Notice the ad says nothing about being a viable third option… because they would be lying.
Although I like some stuff that Libertarians are for, I cannot take them seriously as a political organization. Economically they are all over the place and are too isolationist for my taste. But what ranks me the most is that you don’t hear about Libertarians unless a presidential election comes up. They are like the Punxsutawney Phil of politics who only come out of their holes if there is a November Electoral shindig and go back underground after it is over.
Libertarians will gain my respect as political entity when I can read in a newspaper something along the lines of:
“Today at the State Legislature, Minority Leader John Doe (L) said the bill presented by….”
Until then, they will be a bunch of “Me Too!” that belong in the kids political table.
The Libertarian Party though is the only political party in the US that truly supports the Second Amendment.
If getting a modicum of security for my gun rights means I have to take a bit of isolationism with it, then so be it. 2A is too important.
We can always negotiate on the isolationist bit anyways.
If this was the case, they wouldn’t have Bill Weld on the ticket.
I agree with the original article; the Liberterians can’t even get started by getting someone elected to Dog Catcher; they need to have a better ground game than just popping out of their holes every four years.
It might even lead them to creating a cogent platform they could run on.
Bill Weld was a calculated move by Johnson. While Johnson believes in the Second Amendment, Weld doesn’t – you are right.
However, peoples’ opinions do change, and also if you really look at it, Weld lends an air of credibility to the existing politicians perceptions of the Libertarian Party.
And I agree, at the end of the day, there needs to be more “L” candidates at the local level.
So I should choose between a corrupt for-sale scum who has endorsed gun confiscation, and a sociopath who has previously endorsed an assault weapons ban, but now has come around to the NRA because he wants to be President?
I’ll take my chances with Gary Johnson. He may not win, but my vote means more in his column than the other two. There will never be an (L) at the table if this country continues to believe that they have to accept corruption.
http://i.imgur.com/LE4FyLF.jpg
“So I should choose between a corrupt for-sale scum who has endorsed gun confiscation, and a sociopath who has previously endorsed an assault weapons ban, but now has come around to the NRA because he wants to be President”
You tell me.
Yesterday’s announcement by FBI Director James Comey, outlining the many indiscretions involved in Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server, seemed to be building toward a clear indictment. That turned out not to be the case, as Comey finished his press conference with the declaration that charges would not be recommended. The outcry across the internet was instantaneous; with memes and hashtags declaring she was #abovethelaw. Many conservative and libertarian pundits added their voices to this outcry. But not Gary Johnson. As the former governor told CNN just a few days ago, he believes Hillary is innocent:
“I’m not a stone-thrower when it comes to Hillary Clinton and her emails and her server,” he said. “I don’t think there has been criminal intent on Hillary Clinton’s part. I don’t see an indictment.”
http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/gary-johnson-says-hillary-no-criminal/
If the guy is for declassifying as much as possible, he kind of has to stand on this peg. I do agree that it is sickening to see this.
This is a gun blog, and he’s still more pro-gun than Trump. Still has my vote. You do make a good point though, that if he says Hillary did nothing wrong, than he needs to pull thousands of others who “leaked” classified info out of jail first, most notably that Marine who got locked up for saving his platoon.
Until the Libertarians start winning local and state elections they are not a viable national entity. The local ground game is necessary for a national election campaign. That is why Trump is behind the curve and has a lot of obstacles in his way enroute to a national win. Democrats know that all politics is local and have a formidable machine in place. We can only hope that the silent majority from the Nixon era turns out in droves to secure a Trump win
There’s a reason that the Libertarians have difficulty at local/state level races.
The fact of the matter is that the system is rigged, structurally and legally by the dominant parties, to keep third parties out. The U.S. elects representatives in single-member districts, unlike parliamentary systems. That means in each district, there are essentially two options: the encumbant party, or the party most likely to defeat them. A third party that does AMAZINGLY well and comes in second gets . . . nothing.
In parliamentary systems, third and forth place candidates win seats in legislatures, and can be part of ruling coalitions, even if they don’t come out first.
Add to that the legal barriers that the two major parties have put up (ballot access, for example. The R and D nominees get on the ballot automatically; third parties have to spend money and organization simply to get on the ballot, let alone campaign). They’ve rigged they system in their favor. It’s telling that only ONE third party will be on the ballot in all 50 states. And remember that House seats are routinely gerrymandered to favor encumbants; less than 40 of 435 House seats are seriously expected to be contested this fall.
And their philosophy is more coherent than you imagine. While I’m not there yet, liberty being a guiding principle – free markets, free thought, laws limiting only relatively direct harm to others, a dramatically smaller, less intrusive government – is in principle something I can get behind. Neither of the major parties would, given the chance, dramatically reduce the size of the federal government. They have a stake in running it.
Right now we essentially have one party: the party of running things (yes, I stole the phrase), that runs in two flavors with the pretense there’s any substantive difference. It’s essentially the difference between red and blue Gatorade.
Don’t discount the libertarians so quickly.
“Don’t discount the libertarians so quickly.”
