A bad idea is only a good idea if it's done by my party - democrats and republicans.

A bad idea is only a good idea if it's done by my party - democrats and republicans.

Care to elaborate?

 

Won't happen so long as the libertarians continue to caucus with the evangelical and raw capatlist blocs. Both of them are perfectly willing to throw core libertarian ideals right under the bus, especially as far as independence from state and pesudo state powers go. Liberatinism requires independence from all coercive institutions, not some.

 

Not to mention the hard evangelicals and wana be robber barons who think being pro pot makes them libertarians aren't doing anyone any favors. Oh and the general stank of objectivism needs to be sorted

You make an excellent point. A lot of “libertarians“ object to gay marriage, a woman’s right to control her body, decriminalization of drugs, freedom of religion or atheism, free speech, free press, etc.- not very consistent with the tenants of libertarianism. I don’t know what proportion of libertarians these people represent, but they sure are loud.

In America? enough. The core of American Libertarianism is basically rooted in Isabel Paterson, Rose Wilder Lane, and everyone's favorite hypocritical loon, Ayn Rand. ( Which kinda makes the current anti feminism, pro traditional gender roles thing many "libertarians" have going on halarisad.) All of them were overly focused on perceived over reach of the state (although given that they did their writing in the era of the new deal, not surprising), and all fail to recognize that other institutions than the state can wield similar power without the check of democracy or that they can function as extensions of the state.

 

Unfortunately in the wake of the red panic, America went *hard* in on traditional institutions and military interventionism, and anyone who deviated from that orthodoxy was pretty much labeled a communist and similar. Which left those three (and the people they inspired) and the only acceptable voice of libertarianism. And then the Vietnam war *really* drove the wedge in, cause that was a bad time for anti interventionist ideologies. .

 

These days American Libertarianism has been co opted as a synonym for "socially conservative". The Republican party goes out of it's way to either crush any sort of actual libertarian candidate or basically borg them into the big tent (hellooooo tea party), because in its current state, an actual libertarian swell would be an existential threat to the GOP.

I was watching the results, switching through some channels. It was on MSNBC I believe, and they said, to paraphrase, "This shows the Democrats are more or less on the right path. Had they not had some success, there would probably be more thought of changes in the Democratic party and changes in leadership"

And altho I have always been left-leaning, registered as a Democrat, I was like "Damn.. that would've been nice."

Because while the Repubs may have a lot of extreme and hateful supporters, the Dems have quite a few of their own. And there is corruption in the Democratic Party. And there is liberal propaganda that is dishonest, misleading, and hateful in it's own ways. I would hate for the Dems not to think this still needs to change. If it did make these changes, it would be much stronger for it I believe. So I hope they do not read too much into this blue ripple, the Democratic Party still has internal crisis to deal with. 

A bit more Nationalism from the Dems would be nice. They're running to serve America, not the world. The rest of the world fights for their interests, we have to fight for ours. Not saying we should be isolationist, but we shouldn't be push-overs either, or naive.

btw here is a video on Liberal Universities publishing crazy, outlandish papers just because they support the far-left narrative. Ironically, it's Liberals (of the more moderate and honest variety, of which there are many!) who are exposing it and fighting back as well:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hURHfjq58sY&t=3s

 

So who's the one saying that "gay marriage, a woman’s right to control her body, decriminalization of drugs, freedom of religion or atheism, free speech, free press" is wrong?

 

RandomHero's team or Lysis's team?

I was watching the results, switching through some channels. It was on MSNBC I believe, and they said, to paraphrase, "This shows the Democrats are more or less on the right path. Had they not had some success, there would probably be more thought of changes in the Democratic party and changes in leadership"

 

And altho I have always been left-leaning, registered as a Democrat, I was like "Damn.. that would've been nice."

 

Because while the Repubs may have a lot of extreme and hateful supporters, the Dems have quite a few of their own. And there is corruption in the Democratic Party. And there is liberal propaganda that is dishonest, misleading, and hateful in it's own ways. I would hate for the Dems not to think this still needs to change. If it did make these changes, it would be much stronger for it I believe. So I hope they do not read too much into this blue ripple, the Democratic Party still has internal crisis to deal with. 

 

A bit more Nationalism from the Dems would be nice. They're running to serve America, not the world. The rest of the world fights for their interests, we have to fight for ours. Not saying we should be isolationist, but we shouldn't be push-overs either, or naive.

