Justin Amash: The Libertarian Party Shouldn't Nominate a 'Squishy' Republican in 2020

"That's me!" jokes Bill Weld, while calling Amash a "hero" and encouraging the congressman to run.

Nick Gillespie

Ask a Libertarian which candidate he or she would most like to see run for president in 2020, and the name that will come up more often than not is Rep. Justin Amash (R–Mich.). Amash, who prefers the term "libertarian" over "libertarian-leaning Republican" and is fond of tweeting stuff like "Both parties mislead, misdirect, employ double standards, and lie," had an interesting response at LibertyCon Friday night when asked by Reason Editor-in-Chief Katherine Mangu-Ward to describe his ideal third-party candidate.

"He wears Air Jordans," Amash began. (He was wearing Air Jordans.)

Then, without mentioning 2016 vice presidential nominee and likely 2020 candidate Bill Weld by name, Amash warned against the party choosing an insufficiently libertarian Republican.

"Well, I think an ideal third-party candidate, especially a Libertarian Party candidate—that's what I'll talk about—I think the ideal candidate has to be very libertarian, because if you're running in the Libertarian Party, you better be a libertarian," he said. "But it has to be a person who is persuasive to other people, can bring Republicans and Democrats on board, or bring a large part of the electorate on board, because you can't just appeal to diehard libertarians and win the election."

Amash, who declined Mangu-Ward's offer to announce his candidacy on stage, spoke like someone who has nevertheless thought the question through.

"I think that too often the party has made concessions to have more sort of squishy Republican candidates run as the Libertarian Party candidate, and then destroy the Libertarian Party base," he said. "So you have to have the base align with the candidate, but that candidate has to be appealing to people beyond the base."

When informed of Amash's "squishy" comments Saturday night on the same LibertyCon stage, Bill Weld shot his hand up and said "That's me!" I then asked the former Massachusetts governor if he would encourage Amash to run. "Absolutely," he said. "Justin is a hero."

But even if Amash throws his hat in the ring, that doesn't mean Weld will stand down. "It helps the Libertarian Party to have three or four strong candidates up there," he said, hinting that we'll soon hear the name of another prominent candidate. (Overstock's Patrick Byrne, maybe?) "I am very interested in 2020," Weld declared, stopping just short of making an official announcement. "I am going to be involved in 2020."

One reason Amash has stayed in the GOP despite describing himself as "the only libertarian in Congress" is that Michigan is one of just a handful of states that have the straight-ticket ballot option, by which citizens can choose a political party's entire slate of candidates by filling in just one blank. "Straight-ticket voting makes it prohibitive to run outside of the major parties," Amash told me last August.

The 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals struck down Michigan's straight-ticket system last September, but voters reinstated it two months later, 67 percent to 33 percent. The electoral track record of elected officials who switch to the Libertarian Party once in office is not good, even in states without straight-ticket voting.

Another factor potentially complicating Amash's political future is redistricting. Michigan is expected to lose a congressional seat after the 2020 Census, and there has been ongoing litigation and reported settlement negotiations stemming from GOP-led gerrymandering in 2011 (of which Amash has been a lonely Republican critic). Even if the new map-drawing process is maximally independent and fair, it's not hard to imagine a pox-on-both-houses type suffering a disproportionate impact from the rule changes.

The Amash and Weld comments at LibertyCon had the Libertarian Party attendees at the conference buzzing with speculation. In a campaign where the main declared candidates so far are serial arrestee Adam Kokesh, abrasive controversialist Arvin Vohra, and "whale-fucking" enthusiast John McAfee, there may soon be more traditionally impressive résumés in the mix.

Comments

[Don't look at me!]

Find a new guy. Not interested in getting anyone back into office. Send them all home.

[SQRLSY One]

"...and "whale-fucking" enthusiast John McAfee, there..."

"Whale-fucking" enthusiast John McAfee isn't good enough for ya? His balls not big enough?

I knew a guy who had sex with a whale, but I think it was just a fluke!

[a ab abc abcd abcde abcdef ahf]

I'll baleening towards not believing too much of that.

[Don't look at me!]

What are you guys blubbering on about?

[SQRLSY One]

Some guys go looking for a LITTLE tail, butt they can NOT handle it when they get a whale of a tail!

[Eddy]

Why do you think they're called *hump* back whales?

[a ab abc abcd abcde abcdef ahf]

And sperm whales, what's their gig?

[George J. Dance]

Especially that big Moby Dick!

[George J. Dance]

Especially that big Moby Dick!

[Brian]

I nominate Hillary Clinton.

[Harvard]

Most Reason columnists would love that.

[MJBinAL]

True

[MJBinAL]

How true ... Bill Weld would campaign for her .... again.

[NolanLibertarian]

That was proven false here. And linked to the original source.

Your proof?

[loveconstitution1789]

Poor hihn troll sock really recycles that "nolan".

[NolanLibertarian]

Those who provide absolute proof, from original sources, are trolls.

Orwell's Newspeak: War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength. In a totalitarian state.

[Red Rocks White Privilege]

Dumbfuck Hihnsano links to his own stupidity and calls it absolute proof.

[NolanLibertarian]

The proof is AT that link.
From an original source.

You lost.

[Red Rocks White Privilege]

Dumbfuck Hihnsano loses by continuing to link to his own stupidity.

[Red Rocks White Privilege]

Dumbfuck Hihnsano continues linking to his own idiocy.

[TheFOURTHReich]

KILL the fucker!

[tlapp]

Well she does know how to lose and had a long list of people to blame at the ready.

[Dadlobby]

Hey, I resemble that remark! Thanks for the chuckle.

[Jerryskids]

"I think that too often the party has made concessions to have more sort of squishy Republican candidates run as the Libertarian Party candidate, and then destroy the Libertarian Party base," he said. "So you have to have the base align with the candidate, but that candidate has to be appealing to people beyond the base."

But squishy Republicans outnumber the LP base about 100-to-1. John Kasich is the perfect squish. (A little-known fact about Kasich: his father was a mailman.)

[MJBinAL]

Yep, Kasich's daddy was a mailman, little known to anyone who has never heard Kasich speak, since it tells EVERY audience, EVERY time. It is his primary qualification.

Well, primary qualification except for being a progressive.

[NolanLibertarian]

YES! EVERYBODY who disagrees with us is a progressive. NO PROOF NEEDED!
Or a commie!!!
Or a fag.

[dangfitz]

A doctor approaches an expectant couple, and tells them that he has invented a machine that will transfer the neurological pain of child birth from the mother to the father, and he can set it to increments, so 10,20,30% of the pain is transferred. Of course, they agree, and on the day, the doctor hooks them up to the machine. He turns it to 10%, and the woman feels a little relief, while the man feels no pain whatsoever. So, the doctor truns it up to 25%, and the woman feels more relief, the man still has no pain; the doctor goes to 50-%, then 75%. The woman feels much better, but the man still feels no pain. So the doctor turns it up all the way, and the woman feels no pain, and neither does the man. A healthy baby is delivered, and they go home that very day to find the mailman dead on the front porch.

[TheFOURTHReich]

YESSSSS!!

[OpenBordersLiberal-tarian]

With the GOP having been taken over by literal white nationalists who want to turn this country into The Handmaid's Tale, there isn't much point to a Libertarian Party. The Democrats already are the libertarian party. At least, they're clearly better than the Republicans on the issues most important to us Koch / Reason libertarians ? unlimited immigration and unrestricted abortion.

The Libertarian Party either shouldn't run anyone for President in 2020, or if they do, the nominee should drop out and endorse the Democrat.

[RoyMo]

Clearly it should nominate Amash, that way we can continue neglecting all the hard work of trying to construct an actual political party while simultaneously removing Amash from Congress.

[tlapp]

Silly troll

[JWatts]

B+, Outstanding trolling.

[Dadlobby]

I just had a visual of a Liberal-tarian profile picture and it included a foil hat. I go with goofey C- troll.

