How the Libertarian Party Lost Its Way
Two years post-takeover, some longtime activists and donors claim the Mises Caucus has driven the party into the ground.

The Libertarian Party's biennial national convention in Washington, D.C., last month was a snapshot of a minor political party in the midst of a major identity crisis.
Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump and independent challenger Robert F. Kennedy Jr. each spoke on stage, the former landing a coveted prime-time keynote slot. Fourth-place GOP presidential finisher Vivek Ramaswamy, who keeps trying to make a "libertarian-nationalist alliance" a thing, also gave a speech.
Michael Rectenwald, the favored presidential candidate of the Mises Caucus faction currently running the party, failed to secure the nomination after making a bumbling, post-Trump speech on stage while stoned, having made a spur-of-the-moment decision beforehand to pop an edible. Longtime party activist Starchild was dragged out by security for heckling the Republican headliner. In short, it was exactly what you might have expected had you been following L.P. drama over the past few years.
The fractured party reelected the Mises Caucus' Angela McArdle as chair but also selected as its presidential standard-bearer Chase Oliver, a gay 38-year-old antiwar activist and former Democrat who had pushed the most recent U.S. Georgia Senate race into a runoff election eventually won by a Democrat.
In the past three presidential elections, the Libertarian candidate appeared on all 50 state ballots plus the District of Columbia, finished in third place, and was backed by every state L.P. affiliate. None of that seems likely to happen this year.
The Montana L.P. after the convention immediately declared that it would not be placing Oliver's name on the ballot. "Similarly situated states should follow our lead," the state party wrote. "We call upon the [Libertarian National Committee] to consider suspending and replacing him." So far, one state—Colorado—has followed suit, charging Oliver and running mate Mike ter Maat with being "useful idiots for the regime" who are "unfit to represent our values." Idaho is contemplating whether to do the same and putting pressure on the national party to remove Oliver from the ballot. The Libertarian Party of New Hampshire is predictably vocalizing its distaste and intent to siphon resources away from the candidate, but Oliver is still filing his intent to run with the secretary of state there.
Oliver "doesn't represent me and my camp or the things we stand for," comedian/podcaster Dave Smith, who the Mises Caucus had once pinned its hopes on for the 2024 nomination, wrote after the convention. "Look, if us taking over the whole party, if the outcome was this," Smith elaborated on his podcast, "then there's only one word to use to describe that, and that's failure."
Oliver's critics say he's culturally woke and was insufficiently opposed to the COVID regime of lockdowns, vaccine mandates, and masking. "I've been against vaccine or mask mandates from government," he countered to me and Zach Weissmueller on our show, Just Asking Questions. "If the COVID messaging was so good—this divisive messaging saying, If you wore a mask, if you ever took a vaccine, you're just an idiot and you're stupid or whatever—that's what [the Mises Caucus is] putting out there. And guess what? We're bleeding members and donors because people want to make decisions for themselves and not be shamed that they made a decision differently than their neighbor."
Meanwhile McArdle, against a pre-convention backdrop of declining party membership, fundraising, and ballot access, has portrayed last month's gathering as a triumph, while positing Oliver as a tool for siphoning away votes from President Joe Biden.
"Donald Trump says he's going to put a Libertarian in a Cabinet position. He came out and spoke to us. He said he's a Libertarian. He has basically endorsed us," McArdle said in a June 3 video address. "And so in return, I endorse Chase Oliver as the best way to beat Joe Biden. Get in loser, we are stopping Biden. That's what I think. That's what I think this campaign is about."
How did the party get here, to a place where its chair is openly cheering on victory for the decidedly nonlibertarian Trump?
The modern-day fracture of the L.P. started in 2017, when a small bloc formed the Mises Caucus, lionizing such figures as Ron Paul and Murray Rothbard. Generally young and extremely online, culturally right of center, attracted to sharp-elbowed podcasters like Smith and Tom Woods, the Mises crew exudes visceral hostility toward the state, the Fed, the war machine, and what they see as the philosophically compromised D.C. libertarian think-tankers (pejoratively termed "Beltwaytarians") who they believe enable rather than meaningfully oppose the "regime."
The Mises Caucus arose in revulsion toward the Gary Johnson/Bill Weld 2016 ticket, which they saw as having watered down the libertarian message to the point of being unrecognizable. They were further disappointed by 2020 nominee Jo Jorgensen and downright repulsed by the L.P.'s messaging on Black Lives Matter and COVID lockdowns.
In 2022, the Mises Caucus succeeded in a self-styled "takeover" of the party at its convention in Reno, after which the victors wasted little time inflaming the sensibilities of what they saw as the losing libertines. No more overemphasizing the importance of sex work, abortion, or free-flowing immigration, positions the new guard either disagreed with or felt needlessly alienated potential allies.
But the Reno Resetters, in their bid to reinvigorate the party, were doing plenty of alienating of their own—of longtime Libertarian Party donors and volunteers who did not share the Mises Caucus' preference for meme clapbacks and helicopter jokes.
I chatted with a few of these disgruntled activists about why they pulled their time and money away from the L.P., whether the mixed results from the latest convention gave them reason to hope, and whether there's any way for the fractured party to mend itself.
"I became a libertarian because the authoritarian conservative politics I grew up in didn't resonate with me," says Christian Bradley, who started voting Libertarian and volunteering for the party in 2008. But the Mises Caucus has injected "authoritarian conservative politics into the party," Bradley says, transforming it into more like a "twisted social club" for "MAGA edgelords" than something that represents his beliefs.
Libertarian Party–affiliated instances of social media edgelording are almost too numerous to count, whether it's riffing on Adolf Hitler's 14 words, or calling the Uyghur genocide "war propaganda," or telling a black congresswoman to go pick crops, or tweeting out "let Ukraine burn," or calling that country "gay," or telling columnist Max Boot to go kill himself, or advocating prison time for Liz Cheney, or fantasizing about sending ex-presidents to Gitmo.
Other edgelording happened behind closed doors, pushing staffers and volunteers away from the party at a time when the organization needed all the help it could get.
"In April 2022, the last full month before the Mises Caucus takeover, the L.P.'s end-of-month financial report listed revenues of $125,542," reported Reason's Brian Doherty last month. "In April 2024, that figure was $84,710, a drop of nearly one-third. The number of sustaining members (those who have donated at least $25 in the past year) has fallen from around 16,200 in April 2022 to 12,211 in April 2024."
Forty-year-old Ryan Cooper met his now-wife, Casie, while doing outreach for the Jo Jorgensen campaign. "From 2016 to 2021, I gave over $50,000 and countless volunteer hours," Cooper says. But now, the couple no longer wants to be associated with "an organization that supported racists, bigots, white nationalists, and [Vladimir] Putin apologists."
The Washington state Libertarian Party has become hollowed out, Cooper contends, with massive declines in attendance at state conventions. All county chapters shuttered except four, and there were only five nonpresidential Libertarians on the 2024 statewide ballot, compared to over 33 in 2016.* Even gaining ballot access for Chase Oliver is no longer a sure thing in the Evergreen State, he says.
Cooper has donated $1,000 to Oliver and said that the reactions by some Mises Caucus types to the candidate—calling him a "cultural Marxist" and "woke homosexual," for instance—helped convince him to become a volunteer for the campaign. He maintains that he won't donate money to the national party until McArdle is no longer chair.
Mark Tuniewicz, a former finance executive based in South Dakota and member of the L.P. since 1994, tells me he notified the party at the start of this year that he had rescinded his decision to bequeath $650,000 to them in his will; with the takeover, he just doesn't believe the organization is serving his values any longer. Tuniewicz served, up until last month, on the Libertarian National Committee (LNC). "No accountability metrics lead to poor execution and results," he says. There's been "unprecedented organizational dysfunction, resulting in huge turnover on the LNC." And, as he wrote in his letter rescinding his donation, the L.P. has been "corrupted organizationally in a way from which it may never recover."
"I stopped donating after the [Mises Caucus] takeover in Colorado in 2021," says Alan Hayman, who's given $3,000 over the years. The state affiliate "proved to be woefully incompetent, wanting to reinvent the wheel on everything, and…developed a habit of gaslighting and mistreating members," Hayman says. "They were rude to party veterans, but also felt entitled to their time and knowledge."
Bureaucratic sloppiness led to the party being fined by the Colorado secretary of state $12,500 for late donation filings, part of a nationwide pattern of increased spending on noncore activities. Over the first four months of 2024, the national party spent $10,350 on the bread-and-butter line item of securing ballot access while shelling out $24,807 in legal expenses.
That lack of emphasis on ballot access is having real effects; on June 13, the New York State Board of Elections declared that the L.P.'s petition for ballot access had insufficient signatures, marking the first time in party history that its presidential candidate has failed to appear on the New York ballot.
Some of those legal expenses are coming from the national party suing a faction of the Michigan L.P. that's not under Mises Caucus leadership, but which insists it is legally the state party affiliate. In Michigan, a Mises-affiliated person, Andrew Chadderdon, in 2022 ascended to state chair, due to resignations on the state board. Despite a critical mass of the state delegation voting to remove Chadderdon, the national party continued to recognize him as chair. The national party filed a lawsuit; the state party has been holding separate conventions ever since.
"I am a strong believer in voting with feet, dollars, attention," former party activist Casey Crowe says. "The last two years have given me no reason to continue my financial investment when it's spent on suing affiliates, instead of functional needs like ballot access."
Many of the disgruntled Libertarians point their ire at McArdle.* Former L.P. employee Michelle MacCutcheon, who had been in charge of onboarding all new volunteers (a "labor of love," as she described it), said the new regime carried out a purge of staffers, with little respect given to coalition building or professionalism. (McArdle, for instance, hired her own romantic partner as a contractor to help with fundraising). "We were on a great trajectory" before, MacCutcheon says. "All of that was just wiped clean."
But, counters Florida L.P. member John Thompson, who is more agnostic on the results of the takeover, "If [McArdle] is as bad as they say, then they should have a solid game plan to defeat her and elect a new chair." Instead, she won on the second ballot during the D.C. convention, with 53.44 percent of the vote.
The fractures within the Libertarian Party are likely to deepen over the final 20 weeks of the presidential campaign. But the overall picture remains mixed—for instance, L.P. Communications Director Brian McWilliams tells Reason that fundraising is up 16 percent post-convention. A little post-convention bump is, of course, to be expected if historical trends are any indicator. "The 2024 convention will likely rival 2022 for the highest-fundraising convention in the history of the party," wrote Todd Hagopian, the LNC's pre-convention treasurer, in internal emails updating other members. But "the 2024 convention will be the most expensive convention in the history of the party," due to its location in D.C., and the party "will probably not net as much net income" this year compared with 2022.
It's unlikely that the millions of Americans who have been voting Libertarian for president the past three cycles are even worried about, let alone paying attention to, the party's internal tensions.
But for some activists, there's no reason to continue fighting for a party that feels so far gone.
"I'm not even comfortable using the word 'libertarian' to describe myself, after all the damage the [Mises Caucus], LP, and MAGA have done to the word and scene," Bradley says. "At best, members of Mises Caucus are willing to tolerate and associate with known white supremacists, antisemites, Holocaust deniers….At worst, they are those people."
*CORRECTION: The original version of this article misquoted MacCutcheon; that quote has been deleted. A member of the Washington Libertarian Party contacted Reason post-publication to clarify details about county chapters and ballot presence.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I love how the shit show the party had been for decades was not bad enough for these clowns.
Nolte: Your party has been a joke for my nearly 50 years on Earth. And your nomination of Oliver is bad even by lowly LP standards, who ran fucking Bill Weld as a VP candidate, for God's sake.
Fucking double-masking Chase Oliver of all things but they're bitching about Mises. And then they're interviewing extremist-left identifying clowns who were big on sodomy and drugs but not really worried about keeping 'right-wing MAGA ideas' like free speech and assembly alive.
For TeenReason and the "Libertarian Left" here, libertarianism is a way of announcing to other leftists that you’re a contrarian, but that you’re socially left and totally cool with the way that sex and drugs works for the American upper-middle class elite.
They don't believe that libertarianism is a life philosophy which should be applied in everyone's interactions and isn't just to regulate the government.
"For TeenReason and the “Libertarian Left” here, libertarianism is a way of announcing to other leftists that you’re a contrarian"
This. The cocktail class of libertarian. Will push back on the blatantly obvious stuff (sometimes) like freedom of speech, but mostly just want to keep coming to the parties, going on the talk shows (Welchie boy wants to keep his spot on Maher), and appearing there to play contrarian. But when push comes to shove? They'll cosign the regressive insanity and authoritarianism of the left and denounce the "ultra maga" strawman, so they can continue to be invited, show up in their leather jacket, sip their 20 dollar drinks, and give limp wristed pushback to only the most egregious of overreaches.
Definitely. Reason doesn’t want the libertarian party to be libertarian. Reason wants the L.P. to be alt democrat.
“Diet Democrat”, all the shitty taste with zero chance of winning any election.