 

btw here is a video on Liberal Universities publishing crazy, outlandish papers just because they support the far-left narrative. Ironically, it's Liberals (of the more moderate and honest variety, of which there are many!) who are exposing it and fighting back as well:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hURHfjq58sY&t=3s

 

 

 

 

Oh that again!  We had a discussion on that recently.  it's here

 

But because I will never ever get tired of mocking those clueless twits, lets do it again.

 

So lets break there little experiment down by the numbers:

 

• 7 papers accepted.
•  
• 7 papers still undergoing peer review, 1 undergoing it's first review, 6 more previously rejected that they attempted to resubmit. 
•  
• 6 outright denied. 

 

So outright, 2/3rds of their hoax papers were rejected from publication which already rather strongly undermines their conclusion. Oh and two questions for you I''ll answer at the end. How many total attempts to submit papers were made, and what was the highest ranked journal they managed to get to accept something. 

 

 

What's interesting is that their essay goes out of its way to obfuscate which paper was in which category. I spent a good half hour cross referencing through their essay to put that together. Not surprising when "2/3rd of our papers were rejected". However many of the papers they spend time dwelling upon, were those outright rejected and they cheerfully lump them in with the remained. The Masturbation, Progressive Stack, and several others that they lavish over were infact....outright rejected. Of course that doesn't stop them from fitting square pegs into round holes no sir. They take the fact they were rejected as symptomatic anyways because the person assigned to peer review the paper gave them respectful feedback...exactly like the peer review process kinda requires of them.  There are other issues with the essay as well. For example they go out of their way to criticize the field of sociology throughout it. Despite the fact they were rejected from every sociology journal they submitted to.  Not that they bother to mention that. 

 

Of course that's the boring part of the essay really. "Hoax paper gets rejected, fails to be published" is such an utter non story. The remaining 7 are what we should be interested in. 

 

One of them wasn't a paper in the first place, but a collection of poetry published to a poetry journal.  It was garbage ass poetry, but it was hardly an academic work. Three more were scholarly essays. Which are at least a piece of academic writing, but again, hardly interesting. They're not research papers. They don't present any conclusions, they don't really contribute data any field and the standard for them is quite a bit lower for that reason. Those journals are aggregators and unless your essay is irredeemable trash, they don't care, because "is this essay good" isn't their problem. For that matter, the impact factor of the journals those ended up in are quite low. Without getting into the grit, low impact factor indicates a journal that is more geared towards highly theoretical  and esoteric work. To put it simply, they're the academic equivalent of r/showerthoughts

 

So now we're down to 3. The dog-rape paper, the dildo paper and the breastaurant research. And all of these papers have something in common. Every single one of them contains *extensive* fabricated data and detailed construction of  the experimental design. For the "dog-rape paper" they faked a 1,000 hours of observation. It shouldn't surprise anyone that made it through peer review. Peer review is not there to be an arbiter of truth. It's not there to go "yea this was a good use of your time to study". It's there to look at the paper, judge the presentation of the data, judge the experimental design, and make sure it's original research. That's it. And those three papers presented hours and hours and hours of empirical data. One them claimed to be the product of two freaking years of study. Empirical data is valuable and for all your undergrad TAs bitched at you for not having a flawless crafted objective, in reality no one gives a fuck. Regardless of the bullshit that surrounds it, meticulously collected data is always valuable. 

 

Which means those three papers aren't hoaxes, but outright fraud. The peer review process does not protect against that and it can't protect against that.This is true of every field, and there have been cases of it everywhere. The Schön scandal is a rather famous example, and you can't get a much harder field of science than condensed matter physics conducted at the freaking Bell Laboratories. That's just one case. There's a reason why the academic disciplines are so harsh about that. They'll boot an undergrad out of university for that shit. If your ass has a PHD and you try that shit? You get fired. You lose any fellowships you  have. They will revoke your degree That phd you spent 10 years and a hundred thousand dollars getting? Gone . No research facility in the world will touch you. The penalty for that isn't "your paper doesn't get published" but "watching as your career burns to the ground and they salt the ashes where it once stood." You could run exactly that sort of "sting" in any sort of academic discipline and get the same results. It's the academic equivalent of something like the police opening a bar, arresting everyone who comes out for public intoxication  and then publishing a report that says "DRUNKEN LAWLESSNESS UP 200%".

 

Seriously, look at this cause if you think "good empirical science" is immune to it, and this is the "degeneracy of the social sciences" whooooo boy. 