[DajjaI]

I like both Amash and Weld. It's hard to understand why Amash would criticize Weld, because it alienates 'squishy' republicans like me. Right after saying we should try to appeal to more people? I don't understand libertarians. We are like cats.

As for Weld, all of his positions are classical libertarian, with the exception of hiring an extra 50 FBI agents for counterterrorism. Well as long as they are like this guy I have no objection. They can try to radicalize me any time.

[Bob Meyer]

Amash knows that if Weld runs for the LP then Weld will probably "vouch" for Biden, or Kamala Harris or Kirsten Gillibrand, or even ineligible Ocasio-Cortez. Weld got his ass kicked by Kennedy, who's hardly a genius.

Weld was a horrible choice. There's no need to double down on a mistake.

[NolanLibertarian]

That's not what Weld did. Nor Johnson. They just refused to support the culture of hatred, when baited, THEY being experienced in such things. That's class. Too bad they had no policy platform. But that's today's libertarianism, as shown in Amash.

Weld is a loser because he's already playing to the crowd, the wrong crowd, which Johnson never did.
Apparently, the Libertarian Party -- once the wackiest faction -- in 2016, was also tired of losing. But they need much more change, to lead a revolution.

Trump was elected as the only one with explicit change. His MAGA was Reagan's "Morning in America." Obama's "Hope and Change." Clinton's "Time to Change America." Kennedy's "Time for Greatness." FDR's "Happy Days are Here Again."

Those were not just slogans, They were themes for an entire campaign. Johnson/Weld kept saying, "We're just like you," but offered ... no explicit change. It's the libertarian establishment that failed a race we should have won, and allowed Trump's election.

[Bob Meyer]

Weld's exact words were "I am here vouching for Mrs. Clinton...".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18_02PpMSBo

So you are dead wrong.

[NolanLibertarian]

Anyone who click to your source to be totally useless. I shall provide the original source (NO doctoring)

You link to a single sentence, out of context, from a secondary source on a broader topic. It took me about 15 seconds to google the original source, an interview with Rachel Maddow,

So you are dead wrong.

Based on a single sentence! Out of context! From a secondary source!!

This is the TRUTH for those who seek it.

The context, at that point in the campaign, is to get 5% of the vote for ballot access and matching funds.

His comments on Hillary begin at 3:45 and deal entirely with her moral character -- versus Trump. On several occasions. he'd mentioned that he'd known her for years, personally.

Now go to 5:15, when asked about Gary Johnson as President, the only issue that matters.
You MAY have acted from the "I hate Hillary" mentality, which has no place here, nor is it relevant to a thing I said.
Politically, unlike yourself, libertarians favor neither left nor right.

So I am dead right. With an original source, as we awere all taught in hugh school

Anythibnf else.

[Bob Meyer]

You can't stand being wrong can you.

Everyone knew the context, that was all that was talked about. The context was Hillary's honesty, something no sane person could defend. Hillary has no character at all. She was in charge of smearing the women that her husband abused. She is absolutely despicable.

Weld would have been better off vouching for Trump's marital fidelity.

[NolanLibertarian]

Both links (yours and mine) prove you wrong .. and prove me right
Anyone who cares can click and go to the exact times I published. I yield to you all the other readers.

Weld would have been better off vouching for Trump's marital fidelity.

If he was a standup comic!

You've also now confirmed my guess

You MAY have acted from the "I hate Hillary" mentality, which has no place here, nor is it relevant to a thing I said. Politically, unlike yourself, libertarians favor neither left nor right.

[Bob Meyer]

You can't stand being wrong can you.

Everyone knew the context, that was all that was talked about. The context was Hillary's honesty, something no sane person could defend. Hillary has no character at all. She was in charge of smearing the women that her husband abused. She is absolutely despicable.

Weld would have been better off vouching for Trump's marital fidelity.

[NolanLibertarian]

Two links prove you wrong, mine and yours. I even say what time the proof is on the video.
I also explained where the proof is that your latest version of "context" is also false, proven and sourced.
Anyone who cares can confirm what I said in about 30 seconds. Anyone else, I yield to you.

Weld would have been better off vouching for Trump's marital fidelity.

If he was a standup comic!

And you now further confirm my hunch

You MAY have acted from the "I hate Hillary" mentality, which has no place here, nor is it relevant to a thing I said. Politically, unlike yourself, libertarians favor neither left nor right.

[NolanLibertarian]

Sorry, you lose. Anyone who clicks to your source will find it totally useless, even dishonest. I shall provide the original source (NO doctoring)

You link to a single sentence, out of context, from a secondary source on a broader topic. It took me about 15 seconds to google the original source, an interview with Rachel Maddow,

So you are dead wrong.

Based on a single sentence! Out of context! From a secondary source!! Which proves you wrong, a mere few seconds later.

This is the TRUTH for those who seek it.

The context, at that point in the campaign, is to get 5% of the vote for ballot access and matching funds.

His comments on Hillary begin at 3:45 and deal entirely with her moral character -- versus Trump. On several occasions. he'd mentioned that he'd known her for years, personally. Which is confirmed by your own link! (at 0:24)

Now go to 5:15, when asked about Gary Johnson as President, the only issue that matters.
You MAY have acted from the "I hate Hillary" mentality I alluded to. And your own source proves you wrong.

Politically, unlike yourself, libertarians favor neither left nor right.

So I am dead right. With an original source, as we were taught in high school

Anything else? (An apology is in order, but I won't demand what I've earned.)

[Red Rocks White Privilege]

Dumbfuck Hihnsano has another sockpuppet.

[NolanLibertarian]

Huh???

[Migrant Log Chipper]

lololol

[NolanLibertarian]

I did nail him, but laughing is unkind of you.

[MJBinAL]

Yeah, you are a hoot. Even though you DO sound like yet another Hiln sockpuppet.

Kinda like those Darwin award stories, sometimes stupid people doing and saying stupid things is funny.

So yeah, you ARE funny ... sorta.

[Red Rocks White Privilege]

Dumbfuck Hihnsano is assmad that he's so bad at disguising sockpuppets.

[perlchpr]

The hihnswarm returns.

[Nardz]

He started out maintaining a cover, seemingly rational.
But as soon as he was challenged, the unhihnged lunatic reemerged

[NolanLibertarian]

The thread shows.
1) WHO provides absolute proof, linked to the original source.
2) How many launch unprovoked and purely personal assaults.

[Red Rocks White Privilege]

The thread shows
1) Dumbfuck Hihnsano continues lying about his sources
2) Dumbfuck Hihnsano will die alone and unloved.

[NolanLibertarian]

continues lying about his sources

This is the ORIGINAL source, of the Weld interview lied about here.

His comments on Hillary begin at 3:45 and deal entirely with her moral character -- versus Trump. On several occasions. he'd mentioned that he'd known her for years, personally. Which is confirmed by your own link! (at 0:24)

Now go to 5:15, when asked about Gary Johnson as President, the only issue that matters.
You MAY have acted from the "I hate Hillary" mentality I alluded to. And your own source proves you wrong.

Politically, unlike yourself, libertarians favor neither left nor right.

So I am dead right. With an original source, as we were taught in high school

[Red Rocks White Privilege]

Dumbfuck Hihnsano likes lying about his gun control sources, too.

[George J. Dance]

'Weld's exact words were "I am here vouching for Mrs. Clinton...".'

Weld actually said the three dots at the end? As in "Mrs Clinton dot-dot-dot"? Or do those just mean you're quoting a piece of a sentence out of context?

[NolanLibertarian]

BINGO!
As proven here

His own source proves him wrong, 0:24 at his own link.

[a ab abc abcd abcde abcdef ahf]

If Weld had intended to simply not partake in the media's goads, he could have smiled and kept on going. He didn't. He praised Hillary, and not as a human being, but as a politician.

[NolanLibertarian]

That's his decision, NOT yours.

He praised Hillary, and not as a human being, but as a politician.

That's a lie, as proven in my response to Bob Meyer. I even tell you where it begins in the relevant video.

Anything else?