+1
I like the part where they're talking about him being bad mouthed for masking like everything else about him, from the rainbow hedgehog to the .38 revolver on his hip doesn't scream that he's a progressive clown wearing a skin suit.
" to the .38 revolver on his hip"
LMAO. Was not aware of this. This has to be parody. Someone pseudolibertarian on his campaign didn't pull him aside?
Looking at that picture of him shooting gave me anemia and a testosterone deficiency, im going to have to eat a few ribeyes to get back to square now.
Seriously, not a single person went for the very simple and straightforward glock 15/17? They gave him what was essentially what women carried in their purses with baby bitch ammo, limited to 6 rounds? This is straight up Chuck Schumer BBQ levels of bad PR photos.
Again, if it was the one Grandad carried on the beat for 30 yrs. that got him out of more than a few scrapes… OK… sorta. Otherwise, it’s the Metallic Pea of sidearms. My understanding is that it's just the pistol he likes.
Hunter's gun purchase was also a revolver. At least he has a good excuse. He was high on crack.
Hey, nothing wrong with revolvers, they're reliable.
I've got small hands, it's a marginal birth defect. Means that the biggest semi-auto pistol I can actually use is a 9mm single stack. In a revolver at least I can use a decent power cartridge.
100% had a good candidate in Johnson but paired him with Weld? WTF
Oliver is a joke of a candidate no matter what party.
Rectenwald stoned is no different that Biden mentally failing. A completely unserious candidate.
You nominated a pedo
Shreek approves.
"You nominated a pedo"
This is the conservative version of calling everyone a Nazi.
Just those supporting sexualizing kids. I know. I know. Libirtines think that is just dandy. We all have to clap at the 12 year olds on stage in drag having grown men throw dollar bills at them. So empowering.
Um, am I allowed to not clap if one of my hands is, er, busy?
As long as you make it rain on the children, the LP and LGBTQ+&#! activists approve.
This is the conservative version of calling everyone a Nazi.
This is the lame version of "KKKONSERVUHTIVEZ POUNSE!" or "BOAF SIDEZ!"
The 'pedo' aspersion is typically conscribed to persons who openly flaunt their sexual proclivities unsolicited or to people who defend the right to do so to children. For instance, abortive women and their supporters, despite being opposed, aren't generally called pedos.
Whereas Progressive retards will lob the term Nazi at people protesting the government-funding of abortions of Jewish/black/minority babies where the term is contextually nonsensical.
persons who openly flaunt their sexual proclivities
The people slinging the "pedo" term around generally seem awfully fond of the man notable for, among other things, "grab(bing) them by the pussy", which seems a curious juxtaposition to me. Are they just projecting, or is flaunting your sexual proclivities a good thing so long as it's the "right kind" of proclivities?
You have a double digit IQ and completely lack insight into humanity
What does a man in a private conversation saying "they let you grab their pussy" in reference to adult women have to do with pedos?
Presumably that some of them were slightly underage? However, that's *ephebophilia*, and humanity's kind of been all over the map with its views on that throughout history (Juliet was 13 and Romeo 17+ in Romeo and Juliet!), where as little-kid-diddlers have almost always universally been considered vile monsters.
Both are gross, but the level of grossness of "they let you do it" when they'll be 18 next week, while icky, is not nearly as disgusting and vile as Xiden showering with his own prepubescent daughter, nor remotely as vile as the rainbow nazis who want 5 year olds to mutilate their genitals because some groomer teacher convinced them they're miserable.
Presumably that some of them were slightly underage? However, that’s *ephebophilia*, and humanity’s kind of been all over the map with its views on that throughout history (Juliet was 13 and Romeo 17+ in Romeo and Juliet!), where as little-kid-diddlers have almost always universally been considered vile monsters.
No presumably about it. Even this is being exceedingly generous to tarddragon.
They were talking (privately, as others have pointed out) specifically about married, adult (as in not minor), soap opera actresses. The only way someone gets to a/the presumption about underage or ‘barely legal’ victims is to inject their own narrative.
Which isn’t to say that Trump isn’t or never was ephebophilic, just that the specific incident cited, it’s clear that he’s talking about specific people and/or married actresses of legal age more generally.
"...the man notable for, among other things, “grab(bing) them by the pussy”..."
Oh! Oh! Look! One more lying pile of TDS-addled shit!
FOAD, asshole.
"The people slinging the “pedo” term around generally seem awfully fond of the man notable for, among other things, “grab(bing) them by the pussy”, which seems a curious juxtaposition to me."
What do consensual acts between adults have to do with pedophilia?
"They LET you grab..."
Do women not have agency?
His position on the topic is based entirely on the fact that as a gay boy his parents didn’t love him, so he overcompensates by supporting the sexualization of children. It’s Freudian.
Cite?
https://x.com/AlexsandrKislov/status/1805564483093266570?t=505MYA5cldTw1bVTqtKQmw&s=19
Something about Anglo culture, for all of its amazing achievements, made it uniquely susceptible to the ideology of Western suicide that is liberalism.
Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the UK and the US have self-destructed faster than anyone decades ago could have ever imagined.
It is kind of astounding. To have conquered so much of the globe, foster and spread enlightenment ideas, amass more wealth and power than has ever been seen in history, and in the blink of an eye metaphorically trip over their dicks, shoot themselves in the foot, and fall right off the cliff.
We used to be openly hostile to communism after seeing the horrors it leads to. People have forgotten, and the liberal ideas and freedoms that made the country (and the west) great have also made them susceptible to allowing cancer to grow unchecked under the guise of live and let live, lets have all ideas heard, lets be nice to everyone. We let the communists in, and they took over everything that mattered, and this is the result.
The Progressives told everyone they were embarking on a long march through the institutions, and we should have believed them.
Hey, do you think you are some kind of seditious Libs of TikTok type for repeating what progressives said in public?
Replacement theory is a right wing conspiracy theory.
Tommy Robinson was just arrested the other day, in Canuckistan for the crime of bad speak which was double plus ungood.
The premier Justin Castreau ordered it.
This is true.
The Kanadian Thought Police Squad caught Tommy engaging in thought crimes against The State.
I wonder which gulag he will be sent to?
The Canadians should overthrow their Marxist leaders. As an example to unnamed neighbors.
One of the advantages of being an old fart is that you gain a wider perspective on the "end of the world". Those screaming that "It's never been this bad before" have no idea of what it was like in the "before times".
In the late 60's and early 70's there were communist gangs robbing banks, an average of two bombings a week in New York City and the heiress to the Hearst fortune was kidnapped, tortured and brainwashed into joining the "Symbionese Liberation Army". A Republican implemented wage and price controls and sent the FBI after his opponents, just as his Democrat predecessor did.
The murder rate in New York peaked at around 2000 per year and Los Angeles equaled that within a few years. In 1968, New York lost 100,000 middle class families who were replaced by welfare recipients. NYC was bankrupt by 1975 and saved at the last moment by robbing the teacher's union pension funds (which were ultimately paid back) and a federal bailout.
I would suggest that you talk to some older boomers about the wonderful 50's, 60's and 70's and see if I'm exaggerating. Around 1968 I talked to some people who were my age now, and learned about the 1930's which were almost certainly worse than the 1960's. Mass unemployment of 10 to 25%, far worse than anything anyone today faces.
Today is bad, but the US has survived much worse. Bear that in mind before shopping for bunkers or suicide tablets.
Today is bad, but the US has survived much worse.
This is a bit of a
n outdated conceptualizationmisconceptualization, if not a grievous misunderstanding as it’s not, or no longer, just the US or American culture in decline or under threat.Hey, how dare you challenge the narrative, and all the narcissistic emotional basket cases with degrees in victim culture? This year, if not this week, is the worst, most dangerous existential crisis that people (like me) have ever faced.
That’s cuz Everything Is So Terrible And Unfair!
Duh.
My concern is that there seems to be little interest in many people to fix the problems.
Why do people in high tax cities TOLERATE the abysmal services given by their leadership? Is being "progressive" that fundamental to their existence? Why do they tolerate the rampant crime (and that people aren't being voted out of office wholesale, they tolerate it)? I know a lot do not have kids, but this is the first time I can clearly recognize a quite loud anti-natalist movement.
Things are bad. Too many do not WANT them to get better.
We’ve reached the point where half the country is ok with blatant corruption as long as the government is taking from their enemies and giving to them.
News flash! 95% of New Yorkers are fine with corruption. Each one thinks that they are special, that they have an “in” with the powerful, that they “know a guy who knows a guy”, and this ain’t new. It’s been that crooked for two hundred years.
Corruption in big cities is the rule, not the exception. It’s the main reason that progressives want to get everyone into cities and into rented apartments. Then force them to use mass transit and public utilities and they are yours for as long as they live. And when they die, no problem. There will be 10 million immigrants eager to “live the good life” in an American city.
Now instead of robbing banks they have total power over the institutions and dictate our standards of living.
Totes better!
I'm old enough to remember all of that shit but none of it compares to the Covid scam.
Yeah. It is quite illuminating to even read back on this site from March-April 2020 to see what was occurring with minimal unrest.
COVID… ESG… Surveillance... The rather open money-laundering/profiteering off of war and/or public policy/scientific research that Ike warned us about *back then*.
As I suggest above, the whole concept relies on a bit of an archaic/obtuse notion along the lines of “Sure, we castrate toddlers at a rate 10X what we used to sacrifice them at 10X the cost to the average taxpayer, but things are clearly better because it’s been decades since we tossed any into a volcano!”
We get it, you are pro-child mutilation and murder, pro-tripping balls menace to others and a firm believer in the "magic dirt" theory of immigration and believe that all the hard decisions can be put off for later. This is the lazy, hedonistic, narcissistic, society destroying view of libertarianism that you and the rest of the old guard are espousing. This is why you cannot be taken seriously.
What the LP needs is more girl-bullying mystics like Dave "Army of God" Smif, Ginger Jesus and Credere-Obbedire Rectumwald, Quislings like Tokyo Pink, and superstition-addled Reason infiltraitors like Stephanie NSDAP and Liz "Squeaky Fromme" in Sheep's Clothing. Once Hitler-faith Austrians have consolidated and the party demands banning women's clinics while waving FREE ROBERT DEAR placards. https://libertariantranslator.wordpress.com/2023/02/11/austrian-anschluss-2-may-2022/
No – we need more gross obese guys to strip on stage at a national convention… you know – to attract the body positive crowd to ideas of liberty!
Thats the height of respectable party optics - that is so much better.
We need more senile baby-killers like Hank to smear vast swathes of the population with outdated Marxist tropes.
I consider it very likely that Hank resides in an assisted living facility that specializes in seniors with dementia.
'Lost its way' in the sense that its no longer on board with the Democrat-Progressive agenda?
Because even with Mises, well, look who the LP just nominated. (l)ibertarians are accused of being 'Republican-lite' but the LP has been (and still is) Democrat-lite.
the ones that show up to nominating conventions, anyhow
"Democrat Lite" Libertarians. Those are what I call "weed Libertarians", whose only interest in libertarianism is legalized hemp.
Most of these complaints listed in the article seem to be TDS and some variant of 'they're not willing to virtue-signal about social issues that are important to the rich' - luxury beliefs.
Not only am I not going back to the LP, I've stopped calling myself a "libertarian. I'm now a "classical liberal". I don't want people associated me with edgelord MAGAheads pissed that a gay man won a nomination.
The Libertarian Party ain't getting another dime out of me until they apologize personally.
Oh no we lost Brandybuck!!!
You've always been a Democrat cosplaying.
Good, because you were never a libertarian. You're not a liberal either, but it will probably take you another decade to realize that you've been a fascist all along.
“Edgelord MAGAheads pissed that a gay man won a nomination.”
I’ve seen Sarckles and Lying Jeffy push this smear too, but I’ve yet to see any “MAGAheads” take about Chase’s homosexuality as a factor in their opposition. It’s always been about his Covid authoritarian streak or his devotion to the castration fetishist wing of the alphabet sex cult.
Don’t let these fucks get away with it. In the words of a wise community organizer, push back twice as hard.
Don't forget the other big issue where Chase Oliver sucks: open borders (Ellis Island style).
And federal minimum wage linked to inflation. What’s more libertarian than that?
I didn't even know he supported that. Jeez! I never thought I'd see the day when the LP nominee not only supports minimum wage, but increasing it by pegging it to inflation.
"I don’t want people associated me with edgelord MAGAheads pissed that a gay man won a nomination."
Yes, him being gay is the issue. No OTHER problems. JUST his sexual preference.
Brandybuck is a classical Leftist, stop lying. The Libertarian party is better off without you and pedos like you.
Yeah Brandy, it’s the gay part that’s the problem………..
Goddamn you’re stuck on stupid.
But they nominated your guy, despite the supposed MAGA takeover.
Lol. Good point. Ollie is a virtue signalers dream. And brandy wants to disassociate because of the guys who lost?
That’s some good logic right there.
Everyone that doesn’t agree with me is a racist or a homophobe.
Or, from the other side, a "groomer."
The only remaining argument between classical liberals and progressive liberals is who's going to pick up the check. They're already perfectly in agreement about what's going to be on the menu.