 

Picking up on that kind of fraud is left to the larger academic community. The journals aren't arbiters of truth, the handful of peer reviewers don't know everything, so "is this data right, is this data valuable, is this source being used correctly" is left up to the field of as a whole. And that works. All three of these papers were flagged almost immediately after being published for a deeper investigation. Bascily as soon as their fraud hit print, their entire experiment went so thoroughly tits up they had to immediately drop it. 

 

Which means they've managed to confirm that the process works. 

 

OK so considered those questions at the start?

 

they submitted 47 times. they were rejected 39 times. That's discounting the one paper they had only just submitted before scrubbing it. 82% failure rate out of the gate. 

 

THe "Best" journal they could get is Gender, Place & Culture: It's the #9 journal in the field of Gender Studies. So they couldn't manage anything outside of the 10th ranked journal in an already really niche.

 

Oh and as a bonus:

 

The average impact factor for those journals is less than one.  Significantly less than one. To put it in perspective, the various journals produced by the Nature Publishing Group (which is pretty damn well regarded) are in the high teens to low twenties.  The review journals occasionally push the 30s.

 

CA which is pretty much the most well regarded journal period has an impact factor of 64. Most of the journals  they "stung" have a impact factor of less than 0.64. 

 

 

 

 

 

So who's the one saying that "gay marriage, a woman’s right to control her body, decriminalization of drugs, freedom of religion or atheism, free speech, free press" is wrong?

 

RandomHero's team or Lysis's team?

I cannot speak for Lys, but conservatives are more likely to object to these things than liberals. In fairness, there are people in both factions that cannot tolerate free speech if they are not hearing what they want to hear.

 

Lys would call me a liberal. Lys is a conservative by my standards.

 

So who's the one saying that "gay marriage, a woman’s right to control her body, decriminalization of drugs, freedom of religion or atheism, free speech, free press" is wrong?

 

RandomHero's team or Lysis's team?

I cannot speak for Lys, but conservatives are more likely to object to these things than liberals. In fairness, there are people in both factions that cannot tolerate free speech if they are not hearing what they want to hear.

 

Lys would call me a liberal. Lys is a conservative by my standards.

 

Social issues have nothing to do with my politics. I don't believe in government intervention in any of these issues. The US Constitution guarantees the same rights to all Americans... period. That means we're not carving out extra rights for them, or we have to limit rights to those people. No one has a right to anything that costs money, or has to be supplied by someone's labor. Those are not "rights", they are "services", and must be paid for.

 

Gay marriage is not a single issue, it's two issues... there is gay, and there is marriage. I really don't care about who, or what, anyone has sex with. It's none of my business, and no one is very concerned about my right to not care, or that I don't care to know, or that I don't want it shoved in my face. I don't want to see "gay" in every TV show I watch... I don't want to see someone eat a bowl of dog shit either. I can always change the channel.

 

People are gay if they want to be. It falls in the category of "what turns you on". The only business of government is to ensure that what "turns you on" is not harming others, or denying others of their rights.

 

Now the issue of marriage, in my opinion, is really a non-issue. Somewhere along the way our leaders made a really stupid mistake of tying marriage to the law. For the most part, by tradition, marriage is a church thing... and this was just a huge juicy piece of low hanging fruit for Progressives and gay activists to stick it to the church they hate, cause confusion within the courts, and slam right into the Constitution. My solution is quite simple... remove marriage from the law. Then the church can exercise their right to tell the Progressives and the gay activists to pound sand.

 

I have never supported anything in the realm of preventing a woman from controlling her body. There is one tiny issue that must be addressed, and it needs to happen soon. The Supreme Court must make a ruling on when a baby is entitled to constitutional rights, and if they can't do that, we have to force the states to compromise on an amendment to the Constitution to make it absolutely clear. But, abortion is one of those issues that Progressives never want to solve, it's like immigration laws... even when they had super majorities in Congress they did nothing about abortion or immigration. They don't want to lose the issues that keep everyone angry and fighting.

 

As I have stated already, marijuana is a done deal, but there are some drugs that are too harmful to deregulate.

 

Freedom of religion or atheism? I'm not a religious man, but I despise people that can't seem to walk down the street without forcing someone else to remove a painting, statue, or a flag because they're a snowflake asshole. It's not "Freedom From Religion".

 

I'm all about free speech. Free Press? I actually pay for it... but they should be held greatly responsible for fake news.