[NolanLibertarian]

That's his decision, NOT yours.

He praised Hillary, and not as a human being, but as a politician.

That's a lie, as proven in my response to Bob Meyer. I even tell you where it begins in the relevant video.

Anything else?

[MJBinAL]

Why are you here? You are not a libertarian, and clearly not honest. Is it that boring over at HuffPo?

[NolanLibertarian]

What do you assert is dishonest? Please be as specific as I am, in proving my positions.
Why does my link to absolute proof enrage you so?

[Red Rocks White Privilege]

Dumbfuck Hihnsano provides absolute proof of his idiocy.

[MJBinAL]

No one suggested Johnson endorsed Hillary like Weld did.

[NolanLibertarian]

A proven lie.

[Red Rocks White Privilege]

A proven lie= every one of Dumbfuck Hihnsano's shitposts.

[NolanLibertarian]

The lie is PROVEN here, including the timelines.

[Red Rocks White Privilege]

Dumbfuck Hihnsano continues shitposting.

[NolanLibertarian]

That's not what Weld did. Nor Johnson. "Vouch" for anyone. They just refused to support the culture of hatred, when baited, THEY being experienced in such things. That's class. Too bad they had no policy platform. But that's today's libertarianism, as shown in Amash.

Weld is a loser because he's already playing to the crowd, the wrong crowd, which Johnson never did.
Apparently, the Libertarian Party -- once the wackiest faction -- in 2016, was also tired of losing. But they need much more change, to lead a revolution.

Trump was elected as the only one with explicit change. His MAGA was Reagan's "Morning in America." Obama's "Hope and Change." Clinton's "Time to Change America." Kennedy's "Time for Greatness." FDR's "Happy Days are Here Again."

Those were not just slogans, They were themes for an entire campaign. Johnson/Weld kept saying, "We're just like you," but offered ... no explicit change. It's the libertarian establishment that failed a race we should have won, and allowed Trump's election.

[Red Rocks White Privilege]

I'm going to collect this sockpuppet's scalp, too, Dumbfuck Hihnsano.

[NolanLibertarian]

The defense rests

[Red Rocks White Privilege]

Dumbfuck Hihnsano resting on his own worthlessness.

[MJBinAL]

"As for Weld, all of his positions are classical libertarian, with the exception of hiring an extra 50 FBI agents for counterterrorism."

And taxes,
And privacy,
And ...
And campaigning for Hillary while running on Libertarian ticket,

Yep, a classical libertarian for sure! LOL

[NolanLibertarian]

That was proven wrong about Hillary here, with a link to the original source.

Do you have any proof? Show us.

[JFree]

Well, I think an ideal third party candidate, especially a Libertarian Party candidate?that's what I'll talk about?I think the ideal candidate has to be very libertarian, because if you're running in the Libertarian Party, you better be a libertarian," he said. "But it has to be a person who is persuasive to other people, can bring Republicans and Democrats on board, or bring a large part of the electorate on board, because you can't just appeal to diehard libertarians and win the election.

Lots of confusion here. OOH, he seems to be saying the candidate has to appeal to some purist base. OTOH, he admits that person can't win. OTTH, he seems to be saying the only really important thing is to have charisma or appeal or something that can appeal to a huge number of people who have absolutely no principles (and maybe nothing much of anything else) in common.

Fortunately, he doesn't seem to have four hands.

[SQRLSY One]

On the other, other, other, OTHER-other hand, we could become like octopuses, with enough appendages to comprehend all of the VAST complexities of the particular nook of the space-time continuum that we currently inhabit, and we could justifiably conclude that we should all vote for MEEEE!!!

I PROMISE that I will implement the following policy faithfully, to the best of my TWO brains, PLUS my eight appendages:

Don't tax you,
Don't tax me,
Tax the fella
Behind the tree!!!

[NolanLibertarian]

That made as much sense as Amash did. And a lot less than JFree did (except he described a small tiny number of people).

Why is that not authoritarian, targeting fewer than 5% of Americans? How is that anything? Anything at all?

[SQRLSY One]

Because libertarians are less than 5% of the people, they must all be authoritarians? "How is that anything?"

If you are less than 5% of the people, you are NOTHING!!!

Said the REAL authoritarian, who implied that all MUST Obey The Hive!!!!

[NolanLibertarian]

You prove my point. Better than I possibly coould have.

Said the REAL authoritarian, who implied that all MUST Obey The Hive!!!!

We must LEAD what YOU call the hive ... not your tiny tribe of authoritarians.

Only an authoritarian would publicly state such open contempt for elections.
Only an authoritarian would sneer at "Will of the People" and "Consent of the Governed."
What else can individual liberty possibly be ... other than what you so totally hate?

[SQRLSY One]

So are you OK with holding a vote every day, on what The Collective Hive should have for breakfast? All who disobey... Who eat what is not on the selected menu... HOW shall they be punished?

Democracy not-= freedom! The dictatorial majority = a genuine problem!!!

[NolanLibertarian]

You've now proven me correct, even more.
And confirmed your authoritarian contempt for individual liberty, the principles espoused by Thomas Jefferson and Ayn Rand. You have nobody.

[SQRLSY One]

I don't think that individuals should be enslaved to ANYTHING or ANYONE, so long as they respect the rights of others.

What do YOU think we should be enslaved to? The majority, the voters, Government Almighty, and what all else? The Collective Hive? Because you are making NO sense to me at ALL... I do wonder who you have allowed to enslave you!

[NolanLibertarian]

What do YOU think we should be enslaved to?

Nothing.
Certainly not 5% of the people.

[Red Rocks White Privilege]

What I have, Dumbfuck Hihnsano, are your original account and several of your sockpuppets' heads sitting on my digital mantle. This one's going to be up there soon, too.

[Freddy the Jerk]

Only an authoritarian would go around quoting a supreme court opinion like it was the Word of God, Hihn. Like you do.

[NolanLibertarian]

Only an authoritarian would invent an excuse to deny the role of the courts, in interpreting the Supreme Law of the Land. But no court rulings were cited or even referred to.

[MJBinAL]

Another progressive sock puppet. Just what we needed. sigh.

[NolanLibertarian]

Why does documented proof enrage you so? Four times?
So far?

[Red Rocks White Privilege]

Dumbfuck Hihnsano provides documented proof of his idiocy. Four times.

[Red Rocks White Privilege]

We must LEAD what YOU call the hive

What Dumbfuck Hihnsano has failed at his whole life.

[Roman Moroni]

Nolan, ARE you a libertarian? I'm not trying to debate you or trap you. I'm just interested in the answer.

Why do you believe you're a libertarian?

I really want to know your firsts principles that lead you to be not just libertarian leaning, but a libertarian. And please don't use examples of even worse libertarians. I'll concede that you're more libertarian leaning than most of the world. So is Hilary Clinton. It won't help me understand your own political philosophy.

I realize that there is a spectrum, but I've always looked at libertarianism as a moral and political philosophy to be just that: a philosophy. The practical mechanism of democracy is neither libertarian nor non-libertarian in and of itself. If most people want to legalize rape, it doesn't make the concept of legalized rape any more libertarian.

If Skynet took over and implemented a libertarian system that no one could vote on and no one could change, it wouldn't be less libertarian. No one's rights are violated. You don't have the moral right to vote to legalize rape. Skynet is not violating your rights by ignoring your vote to violate rights.

Call it authoritarian to NOT allow a majority to enslave a minority if it makes you feel like you've won a word battle. But if you call it non-libertarian you've stripped the word of all useful meaning.

[tlapp]

Actually if a Libertarian candidate could win 5% it would be enough to get some libertarian perspective into the policy decisions since that is enough to sway an election.
Need a libertarian with some charisma. Weld is not it, Gary Johnson, nice guy but no charisma. Ron Paul was a curmudgeon.
If you can't engage the audience to listen to your message the message won't matter.

[NolanLibertarian]

The only way to engage an audience is with an actual platform of policy positions.
Why do you say it is NOT the message which engages the audience.