Bugs?
https://x.com/WarClandestine/status/1805404874726678635?t=wug9n48fzBXjSQL1D_Pj9Q&s=19
When Assange dropped the Clinton campaign emails, that should have been the nail in the coffin for the DNC.
Yet the Dems were able to avoid having to answer for the fact that the elite families of the DNC, were having “spirit cooking” dinners with satanic witch, Marina Abramović.
If Donald Trump hung out with a satanic cannibal witch lady, that smeared pig blood, feces, semen, and breast milk, in creepy messages all over the walls… the world would stop.
But when the Clintons/Podestas do it… it’s no big deal, and if you talk about it, you’re a Russian propagandist/QAnon conspiracy theorist.
They shut Assange down for a reason. He knows their deepest and darkest of secrets.
[Link]
Dems were able to avoid having to answer for the fact that the elite families of the DNC, were having “spirit cooking” dinners with satanic witch, Marina Abramović.
If Donald Trump hung out with a satanic cannibal witch lady, that smeared pig blood, feces, semen, and breast milk, in creepy messages all over the walls
I had to actually look this up to really see if it was real.
And yet the edgelord Democrats here flip out when a Catholic calls the Eucharist 'body and blood of Christ'.
Hey Democrats and establishmentarians, THIS is why people vote for Trump. If you could just stop acting like the denizens of Panem's Capitol for a half a moment you might not have been so opposed.
My guess is he won't make it back to Australia, not that he would want to anyway but he has family there, that is unless they've been tossed into prison.
A lone wolf, nutcase, MAGA hat wearing, Trump supporting, right wing extremist redneck with an assault rifle, (AR-15) will off him.
That sort of explains a lot, and why continuing child sacrifice is their highest priority.
Funny looking at Liz’s X feed and seeing the pedo adjacent folks commenting.
https://x.com/lizwolfereason/status/1805609929887138072?s=46&t=zOBbIZb5ki95BeZ-Dqbwbg
Congrats to Nardz for the shout outs!
https://x.com/JeremyTColes/status/1805619438202257892
So who is Jeremy Coles? Brandybuck?
Could be. He’s too thin to be Jeffy.
Haha, awesome.
Man, he didn't even post any original work.
Just my links and copy of other people's tweets.
I don't feel seen.
"But now, the couple no longer wants to be associated with "an organization that supported racists, bigots, white nationalists, and [Vladimir] Putin apologists."
Tote bagger language [note that "racist, bigot, and white nationalists" are all the same thing, but sounds way more icky and fearsome if you repeat it three ways]. Applies to everything outside of progressive urban Democratic circles.
Putin apologists? The LP used to be the pro-peace party, or at least opposed to foreign military intervention (especially with countries that aren’t US allies.)
I like the "[Vladimir]", like the confusion would be with some other Putin and not the fact that the side opposed to Putin, as funded by US taxpayer dollars, is an overt kleptocratic, white-supremacist, fascist, military dictatorship (that very plausibly committed a war crime against NATO).
“…. with some other Putin….”
In a lifetime of watching hockey, I don’t think I’ve ever seen two Russian players with the same last name unless they were brothers.
Probably some czarist edict from centuries ago disallowed it or some shit.
It's funny. I remember the proglotarians declaring that the Mises Caucus was just a MAGA front aiming to kill the LP. So, the proglotarians push through...a guy who is visibly alienating large swaths of libertarians and has no real shot at pulling in non-LP votes that wouldn't otherwise be going to Biden - Donald Trump's dream LP opponent.
By the way, Liz, some of us have been on Twitter long enough to remember you shopping for disgruntled LP members.
Blaming the Mises Caucus is akin to blaming Conservatives for the Culture Wars.
The masses will not stomach the Libertine woke agenda for very long
The backlash is already growing quickly.
"I became a libertarian because the authoritarian conservative politics I grew up in didn't resonate with me," says Christian Bradley, who started voting Libertarian and volunteering for the party in 2008. But the Mises Caucus has injected "authoritarian conservative politics into the party," Bradley says, transforming it into more like a "twisted social club" for "MAGA edgelords" than something that represents his beliefs.
Yeah. This type of thinking isn't libertarian. He is no different than any MSNBC viewer.
Forty-year-old Ryan Cooper met his now-wife, Casie, while doing outreach for the Jo Jorgensen campaign. "From 2016 to 2021, I gave over $50,000 and countless volunteer hours," Cooper says. But now, the couple no longer wants to be associated with "an organization that supported racists, bigots, white nationalists, and [Vladimir] Putin apologists."
Liz, your helping prove the MC contentions with the liberaltarian beltway democrats cosplaying.
They never shun the leftist narratives.
It all reminds me way too much of sarc. It's OK when the left demonizes half the country (bitter clingers, disreputables (or whatever the term was)) and mutilates children. They just ignore that. Along comes a jackass who actually tells more truth than any politician in the last 200 years, and all they remember is the jackass, not the truth.
That's Sarcasmic to a T.
Absolutely my thoughts
They never shun the leftist narratives.
No, they "reluctantly and strategically" vote for the ones espousing leftist narratives.
Or CNN........
Brandybuck isn’t already an MSNBC viewer?
Exactly my thoughts. He's an Alt Democrat.
This is nothing but sour grapes.
Gary Johnson was barely acceptable the first time. At least he had a better and proven track record that was more individualist than 99% of politics, and my pragmatic side said it's OK to voter for "better" the least worst of two "worsers".
But the second time? When he threatened to take his marbles and go home if the tried-and-true statist Weld was chosen for his VP?
No, no, a thousand times no. That is not how individualism works.
And then Jo baby liked BLM, or approved of them. I forget the details, but sorry, BLM was fraud from beginning to end. They derailed what little police reform was taking place, tried to make it all about racism in the name of anti-racism.
I don't give a rat's ass about the Mises Caucus's supposed authoritarianism. Every politician is an authoritarian, by definition! What I cared about was getting rid of the woke crowd that thought bakers should be coerced, that Weld was acceptable, that BLM should be applauded.
And now we've got a clown who thinks the State -- the goddam State, for Pete's sake! -- should be able to mutilate children against their parent's wishes, on the recommendation of teachers -- State employees! --.
Nope, a thousand times nope. The LP is lost to me. This is three elections in a row with some woke statist on the ballot pretending to represent individualism. Like I said, I was willing to accept Gary Johnson the first time around, so I won't count that time as being a known woke statist, but the second time was betrayal, and the last two have confirmed it.
"GARY JOHNSON DID BETTER THAN ANY LIBERTARIAN CANDIDATE EVER!!"
Yeah. Against Trump and Clinton - two of the most broadly unpopular figures in modern political history.
“And now we’ve got a clown who thinks the State — the goddam State, for Pete’s sake! — should be able to mutilate children against their parent’s wishes, on the recommendation of teachers — State employees! –.”
OK, show me when and where he said this.
You can watch the Liz Wolfe Chase Oliver interview. Liz goes after him pretty hard.
Chase is virtue signaling. He claims to be against castration and surgery, but then yells we should be allowed to sterilize kids with drugs if favored medical entities agree. He has supported WPATH.
I swear I just told you this yesterday.
His entire argument is sophomoric. He claims he doesn’t want government involved in decisions yet wants them involved for surgery. While ignoring the same groups also push drugs that cause sterilization, osteoporosis, and cancer. He thinks he found a dumb middle ground but he is really showing he is unprincipled on the matter and trying to satiate everyone with nonsense.
Most importantly chase has given nods to government groups like schools "helping" the LGBTQ kids while remaining silent on parental notification requirements.
Chase is virtue signaling. He claims to be against castration and surgery, but then yells we should be allowed to sterilize kids with drugs if favored medical entities agree. He has supported WPATH.
It was even more hypocritical than that. In the Wolfe interview, when pressed, he says the government should stay out of it, then when asked about underage children, he said that was illegal (which it's not, but I won't nitpick) and then when Liz said, "I thought you said the government should stay out of it" like so many libertarians, he seemed stumped.
"Drugs will be like, safer because if we legalize them, we'll like know what's in them!"
"Why will we know what's in them?"
"Because the FDA will regulate them like they regulate everything else!"
"..."
You forgot about his response when asked about insurance coverage for transitions.
I think I had stopped listening by that point.
Yes yes, we know. Having the FDA regulate drugs, instead of making the drugs illegal and throwing their users into cages, is not the 100% purist libertarian position. What a total fail! I guess that means it's time to vote for Donald Trump, who wants to execute drug dealers.
Oliver can’t resist virtue signaling. He isn’t a libertarian. He’s just alt democrat.
"He claims...."
I see. His claim - in other words, his stated position on his website that he is campaigning on - is nearly the opposite of what Alphabet said, neither of you can come up with a quote, so now it's a secret agenda.
I'm not a dog so I don't have your magical ability - shared with leftists - to hear dog whistles. I judge people by their words and actions.
I literally gave you an interview he did and his positions.
I get it. Curated campaign websites are gospel so we can ignore every other public statement he has taken. It is so much easier to just deny everything.
It works great for sarc too.
I get the feeling the fucksalad sock curates on of those campaign websites.
Curated campaign websites are gospel so we can ignore every other public statement he has taken.
You mean, the standard that you use for Donald Trump?
Cite?
Wait a sec there.
Teacher unions get state laws changed to forbid teachers from violating their students' privacy by telling the parents that the kids have new pronouns or identify as one of 57 non-binary genders ...
State law says parents can be charged with child abuse or child endangerment for not going along with their children's pronouns and gender fluidentity, even to the point of not providing gender mutilation surgery and puberty blockers ...
And Chase supports this State control of children by State employees against the wishes of the parents ...
How is that not what I said?
Of course, IANAL and maybe I misconstrued some legal quibbly language somewhere. Please point that out. You claim you want evidence. Great, now it's your turn.
I'll give you a different answer, my stock copy-n-pasta for people who think child genital mutilation has nuances. And note, I have not seen a single wokidiot in favor of this shit who thinks parents should be able to tell the government NO. The wokidiots want the government to literally hide their indoctrination from parents, and make it a crime for parents to not allow it, or to even make it a crime to not "affirm" their temporary confusion with the proper pronouns. And all this is irrelevant: it is no more moral to mutilate children's genitals than to push them off a roof to affirm their infatuation with Superman.
It used to be dogma that African tribal female genital mutilation was the scourge of the earth, an unimaginable evil.
It used to be dogma that homosexuality was genetically determined, not a choice, not something that could be reversed. This was the basis for banning gay conversion therapy.
It used to be dogma that chemical castration was too evil for even voluntary use by convicted rapists and pedophiles.
Now it's dogma that it is woke teachers' duty to "encourage" their kindergarten kids to want to change their gender with puberty blockers, chemical castration, and gender mutilation surgery, all without the parents' knowledge. Washington and California have actually made it illegal child abuse for parents to stop their children's "gender affirmation" surgery and will take their children away.
It used to be dogma that women needed their own sports leagues and events, with equal support as men's leagues and events.
Now it's dogma that third-rate male athletes can identify as women and enter and dominate women's events.
Why do so many drag queens feel the need to read to kids, especially while dressed up as oversexualized parodies of women? I have never heard of any strippers demanding performances with kids, or straight women dressed like drag queens.
I asked you where Oliver supported the state overruling the parents' wishes on this issue. You failed to answer the question.
One more time, when and where did Oliver say that?
You weren't asking me, but I'll chime in anyway.
I don't know that Chase supports or rejects the state overriding parents' objections to child transitioning. Even if he doesn't, he supports chemical/hormonal transitioning of children, which I vehemently object to, as children can't consent, so it's a violation of the NAP. If you're an adult and decide to undergo chemical/surgical transitions, knock yourself out (but taxpayers shouldn't foot the bill, and insurance shouldn't be forced to cover it).
Chase said he wants to keep the government out of it, but is in favor of the government preventing surgical transitions for minors. I'm glad he at least opposes this (for now, anyway), but his rationale is contradictory. He's not a serious candidate, and I doubt his libertarian values. But that's just my opinion.
I went through it. Chase is very quiet on schools transitioning kids. When libertarians get quiet on an issue, they generally don't want to speak to it. And that is one of the big problems with Chase. Because he'd have to go against the virtue signaling on the topic.
As mentioned above... the state is currently...
Hiding transitions from parents
Removing parental notification of LGBTQ subjects.
Sending CPS for not affirming transgenderism.
Denying adoptions for not supporting transgenderism.
And chase is largely silent against the over reaching state abuse. His silence is damning.
Thank you! It ought to be obvious to anyone who isn't willfully blind, and I'm no good at being patient with the willfully blind.
His outright support for woke positions is enough to reject him as a libertarian. His tacit or even quite support for the rest just makes the case ironclad that I can't support him in any way.
I really thought the LP had somewhat learned the lesson from nominating Jo "actively 'antiracist'" Jorgensen, but then they manage to make Chase "I'm gay, if you didn't know" Oliver the new face of the party.