 

These are all my personal views, but they do not make me a Conservative or a Republican. I would have the same personal views no matter what. I'm a Republican because it's a Conservative political party. There are others, but Republicans can win. My political positions mainly include small constitutional government, free Capitalism, strong military, and individual responsibility. Social issues are really stupid things to get hung up on, and not the business of the Federal Government. That's all I got right now.

The TL;DR version of american politics...

 

Reds vote red, blues vote blue, 80% of greys can't be bothered, and the remaining 20% of greys decide the outcome. 

 

Reds can't stand blue

Blue is exasperated by red

 

The only people that win an election are the politicians, in a two party system severely hobbled by powerful lobbies and politicians with outside interests the average voter can only ever lose. 

 

 

or at the very least accuse Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh of pushing her down the stairs.

 

shocked this has yet to be said 

I’m gonna quote what my friend wrote on his Facebook page because he said this so eloquently and it is important.

 

“One thing I feel I have to point out about yesterday's election, because no one seems to be saying it. So far, out of the 35 Senate seats up for election yesterday, the Democrats have won 23, the republicans have won 9, two haven't been declared yet, and one is a runoff. This might seem confusing to people- how could the Democrats have won in more races and lost seats? The answer is that this year there most of the seats up for election were already held by the Democrats. They held onto most of those seats, but the Republicans took a couple away. There were very few Republicans up for reelection, and the ones that were were mostly in the reddest of red states. So, in the Senate, the Democrats won a lot more individual states, but the Republicans still managed a net gain.”

 

The tide is turning. The people see how more messed up the system is becoming. I look forward to the 2020 election (although I vote in all elections- voting nerd)!

I’m gonna quote what my friend wrote on his Facebook page because he said this so eloquently and it is important.

 

“One thing I feel I have to point out about yesterday's election, because no one seems to be saying it. So far, out of the 35 Senate seats up for election yesterday, the Democrats have won 23, the republicans have won 9, two haven't been declared yet, and one is a runoff. This might seem confusing to people- how could the Democrats have won in more races and lost seats? The answer is that this year there most of the seats up for election were already held by the Democrats. They held onto most of those seats, but the Republicans took a couple away. There were very few Republicans up for reelection, and the ones that were were mostly in the reddest of red states. So, in the Senate, the Democrats won a lot more individual states, but the Republicans still managed a net gain.”

 

The tide is turning. The people see how more messed up the system is becoming. I look forward to the 2020 election (although I vote in all elections- voting nerd)!

yeah no, the tide is not turning

 

 

This might seem confusing to people- how could the Democrats have won in more races and lost seats? The answer is that this year there most of the seats up for election were already held by the Democrats.

Eloquence to you is a "no shit Sherlock" to me. It was no secret that Democrats had to defend more Senate seats this election cycle. What you are actually saying is "look how damn good we can re-elect our Senators in states Democrats already control". You will not see me post a comment in 2 years when Republicans are defending more Senate seats how awesome it is that we won Wyoming or Oklahoma. The Facebook post was designed to make someone that really doesn't understand how our elections work, feel better about the outcome... not an indicator of "changing political winds".

 

This might seem confusing to people- how could the Democrats have won in more races and lost seats? The answer is that this year there most of the seats up for election were already held by the Democrats.

Eloquence to you is a "no shit Sherlock" to me. It was no secret that Democrats had to defend more Senate seats this election cycle. What you are actually saying is "look how damn good we can re-elect our Senators in states Democrats already control". You will not see me post a comment in 2 years when Republicans are defending more Senate seats how awesome it is that we won Wyoming or Oklahoma. The Facebook post was designed to make someone that really doesn't understand how our elections work, feel better about the outcome... not an indicator of "changing political winds".

Denial is a primitive, but common defense. You use denial and condescension a LOT.

 

We took the house. We’ll take the senate. And if Don runs for re-election, we’ll take the White House.

 

 

This might seem confusing to people- how could the Democrats have won in more races and lost seats? The answer is that this year there most of the seats up for election were already held by the Democrats.

Eloquence to you is a "no shit Sherlock" to me. It was no secret that Democrats had to defend more Senate seats this election cycle. What you are actually saying is "look how damn good we can re-elect our Senators in states Democrats already control". You will not see me post a comment in 2 years when Republicans are defending more Senate seats how awesome it is that we won Wyoming or Oklahoma. The Facebook post was designed to make someone that really doesn't understand how our elections work, feel better about the outcome... not an indicator of "changing political winds".