Thanks for admitting all you want is to "get some libertarian perspective into the policy discussion" ... with no policies at all. And no interest in actually getting elected to do anything. That's my point.

[Agammamon]

The only way to engage an audience is with an actual platform of policy positions.

You say that as if you've not been paying attention to the last 30 years (plus) of political campaigning. Candidates go out of their way to not voice actual policy positions. Trump? Other than 'the wall' his big thing was MAGA. Not explaining how he would MAGA, just 'trust me, I'll MAGA'. Clinton didn't even have that. Obama? 'Hope And Change'. Hope about what? Change what? 'just change the bad things to good things.' How will that happen - 'just trust me, I can do it'.

[NolanLibertarian]

You say that as if there had been ANY libertarian policy platforms in that 30 years!

And your TDS has blinded you to the fact that he had the ONLY policy positions in 2016. Mostly stupid and no clue HOW to achieve the good ones, but explicit. Here are his Top Ten, as compiled by Politifact.

1. 'Build a wall' ? and make Mexico pay for it
2. Temporarily ban Muslims from entering the United States
3. 'Bring manufacturing (jobs) back'
4. Impose tariffs on goods made in China and Mexico
5. Renegotiate or withdraw from the North American Free Trade Agreement and Trans-Pacific Partnership
6. 'Full repeal of Obamacare' and replace it with a market-based alternative
7. Renegotiate the Iran deal
8. Leave Social Security as is
9. Cut taxes
10. 'Bomb' and/or 'take the oil' from ISIS

He engaged voters, precisely as I said. The only candidate to do so. Yet another blown opportunity by the good guys -- slogans over solutions

Anything else?

[perlchpr]

The damned hihnswarm is back.

[NolanLibertarian]

A "hihnswarm" defends libertarian values to non-libertarians? I'd never heard that before.

[Red Rocks White Privilege]

Dumbfuck Hihnsano thinks his maladapted personality is libertarian values.

[NolanLibertarian]

Libertarians oppose your aggression. And all aggression. It's a core principle.
And it has enraged you Authoritarians, on both the right and left, for 50 years.

[Red Rocks White Privilege]

Dumbfuck Hihnsano thinks that claiming he's like a Holocaust survivor is opposing aggression.

[TheFOURTHReich]

How can you claim the Holocaust was not aggression. I cannot find a Hihnsano anywhere on the page, or even an indirect reference to the Holocaust.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

Yeah, I fear it's going to be Weld. It will be pretty bad.
Guess I just leave the presidential line blank again in 2020.

[Ryan (formally HFTO)]

Or you could vote for the guy pulling us out of wars and reforming our criminal justice system

[Deconstructed Potato]

Or at least trying to, against the tide of the deep state and garbage clickbait media machine.

[NolanLibertarian]

The one who has already added more debt than Obama did after 8 years?
CBO 2024 forecast vs Obama actual.

[MJBinAL]

Interesting that federal revenues are UP, even as the deficit is as well. So, tell me, what major spending has Trump pushed that increased the debt?

After all, if revenues are up, and the deficit is up, then spending much be up more than revenues are.

I sure as hell isn't the border wall that can't get funded.
It can't be increased wars that Trump has been trying to back out of.

So tell me NolanProgressive, where did it go?

[Sometimes a Great Notion]

I believe it was the ending of the sequester caps so the Pentagon could buy new and useless toys from their defense contractor buddies. You know the omnibus budget busting bill passed by the Republican lead house, senate and executive branch. That the Republicans had fought so hard to get passed in the first place.

[NolanLibertarian]

what major spending has Trump pushed that increased the debt?

The bill that Rand Paul shut down the government over ? PASSED!

if revenues are up, and the deficit is up, then spending much be up more than revenues are.

BINGO!

FORBES is progressive!

Congress And Trump Are Spending Money And Cutting Taxes Like There Is No Tomorrow
What is the difference between Chicago mayoral candidate Willie Wilson, and President Trump and Congress? Wilson, you may recall, spent last Sunday handing out an estimated $200,000 in crisp new $20 bills to prospective voters. Congress and President Trump spent the past week doing much the same. There are two differences: The magnitude of the Washington give-away dwarfs Wilson's. And the money Congress is handing out is ours while Wilson gave away cash from a personal foundation.

Forbes: The Top 10 Lies In The Trump Budget

You publicly admit NO knowledge of the omnibus spending bill, the tax cuts and ... the HUGE deficit increase!

Trump is the ONLY President to increase the deficit by over 40% (47%) in one year ... in a booming economy.
The Republican New Deal!
MORE debt than Obama!!

[NolanLibertarian]

Sad to see Justin join the Politically Correct Purity Posse, seeking a "pure" candidate, NOT advancing liberty. Do the math.

Americans are eager for even radical change, which happens only once or twice per century.
Over 60% of them self-identify with (Nolan) libertarian values, fiscally conservative and socially liberal. But 91% of them reject the libertarian label.

So -- who to appeal to -- before the window slams shut for another 50-100 years. 60% of Americans or fewer than 6% of Americans? SOME liberty or NONE at all?

Step 1) Accept that great change is possible ONLY if and when people are open to it.,

Step 2) Actual policy proposals, not slogans, targeting the entire top half of the Nolan Chart. (We now have none, on anything)

Step 3) Accept that liberty is an EVOLVING process, for the past 500 years, with no reason to assume that will ever change ... certainly not by snapping one's fingers.

Step 4) Reject Rothbardians who WHINE that seeking to govern means "conspiring with statists" -- which is how liberty works, at this stage They have NO PLAN to EVOLVE toward a freer society, which is why we've been losing for decades. They reject Will of the People and Consent of the Governed in a culture dominated by those values. DUH. That's authoritarian ? way too extreme for the core principles of BOTH Thomas Jefferson AND Ayn Rand.

REFUSING to govern achieves WHAT in a free society?
Only a cult.

[NolanLibertarian]

Sad to see Justin join the Politically Correct Purity Posse, seeking a "pure" candidate, NOT advancing liberty. Do the math.

Americans are eager for even radical change, which happens only once or twice per century.
Over 60% of them self-identify with (Nolan) libertarian values, fiscally conservative and socially liberal. But 91% of them reject the libertarian label.

So -- who to appeal to -- before the window slams shut for another 50-100 years. 60% of Americans or fewer than 6% of Americans? SOME liberty or NONE at all?

Step 1) Accept that great change is possible ONLY if and when people are open to it.,

Step 2) Actual policy proposals, not slogans, targeting the entire top half of the Nolan Chart. (We now have none, on anything)

Step 3) Accept that liberty is an EVOLVING process, for the past 500 years, with no reason to assume that will ever change ... certainly not by snapping one's fingers.

Step 4) Reject Rothbardians who WHINE that seeking to govern means "conspiring with statists" -- which is how liberty works, at this stage They have NO PLAN to EVOLVE toward a freer society, which is why we've been losing for decades. They reject Will of the People and Consent of the Governed in a culture dominated by those values. DUH. That's authoritarian ? way too extreme for the core principles of BOTH Thomas Jefferson AND Ayn Rand.

REFUSING to govern achieves WHAT in a free society?
Only a cult.

[Qsl]

At the end of the day though, it is the Libertarian Party, and the selection should reflect that. Not some 4th dimensional chess of where the party can find some Z list celebrity who happens to like drugs to run

I'll even grant there are numerous flavors of libertarianism to choose from, but if the goal isn't moving towards more freedom rather than a slightly less insufferable state, what's the point?

[NolanLibertarian]

If the goal is NOT getting elected, then there is NO point to the party. None at all. That's from several decades in the party, including state-level leadership and campaigns, several national platform committees over the years, elected to three local offices in two states, and a winning tax revolt.

The "goal" of using campaigns to "promote libertarian ideas" has clearly failed. One also needs a platform of actual policy proposals, but that failure comes from the so-called think tanks, who are as bureaucratic as the DMV and -- after 50 years -- have nothing at all.