*and I don't GAF if he's gay or not. I just find it very identarian/woke that his name can't be mentioned without pointing out what sex he's attracted to.
*quiet
The gay thing is clearly put out so any criticism of him can be labeled homophobic. It’s the same bad faith bullshit that open borders absolutists use when calling everyone a racist.
And coincidentally it’s a leftist tactic.
His outright support for woke positions is enough to reject him as a libertarian.
You are making my point (below) for me. By this statement, you confess that to you, libertarianism is not really about liberty or the NAP. It is about opposing left-wing identity and culture. And if that opposition results in more liberty, then that is just a beneficial side-effect.
“It is about opposing left-wing identity and culture. And if that opposition results in more liberty, then that is just a beneficial side-effect.
Deal. Your terms are acceptable George Takai.
"It is about opposing left-wing identity and culture"
Alright then, what is "left-wing identity and culture".
Is it about providing castration and poisonous puberty-suppressing chemotherapy drugs to gaslit minors?
Is it about telling people that beating off on a raped child isn't rape as well, and that raped children will lie about gang rapists if drunk?
Is it about putting textbooks that tell teens how to blow an adult in classrooms and libraries?
I know a few leftists that would disagree, but I want your definition about what you meant here.
Well, look at you. So transparently dishonest with your leading and bullshit questions. It makes it so much easier to ignore your fifty-centing.
You are making my point (below) for me. By this statement, you confess that to you, libertarianism is not really about liberty or the NAP. It is about opposing left-wing identity and culture. And if that opposition results in more liberty, then that is just a beneficial side-effect.
People with the woke mindset/philosophy have taken over our institutions, like the federal government and military. I worry about Chase not only failing to retard that trend, but encouraging it. And, maybe you see it as un-libertarian to oppose that combined with the growth of the federal behemoth, but I see the combination of increasingly powerful government that has and is restricting natural rights combining with a political philosophy that espouses current discrimination as a remedy for past discrimination, and future discrimination as a remedy for current discrimination as terrifying. Does this not involve the violation of the NAP?
Jeff thinks withholding welfare is a violation of the NAP.
I believe it is unlibertarian to make anything other than **LIBERTY** as the central organizing philosophical principle. If you want to oppose Chase Oliver because you think he's 'too woke' then feel free. But just be honest, it's not because he is insufficiently libertarian, it's because in your view he has wrongthink.
chemjeff. You didn't address anything I wrote in response to your post. The woke mindset is based on collectivist thinking. That is antithetical to the individualism of libertarianism. You combine the woke mindset with the biggest government in the history of mankind and that's a recipe for disaster.
Left wing identity and culture are the antithesis of liberty and the NAP. Nice try with your your hair splitting sophistry though. Even though your playbook is repetitive and unimaginative.
Shouldn't you be out defending immigrant rapists?
And then Jo baby liked BLM, or approved of them. I forget the details, but sorry, BLM was fraud from beginning to end. They derailed what little police reform was taking place, tried to make it all about racism in the name of anti-racism.
I still can't figure out if Jo Like BLM because the whole establishment was locked in a mania-- a mass-formation psychosis over BLM and so she thought the way into people's hearts was show her support for The Current Thing, or she really believed all that Critical Race bullshit now in retreat.
The godfather of the Mises Caucus was, of course, Murray Rothbard, who, back in the 1960’s wanted to “forge alliances” with the left. His pick was the Black Panthers and the issue was the “People’s Park”.
Rothbard was not an idiot and he grew up in NYC so he had no excuse for not seeing that the Panthers were just street thugs who discovered how to use Marxism to “win friends and influence rich people”. Some libertarian mistakes repeat themselves over and over. Decades pass, but nothing is learned. The Left is poison in all of its forms.
I came here to say what damikesc said better up top. I would have been nicer lol but still ...
The LP had a real shot in 2016 to reach out to free market Republicans opposed to Trump, and instead they nominated a VP candidate who basically endorsed Hillary Clinton and the Presidential nominee expressed open opposition to freedom of association.
Then in 2020 the LP was out-libertarianed by Ron freaking DeSantis on Covid while Jo Jorgensen was aping Ibram X. Kendi talking points.
The MC may very well be killing the LP. But if so, it is a mercy-killing.
"The LP had a real shot in 2016 to reach out to free market Republicans opposed to Trump..."
Thereby handing the office to HRC! What a recommendation!
Better for the party to embrace lefty nonsense and hand the office to Trump?
Sarc or stupidity?
Imagine the SC if HRC had won.
Imagine two terms of The Hag. Which would have happened after they finished fortifying elections against Al, the ‘deplorable’.
Of course there’s a chance that five plus years of her shit might have set off the revolution already.
I'm talking about from the perspective of the LP - do they get more out of appealing to the free market right or anti-Trump social progressives?
BTW, your TDS is obvious; seek help or STFU.
That’s funny, because I voted for him.
Depends on whether the LP is a farm club for the GOP / DNC uniparty, or its own independent self.
What's with all the neocon-interventionist entryists?
GayJay supported "humanitarian" foreign wars not in the US' interest and one of the "critics" cited by Liz is all-in for the proxy war against Russia:
I didn't think GJ was on board with the wars, but I don't doubt you. The anti-Trump neocons generally became Democrats overnight. See The Bulwark.
GayJay was asked about foreign policy by a MSM reporter and said he supported "humanitarian wars not in the US' interest".
He also said he opposed legalizing any drug other than marijuana
Again, personally, before "bake the cake" priority-wise was the "100-person Vice Presidential gun panel". This was after we'd been through Papa Joe's "1 in 4 women" blue ribbon Vice Presidential Title IX commission that produced the "Dear Colleagues" letter.
The fact that it seemed like Weld practically made it up on the spot and GayJay practically just said, "Uh... yeah!" made Trump's knee-jerk bump stock ban seem well thought out.
Nolan spinning in his grave is lighting half of Arizona.
'The modern-day fracture of the L.P. started in 2017, when a small bloc formed the Mises Caucus, lionizing such figures as Ron Paul and Murray Rothbard. Generally young and extremely online, culturally right of center, attracted to sharp-elbowed podcasters like Smith and Tom Woods, the Mises crew exudes visceral hostility toward the state, the Fed, the war machine, and what they see as the philosophically compromised D.C. libertarian think-tankers (pejoratively termed "Beltwaytarians") who they believe enable rather than meaningfully oppose the "regime."'
"Culturally right of center"?
Does this mean they question, or (Gasp!) oppose such modern centrist social fads as gender-fluid children and drag queen story hours (with said queens wearing LP g-strings)? Is it still OK for a libertarian to challenge ANY social deviancy?
A decent argument against the Mises Caucus is out there. They structured their whole takeover on being able to follow up with a high profile (by LP standards) run by Dave Smith. When Smith dropped out, their whole strategy fell apart. You can make a strong case that, if your entire strategy rests on one person doing something you don't have an iron-clad agreement to have happen, your strategy wasn't a particularly strong one.
Of course, that wouldn't fit the narrative. The reason the LP is having trouble has to be that they're not sufficiently woke and cosmopolitan.
Not being able to put a good candidate forward, or even a guy who can stay sober long enough to get through a public appearance, is a big indictment of Mises Caucus strategizing. But they were certainly driven by concerns over messaging and ideological fracturing in the party that started before the take-over.
Aligning with people who were only superficially aiming at the same targets was a problem. Marching with BLM, for example, because they were interested in criminal justice reform, despite all of their preferred solutions calling for MORE government instead of less, and pushing an extremely divisive racial narrative.
I still voted for Jo because at least she'd been active in the party for a long time and had pro-liberty sentiments. I do not perceive the same in Chase Oliver, who seems less pro-liberty and more anti-government. In many cases that will do, but he's just not a serious candidate. He's out there entirely for the messaging, to spout his brief and rehearsed talking points, not because he has theory of governing and a strong plan for what a libertarian presidential administration would look like.
If there was tabulation error with voting machines that somehow made Chase Oliver President-Elect, he'd be leading the investigation into what caused the error instead of preparing to take office.
Jorgenson's "inspirational" speeches could put a charging rhinocerous into a coma. I find it hard to believe that almost 1% of voters were able to remember her name.
The MC had a number of individuals who would have been good. But Dave dropped out relatively late after agreeing, and the others also declined.
True. And, to his credit, he took responsibility for it.
The thing is, though, the MC's entire strategy for the party was dependent on the Smith run. There really wasn't and isn't much of a plan going forward for the MC in the absence of Smith generating a lot of interest and excitement about the LP under the MC. I'll note they have been facing some headwinds from the ousted Prags trying to sabotage things. But, that's something they should have expected. As is the fact that, yeah, Trump does have an appeal that overlaps with their target market.
Now, Oliver being the face of the party pretty much derails any solid plans they might even develop to build their brand.
"would have been good"
By which you mean they would have (1) accepted the nomination, (2) stopped campaigning or working on ballot access, and (3) after the deadlines for state parties to replace them on the ballot had passed, dropped out and endorsed Trump at a MAGA rally funded by what's left of their and the LP's campaign budget.
The adults are talking. You should be seen and not heard.
Lolwut?
We get it. Youre one of the dem cosplayers.
https://x.com/ItIsHoeMath/status/1805612036287590707?t=5nustWstoUBhgx_WJv2wPQ&s=19
People have been fired and ostracized for saying this. I have had close friends get *very* angry at me for even suggesting it.
Disagreeing that male and female brains are different has always been pants-on-head, chewing-rocks stupid, and yet large segments of society reject you if you don't do it
[Link]
I don't have access to these articles right now, but the clumps probably indicate something like:
Top left(women): Brain at rest, thinking of a million things at once.
Bottom right(men): Brain at rest, empty.
Her: "Honey, what are you thinking about?"
Him: "Nothing."
It's really not that groundbreaking. Not to refute the more philosophical implications of what the post is saying, the model is only something like 90% effective at differentiating and we were already well aware that (e.g.) boys get diagnosed with ADHD and medicated at a rate 10X that of girls, women get diagnosed with depression and attempt suicide far more frequently than men who are much more likely not to get diagnosed and attempt and succeed more frequently.
The rest, as far as I'm concerned, is a futile endeavor. "We used a computer to prove that 2+2 = 4... !" Yeah, if you think your colleagues got fired, ostracized, and treated as pants-on-head, chewing-rocks stupid, because they said what they said without using a computer, you really haven't been paying attention.
"How did the party get here, to a place where its chair is openly cheering on victory for the decidedly nonlibertarian Trump?"
The LP Vice-Presidential candidate in 2016 endorsed Hillary Clinton, possibly the most anti-Libertarian American politician in the last 40 years.
The government was indeed dictating the masking and vaccine mandates by using/abusing their regulatory authority to coerce businesses into complying. A "CDC recommendation" isn't just a suggestion, refusing to follow it comes with an exposure to liability that any sane company would do everything to avoid. Oliver supported all of that. So either he's an ignorant fool who doesn't realize this, or he knows this and is only a "libertarian" when it suits him. Either way it's more or less disqualifying.
And the CDC is an executive agency, meaning it's under the purview of the executive branch. It's extremely important for Chase to understand the "soft power" of the bureaucracy in addition to the hard power, if he wants to be president, but he seems completely unaware of how executive authority can force a consensus against popular will.
Yeah honestly Bill Weld was the end of the line for me. Still voted for the ticket but probably for the last time.
Same here, and not just because Gary wanted him, but because he said he would drop out if they chose anyone else. He knew the rules: VP is a separate party election. He didn't like it and threatened to take his marbles and go home. The LP "leadership" caved because they thought it more important to get more votes.
No principles. The MC can't be any worse.
"No principles. The MC can’t be any worse."
Don't say that. Stupidity fill find a way.
Rational libertarians want to be free from coercion. Irrational libertarians was to be free from reality, which is what they have in common with leftists of all stripes and, in particular, the woke.
“A “CDC recommendation” isn’t just a suggestion, refusing to follow it comes with an exposure to liability that any sane company would do everything to avoid.”
This is the point lolbertarians refuse to address.
The Libertarian Party never had a way to lose - - - - - - - - - -
The Mises Caucus would have the balance of my sympathy, but really, both factions are wrong in continuing to try to pump up this lost cause of an organization. Had LP not formed when it did, there wouldn't be enough interest to form it now, and indeed there might not have been enough interest to do so had they waited as little as 10 years from its founding — and certainly not by another 15 years later. LP was a product of Nixon, the Vietnamese war, and a GOP that was still reeling from Goldwater's crushing presidential defeat, and then it kept going on inertia after 1980.
Earlier I wrote that the past, in particular the 1960's, was much worse that it is today. That may be part of the reason for the LP's decline. The pain of tyranny was more intense and the memory of Goldwater's political slaughter was fresh in the mind.
I sure hope that things don't have to get worse before they get better, but it took the Great Depression and the greatest war in America history with 450,000 military dead to get the Republicans off their asses and cut spending. It lasted all of two years before the Cold War got going and the government started growing again.