Denial is a primitive, but common defense. You use denial and condescension a LOT.

 

We took the house. We’ll take the senate. And if Don runs for re-election, we’ll take the White House.

 

 

 

 

Denial is a primitive, but common defense. You use denial and condescension a LOT. We took the house. We’ll take the senate. And if Don runs for re-election, we’ll take the White House.

The power of hate is strong in Progressives. It drives the fake news, unruly behavior, and truckloads of mysteriously appearing ballots. It all works out in the end. It really comes down to a war between Capitalists and Socialists. You don't have to be a Sherlock to look at history and see the wreckage of Socialism for yourself. You will never get the guns. You will win some battles, but you will never win the war.

It looks like Germany, Sweden, Switzerland, Canada, and the majority of first world socialist countries are doing pretty well. (The list was too long for me to name them all.)

 

This isn’t a war. We are a society. We are all in this together. I don’t know why you fail to grasp this.

It looks like Germany, Sweden, Switzerland, Canada, and the majority of first world socialist countries are doing pretty well. (The list was too long for me to name them all.)

 

This isn’t a war. We are a society. We are all in this together. I don’t know why you fail to grasp this.

What you fail to grasp is we don't want to be Germany, Sweden, Switzerland, or Canada. We like being number one. We like being the wealthiest and most powerful country in history. The combined GDP of all those countries equals about 25% of the US GDP. Our GDP will continue to grow as a Capitalist country. Their GDP will continue to erode as Socialist. Without the US economy, all those countries would collapse. Progressives love to say "wouldn't it be nice?", but they never think about the consequences of their desires.

 

Won't happen so long as the libertarians continue to caucus with the evangelical and raw capatlist blocs. Both of them are perfectly willing to throw core libertarian ideals right under the bus, especially as far as independence from state and pesudo state powers go. Liberatinism requires independence from all coercive institutions, not some.

 

Not to mention the hard evangelicals and wana be robber barons who think being pro pot makes them libertarians aren't doing anyone any favors. Oh and the general stank of objectivism needs to be sorted

You make an excellent point. A lot of “libertarians“ object to gay marriage, a woman’s right to control her body, decriminalization of drugs, freedom of religion or atheism, free speech, free press, etc.- not very consistent with the tenants of libertarianism. I don’t know what proportion of libertarians these people represent, but they sure are loud.

It would have been a really sad state of affairs if the Dems couldn't even take the House back from Donald fucking Trump, lol.

I was sincerely afraid we wouldn’t. Like I said, I was starting to feel discouraged. We have a long way to go still, but I’m much more hopeful.

 

 

 

What Libertarians are you speaking about?  Because I'd say you're completely wrong with what you seem to be suggesting.  

 

 

 

 

Won't happen so long as the libertarians continue to caucus with the evangelical and raw capatlist blocs. Both of them are perfectly willing to throw core libertarian ideals right under the bus, especially as far as independence from state and pesudo state powers go. Liberatinism requires independence from all coercive institutions, not some.

 

Not to mention the hard evangelicals and wana be robber barons who think being pro pot makes them libertarians aren't doing anyone any favors. Oh and the general stank of objectivism needs to be sorted

 

You make an excellent point. A lot of “libertarians“ object to gay marriage, a woman’s right to control her body, decriminalization of drugs, freedom of religion or atheism, free speech, free press, etc.- not very consistent with the tenants of libertarianism. I don’t know what proportion of libertarians these people represent, but they sure are loud.

It would have been a really sad state of affairs if the Dems couldn't even take the House back from Donald fucking Trump, lol.

 

I was sincerely afraid we wouldn’t. Like I said, I was starting to feel discouraged. We have a long way to go still, but I’m much more hopeful.

 

 

 

 

What Libertarians are you speaking about?  Because I'd say you're completely wrong with what you seem to be suggesting.  

Christopher Cantwell, Richard Spencer, Ron Paul (to a degree), my husband’s uncle

 

 

https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/08/libertarians-sometimes-become-fascists-heres-why/

 

https://medium.com/@elliotgulliverneedham/why-libertarians-are-embracing-fascism-5a9747a44db9

 

https://thinkprogress.org/ron-paul-on-abortion-a-libertarian-as-long-as-you-dont-think-women-count-as-people-b7a8c5080290/

 

 

 

Won't happen so long as the libertarians continue to caucus with the evangelical and raw capatlist blocs. Both of them are perfectly willing to throw core libertarian ideals right under the bus, especially as far as independence from state and pesudo state powers go. Liberatinism requires independence from all coercive institutions, not some.