In the early days, we had a slogan, always pro-liberty, never anti-government. We lost on that, bigly.
Should have been pro-people, never anti-government. On every major political issue, the majority of Americans believe the Progressive "facts" which can all be easily disproven, if anyone was trying to,

The people want 90% of what government provides, so all we have to do is show a better way to achieve what people already want. Salesmanship 101, but has not existed for decades within libertarianism. Should not be rocket science.

Also, sell benefits (to the buyer), never features (of the product). Progressives NEVER talk of expanding government, only of benefits they claim they can deliver. "Limiting government" is NOT a benefit; it's preaching to the choir. And that choir is 5% of the electorate.

[Qsl]

Likewise, if the libertarian platform is little more than republicans who smoke pot or budget minded democrats, there is no reason for a party either. It's not like the libertarian aspects of either party get much popular support.

While libertarians could pay more heed to the possible rather than the Platonic ideal, the goal is always them same- less government. You can only dress that up so many ways.

[NolanLibertarian]

Likewise, if the libertarian platform is little more than republicans who smoke pot or budget minded democrats,

It's not. And never has been. https://www.lp.org/platform/

The goal is always them same- less government.

Wrong priority.
Expanding individual liberty always limits or reduces government.
But reducing government CAN do nothing to expand individual liberty, and can actually also reject free-market outcomes. See Medicaid.

Pre-Medicaid, the free-market outcome was universal treatment for the uninsured, regardless of age or income. Cutting or repealing Medicaid cannot restore liberty (free-market outcomes), only a transition can. because the free-market infrastructure must be rebuilt. Outcomes that existed, paid voluntarily, since the 1500s.

The conflict of visions has long been defined as pro-liberty vs anti-government.
Or liberty lovers vs government haters.
My personal preference is pro-people not anti-government. Individual liberty is ... individuals. Individuals are people.

[NolanLibertarian]

If the goal is NOT getting elected, then there is NO point to the party. None at all. That's from several decades in the party, including state-level leadership and campaigns, several national platform committees over the years, elected to three local offices in two states, and a winning tax revolt.

The "goal" of using campaigns to "promote libertarian ideas" has clearly failed. One also needs a platform of actual policy proposals, but that failure comes from the so-called think tanks, who are as bureaucratic as the DMV and -- after 50 years -- have nothing at all.

In the early days, we had a slogan, always pro-liberty, never anti-government. We lost on that, bigly.
Should have been pro-people, never anti-government. On every major political issue, the majority of Americans believe the Progressive "facts" which can all be easily disproven, if anyone was trying to,

The people want 90% of what government provides, so all we have to do is show a better way to achieve what people already want. Salesmanship 101, but has not existed for decades within libertarianism. Should not be rocket science.

Also, sell benefits (to the buyer), never features (of the product). Progressives NEVER talk of expanding government, only of benefits they claim they can deliver. "Limiting government" is NOT a benefit; it's preaching to the choir. And that choir is 5% of the electorate.

[thomtaylor]

Very well put, but the party can also advance legislation and initiatives for issue-minded libertarians - through ballot-measures, ranked-choice voting implementation, volunteer positions in government (as I do on my neighborhood council), campaigns to reduce taxes and the like.

Or the party could focus on entirely non-partisan elections (and because of such strategies, see a "Large & Small L" Jeff Hewitt gain prominence into a relatively high-powered positions of government). And while he may never wear a "Scarlet L" in a race, Amash is IMHO the best salesman of libertarian ideas, and fortunately he, Massie, Rand Paul - and others in that vein, such as democrats Gabbard, Polis, Costa, Moulton - have the perch where such ideas and ideals can be implemented into our systems of government.

I doubt that anybody reading this expects to actually see an "L" elected U.S. President within their lifetime. Some saw Governors Johnson & Weld as possible contenders to keep a 2016 major party candidate from gaining 270 electoral votes - thus sending the election to the House. I was naive enough to think that if that happened, that a GOP-led vote would then prefer Gary (given his R past) over The Donald (given his D) - and that in this rare window of history, we would have had a Libertarian CEO (it's interesting to note: had that been the case, the Senate picks the VP from the top TWO vote-getters, so Weld was out of the race completely by the time of his Rachel Mad-cow appearance).

[thomtaylor]

Third parties were spoilers, "wasted votes" from whiners. But face it, Trump was the real protest vote. How can the party challenge that in the next go-round - unless you consider Kokesh's run simply to abolish the office on day-one, as an even greater protest?

PITCH: pair a smart-talking media figure (Joe Rogan, Penn Jilette, Bill Burr, Dave Rubin - somebody who'd love to take the stage) with a Koch-like Multi-Billionaire VP, who could self-fund a clever guerilla roadshow to entertain the electorate. As much as we loved Gary, he wasn't prepared for the media needling. A stand-up comic as Presidente is no more ridiculous than an Actor-turned-Governor or Reality-TV-Star-turned-Blowhard.

The L party running a candidate for Most Powerful Person on Earth thereby attracts interest into finding suitable lower-level candidates - who DO make change. Sadly the pendulum is moving further away from third-parties getting much of a voice at the federal level - the two major parties have entrenched armies fighting over that growing government apparatus. Our media covers the debates as if they were UFC games.

All this contributes to the public growing more distrustful and disappointed with our national system - with a helpful byproduct in that it may result in bolstering local-level interest (all politics is local, right?). Because of Jeff Hewitt and others following his path, we're bound to see more more "pro-people, never anti-government" types getting elected.

[Anastasia Beaverhausen]

I prefer not to take advice from a Republican member of Congress as to who my party should nominate for President.

If he cares so much about the LP, let him change his registration to Libertarian and join the LP.

[MJBinAL]

Yes indeed, then he too will be out of office. That will help IMMENSELY!

[TheFOURTHReich]

YES! SCREW AMASH
Trumpland Uber Alles!!

[Bob Meyer]

The LP candidate can't advocate free minds and free markets. The Republicans do that all the time and never, ever implement any of those ideas. No one, absolutely no one, will believe that any candidate who says these things will actually do something. Free minds and free markets are now simply incantations, not serious policies, because truths spoken by liars become lies for the purpose of public discourse.

Since losing big is the inevitable consequence for any LP candidate, the right move is to go down swinging for the fences. Condemn the 1964 Civil Rights Act for the public accommodations section. Show that it leads to baking cakes with messages the government approves of. Demand the elimination of all income tax deductions especially mortgage interest and charitable deductions. Show that giving money to a friend in need gets no deduction but the Clinton foundation does. Insist on the Federal government banning all restrictions on medical insurance (including state restrictions) using the Commerce Clause for something rational for a change.

Get these arguments into the public awareness. Shift the "Overton Window". Same Sex Marriage wasn't brought about by people saying "Gays aren't all pedophiles, some are OK".

[NolanLibertarian]

The LP candidate can't advocate free minds and free markets.

Why would anyone want to? Ever?
People are eager for solutions. Nearly desperate for them. We have none. Most of Cato and Mercatus are slogans to raise money, nothing that would actually work. A few are downright embarrassing to policy wonks.

[Bob Meyer]

Pragmatism eh? Nothing is as impractical as pragmatism.

To have a solution you have to have an explanation as to why the solution will "work". To do that, you need a definition of "work". Pragmatists have neither.

Those "policy wonks" at Cato and Mercatus have both. Human flourishing is the goal and liberty is the means.

Pragmatists see one problem and one solution with no general philosophical framework. They are inevitably blind to unintended consequences that arise when you monkey around in any complex system. Give money to poor people and they won't be poor anymore, right? Except you are paying people to be poor, so they stay that way. Aid to Families with Dependent Children only resulted in preventing marriages.

When progressives advocate 70% to 90% marginal tax rates you don't fight it by saying "Ok, how about 50% in return for another 50 feet of border wall?".

[NolanLibertarian]

Pragmatism eh?

Wrong again,

To have a solution you have to have an explanation as to why the solution will "work".

The solution comes first. Selling comes second. And YOU fail your own diktats.

Those "policy wonks" at Cato and Mercatus have both.