In his book, "Freedom's Furies", Timothy Sandefur documented the three women who worked the hardest to oppose tyranny: Ayn Rand, Isabel Paterson and Rose Wilder Lane. What was final legacy of these three women? Not one person in 100,000 could tell you who Paterson or Lane were and Ayn Rand's name is only used for insults.
It's time to acknowledge that these arguments failed, not because they're false, but because something is missing in them. We need to find out what that missing thing is.
Agreed. There are two types of "libertarians" - one who actually believes NAP and one who just wants to be liked by Dems. They cannot live in the same party.
“...How did the party get here, to a place where its chair is openly cheering on victory for the decidedly nonlibertarian Trump?...”
He certainly is not *a* libertarian, but:
1) He has the most libertarian views of any POTUS for the last 100 years.
2) He can get elected and enact some of those.
The all or nothing losing strategy for the LP can never go wrong.
But don't you dare say a thing about the LP VP candidate endorsing HRC or their next Presidential candidate endorsing an explicitly marxist organization and it's related riots.
Except it's not really all or nothing with a lot of these guys. The MC sort of built itself on how easily the LP leadership was going along with nothing on the Covidiocy.
Still all or nothing; pure and zero chance of getting elected.
Comment is about the enemy of good being perfection. The problem is libertarianism is filled with disagreement. Which means demands for the perfect candidate will never occur.
I don't call Trump the "most libertarian" in 100 years. He is among the "least unlibertarian" of the last 100 years (but you probably have to factor in Reagan and Coolidge. Not sure about Ike, but he was somewhat prescient about what the bureaucracy did to JFK, so...).
We played a small part in getting Julian Assange free and your answer to that is to post a juvenile hit piece on us the very next day. Liz, you're the Reason mag version of Rachel Maddow.
Sullum weeps in the corner.
Don't know if this is a sock, but if this is the Real Angela McArdle, I've posted your excellent interview with Mr. Malice below on the Your Welcome podcast.
An LP national chair should love individual freedom more than she loves Donald Trump.
You’re unqualified for your position and your actions have – IMO intentionally – damaged the party. Now all my donations go directly to state parties for ballot access, in states that will put our nominee on the ballot and at least refrain from active efforts to undermine him.
I don’t believe you had anything to do with getting Julian Assange “freed”. Nor did Donald Trump, who had four years to pardon Assange.
Signed, LP voter since 1980. I intend to keep voting LP despite your efforts.
Is that LP for leftist pedophiles? Because that is the party core you're endorsing now. There is nothing freedom oriented that preserves and enriches society in the priorities of the left libertarians and their explicit stance with marxist policies and priorities.
Pedophiles?
Your personal hero, DJT is one who gets off on his own daughter’s body, and his mind is so deep into it that he blurts it in public. Your other hero, FJB, made a habit of showering with his daughter and nuzzles underage girls on national TV.
People who are against pedophilia need to be voting for a third party candidate this time.
You mean that third party candidate who wants the government to "affirm" temporary gender dysphoria with genital mutilation, with or without the parents' knowledge or consent?
When there are three evils, you can either not vote, or vote for the one most likely to do the least evil. Whether or not Chase might do less evil than Trump is debatable, but his chances of being elected are ZERO.
Nice try, but your claim was that Chase wanted the government to overrule the parent's objection to doing the surgery.
Third request for some kind of evidence. You could just admit you exaggerated, you know.
He approves of States throwing parents in jail for using the wrong pronouns or for not providing genital mutilation surgery.
He approves of teachers brainwashing their students into thinking they are some other of the 57 genders, and then not telling their parents, which somehow makes it impossible for parents to know their current pronouns.
What more proof do you want?
He's had proof after proof posted dozens of times and in every new thread fucksalad resets and pretends he was never given a thing.
Fucksalad's a fifty-center whose job here is to make excuses and run cover.
"Your personal hero, DJT is one who gets off on his own daughter’s body, and his mind is so deep into it that he blurts it in public."
Your cite fell off.
"‘Don’t you think my daughter’s hot? She’s hot, right?"
[Said when Ivanka was 16 years old. Reported by International Business Times, the Independent, etc.]
""If Ivanka weren't my daughter, perhaps I'd be dating her. Isn't that terrible? How terrible? Is that terrible?" [Said on national TV on The View. By the way, what was your hero doing on The View anyway?]
""Yeah, she's really something, and what a beauty, that one. If I weren't happily married and, ya know, her father…" [Interview with Rolling Stone].
""Is it wrong to be more sexually attracted to your own daughter than your wife?" [Richard Cohen says DJT asked him this question during an interview.]
-----------------------------
There's plenty more -as you know - I just picked a few.
Just to be clear, I don't think mere talk like this, or some questionable family nudity like FJB was into, should land either one of them in prison or on the sex offender registry. But on the legal-but-kinda-pedo scale they both far outclass anything I know about Chase Oliver.
Yep, just like 'he grabs pussies!'
Bullshit from the TDS-addled. FOAD.
And which statement is him getting off on his daughter Ms Maddow?
Well, we got three of him bragging on his daughter and one third-party hearsay, which is enough to convince TDS-addled shits like ducksalad.
Not even CNN tries to make soup out of gruel that thin.
And demsalad outs himself as a dyed in the wool MSNBC talking points poster lol.
Yeah, that was pretty pathetic.
You’re not a libertarian. You’re a leftist. This is obvious, given your TDS, and your use of the language of the left. Including the distorted representation of what Trump said about Ivanka.
Basically, you’re a lying leftist shitweasel who shitposts here, and masquerades as a libertarian.
I originally voted to (1) tell politicians I was a voter when I wrote to them, and (2) help the LP get on the next ballot.
I was disabused of (1) when too many responses were canned printouts unrelated to why I wrote them.
This selection of Chase disabused me of (2).
The only viable strategy for Oliver outside of totally embarrassing himself (more than he already has) is to target Biden voters. That means, on a practical basis, doing as much as possible to throw the election to Trump. McArdle is doing precisely what the head of the LP should be doing.
I tend to agree at this stage.
Yep. It was a smart strategic move and people that already had their minds made up refuse to acknowledge it.
"We played a small part in getting Julian Assange free"
I like your leadership of the LP and will give you and the MC plenty of credit if Trump gets elected, pardons Ulbricht, and names a libertarian to a consequential cabinet spot.
But freeing Assange? How? I doubt Biden and his people give a crap about you guys and your pressure/influence campaigns. More likely he's just trying to keep as many of his leftwing base on board with him going into the election, its the same reason for why he's stumbling on the Israel-Gaza conflict.
Why would Trump put a libertarian in the cabinet after they shit on his magnanimous, and unprecedented, offer?
Yeah the genius Ls smoked that deal.
Ask Angela, she claims that he still may do it. We'll see.
We played a small part in getting Julian Assange free
Shh - no one tell Ms. McArdle that it was the Justice Department of her hero, Trump, who indicted Assange in the first place.
YOU LITERALLY GAVE A PRIME-TIME SPEAKING SPOT AT YOUR CONVENTION TO THE GUY WHO INDICTED ASSANGE. You have no basis to complain.
Trump obviously had complete control of his DOJ. Good point Lying Jeffy, you should stick with that.
The same DoJ whose top officials later boasted they were ignoring and undermining Trump administration requests?
If I remember rightly you were claiming that as proof that Trump was out of control.
If I remember rightly
lol you don't 'remember rightly', you lie
And my statement is the truth whether or not you want to admit it.
Of course since it's your fifty-center job to defend Trump you won't admit it.
Poor Lying Jeffy, so broken.
Liz, you’re the Reason mag version of Rachel Maddow.
Ladies! Ladies! Let’s not be extreme! The Megyn Kelly of Reason Magazine I could see. But Maddow? That’s just mean… and plainly wrong because ENB is obviously the Rachel Maddow of Reason magazine.
https://x.com/EPoe187/status/1805313716017086491?t=Q5Ek-Kdf7XyF3BZzFGbchg&s=19
Much of modern leftist ideology consists of myths designed to deny innate group differences. Thus, for example, many leftists incorrectly believe that black K-12 underperformance can be explained by a lack of spending on predominantly black schools.
Similarly many leftists appear sincerely to believe that poverty causes crime, when, in fact, the opposite is largely the case. Crime (and the traits that cause crime) causes poverty.
Perhaps one can generalize: "Leftism, the desperate attempt to deny innate group differences."
[Link]
My belief is that pretty much all of you anti-LP complainers here are solid Trump/Republican voters, and have been for at least 8 years. Under no conditions would you have supported any LP nominee, unless the LP jointly nominated Trump himself. There was a pathetic attempt to do just that, and it failed.
You're already starting on lies, twisted logic, and "decoding" about Oliver's positions. You would have done the same for any nominee except Trump.
Your favored backup option is for infighting to disintegrate the party, so that we'll "have" to vote for Trump or his successors in future elections. The first part is happening but you're mistaken about the second.
Lots of unfounded supposition there, bud. Next time you want a good argument, try something different which doesn't insult the people you claim to be reaching out to.
Answer the question. Where did Chase Oliver say the state should do gender change surgery against the wishes of the parents?
You claimed it, now back it up.
The only "reaching out" I'm doing here is giving you a chance to back up the claim before I go full Sevo on you.
I answered your question above (even though not directed at me). So let me ask you a question:
Why do you support Chase who is in favor of parents transitioning their children, who can't consent (to this, sex, tatoos, heroin use, etc.), albeit with chemicals and hormones, instead of surgery? And what do you think about Chase's contradictory stances of government involvement in it? He want the government out of it if it involves puberty blockers and hormones, but wants the government involved it if involves surgery for minors. If children can consent to one, why not the other?
What you said above was "I don’t know that Chase supports or rejects the state overriding parents’ objections to child transitioning." Fair enough. You're under no obligation to know.
Alphabet, on the other hand, acts like he knows and then deflects when called on it. Don't know why he doesn't just admit he exaggerated a little, he'd still have a way better track record than most of the crowd here.
"Why do you support Chase who is in favor of parents transitioning their children"
For one, I'm not a single issue voter.
For two, I don't equate liking something with having the government enforce it, or disliking something with having it banned using the police.
For three, I don't think it's an easy call on when to send in CPS and the police to take control of kids away from their parents. For example, should parents should be overridden on having their boy's foreskin amputated, or on having a ceremonial scar made above their girl's clitoris? Probably let them do it. Complete removal of the sex organs? Certainly stop it. What's the principled, theoretical difference....there isn't one, it's gut feelings and line drawing.
And fourth: Just want to point out that saying "children can't consent" is not the strong argument you think it is, or rather, it proves too much. Children can't consent to having a club foot repaired or having braces installed either.
What does CPS have to do with this?
Did the kid identify as Superman and the parent push him off the roof? Call CPS.
Did the kid identify as one of 57 genders and the parent NOT mutilate his genitals? Call CPS.
Why do you have such a hard time understanding that anyone who thinks this is all just fine is a goddam statist?
He doesn’t care about understanding anything. He’s just another leftist. One who feels it necessary to pretend he’s a libertarian. Like Jeffy.
Is he Jeffy? They’re both very much pro child grooming and mutilation.
So if Chase came out as in support of surgical child sex transitions, with or without parent support, would that be enough of a violation for you to stop supporting the guy? Or would you still say that you're not a "single issue" voter? I just want to find where you draw the line.
I'm against Chase for more than one issue, myself. I don't like his deferential attitude toward the federal government when it came to COVID, his stance on immigration, his views on child transitioning, and that his online profile reads like someone who embraces woke/identitarian politics, and other reasons.
If Oliver came out – and every word is important here – in favor of the state taking action to make a surgical transition happen, over the objections of the parents, then yes, I’d probably have to switch to another candidate.
Note that doesn’t include some self-proclaimed mind reader, decoder, or dog whistle “deducing” that’s what he really favors in contradiction to Oliver’s own statements. It also doesn't include being against state intervention to prevent it.
I’m against Chase for more than one issue, myself. I don’t like his deferential attitude toward the federal government when it came to COVID, his stance on immigration, his views on child transitioning, and that his online profile reads like someone who embraces woke/identitarian politics, and other reasons.
Not going to dance around it: I like his views on immigration.
I’m indifferent on his personal wokeness as long as it remains personal. Oliver’s language demonstrates that he distinguishes between liking some outcome and using government to get it. For example, his online issues page carefully distinguishes what is appropriate for federal action from what would not be within federal authority. Biden, Trump, or even RFK….not so much.
Complete removal of the sex organs? Certainly stop it.
I don't know how to reconcile your last post with the above quote from the one above it. If the parents agree to removing a 12-year old's testicles, as gender affirming care, you are on board? Or you think it would be worse for the government to stop the surgery from happening?
Chase is purportedly against surgical transitions for children. He said it should not be legal. So, if you hold so strongly to your desire to see government not involved, do you condemn Chase on this issue? Whether or not it's enough to get you to stop supporting him is another issue, as I understand you.
What if the parents thought it would be a good idea for their 12 year old to get face tattoos? Should the law proscribe that? Or, to take it closer to an extreme, if the parents think their child having sex with adults would be good for the child, and possibly improve the child's mental state. Should government intervene?
