled that the United States ranks number one in the world for having the highest percentage of people imprisoned. I am also appalled that the federal government permits police to seize a person’s assets without first convicting them of a crime, and then keep most of the assets seized. This is literally highway robbery. As President, I will use my Constitutional authority to end federal civil asset forfeiture prior to conviction, and pardon persons convicted of non-violent victimless crimes. I will also work with Congress to end the failed War on Drugs and other victimless crime laws.”

“Taxes are never voluntary – they are always paid under threat of punishment. If you fail to pay what government says you owe, you can be fined, have your wages garnished, assets seized, even go to prison. Voting for more government spending inevitably leads to higher taxes to pay for it – now, or in the future. As President, I will work tirelessly to slash federal spending, make government much, much smaller, and let you keep what you earn.”

“The Department of Education has failed. In the forty years since the Department of Education was created, government spending on education has skyrocketed, while the quality of education has declined. Students used to be able to work their way through college and graduate debt-free. As President, I will work to eliminate the Department of Education and return control of education to where it belongs – with parents, teachers, and students.”

“From 1959 to 1969, the poverty rate was nearly cut in half while government did little to address poverty. However, after the war on poverty was fully implemented in the early seventies, progress stopped. Fifty years of federal anti-poverty programs – zero impact. Government anti-poverty programs don’t work. The real cure for poverty is a vibrant economy that generates plentiful jobs and high wages, combined with an affordable cost of living. As President, I will work to eliminate policies that cripple economic growth. I will give special attention to regulations driving up the cost of housing and health care, as well as those creating barriers to creating new businesses or entering professions. Finally, I will work to repeal laws and regulations that prevent individuals and charitable organizations from helping those in need.”
Education:
 
JcksnPlrBrs2002 said:
I inadvertently agree with some libertarian policies (notably on many "social issues"), but I generally view them as lunatics. It's a different "brand" of utter lunacy than Communism, but utter lunacy all the same. ?‍♂️

I tend to run into a lot of them (my profession has a disproportionate number of them), and they're generally nicer people than Republicans, but you're just not going to sell me on crazy nonsense like "taxation is theft" or "let America become a giant Switzerland".

Hard pass.
Click to expand...
Taxation is theft anyone who does not think that is nuts.
 
JcksnPlrBrs2002 said:
I inadvertently agree with some libertarian policies (notably on many "social issues"), but I generally view them as lunatics. It's a different "brand" of utter lunacy than Communism, but utter lunacy all the same. ?‍♂️

I tend to run into a lot of them (my profession has a disproportionate number of them), and they're generally nicer people than Republicans, but you're just not going to sell me on crazy nonsense like "taxation is theft" or "let America become a giant Switzerland".

Hard pass.
Click to expand...

You don’t even pay taxes lol.
 
Look over here . Vote for this person .Split the vote Let the malignant narcissist play for four more years Play even more golf and further damage the country .
 
JcksnPlrBrs2002 said:
No, I don't understand your opposition to RCV. I mean, if you don't like it, that's fine, but why? I'm not even trolling - I'm genuinely curious, as it tends to be viewed as non-partisan.
Click to expand...

First, there is nothing that is non partisan; there might be something that neither the Democrats or Republicans disagree with or agree with, that does not make it non partisan. The fact that anyone introduces a measure is partisan,
I am believer in one man, one vote.
 
Non partisan comment was directed at anyone who uses that phrase; and not particularly at you.
RCV has flaws; it has the voters of the lowest vote count candidate get to vote again.
one person one vote
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top