Name just one. Or you've failed.

Human flourishing is the goal and liberty is the means.

FAILS your own definition. WHY will "it" work? And WHAT is it?

[Bob Meyer]

Go learn something about philosophy before you embarrass yourself again.

Veronique de Rugy. Michael Tanner and Alex Nowrasteh for starters. They actually know something about the subject they write about.

[NolanLibertarian]

The solution comes first. Selling comes second. And YOU fail your own diktats.

Those "policy wonks" at Cato and Mercatus have both.

Name just one. Or you've failed

You've failed to name a single solution, and again fail your own diktat on HOW anything would work..

Philosophy was my minor.

Veronique is a researcher. Alex is an analysts. NEITHER is a "policy wonk." Per Cato or just Google them!
Tanner does policy, also fails YOUR diktat to show how anything would work, and is a total fool.

1) Medicare vouchers LOOK LIKE privatization to the gullible. They would increase competition ... in the wrong market! Insurance is not health care!! Ask anyone who's an accounting student --- for one hour -- the insurers would be a useless middle-man between the government and providers. The real market -- providers -- has always had competition! Seniors have always had choice of providers, but have no "skin in the game." So your "policy wonk" is in the wrong market, and -- somehow -- "forgot" skin in the game.

2) The "6.2 plan" to privatize Social Security is TOTAL bullshit for donors. Requires a separate comment for all the proof. ....

[NolanLibertarian]

Part 2 of 2

All documented at this link. Cato's privatization hustle.

Workers would keep and control their 6.2% FICA contribution. Michael Tanner says (page 10) the transition will be costly, but "a one-time event" ? Yeah, a one-time event lasting over 20 years, declining from a first-year cost of $410 billion!

Also Page 10,"Simply restraining the projected growth in nondefense discretionary spending by 1 percent would generate more than $20 billion per year." Versus $410 billion, suckers! (OMG)

But how to pay for it is NOT Cato's job anyhow! He just needs to say "it can be done" -- then sucker the donors.

"There are short-term costs that will require the president and Congress to make tough choices." Page 6.

Same "short-term" bullshit. If anyone is STILL confused ....
$410 billion is 50% FICA revenues Page 102
All budgeted to benefits
Loss declines slowly as seniors die off.

You again fail your own diktat. Not only do you fail to show how anything works, you have nobody else who can show how.

[Red Rocks White Privilege]

The solution comes first. Selling comes second

Both of which Dumbfuck Hihnsano has failed at for decades.

[NolanLibertarian]

The LP candidate can't advocate free minds and free markets.

Why would anyone want to? Ever?

Pragmatism eh? Nothing is as impractical as pragmatism.

More evasion.

[Freddy the Jerk]

What's with this "we" stuff, Kemosabe? You're no libertarian, you're an elected dumbfuck.

[NolanLibertarian]

People are eager for solutions. Nearly desperate for them. We have none.

What's with this "we" stuff, Kemosabe?

What you fail -- totally -- to rebut. Or to even try!

you're an elected dumbfuck.

I won't sink to your level. But if you fail to name and defend a single solution, does that make you an UNelected dumbf**k?

Waiting ...

[perlchpr]

See, this is how we can tell you're just Hihn, back again. He wasn't even fucking talking to you. He was responding to Amash's comment, and you exploded all over the place with your typical verbal diarrhea.

[perlchpr]

In short; Fuck off, Hihn.

[NolanLibertarian]

He was replying to me HERE Learn how the indents work.

Anything else?

[Red Rocks White Privilege]

Dumbfuck Hihnsano links to his own stupidity again.

[TheFOURTHReich]

huh????

[NolanLibertarian]

The LP candidate can't advocate free minds and free markets.

Why would anyone want to? Ever?

Pragmatism eh? Nothing is as impractical as pragmatism.

More evasion.

[Ryan (formally HFTO)]

Why not a democrat? Is there something inherently anti-liberty about their platform?

There's so much anti-republican rhetoric out of the editors and yet no libertarian would dare try to run as a democrat.

[Bob Meyer]

"Why not a democrat?"

Because in any conflict between liberty and equality they always choose equality.

[NolanLibertarian]

They can never be in conflict! So should we assume you oppose equal rights -- in the name of liberty???

Plus:
Republicans want government out of your wallet and into your bedroom.
Democrats want government out of your bedroom and into your wallet.
Libertarians want government out of both your bedroom and your wallet.
We've been saying that for over 50 years, and over 60% of Americans now agree. (Fiscally conservative and socially liberal)

[SQRLSY One]

"...over 60% of Americans now agree..."

Yet libertarians collect less than 4 or 5% of the vote, just about, in the best cases, and very little more. Why is that?

ONE of the reasons why the voters do that, is that they look at libertarians who are constantly fighting each other over the pickiest, stupidest little things (like you seem to like to do), and the voters say to themselves, "Now why would we vote for malfunctioning human beings like THOSE guys, who can't even get along with each other, let alone various diverse humans of all kinds?"

[NolanLibertarian]

Yet libertarians collect less than 4 or 5% of the vote? Why is that?

Again ... no policy solutions. For anything. Or anyone.

Voters don't give a damn about libertarians, and have no reason to, since libertarians don't give a damn about them -- "libertopia" is the exact opposite of a free society, for the few who know even that much. And I I disagree that voters are pissed by libertarians who want solutions for (care about) THEM.

You seem to say there are more than two options -- Consent of the Governed vs Authoritarian. So, what is your non-authoritarian alternative to Consent of the Governed? And who decides

[SQRLSY One]

"So, what is your non-authoritarian alternative to Consent of the Governed? And who decides"

The rule of Love. If everyone loves everyone, all human abuse (and neglect) of other humans stops. I don't include plants and non-human animals here, because we have to eat SOMETHING, and Star-Trek-style food synthesizers aren't available yet.

NON-loving acts will be punished by having the violator(s) promptly shot at the next dawn! But they will be given a fair trial first, and be shot to death, in a loving manner.

Who will decide? God! I am going to coax Him or Her out of His or Her apparently self-chosen isolation, by offering Him or Her an EXCELLENT marijuana-infused hipster-artisan beer. Stay tuned, I am working on it...

[NolanLibertarian]

Another fail ..... and still fascist ...

[Red Rocks White Privilege]

Dumbfuck Hihnsano fails at life. That's why he'll die alone and unloved.

[MJBinAL]

No, no, no, don't say that about yourself Nolan, you are a progressive, not necessarily a fascist.

[NolanLibertarian]

Where have I defended progressive economic policy?
With a link, like I do..

Libertarians have been fiscally conservative and socially liberal for only 50 years now.
This has always enraged extreme socons like yourself. And extreme fiscal liberals.

Also true for 50 years, left and right are obsolete -- as the only two boxes for you to stuff everyone into.
Because over 60% of Americans would SELF-describe as fiscally conservative and socially liberal.
That leaves liberals and conservatives as less than 40% ... combined ... and shrinking toward extinction. Their time has expired.

[Red Rocks White Privilege]

With a link, like I do..

Just make sure it's not link to the Heller decision, because Dumbfuck Hihnsano never read past page 1 of that document.

[NolanLibertarian]

Where have I defended progressive economic policy?
With a link, like I do..

Just make sure it's not link to the Heller decision,

Heller was a Second Amendment ruling, not economic policy.

[NolanLibertarian]

Libertarians have run as Democrats and have been elected, mostly to state legislatures. Below that is mostly non-partisan, but that varies by state.

Indeed, most libertarians who seek results, not talk, run as either party or none. I've known maybe 5 or 6, and all did the same thing, without knowing the others. They leave the LP, get elected as an R or D, then return to the LP when they "retire" from public office. About half of them, IIRC, had been elected to local nonpartisan office while in the LP, but left because many LP state and local parties have no interest in actually affecting change.

[Ryan (formally HFTO)]

Local officials being libertarian, in party, is a good thing. I was talking about the national level. Libertarians running for congress as democrats would get called racist bigot homophobes who hate poor people. The only home in the red/ blue world for libertarians at the national level is the republican party.