I think I get what you are saying, but want to be sure, so as not to misstate your positions. Is this correct: it's all a matter of opinion, but you want to err on the side of no law against it, because government intervention would be worse. It all comes down to your gut feeling on each subject?
Shocker. Youre an open borders nut who doesn't give a shit 150B is taken from citizens to fund them. Youre not libertarian. Youre a thief. Lol.
" For example, should parents should be overridden on having their boy’s foreskin amputated, ...?"
Absolutely, but far too many people believe that this idiotic and harmful religious practice is sacred and since those people were savagely abused in the past, no one will stand against them for fear of being called anti-Semitic.
There are also the fanatical Protestant groups who so opposed sex outside of marriage, that they adopted the practice in the belief that it would lower the sex urge. Oppose them and you believe that boys will masturbate until their hands bleed and adult males will screw anything that bends over in front of them.
Circumcision is a vile, unjustifiable practice but since the practitioners have overwhelming political clout, it's not the hill to die on. Just don't let it be done to your sons.
Well, I agree there's no good reason for it and some mild reasons against. But having the government enforce a ban effectively would require rather coercive and intrusive measures impacting the "innocent" along with the "guilty". And religious freedom is a thing. Given that the victims usually survive and manage to live their lives without being overwhelmed by regrets for their loss, I'd say let it go.
Don't have any sons, so don't worry.
Look at Mike Lite ignore the discussions above and go back to only talking about surgery. Not realizing his position is unprincipled because his defining line for allowance is drugs and not surgery. Even if the drugs fuck the kids up long term.
Oooh, you're giving me another chance.
Thanks, bud, but you've already ignored the others. He approves of states sending parents to jail for misgendering their own children, and for not mutilating their genders.
What the hell kind of an individualist thinks minor can agree to any of that, let alone throwing parents in jail for doing that?
A wacko.
“He approves of states sending parents to jail for misgendering their own children, and for not mutilating their genders.”
When and where did he say that, Alphabet? When and where?
If he said that it’s unacceptable and I’ll vote for someone else (not Trump or Biden, though). If it’s just you doing mindreading or “decoding” what he thinks, or adding your own words to what he said.
If someone says should kids be able to drink sugary soda, and I answer “yes”, that doesn’t mean I favor the state jailing parents who don’t allow their kids to have sugary soda. Only an idiot could think that’s what it meant.
So one more time: Show me where he advocated state action to overrule the parents.
In his campaign site declarations he openly supports extending rights to preferred classes like LGBTQ. What do you think he means by this?
Arent the anti Mises caucus technically the anti LP complainers here?
"...before I go full Sevo on you..."
You haven't near the intelligence.
You're free to believe whatever you want. Lots of people out there have wrong beliefs, so you can join them. But the reality is that an LP that exists to be left of the DNC on every issue except possibly guns is one that leaves a lot of potential libertarians out in the cold.
The only support for Trump I see from any libertarians is that he might be something of an antidote to a DNC establishment that becomes increasingly totalitarian by the day. The 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 9th and 10th Amendments of the Bill of Rights are in tatters, with several of those amendments being ignored in the pursuit of Trump specifically. The very worst people currently in DC absolutely loathe Donald Trump, and I think for some that's at least a start.
Talking badly of the DNC makes you a MAGA cultist - dem salad.
I agree with what you said. I would expand it and add the 14th Amendment to the list of things the DNC wants to eliminate.
If I didn't stop at the Bill of Rights, I would have been here all day.
Good point. Time is valuable.
You’re already starting on lies, twisted logic, and “decoding” about Oliver’s positions. You would have done the same for any nominee except Trump.
By listening to interviews and seeing his Twitter posts? Lol.
Youre an open borders democrat. Youre literally repeating Maddow narratives above about Trump and his daughter. You were never libertarian.
If I had to guess you live in a deep blue city on a dem run state and joined the LP to be edgy while agreeing with democrats on 95% of issues.
The fact you attacked libertarian writers like Rothbard, Mises, Hoppe and others is more proof. You’ve never actually studied libertarianism.
You only care about the social destigmitization of fat left social mores. That’s it. Economically you don’t give a shit about taking from one to give to your favored groups.
Nothing you’ve ever posted is libertarian. It is just defending the left against any attacks. See open borders, child transitions, criminal “reform” and whatever the lefts favorite bumper sticker is of the day. Lol.
Go support Palestine like Chase Oliver. The lefts newest hobby horse.
Good afternoon, Jesse! Hope you’re having a great day.
“open borders democrat”. Democrat no. Open borders? Not literally but by your definition of the term, yes and I’m happy to admit to that.
“literally repeating Maddow narratives”. It would indeed be sad to find myself in agreement with Maddow. Apparently you watch her, I don’t. Of course I don’t really think Trump’s a literal pedophile, he didn’t act on it and most of us notice attractive 16 year old females at some level, it’s between the legal and biological boundaries. But most of us have the judgment not to talk about our admiration on national TV though. Of course there’s also the incest aspect but I’m a libertarian and don’t think people should be arrested for thinking about it.
Having said all that, he’s closer to it than Chase is on the posted evidence. Biden is the worst on this one.
Rothbard and Mises aren’t high priests, their books aren’t holy scripture, and I’m allowed to disagree with them. Nor do they define libertarianism.
“You’ve never actually studied libertarianism.” I just believe in it. You’ve studied (as you’ve also studied Maddow, apparently) but don’t seem to get it.
“Economically you don’t give a shit about taking from one”. Correction, unlike you, I’m neither more nor less enraged when tax money goes to someone of an ethnicity other than my own.
BTW, which chapter of Mises or Rothbard requires fealty to the Likud party of Israel?
And there is the bog standard Leftist "you're a racist" card.
S/he is a TDS addled pile of shit, so there's that.
I’d have a different opinion if JesseAz was consistent. For example, if he favored placing restrictions on childbirth by US citizens “until the welfare state is abolished” then I’d believe his real motivation was just a very strict principled stand that newcomers are a drain on non-consenting taxpayers.
But his own statements prove that’s not his real motivation. He objects to paying for some babies’ education than others. When called on it, instead of suggesting something like checking which parents pay their taxes and which don’t, he wants to base it on some personal status that has squat zero nada to do with taxes.
And BTW, it’s not “bog standard” at all. I disagree equally strongly with many other people here, e.g. Bellmore or Alphabet, and wouldn’t say it about them.
if he favored placing restrictions on childbirth by US citizens “until the welfare state is abolished” then I’d believe his real motivation was just a very strict principled stand that newcomers are a drain on non-consenting taxpayers.
Hey retard. This is literally the fucking argument I've made dozens of times you lying fuck.
I'm against all welfare leaches like you or the white guy in Appalachia.
It is amazing how quickly you revert to standard leftist attacks of thats racist. Just like every other ignorant leftist here.
The only people bringing up race are the cosplayers too retarded to make any other argument.
Must have hit a nerve.
Correction, unlike you, I’m neither more nor less enraged when tax money goes to someone of an ethnicity other than my own.
My favorite. He supports free taxpayer money for all. And if you’re against it, you’re racist. For the 50th time. I'm against all involuntary charity you leftist marxist shit.
Dem salad, what is my ethnicity? Funny you assume being anti theft makes someone white.
"BTW, which chapter of Mises or Rothbard requires fealty to the Likud party of Israel?"
I believe that it's in an unknown appendix to an incomplete manuscript written in Sanskrit that was lost in a fire.
"My belief is that pretty much all of you anti-LP complainers here are solid Trump/Republican voters, and have been for at least 8 years..."
Given that you are a TDS-addled steaming pile of shit, your opinion can be safely ignored.
FOAD.
Pedo
My belief is that pretty much all of you anti-LP complainers here are solid Trump/Republican voters, and have been for at least 8 years. Under no conditions would you have supported any LP nominee, unless the LP jointly nominated Trump himself.
Your belief is pathetic and wrong. Probably because you "strategically and reluctantly" voted for Biden, and always were a Leftist straight blue ticket voter.
I voted LP for the past 3 cycles. Fuck you, fuck Chase, fuck Joe, fuck Nazi pedo leftists.
Nope. Most of us wanted a great alternative to Trump - and we have wanted that for the last 2 elections. Instead we just got Diet Dems, and the same thing happened here.
If I get the time, I'll post a comment on my thoughts about this subject, but in the meantime, if you'd like it straight from the horses mouf, here's Michael Malice interviewing McArdle who does a deep dive into EXACTLY what happened during the convention and how the choice to nominate Oliver was made.
There’s also this:
https://x.com/carynannharlos/status/1804875896425255398
It took me a second to realize what that was, and assuming I'm correct about what that was, McArdle talks about that in the interview.
I’ll check it out.
These are the repercussions from Weld/Johnson, JoJo/Spike. These candidate selections SHOULD destroy the party.
The “Old Guard” (‘2000’s? Bitch Please) still cannot take responsibility, and are baffled, baffled I say, at the rise of the Mises Caucus. But in truth they would have been baffled at the rise of ANY FUCKING opposition.
Trump broke libertarians and Libertarians. He turned people like PJ O'Rourke into drooling idiots. Reason and way too many Ls aligned themselves with Covidians, neocons, and lawfare to stop Trump ignoring the fact that the regime they aligned themselves with is a far bigger threat to liberty than he could ever be. At this point the shortest path to anything like peace and prosperity is MAGA. Sorry but there is no other rational conclusion.
I actually really like Spike, but otherwise agree.
It just hit me, that this is a very interesting phenomenon going on within the big-L Libertarian faithful.
The party rejected Donald Trump, rejected Vivek Ramaswamy, seems luke warm on RFK, and voted to put a "Real" Libertarian candidate as their standard-bearer for 2024. Yet they seem extremely angry about... something, and we've got an article in Reason about how the party "lost its way". On a completely objective scale based on the facts I just detailed above, exactly what way was lost, and what would the party look like if it were on the correct path?
In the "don't listen to what they say, watch what they do" method of analyzing things, what's going on is extremely telling.
The realignment continues apace, and it seems that the LP will not survive.
Not that they had any warning, they are just playing the wrong game.
When a significant portion of you're base only cares about being as degenerate as they can be and have no concern for the costs (fiscal and societal) you can only go so far before liberty weds itself to authority to remove the stigma and shame.
The Libertarian party exists for the amusement of the rest of the country. They really have nothing of substance to offer except platitudes and weird ideology. Nominating this Chase guy did them in.
The LP has now begun its own self destruction. It won't be missed.
I won't be making any more donations to Ron Paul or the Mises Inst.
I have BLM fatigue, LGBTQXYZ fatigue, Illegal Alien fatigue, Ukraine fatigue, black mayors fatigue, Trans fatigue, and congress fatigue.
And quite frankly I don't believe those on welfare should be allowed anywhere near a voting booth and illegal aliens should definitely not be allowed to vote.
The LP has done it again. How do you shoot yourselves in the feet so many times?
Oakland mayor’s house raided by FBI.
Crime had dropped to record lows just before the Libertarian-supported BLM movement of 2020 when crime has gone back through the roof.
She’s somehow blaming Trump for this.
@3:38 "If you just do the math they're on task to get 120 murders that year. That is an astonishingly high number."
[covers mouth and points] Phbbbbt!
" Chase Oliver, a gay 38-year-old antiwar activist and former Democrat..."
That tells me everything I need to know about Oliver.
I don't any former democrat or republican in the LP.
It looks like I'll be looking for another candidate to vote for come November.
I constantly am reminded, by Oliver's supporters that he's gay. They never miss an opportunity to tell me that he's gay. What they won't say is HOW gay Oliver is. I want to know, how gay is Oliver?
Well, let's just say Chase Oliver isn't just his name, but also his favorite hobby.
There a lot of serious people out there that happen to be gay. Brendon O'Neill, Glenn Greenwald, the list goes on. You can agree or disagree with any but they make a persuasive argument. Chase Oliver is not a serious person. He has no argument to make. His gayness is irrelevant beyond tiresome virtue signalling.
^+1
I would no sooner vote for a gay, a woman or a man simply for being one of those three.
But what if they were ALL three?
The LP would nominate it/them.
depends if they're trampy
What they won’t say is HOW gay Oliver is. I want to know, how gay is Oliver?
Again, .38 revolver prominently displayed on his hip tells me all I need to know. There are all kinds of “It was my Grandad’s, who was a cop.” or “It’s just one of a half dozen guns I’ve been pictured with.” or “I got a part in an off-broadway production of To Kill A Mockingbird” explanations.
None of which apply to Oliver, who wears it in a distinct “The gun Paul Pelosi or Christine Blasey-Ford *wish* they carried.”, almost parody fashion.
Laugh all you want but Barney never lied on a federal form. As far as I know.
“"I became a libertarian because the authoritarian conservative politics I grew up in didn't resonate with me," says Christian Bradley, who started voting Libertarian and volunteering for the party in 2008. But the Mises Caucus has injected "authoritarian conservative politics into the party," Bradley says, transforming it into more like a "twisted social club" for "MAGA edgelords" than something that represents his beliefs.“
So you don’t recognize that the Democrats are currently much more authoritarian than conservatives, and you back up that ignorance with bald assertions about the Mises caucus. Or maybe Liz should have asked a follow up question for examples?