 

Not to mention the hard evangelicals and wana be robber barons who think being pro pot makes them libertarians aren't doing anyone any favors. Oh and the general stank of objectivism needs to be sorted

You make an excellent point. A lot of “libertarians“ object to gay marriage, a woman’s right to control her body, decriminalization of drugs, freedom of religion or atheism, free speech, free press, etc.- not very consistent with the tenants of libertarianism. I don’t know what proportion of libertarians these people represent, but they sure are loud.

It would have been a really sad state of affairs if the Dems couldn't even take the House back from Donald fucking Trump, lol.

I was sincerely afraid we wouldn’t. Like I said, I was starting to feel discouraged. We have a long way to go still, but I’m much more hopeful.

 

 

 

 

What Libertarians are you speaking about?  Because I'd say you're completely wrong with what you seem to be suggesting.  

Christopher Cantwell, Richard Spencer, Ron Paul (to a degree), my husband’s uncle

 

 

https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/08/libertarians-sometimes-become-fascists-heres-why/

 

https://medium.com/@elliotgulliverneedham/why-libertarians-are-embracing-fascism-5a9747a44db9

 

https://thinkprogress.org/ron-paul-on-abortion-a-libertarian-as-long-as-you-dont-think-women-count-as-people-b7a8c5080290/

 

 

Did you pick 2 of the worst guys you can find to somehow try to paint Libertarian in the worst way as you could?  

 

Spencer, and Cantwell are far from the emblems or image of Libertarianism.  I don't know why you pick two people from Alt Right or white supremacist to somehow suggest that's what we're about.  Spencer has already said the Libertarian is incompatible with White Nationalism and disavowed.  Cantwell is a anarchist douche that I know many Libertarians cannot stand, me as well.  But I will admit that there are people who label themselves as Libertarian that do listen to some of what he says, as well as there's plenty of Anarchists in the Libertarian party.  There's constant debates and heated arguments between Anarchist and not within the party and Libertarian groups.  I would classify myself closest to a minarchist.  

 

You make an excellent point. A lot of “libertarians“ object to gay marriage, a woman’s right to control her body, decriminalization of drugs, freedom of religion or atheism, free speech, free press, etc.- not very consistent with the tenants of libertarianism. I don’t know what proportion of libertarians these people represent, but they sure are loud.

 

Now to counter your statement as you seem to have a wildly wrong view of individuals who make up and/or call themselves Libertarians for which I've very much apart of in many faucets.  

 

Gay Marriage -  Do not take issue with.  The way you word it, you make it sound like Libertarians have something against the idea of gay people.  That's not even close, as majority do not care what one wants to do, who they decide to be with, and think Government should stay out of it.  What Lysis talked about, how Marriage in itself has has been tied to law is the issue most have with it.  Sure there's Christians in the party that may not condone it upon their beliefs, but most want Government to stay out of it completely and that's the issue

 

Controlling a woman's right to her body - I assume you're speaking about Abortion.  Well you'd be right there as many Libertarians do not agree or approve of abortions or taking ones life.  It goes against the NAP.  There are some in the party that feel differently, but I'd agree most have that view, and me personally do as well.  I don't care to get into a heated topic over it, as it never goes anywhere and most individuals are set on their belief, but I agree with the majority in the party of being opposed to it.  I do have a grey area, in situations of rape/incest/medical complications to the mother which many would call me a "statist" for in the party.

 

decriminalization of drugs - You're kidding right?  I'd say Libertarians are probably the most outspoken when it comes to this and legalizing it.  Libertarians probably go further then most, as many talk about the legalization of weed as a hot topic, most Libertarians would be fine with the legalization of any.  The Government shouldn't have the right to tell someone to put in their body as long as it's not hurting or effecting another being.

 

freedom of religion or atheism - Again you're kidding right?  Many many Libertarians are atheists and other religions.  

 

free speech/free press - Support it completely.  Much more then either Republicans or Democrats want to say they do.  The other two parties want to shut down or limit it to things they don't agree with.  

 

I really just don't get where you're coming from.  Being apart of the party, helping with campaigning for certain individuals, and being part of many large groups of Libertarians, I do not see how any of what you say is even close to what the Majority believe that are part of the party.  The only one you had right in my opinion is on abortion.  Sure there are people within the Party I do not like or agree with, but that's literally every party.  Sure there are individuals who support them that I don't agree with, but again same goes for any party.  Most Libertarians want Government out of everyone's everyday lives, far more then any other party, and we're called "crazies" for doing so.  We are for more freedom.