And I think Republicans have removed themselves from the bedroom, and moved too much into our wallets. If only Rand could get more in Trump's ear about that.

[NolanLibertarian]

Libertarians running for congress as democrats would get called racist bigot homophobes who hate poor people.

Only by assholes, a minority.

The only home in the red/ blue world for libertarians at the national level is the republican party.

For over 50 years, libertarians come from both sides. And your only example fails.

I think Republicans have removed themselves from the bedroom,

Extreme socons now hold their greatest power ever in the GOP!

moved too much into our wallets. If only Rand could get more in Trump's ear about that.

Rand is among the very worst on bedroom issues. And he also sucks on the fiscal side. He shut down the government on higher spending, citing the federal debt. Then he voted FOR tax cuts that are twice as bad on the debt -- typical GOP baloney these days. You say the GOP is the only choice for libertarians, but cite somebody who violates BOTH the bedroom and the wallet.

On personal liberty, he got a standing ovation on non-intervention at Berkeley, which is good. He totally blew THAT gain less than a week later, calling for religious tent revivals across America, to protest the severe threat of ... marriage equality!

That alone discredits his dad's entire liberty coalition (sic), which assumes, laughingly, a coalition of Berkeley liberals and homophobes. See?

[Ryan (formally HFTO)]

Look up the Freedom Caucus. Only one democrat.

Where is your mind does Rand try to enter the bedroom?

I like the shutdown, even if it costs a little more. It proves a vital point: that the federal government is a bloated expensive mess.

[NolanLibertarian]

Non-responsive. The Freedom Caucus is also severely partisan, and if not entirely socon then very close ... NOT libertarian.

Where is your mind does Rand try to enter the bedroom?

Already answered.
Also brags of sponsoring an abortion ban at conception ... THE most extreme socon position. (All unalienable rights are precisely co-equal, by definition) Also a wacko trying to defund Planned Parenthood -- on the illiterate notion that their Medicaid funding subsidizes abortion! How dumb is that?

I like the shutdown, even if it costs a little more. It proves a vital point: that the federal government is a bloated expensive mess.

WTF? How so?
A diversion from Rand's failure as a fiscal conservative.
And see #3 below

Check his Senate website for proof of his fakery https://www.paul.senate.gov/
1) Large numbers, showing the debt increasing/changing each second, which HE voted to expand.
2) Reintroduced his Life at Conception Act.
3) Authored a bill to prohibit those shutdowns you love!

[Red Rocks White Privilege]

The Pauls always get Dumbfuck Hihnsano's dander up.

[NolanLibertarian]

Red Rocks White Privilege|1.21.19 @ 8:42AM|#
The Pauls always get (NolanLibertarian;s) dander up.

It's their statism and oppression we oppose. For 50 years. Why we exist.

Since you insist:

Ron Paul's most shameful action.

"I supported the Defense of Marriage Act, ... I have also cosponsored the Marriage Protection Act, which would remove challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act from the jurisdiction of the federal courts"

DENYING equal rights. In his own words.

Full text of this bill ? total shame to ALL libertarians

WHO would defend Ron Paul for so blatantly denying the defense of fundamental constitutional rights ? for the first time since slavery? Only the alt-right, as spawned by Ron Paul.

[Ryan (formally HFTO)]

1. I mentioned my issues with the bloated expensive mess, there's only so much one guy can do.

2. https://abortionfunds.org/medicaid/

Medicaid funds abortions.

3. I only love them to the extent that they prove point 1

[NolanLibertarian]

BAD source. Try again. That's a front by conservatives to con conservatives. Like the selling fetus video.
You were wrong to deny Rand Paul as an EXTREME socon.
And unaware that he OPPOSES the shutdown you praise.
And 10000% backwards on the GOP and extreme socons.
So you changed the subject.
And likely will again.

[Red Rocks White Privilege]

Dumbfuck Hihnsano believes anyone who doesn't share his exact worldview is an extreme socon.

[NolanLibertarian]

Hihnsano would be a dumbfuck indeed.
Whereas I posted proof.
You none.

[Red Rocks White Privilege]

Dumbfuck Hihnsano's long shitposting career is proof of his stupidity.

[NolanLibertarian]

Libertarians running for congress as democrats would get called racist bigot homophobes who hate poor people.

Only by assholes, a minority.

The only home in the red/ blue world for libertarians at the national level is the republican party.

For over 50 years, libertarians come from both sides. And your only example fails.

I think Republicans have removed themselves from the bedroom,

Extreme socons now hold their greatest power ever in the GOP!

moved too much into our wallets. If only Rand could get more in Trump's ear about that.

Rand is among the very worst on bedroom issues. And he also sucks on the fiscal side. He shut down the government on higher spending, citing the federal debt. Then he voted FOR tax cuts that are twice as bad on the debt -- typical GOP baloney these days. You say the GOP is the only choice for libertarians, but cite somebody who violates BOTH the bedroom and the wallet.

On personal liberty, he got a standing ovation on non-intervention at Berkeley, which is good. He totally blew THAT gain less than a week later, calling for religious tent revivals across America, to protest the severe threat of ... marriage equality!

That alone discredits his dad's entire liberty coalition (sic), which assumes, laughingly, a coalition of Berkeley liberals and homophobes. See?

[MJBinAL]

Pray tell, show me these libertarians who ran as Democrats. I have never seen one, ever. I certainly do see lots of progressives here claiming to be libertarians though.

[Ryan (formally HFTO)]

Jared Polis is the only one I found

[loveconstitution1789]

In 2015, during a back-and-forth exchange before the House Education and Workforce Committee's Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Training, Polis argued for schools to be able to use lower standards of evidence when deciding to expel students accused of sexual assault by stating, "If there are 10 people who have been accused, and under a reasonable likelihood standard maybe one or two did it, it seems better to get rid of all 10 people."

In the op-ed, Polis also said, "The hippie in me bemoans the fact that we defeated the Iraqi military only to help them build an even stronger one that might one day be used against children and innocents, as often is the case. When will all the killing end? Where have all the flowers gone? And they shall beat their swords into plowshares and they shall study war no more."
-Wikipedia Jared Polis

Jared Polis' Voting Records
Of course, Wiki tried to highlight Polis' opinion on issues but left out much of his actual Congressional voting record.

[TheFOURTHReich]

Plus he's a fucking fag, right?
EXPOSE his opinion on issues.

[NolanLibertarian]

Where has ANYONE here defended progressive economic policy?
With a link, like I do..

Libertarians have been fiscally conservative and socially liberal for only 50 years now.
This has always enraged extreme socons like yourself. And extreme fiscal liberals.

Also true for 50 years, left and right are obsolete -- as the only two boxes for you to stuff everyone into.
Because over 60% of Americans would SELF-describe as fiscally conservative and socially liberal.
That leaves liberals and conservatives as less than 40% ... combined ... and shrinking toward extinction. Their time has expired.

[NolanLibertarian]

Libertarians have run as Democrats and have been elected, mostly to state legislatures.

Pray tell, show me these libertarians who ran as Democrats. I have never seen one, ever

Which state do you live in?
Would you know one if you saw one, fiscally conservative and socially liberal?

[CatoTheChipper]

Somebody ought to ask Bill Weld what he knew about INSLAW and PROMIS.

Because there's a copy of 1985 Justice Department memo to William F. Weld, United States Attorney, instructing him regarding the delivery of PROMIS to Sheik Khalid bin Mahfouz, the Saudi billionaire banker who financed the 9/11 hijackers. Manucher Ghorbanifar (Iranian arms for hostages broker), Adnan Khashoggi (Saudi arms dealer), and Richard Armitage brokered the deal. Very, very spooky stuff.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3kbikyxrpg

[NolanLibertarian]

1985? What year was 9/11?