Like Miguel said: Elect some senators and we’ll start taking you seriously. Until then you’re schoolchildren trying to join the military.
I think the rest of my family is voting for Gary Johnson. I’m voting for Trump.
If the race was between Johnson and Trump, I’d vote for Johnson. But it’s not. If the Libertarians actually wanted to change something, they’d vote for a candidate they actually wanted in the primary elections instead of throwing a temper tantrum during the general and refusing to join the team. You had plenty of opportunities to support Rand Paul. You had plenty of opportunities to vote for Ted Cruz. You didn’t do it. If you’re going to whine about it now, then frankly you’re no different from the Bernie Sanders crowd who invaded social media but then didn’t actually get up and vote.
We need to vote for the candidate we want in the primaries and rally behind a victor in the general election. We’ve done the opposite for YEARS, and that’s why we keep losing. And all you Libertarians who don’t come out to support someone until it’s too late are actively contributing to Hillary Clinton’s election.
As much as Donald Trump should thank the SJWs and Bernie Sanders crowd for his victory this November, Barack Obama owes the Libertarian party a hearty debt of gratitude for his 8 years.
Supporting the party has to start somewhere. Registering as one helps. Also finding out what local elections you can vote in where an L candidate is running is second. Often your state affiliate of the party will have a list of people at the state and local level running.
Just voting R or D ensures the existing system remains in place.
I have long said that the Libertarians need a local face in the races to get any traction, because they have near zero name recognition at the ground level. You don’t win a game of this scale by simply aiming for the top slot, you have to level-grind your way up the ladder before you can really make progress.
I don’t know if I am ready to go there yet, but:
I won’t vote for the unindicted felon, corrupt, carpetbagging authoritarian, constitution-hating hag who’s only qualification (“I have a vagina” is not a qualification) her whole miserable life was marrying a competent politician and covering for him as he committed serial groping and quite possibly rape.
Oh, and then there’s batshit crazy, who has no coherent policy choices, who spouts whatever crap pops into his head, who’s amassed his paper billions (starting with a very big silver spoon) with strategic bankruptcies so that he can dump his losses on others and has routinely bought politicians like the soulless hag noted in the previous sentence. I don’t know if I can vote for him with a clear conscience.
The libertarian may not win. A vote for the libertarian may be a vote that swings a state for the soulless hag, or the batshit crazy (though in my state, it won’t matter – a D hasn’t take the state since ’64).
But I can sleep with a clear conscience.
“Honor this Honor that, whats so great about something that kills more people than it helps?”
-Crow
What? Am I missing something?
If you can’t figure it out yourself, trying to explain it would be a waste of time.
And a 3 way election WILL ensure shillary WINS. This is not the election to debate Libitarian policy. This is the election to make GD sure the dems do not win. Period, full stop, end of story. This COUNTRY we have is what is at stake!
There is a quintessential strength, err, weakness, err, quality that makes sure no libertarian will ever make it into government: Politics is about smartly buying votes by promising to distribute other people’s wealth towards your voters. Which is the one thing that any libertarian worth their name is incapable of doing.
So as long as people do the smart thing and vote for what helps them the most, the libertarian party will be a nice place to dump their protest votes for the few people who disagree.
If you wonder why the libertarian party does so little for their visibility outside the elections, it might be because their members know that they support an idea that does not work in the given system.
In 2000, Florida- and the presidency- was won by less than 200 votes. In every election there are states that are won or lost by less than 1000 votes.
If you vote Libertarian and your state goes Gun-Grabber Amnesty by a tight margin, are you gonna crack open a cold one that you’ve delivered America to its destruction but feel smug about it?
Ross Perot got a bigger percentage of the popular vote than any 3rd partier in two generations. He got a total of ONE electoral vote and only helped deliver the White Hose to the Clintons… TWICE.
If you vote “Write-In Joke Vote” and help deliver the White House to the Clinton machine for a third time, will you go outside and light off fireworks to celebrate the way you helped kill America?
Did Ralph Nader’s “Honorable Protest Vote” crowd celebrate the Bush presidency? Did the get treated by heroes by the rest of the Democrat party? Did anyone listen more closely to what they had to say or work harder to appease them? Did Perot’s people get their agenda brought on-board by the Republicans? Were they complimented for their honor and patriotism by the criminal scum they helped put in the White House for two terms?
Is anyone out there stupid enough to claim that a Hillary victory will produce any kind of positive change in either the Republican or the Democratic Parties?
Voting Libertarian is voting for your own smug. It’s the thing that people do when they feel the Republicans are declasse’ but don’t want to admit they really really want to vote Democrat.
Do it of you want to , but don’t ever claim that you helped Hillary win because you just love the Constitution ever so much. You’re doing it for your own smug and that’s it.
Vote Johnson, then you can think and know “I voted for who my conscience told me to vote for”. Of course, that will be of little comfort when Hillary wins and begins stacking the SCOTUS with progressive zealots. Second amendment? That’s for when the British invade, silly bumpkin.