If anyone really wants to find a model Libertarian, look no further than Gary Johnson.

I have always liked Gary, and I wish we had more just like him.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Won't happen so long as the libertarians continue to caucus with the evangelical and raw capatlist blocs. Both of them are perfectly willing to throw core libertarian ideals right under the bus, especially as far as independence from state and pesudo state powers go. Liberatinism requires independence from all coercive institutions, not some.

 

Not to mention the hard evangelicals and wana be robber barons who think being pro pot makes them libertarians aren't doing anyone any favors. Oh and the general stank of objectivism needs to be sorted

 

You make an excellent point. A lot of “libertarians“ object to gay marriage, a woman’s right to control her body, decriminalization of drugs, freedom of religion or atheism, free speech, free press, etc.- not very consistent with the tenants of libertarianism. I don’t know what proportion of libertarians these people represent, but they sure are loud.

It would have been a really sad state of affairs if the Dems couldn't even take the House back from Donald fucking Trump, lol.

 

I was sincerely afraid we wouldn’t. Like I said, I was starting to feel discouraged. We have a long way to go still, but I’m much more hopeful.

 

 

 

 

What Libertarians are you speaking about?  Because I'd say you're completely wrong with what you seem to be suggesting.  

Christopher Cantwell, Richard Spencer, Ron Paul (to a degree), my husband’s uncle

 

 

https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/08/libertarians-sometimes-become-fascists-heres-why/

 

https://medium.com/@elliotgulliverneedham/why-libertarians-are-embracing-fascism-5a9747a44db9

 

https://thinkprogress.org/ron-paul-on-abortion-a-libertarian-as-long-as-you-dont-think-women-count-as-people-b7a8c5080290/

 

 

 

Did you pick 2 of the worst guys you can find to somehow try to paint Libertarian in the worst way as you could?  

 

Spencer, and Cantwell are far from the emblems or image of Libertarianism.  I don't know why you pick two people from Alt Right or white supremacist to somehow suggest that's what we're about.  Spencer has already said the Libertarian is incompatible with White Nationalism and disavowed.  Cantwell is a anarchist douche that I know many Libertarians cannot stand, me as well.  But I will admit that there are people who label themselves as Libertarian that do listen to some of what he says, as well as there's plenty of Anarchists in the Libertarian party.  There's constant debates and heated arguments between Anarchist and not within the party and Libertarian groups.  I would classify myself closest to a minarchist.  

 

You make an excellent point. A lot of “libertarians“ object to gay marriage, a woman’s right to control her body, decriminalization of drugs, freedom of religion or atheism, free speech, free press, etc.- not very consistent with the tenants of libertarianism. I don’t know what proportion of libertarians these people represent, but they sure are loud.

 

 

Now to counter your statement as you seem to have a wildly wrong view of individuals who make up and/or call themselves Libertarians for which I've very much apart of in many faucets.  

 

Gay Marriage -  Do not take issue with.  The way you word it, you make it sound like Libertarians have something against the idea of gay people.  That's not even close, as majority do not care what one wants to do, who they decide to be with, and think Government should stay out of it.  What Lysis talked about, how Marriage in itself has has been tied to law is the issue most have with it.  Sure there's Christians in the party that may not condone it upon their beliefs, but most want Government to stay out of it completely and that's the issue

 

Controlling a woman's right to her body - I assume you're speaking about Abortion.  Well you'd be right there as many Libertarians do not agree or approve of abortions or taking ones life.  It goes against the NAP.  There are some in the party that feel differently, but I'd agree most have that view, and me personally do as well.  I don't care to get into a heated topic over it, as it never goes anywhere and most individuals are set on their belief, but I agree with the majority in the party of being opposed to it.  I do have a grey area, in situations of rape/incest/medical complications to the mother which many would call me a "statist" for in the party.

 

decriminalization of drugs - You're kidding right?  I'd say Libertarians are probably the most outspoken when it comes to this and legalizing it.  Libertarians probably go further then most, as many talk about the legalization of weed as a hot topic, most Libertarians would be fine with the legalization of any.  The Government shouldn't have the right to tell someone to put in their body as long as it's not hurting or effecting another being.

 

freedom of religion or atheism - Again you're kidding right?  Many many Libertarians are atheists and other religions.  