Per your own video:
The 9/11 connection was not made until ... after 9/11!
The total connection was not made until 2008.
The memo to Weld does not say what you claim -- likely the exact opposite. He was TOLD the exchange MUST be private (no paperwork, etc,) and WOULD be made to the Sheik, and TOLD who would broker it,
NONE of the rest (all those names and connections) is supported by your news link, or is their function even mentioned,.
How would Weld have even known about Reagan's Arms for Hostages deal -- which was later. How do you know who brokered... what Reagan wanted?

[loveconstitution1789]

Thanks catotheChipper.

[TheFOURTHReich]

Yes! We need MORE lies to defend the greater good.
Trumpland Uber Alles!

[MattInnae]

Start working at home with Google. It's the most-financially rewarding I've ever done. On tuesday I got a gorgeous BMW after having earned $8699 this last month. I actually started five months/ago and practically straight away was bringin in at least $96, per-hour. visit this site right here................ http://www.Mesalary.com

[mysmartstuffs]

"He wears Air Jordans," Amash began. (He was wearing Air Jordans.)

Kent Brockman: Police say the fake Pope can be easily recognized by his high-top sneakers and incredibly foul mouth.

[perlchpr]

Goddamnit, another potentially interesting comment thread shat upon by Hihn.

[SalMonella]

I earned $5000 last month by working online just for 5 to 8 hours on my laptop and this was so easy that i myself could not believe before working on this site. If You too want to earn such a big money then come........... http://www.Mesalary.com

[George J. Dance]

It would be silly for Amash to run as the LP candidate. He's in Congress right now, and he'd have to give that up to run. One of the more-or-less-squishy Republicans who just lost their seats, like Flake or Sanford, would be more likely to consider it; in terms of their Republican career, they have nothing to lose.

[Shawn Levasseur]

That's what I thought until this article...

Now I'm not sure.

Amash has certainly been using the perfect talking points over the past year or so if he wants to win the LP nomination.

But why would he do so and leave the safe haven of being an old party incumbent in Congress?

I'm guessing he's hedging against being primaried for his seat in Congress. If there's any whiff of it being a possibility, he runs for the LP nomination for President instead of reelection to Congress.

[smartmuffin]

So, don't nominate Amash then?

Got it.

[I am the 0.000000013%]

How about a different spin.

Let's say we get Libertarians sprinkled liberally thoughout our government. Fairly quickly they'll be approached by swamp creatures and they will over time come to realize that if they simply go with the flow all their material troubles in life will be addressed. Their kids will go to the best colleges and be set for life. Their legal troubles will mostly go away as long as they don't do anything to egregious. They'll never have to worry about retirement, and they'll be able to travel to see all the places they've ever gotten to dream of. If they have any need of power, then that too will be granted.

I can't imagine anyone standing up to that sort of offer except a religious zealot of some ilk, and you can't be a religious zealot of some ilk and be a libertarian.

Wellstone was a truly honest and good man. He rose to office by driving a broken down bus around Minnesota claiming he'd serve two terms and be out. He died in a private jet flying 150 miles campaigning for his third term. Everyone succumbs to temptation.

[Hank Phillips]

The beauty of hefting spoiler vote leverage is that we don't even need to get our candidates into office. The availability of a genuine libertarian candidate suffices to draw support away from the more totalitarian of the two Kleptocracy candidates in any race. Voters can be trusted to make this decision, and in every case their libertarian votes will change laws better'n at least six, usually something more like 20 and once in a while as many as 10 thousand votes that would otherwise be wasted as a single ballot on one of two basically identical mixed-economy statists.

[Dadlobby]

The spoiler works only if you pull votes from the lesser preferred candidate. Given the Dimwitocrats shift left Libertarian candidates usually pull only from RinoPublicans. In NYS the Conservative Party kept the Republicans Conservative as a Republican could not win a statewide election without their support. The Democrats had no such 3rd party pulling from them, even with Greens, Working Families, Libertarians, etc. (3rd parties pull less votes than the "Rent is too damn high party"). NYC pushed liberal and the state went full Dimwitocrat (Larry Sharpe on the Libertarian line with a good social media campaign finished with but 4% of statewide vote). Republicans lambasted him as a "spoiler" (the sinking ship looking for a scapegoat). IMHO, lie like politicians do and don't say you're a "Libertarian", Run on the major party lines, smack the hornets nest when you can and win a fight, but don't knock it on your head so you get stung to death. Will Amash get "redistricted"?

[Dadlobby]

Valid argument. Do you sacrifice yourself to benefit others? Very few do. Additionally, if you take a stance which gets you tossed from power, what good is the stance? When lobbying I had elected officials take the high road for policies not beneficial to the status quo (Rino-publican and Dimwitocrat alike). Within the power base of BOTH parties they had their legs chopped off. Redistricting, and the unholy alliance of the two party agreement got a couple shot down and if that didn't work they got primaryied by the political boss and his slush fund within the party. This is why financially well off people upset the political establishment and the deep state. Ideology or practicality? A practical ideologue?

[ligo]

Start working at home with Google. It's the most-financially rewarding I've ever done. On tuesday I got a gorgeous BMW after having earned $8699 this last month. I actually started five months/ago and practically straight away was bringin in at least $96, per-hour. visit this site right here......www.2citypays.com

[Hank Phillips]

I can see how Amash, Randal or any other imitative Republican would be scared shirtless of the volume of spoiler votes Bill Weld could AGAIN siphon away from their antichoice fascisti.

[The Last American Hero]

I know the crack is good, but put down the pipe. Johnson/Weld's totals in 2016 were inflated by Team Blue running the most toxic candidate in modern history and Team Red running the second most toxic candidate in modern history.

In 2020, when people have seen that Trump (whose faults are many) hasn't herded anyone into cattle cars, has reduced military adventurism, and isn't going to start a nuclear war, a lot of Team Red voters will back him - more than were willing to give him a pass in 2016.

[loveconstitution1789]

Lefties actually think that preventing people from wearing MAGA hats will equate to their presidential candidate winning in 2020.

Back to Videos Candace Owens: There Is Going To Be A Major Black Exit From The Democratic Party By 2020

To those Lefties that dont have blinders on, this scares the shit out of Democratic Party leadership.

[NolanLibertarian]

Yeah, black voters will shift toward Trump ... who defended black nationalist violence in Charlottesville!
I eagerly await your video proving that Hitler was elected by swing voters, who were Jewish.
Lincoln was elected by slaveholders.

[NolanLibertarian]

In the latest poll, Trump's approval among African-Americans is ... 9%.
That's a 38% gain from his black vote in 2016. 8%.

Remember when he claimed it was 55%?

[Red Rocks White Privilege]

What Dumbfuck Hihnsano neglected to mention was that support among Latinos went up to 50%.

[NolanLibertarian]

I stay on topic.

[NolanLibertarian]

I stayed on topic. You lost on the topic, so changed to another one, but neglected to mention to current temperature in Las Vegas. Or your hat size.

[Hattori Hanzo]

Bill Weld sucks.

[mcdavis555]

Can the LP just nominate someone who can either fundraise or at least write a check comparable to what the major parties are going to amass in 2020?

Without that, we might as well stopping discussing the LP making significant impact.

Impact without sufficient $$$ is basically capturing another 1% of the total vote nationwide

[MattInnae]

Start working at home with Google. It's the most-financially rewarding I've ever done. On tuesday I got a gorgeous BMW after having earned $8699 this last month. I actually started five months/ago and practically straight away was bringin in at least $96, per-hour. visit this site right here..... http://www.mesalary.com

[kizewas]

Start working at home with Google. It's the most-financially rewarding I've ever done. On tuesday I got a gorgeous BMW after having earned $8699 this last month. I actually started five months/ago and practically straight away was bringin in at least $96, per-hour. visit this site right here..... 2citypays.com

[EWM]

Kokesh

[Henry]

Referring to Bill "Ban Assault Weapons" Weld as "insufficiently libertarian" is like referring to Joseph "Elephant Man" Merrick as "insufficiently photogenic."

[Dadlobby]

Can somebody point me to the Libertarian Platform and a description of their "base" and the party leaders who espouse the party platform? Do I hear crickets in winter?