Or maybe Liz should have asked a follow up question for examples?
Why would she? She got exactly the answer she wanted.
Bingo.
Yep. Like proclaiming ‘racism’.
Somehow everyone reason interviewed sounds exactly like the leftists on online. "The people I disagree with are racists, bigots, white nationalists, and [Vladimir] Putin apologists."
They did seem to leave out islamophobia, sexism and ableism, but it's hard to get every single buzz word into a quote.
"but it’s hard to get every single buzz word into a quote."
That doesn't mean that Liz shouldn't try.
You have to have a way to lose it.
Trying to appeal to pro-freedom conservatives/Constitutionalists doesn't seem like a mistake. It's pretty hard to find pro-freedom liberals/progressives these days.
Where were the Mises Caucus people in 2008 when Ron Paul was running as an R? Serious question.
I was quite active around that campaign. The only competent 'activists' then were not affiliated with the campaign but were very good at self-organizing. Stuff like the money bombs and the online poll spamming. But while I met a ton of people who had all the social skills of a turd in a punch bowl, I don't recall anyone who was as foul a human being as the Mises Caucus peeps. They certainly weren't the sort who chose 2008 to join the R's so they could actually vote in primaries/caucuses, organize precincts, and be selected as delegates to convention. The Republican Liberty Caucus had some growth in RP supporters but basically there was almost no follow through by the RP supporters at influencing the R's from the inside. They were suffocated by the country clubbers and the R donor class and the church precinct people.
Were they the pre-2008 RP supporters? The John Birchers who had been kicked out of the R party back with Buckley? The RP donor network who had been dog whistled by Rothbard/Rockwell starting in the early 1990's? Are those the folks who were LP because the R's didn't want them anywhere near their tent?
I don't recognize any of those Mises personality types until Trump came along - long after RP ran - and appealed on the more overtly bigoted lines that Rothbard/Rockwell created and stoked.
"Where were the Mises Caucus people in 2008 when Ron Paul was running as an R? Serious question."
Dave Smith has literally said that Ron Paul running as a Republican is what started him down this road (though I think the 2012 campaign was when he got heavily invested). He was only 24 at the time, and I believe Angela McArdle is younger than Dave.
Asking people in their 30s and 20s where they were in 2008 is probably not a valid criticism. Sorry to say it's a long time ago now.
I know they say that RP is the inspiration - but RP is/was the opposite of an edgelord personality inspired by anger and fear. He certainly had some habits of an older Southern pol (esp an R) finding ways to dog whistle older Southern whites to get their votes. And is into the conspiracy explanation of everything. But Mises Caucus types are tactically and personality wise, old and angry and yelling at the clouds (via social media). Paleos - yes; Nixonian and Trumpist in tactics - yes; but RP only by nostalgia
Yes I know 2008 was a long time ago but is there no one in Mises Caucus who was too young to vote in 2008?
Your constant claiming of "dog whistles" or calling people who don't support woke politics "racist" exposes you as the "one true libertarian" supplanting Sarc.
Rothbard overtly chose to link racism with libertarian when he created the paleo/populist stuff.
I'm not at all interested in 'libertarian' anymore. You can wade in your true sewer all you want.
Of what racism do you speak?
“but RP is/was the opposite of an edgelord personality inspired by anger and fear”
Your insistence to shallowly mischaracterize people’s positions then ask for help understanding them is a you problem.
Look at JFree try to push the southern switch. The old souther Rs, as you say, were fucking democrats.
And who ‘switched’? Was there a meeting where they drew a line on the floor and had the people who wanted to switch sides cross over the line to the other side?
Or the many, many hunks of leftist bullshit, this is one of the dumbest.
"The Mises Caucus arose in revulsion toward the Gary Johnson/Bill Weld 2016 ticket, which they saw as having watered down the libertarian message to the point of being unrecognizable."
It wasn't just that they watered down the message, it's that their message was an incoherent mess. You prags who cheer on winning 3% ignore the fact that if Johnson was an actually competent campaigner, and Bill Weld wasn't a corrupt asshole they might have gotten your magical "5%" of the popular vote. That and the just bad campaign strategy of Jorgensen, in 2020, to not focus like a laser on and against the COVID 19 restrictions and lockdowns....face it prags you opened the door to the Mises Caucus, don't get mad that they walked in.
My belief is that Jorgensen didn't focus on the COVID authoritarianism is because she in at least some sense agreed with it. As Chase Oliver clearly did.
By the way, Oliver didn't just vote for Obama, he had fundraisers and such for the guy. Even if he's had a legitimate change of heart, isn't that entirely fair game? If this wing of the LP are just progressives who feel that the DNC just isn't quite progressive enough, well how the hell does that reconcile with the Ron Paul types? Someone has to go.
My belief is that Jorgensen didn’t focus on the COVID authoritarianism is because she in at least some sense agreed with it. As Chase Oliver clearly did.
Well, to be fair, masks aren’t like… mere Talismans… right?
Wow that didn't age well. If Sullum were of the Japanese persuasion he would have put us out his misery years ago. But he soldiers on.
Sullum’s a fucking hack.
Jorgensen is a leftist shitbird. She was a terrible candidate. The L.P. needs another Johnson, but one who can run a real campaign and not have a used up RINO for a running mate. Weld was an ostensibly worse choice for a running mate than Hillary picking Tim Kaine (What the Hell was that about anyway?).
If the LP is now dead, that's fine. They achieved little politically because they really seemed to want to be either a church or just a way to get attention. The pigeonhole 'libertarian' was always a bit of a scam. Even Rothbard admitted as much. There was never enough success BY Big-Libertarians to salvage that name going forward considering that the name has become much more defined by its opponents - the MSM, D and R pols, etc.
I'm trying to wrap my head around the notion of a "Libertarian Power Struggle.
It's a party that has no power, and pretty much believes that nobody ever ought to be in charge of anything...
See, it's simple.
The real issue here, is not about liberty, it's not about the NAP, it's not even about specific policies or laws.
It's all about identity and culture. The fundamental assumption, is that "real libertarians" should be the ones to firmly stand athwart left-wing identity and culture in all its forms. Even when that left-wing identity or culture have no bearing on liberty or the NAP.
Such as, for example, *voluntarily* wearing a mask during the pandemic. Since mask-wearing was identified with a left-wing identity, a "real libertarian" should oppose wearing masks, even voluntarily. It doesn't matter if there is no initiation of force, it doesn't matter if the mask is effective or not, it doesn't matter if the government mandated it or not. A "real libertarian" rejects left-wing identity and culture as its overarching premise, and therefore must reject wearing a mask. Period.
Such as, for example, celebrating Pride Month. A "real libertarian" must object to open celebrations of gay pride, even if they are voluntary, even if they are done by private individuals on private property, even if there is no violation of the NAP. Because a "real libertarian" must oppose left-wing identity and culture, and Pride is associated with left-wing identity.
That is, to the best of my knowledge, the real dividing line between the Mises Caucus crowd, and other libertarians. Are you a libertarian who thinks about issues in terms of liberty and rights and initiation of force and the NAP? Or are you a libertarian who throws out all of that, and only focuses on opposing left-wing identity and culture?
And if you think the above is wrong, or if you think I'm putting words in anyone's mouth, then specifically say why you think that. Because I don't think I am. I think that is the fundamental dividing line between "classical liberal" type libertarians, and the modern Mises Caucus libertarians. The former tend to be true to principled ideas about liberty. The latter take opposition to left-wing identity and culture as the fundamental guiding principle, and if that opposition to left-wing identity and culture results in more liberty, that is just a side-effect.
Everything you said was a caricature and bald assertions. Thats all you have.
Violations of the NAP you claim while calling yourself a libertarian:
Loss of jobs during covid
Lockdowns during covid
Health freedoms during covid
Shooting trespassers
Cutting children's kicks off
Migrants aren't responsible for gang rapes of minors
Teachers have agency over kids more than parents
Welfare to anyone who asks
Jailing political opponents
I can go on and on.
Everything you said was a caricature and bald assertions.
Like what? Be specific.
and the rest of course are lies and extreme exaggerations.
They’re not. e cornered, so you will ask for extreme levels of specificity, and then split hairs on every single thing. Do you think this is clever? We know your playbook. You’re repetitive and unimaginative. You’re also not very smart.
Your exhaustive sophistry will get you nowhere.
Here is another example. It completely explains why the Mises Caucus crowd are so in favor of restrictive immigration policies, even though those restrictive immigration policies so obviously result in infringements of everyone's liberty.
Because so-called "open borders", to them, results in a society that is more receptive to left-wing identity and culture. And their fundamental guiding principle is opposition to left-wing identity and culture. So they are completely supportive of all of the violations of liberty that restrictive immigration policies produce, because in their estimation it results in fewer left-wingers in the country. Stopping the country from having more people on the left (at least according to them) is more important than supporting liberty for its own sake.
Jeff. Is taking money from some to give others a violation of the NAP?
Fat piece of shit.
Is taking money from some to give others a violation of the NAP?
Sure it is. Now tell us, why is it MORE of a NAP violation if that money is given to a migrant, than if it is given to a native-born citizen?
Why is it that the welfare handed out to migrants seems to get you all WAY more worked up and angry, than the FAR larger amount of dollars in welfare given to native-born citizens?
Why is it that when you and your team calculates welfare given to migrants, you disingenuously include programs such as free school lunches to the children of migrants, that have zero bearing on the moral worth of the migrants themselves and are only included in order to inflate the number of people you all claim are "on welfare" to give a misleading picture of migrants as being a bunch of lazy layabouts?
Are you shitting us? As bad as welfare for citizens is, it isn’t nearly as egregious as giving away taxpayer money to ILLEGALS.
Now tell us, why is it MORE of a NAP violation if that money is given to a migrant, than if it is given to a native-born citizen?
Because citizens have priority, being the one the government serves.
They always have. If they didn't, then there is no sense in complaining about corporate welfare (for example).
Wait wait, so it is MORE of a theft if the government takes $1 from you to give to a migrant, than if the government takes $1 from you to give to a citizen? See this is ridiculous.
Citizens are jurisdictionally within bounds of any given government.
Foreigners, by definition, aren't.
“Sure it is.” You could have stopped there. But you didn’t.
Virtue signal uber alles. It’s all you got. You’re pathetic.
This is maybe the only legacy of the actual Mises. Because he was part of the socialist calculation debate of the 1920's, the word 'Marx' engendered an almost Pavlovian response in reaction for the rest of his life. Nowadays, there are some additional trigger words (leftist, progressive, etc) that engender that Pavlovian response but it is mostly Pavlovian. Not based on the content but on the trigger word.
Poor sarc.
Quell shock, there is more to libertarians than policy.
Jeff... is it a violation of the NAP to gang rape a minor?
Fat piece of shit.
is it a violation of the NAP to gang rape a minor?
Sure it is.
Is it a violation of the NAP to trespass, even on public property after permitted hours of operation?
Is it a violation of the NAP to vandalize and destroy the property of others, including public property, such as, say, the glass pane of a door in the halls of Congress, and then try to crawl through that broken door in violation of the rules governing that property?
Doesn't this apply in the reverse as well? The main reason people are upset with the MC is because they oppose left-wing identity and culture.
You could argue that their toleration of anti-immigrant positions makes them un-libertarian -- but what about GJ's anti-drug positions or his stance against freedom of association? I don't think he was terrible - I voted for him in 2012 and 2016, but how is immigration restriction so much worse?
The reason that people don't like the MC is primarily because they are the social outgroup. That this whole fight is be about left identity culture vs. right identity culture comes from all sides.
I have been active in the LP on and (mostly) off since I gathered signatures for Ed Clark in NJ. I have always voted Libertarian, and I will do so this time around.
So Oliver is not perfect, who is? The “no true Scotsman” nonsense I am seeing seems to be from right-enders who demand everything go their own way. The rest of us have always gone along and worked for elections when the right-enders held influence. Remember Berglund? Brown? Barr? How many others emphasized the economic policy side with lip service to the social side?
The Mises folks and other right-enders need to suck it up and work for the ticket the way we folks on the social side have done since the 80s.
Buncha sore-losers.
Fuck off proggy slaver. What you're saying is you'd vote for Pol Pot so long as he got nominated to spite others.
"...So Oliver is not perfect, who is?..."
The cry of imbecilic piles of shit!
"Utopia isn't an option", remember? We never have perfection available, regardless of your history of wasting your time.
Grow up or STFU; adults are having a discussion.
Cast my first Libertarian vote for Harry Browne and every candidate local and federal including Johnson/Weld. It had little to do with ideological purity because few of them came close to my definition of libertarianism. And I came from what we now call the left. Old school anti war free speech civil rights liberalism. The biggest threat to liberty in my lifetime by far was the Covid scam. Your boy Chase completely bought into the lies. He's not only not a pure libertarian he's a fucking idiot. These people killed and impoverished millions. I will never forgive and I will never forget.