 

free speech/free press - Support it completely.  Much more then either Republicans or Democrats want to say they do.  The other two parties want to shut down or limit it to things they don't agree with.  

 

I really just don't get where you're coming from.  Being apart of the party, helping with campaigning for certain individuals, and being part of many large groups of Libertarians, I do not see how any of what you say is even close to what the Majority believe that are part of the party.  The only one you had right in my opinion is on abortion.  Sure there are people within the Party I do not like or agree with, but that's literally every party.  Sure there are individuals who support them that I don't agree with, but again same goes for any party.  Most Libertarians want Government out of everyone's everyday lives, far more then any other party, and we're called "crazies" for doing so.  We are for more freedom.

You seem to have missed the part where I said it was SOME Libertarians do not support those liberties. I specifically said I do not know how many feel that way and I put the word libertarian in quotes because they are calling themselves libertarians, but are not trul6 libertarian. I also clearly said these beliefs go against the tenants of libertarian beliefs. You asked for examples of what I was referring to, I gave you the most blatant, high profile examples I know of. You seem to be personally affronted by my comments, but I did not condemn the philosophy and I hope you have not misunderstood what I was saying. The issues I mentioned are all personal freedoms a true libertarian should support. I suppose I could have said alt-right wing nuts who call themselves libertarian, but I did not think of it.

 

 

Won't happen so long as the libertarians continue to caucus with the evangelical and raw capatlist blocs. Both of them are perfectly willing to throw core libertarian ideals right under the bus, especially as far as independence from state and pesudo state powers go. Liberatinism requires independence from all coercive institutions, not some.

 

Not to mention the hard evangelicals and wana be robber barons who think being pro pot makes them libertarians aren't doing anyone any favors. Oh and the general stank of objectivism needs to be sorted

You make an excellent point. A lot of “libertarians“ object to gay marriage, a woman’s right to control her body, decriminalization of drugs, freedom of religion or atheism, free speech, free press, etc.- not very consistent with the tenants of libertarianism. I don’t know what proportion of libertarians these people represent, but they sure are loud.

It would have been a really sad state of affairs if the Dems couldn't even take the House back from Donald fucking Trump, lol.

I was sincerely afraid we wouldn’t. Like I said, I was starting to feel discouraged. We have a long way to go still, but I’m much more hopeful.

 

 

 

What Libertarians are you speaking about?  Because I'd say you're completely wrong with what you seem to be suggesting.  

 

 

 

What libertarians *should* be and what people who claim to be them are very different. Gary Johnson is the closest to a non terrible libertarian figure (at least one with enough public support to be worth mentioning), and even he is far far to willing to acquiesce on things like  corporate power.

 

The fact of the matter is that in much of America, "libertarian" is just another synonym for social conservative, and the libertarian movement has pretty much been entirely co-opted by the Republican party. You don't need to like that, but it's the truth of the matter. Many self described libertarians want a government small enough to fit in your bedroom, support the war on drugs, support the expansion of police powers, advocate for military interventionism and similar. They're libertarian in nothing but name, but that's enough for America. the libertarians ran one of the best candidates they have in a generation, the GOP ran on a platform that's as opposed to libertarian as you can possibly get, and the 15% of self described libertarians in america....pretty much lined up and voted R.

 

 

Right now, the average american moderate is pretty skeptical of libertarians for that reason. They see people stand up and go "I'm a libertarian" and then sit down and vote in favor of the war on drugs, vote to extend the military industrial complex, vote for military interventionism etc. The American moderate leans to the left on social issue...and they see libertarians vote with the evangelical righ while spouting of objectivist BS. The American moderate is untrusting of corporate power and they see libertarians cheerfully vote to give corporations more power over their lives.

 

 

It's never going to happen. All those Libertarians in name only aren't going to break from the republican party, but most libertarian candidates seem to think that they will. And until the libertarians are willing to sit down and flip the GOPs big tent every bird in existence and stop compromising with the GOP out of convenience, the party will just be viewed as little more than Pro-Pot Republicans. They can't caucus with the GOP and claim to be a third party.

 

 

The American moderate is untrusting of corporate power and they see libertarians cheerfully vote to give corporations more power over their lives.

Very curious RH. What do you have against corporations? Since just about everything you see, touch, hear, smell, or taste is brought to you by a corporation, it's hard for me to understand why you have such disdain for everything that makes your life much easier, cheaper, and enjoyable. Even my very own business is an LLC. Why do you hate corporations so much?