...he’s a fucking idiot.
Does anything more really need to be said?
This is establishment politicks transplanted from the GOP to the LP, and it's just as stupid.
No, fuck you, your base is who matters.
The problem with the LP is that, in their ardent effort to defend autonomy and individualism, they offer no instruction for self-restraint and self-control.
Nowhere is this more clear than in their top three favorite things: recreational drug addiction, LGBT pedo, and abortions.
All their disingenuous claims about "freedom" and "liberty" are in fact just a demand for hedonism without accountability. Like children who want to jump off the roof wearing a cape, but then cry foul when the ground breaks their leg. It's why you hate cops. Because cops enforce laws, and laws are an expression of local morality. Because morality is a hard check against unrestrained hedonism.
"I want to do it" is NEVER tempered with "Should I do it?" Let alone "Should I want to do it?"
And that's why you've now got a pedo gimp presidential candidate in 2024, and why more and more people are starting to recognize that Libertarian has more in common with Wokeness than it does Individualism.
We hate cops because they're coercive which is immoral.
They’re legally and constitutionally coercive. That’s not immoral. It’s what we agreed to as a society. Which means you’re angry because they know something you don’t:
Your rights.
Cops can’t get away with anything more than you consent to. It’s not the 1970s anymore where they turn the shades and break out a phone book. They’re all packing Axon’s now. They prey on your ignorance as a citizen unfamiliar with your own civil rights. If you invoke them, they have to stop. If they don’t, you’ve got a slam dunk civil suit.
“I want to do it” is NEVER tempered with “Should I do it?” Let alone “Should I want to do it?”
I am actually sympathetic to this argument. However, I don't want the finger-wagging moralizing scold telling you not to do something, to be an agent of the state backed by its immense coercive power.
That's fair.
Also, I forgot to post, here's Michael Malice's excellent Dave Smith Interview.
Thank you for linking to this interview. He essentially proves my point above, particularly when Dave says at about the 32 minute mark that the real problem is with the "blue pill". And more specifically he describes how, when it comes to large amounts of policy, Dave and Chase Oliver would very likely agree completely with each other. However, that's not the "real problem". He says:
"...but there are people who kind of like reject State restrictions but still gobble up all of the propaganda... and you can never count on those people....because technically speaking Chase probably never supported lockdowns or vaccine mandates, I don't know for sure, but I don't think he did, but he was bragging about how he was going to socially distance at Thanksgiving this year, and that everybody would be wearing masks inside, and things like this, and you're like - I know Libertarians get hyper autistically focused on policy, but like, that matters just as much, whether you're good on policy."
He flat out states that whether or not one "believes in propaganda" matters just as much as one's policy position. Dave refuses to support Chase because, in Dave's view, Chase has wrongthink. It's not about liberty. It's not about the NAP. It's not about policy - Dave even flat out says that he likely agrees with Chase on most important policy issues. It is about whether Chase believes in 'propaganda' that is at least sympathetic to left-wing culture and identity.
Opposing left-wing identity and culture is THE most important thing to the Mises Caucus crowd.
Oh, it gets even better.
Now Dave, about the 35 min mark, is defending the LP removing the anti-bigotry plank of the platform. Because, according to Dave, when it was first put in, back in the early 70s, not long after the passage of the Civil Rights Act, sure it might have made sense to distance yourself from the bigots while still defending the right of free association. But now, in the 2020s?
"...when you're just sitting there and saying 'we condemn bigotry', you're like, hey, do you guys not notice that there's a mass hysteria going on right now, where progressives call anyone who wins an argument with them, a bigot? So we don't want to be a part of that."
Once again, the overriding principle here is to oppose the left-wing culture surrounding racism and bigotry. And this is, again, where he AGREES with the sentiment that if a business owner puts a Whites-only sign on the door, that he's "a piece of shit". But it's more important to Dave to oppose left-wing identity and culture than it is to take a moral stand that he himself agrees with.
Oh, and now at the 37 minute mark, Dave is complaining about parents who are 'psychologically abusive' and 'dominating' their kids when it comes to the trans stuff. He thinks it's wrong to 'psychologically abuse' kids. And I agree, psychological abuse is wrong! BUT, let's see Dave take that same idea to its logical conclusion. What exactly constitutes 'psychological abuse', Dave? If parents talking to kids about transgender issues is 'psychological abuse', what about parents who take their kids shooting at the gun range? Parents who take their kids to church every Sunday, and/or to Bible camp every summer? Parents who put pressure on their kids to excel in academics, or sports, or whatever, to the point of causing real stress even in little kids? Is all of that 'psychological abuse'?
It is a real slippery slope to try to classify different parenting choices that we might disagree with, as 'psychological abuse' and I would expect actual libertarians to understand that and to refrain from doing so. But not Dave! Because the issue here isn't liberty or the NAP or even really 'abuse' per se, but stopping the spread of left-wing ideas. So classifying transgenderism as a dangerous left-wing idea tantamount to 'psychological abuse' is fair game - but not taking kids hunting, or to sports practice, or to Bible camp. All that is fine, because those are not associated with left-wing ideas.
Haha, you’ve become so bitter. It makes me smile.
The only hope for the LP is to focus on the one issue of prohibiting government coercion.
"How the Libertarian Party Lost Its Way"
It listened to the morons who write for Reason?
Splitters!
I haven't looked into the current squabble in detail enough to have a specific opinion, but the previous leadership completely flubbed the 2016 campaign. Trump had the most in-party opposition of any major party candidate since Goldwater. Probably way more. That the campaign's messaging was so inept that Johnson couldn't capitalize on a historic opportunity like that meant that it was time to clean house. I liked Johnson and voted for him, but not drawing enough Never Trump Republicans to even crack 5% against a guy who was anti-trade and had donated money to Hillary and Schumer? Time for a new team.
Mind you, I'm overjoyed Hillary lost, and was pleasantly surprised by Trump's policies in office, but still.
Yes. My interest in 2016 was the possibility that the Libertarian party might for the first time get enough votes to actually have some influence on policy. As the campaign wore on I became disappointed with Johnson and Weld but clung to the hope that the party could still establish some standing in the uniparty establishment. Of course they bombed out. Really knew very little about Trump but I was also relieved to see Clinton lose. The reaction in the media and here at Reason was frankly bizarre. Trump's stated goals, build the wall, ban immigration from terrorist nations etc were hardly radical and had been advocated by Obama and Clinton. Within a few weeks I began to see what I saw as positive libertarianish policies. As time passed I saw a very promising foreign policy evolve. The tax cuts and end of the Obamacare mandates benefited me greatly as did the roll back of some regulations in my business. I reached the conclusion that Trump is as close as we'll ever get to a libertarian president and that's where I am today.
Reason's hatred for Trump seems centered on his immigration policies, an issue which IMO they assign way, way too much importance to. (I'm hardly the first to say this. Whatever happened to Open Borders Liberal-tarian?) But because of that, they apparently just can't bring themselves to give him proper credit for things he did in office that libertarians want. On school choice alone, they should be praising him to the rafters -- Trump went after the Department of Education like no president has since Carter created that abomination.
He also saved us from the SCOTUS which HRC would have delivered and started not a single (even proxy) war, and far, far more.
"...Whatever happened to Open Borders Liberal-tarian?)..."
That was Sandy who has proven her/himself to be just one more run-of-the-mill TDS-addled pile of shit.
Wait, OBL was expressing their actual opinions? I always thought they were a parody -- Reason's equivalent of Titania McGrath.
OBL parodied turd's claims; got no idea what his/her real opinions on that issue were or are. And don't care.
S/he has proven to be a run-of-the-mill TDS-addled shit pile, while claiming to dislike Trump for reasons which never quite coalesce into specifics or (cited) claims; IOWs the adolescent 'he's ikky'.
An asshole who ran a successful troll account, no more, no less. And, let's be honest, trolling turd is not a task requiring high intelligence; the asshole leaves himself open to parody with every post.
2016 was not really an opportunity for a third party. The discontent with both Clinton and Trump brings out the 'lesser evil' rationale and that rationale becomes much more compelling to that voter type when the alternatives are the worst prez candidate in history v literal Hitler chewing on your eyeballs.
You're describing the vitriol of each side's view of the opposite candidate. I'm talking about discontent from within the party over the nominee, and thus the number of voters who might be convinced to look elsewhere even if they wouldn't want to go to the "enemy" side. You'd have to go back to 1912 to see so rich an opportunity for a 3rd-party candidate.
The percentage of libertarians in the Mises Causus is about the same as in these comments. About 0%.
The intelligence in this comment is absolute zero. TDS much JKP?
You're not a libertarian.
Probably never been a better year for a third-party candidate and the Libertarians do what they do best, shoot themselves in the foot.
Just whom do you think would have made the best LP candidate in a "better year for a third party candidate?"
I no longer partake in Libertarian Party activities and was not familiar with Oliver nor had I heard of him until searching for convention results after receiving text messages from friends to the tune of "What is the LP doing?"
Disappointed to see the convention swooning over a former Democrat and Obama supporter. I help my nose and voted for Bob Barr and the SJW messaging of the Jorgensen campaign but I cannot do so any longer.
LP has lost my vote.
Wasn't the Jorgenson campaign run by the same guy who is running the Oliver campaign? I wouldn't count, however, on Oliver getting even half the number of votes JoJo got.
Regarding appealing to the popular vote, I doubt the campaign manager is going to have any effect at all.
This candidate is going to appeal to, well, perhaps 1% of the voters in blue districts.
Looking at him from the fringes (where we all live) we can find something to like, but you have to do some digging. The world is not gonna do that; they are going to respond as employers did to that fool with tats all over her face: 'You want me to help YOU?! FOAD.'
The Libertarian party was driven into the ground way before the Mises Caucus gained power. The only reason that the Mises Caucus was able to gain power is because of the mismanagement.
Gary Johnson was a "Okay" nominee, but Bill Weld was a horrible. When he commented to vote for Hillary Clinton while running it became very clear that Bill Weld is a charlatan. Still the ticket was far better than either Trump or Hilary.
Jo Jorgensen was "So So at best" nominee, but made some very terrible comments. The only saving grace was Spike Cohen as the VP pick. You could tell that Jo Jorgensen despised Spike Cohen. I was able to get past the idiocy of Jo Jorgensen's statements with the knowledge that Spike Cohen was on the ticket and the ticket was better than either Trump or Biden.
This year we have Chase Oliver, who embodies some of the worst aspects of the woke leftists and their authoritarian tendencies. Couple the ticket with a former Fed, ex-cop with dubious libertarian stances. While this ticket is better than the redo of Trump or Biden, we have a strong independent with Kennedy. I have a tough decision to make of which stink is worse between Chase Oliver and Kennedy. There are negatives with both, but I'm currently seeing more upside in favor of Kennedy.
The Mises Caucus may not have all the answers, but the previous Libertarian party leadership was far worse. Perhaps someplace in the middle would be appropriate. We don't live in the ideal notion where our high lofted principles can never be violated, but rather in the real world where some degree of compromise is necessary otherwise there is zero power and zero possibility of ever gaining power.
Is the goal that the Libertarian party only be a mental exercise, or are we actually trying to change the state of things? Both the previous leadership and the current leadership have their issues.
I do have to say though that having Trump and Kennedy at the convention was a stroke of brilliance. There was more exposure and press about the Libertarian party over the stunt than the past 3 elections combined.
The first step is that the general population needs to know that the Libertarian party actually exists and at least 3/4 of the population didn't know anything or next to nothing about the party.
The second step is to hit it strong at the local level. Chase Oliver needs to downplay his worst aspects. Perhaps not using his sexuality as an achievement/badge of honor and instead play it as a non-issue. A person's legal sexual preferences don't have any bearing on effectiveness. He is better on anti-war than the other candidates, so focus on that. Stop the woke 1st world crap and focus on the real issues that actually matter.
I am trusted with a muzzle and enfranchised with a clog; therefore I have decreed not to sing in my cage. If I had my mouth, I would bite; if I had my liberty, I would do my liking: in the meantime let me be that I am and seek not to alter me.
I am a libertarian. Small l. The large L has gone insane and lost my support. Since I was eligible to vote in 1988, I have voted for Libertarian candidates and donated to the Libertarian party while maintaining my small l libertarian status. The Misus caucus alienated libertarians such as me. I stopped donating and I've stopped voting. The Libertarian party no longer stands for libertarianism. I encourage apathy to send our message to the misguided leadership.
Can you really call yourself a libertarian? The Mises Caucus believes in actual individualism and accountability, unlike Chase Oliver.
I have been a Libertarian since 1980, held many state and county positions over the years, and even ran for office as a Libertarian twice. This is the first time I don't think I can vote for our Presidential candidate, or any candidate since I refuse to vote *for* a candidate that I don't approve of. I'll take an 80% or 90% approval, but what I've heard from Chase on his videos and interviews so far is not what I support.
I ran for Calif state assembly as a Libertarian in more than 20 years ago but do not support the recent and current party.