Essentially the [same thing](https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/06/19/zombie-campaign-congress-giving-democrats-fits/82892598/) is happening in Ohio. There's a candidate who always seems to win the democratic nomination due to his common name, but then he doesn't do any campaigning or public events. He's funded by an unknown, outside group. By winning the primary and then just standing on the sidelines, he hands the election to the Republican.
That really shows how completely disengaged the average voter is. Butch Smith has won 2 primaries despite *not campaigning*.
Honestly this is the reason why our politics are so screwed up: democracy only works with a well-informed electorate.
You're absolutely right. The OH Democratic Party has officially told voters *not* to vote for this one candidate, but we'll see how it goes on the May 8th primary. His opponents have some name recognition in the area this time at least. One has been active in local politics for years, and the other served in the Obama admin.
Hmm TIL. I thought parties could go by whatever method they chose.
Relatedly, anyone know if Jill Stein was nominated via primary in the Green Party?
Edit nvm, I googled it, yes she did.
Are you sure that would be illegal? I thought that states couldn't require Parties to put forth certain candidates because that would violate their constitutional rights to associate.
But why? Aren't political parties sort of like private organizations? Or maybe have a stipulation that all candidates over a certain threshold are subject to an interview with the party leadership to determine eligibility/seriousness?
It's less about our electorate being *un*informed and more about it being *mis*informed. Uninformed people either know they don't know something, or they have a wide distribution of incorrect beliefs. That's not what's going on here. A frightening percentage of Americans hold *exactly the same incorrect beliefs*, and they clutch them for dear life. That's a telltale sign of an indoctrinated populace.
In one of my local (nonpartisan) races in 2016, there were two candidates, the incumbent and a complete nut who got mad that the local paper wasn’t printing his positions (he never told them what they were) and was registered as living in an obviously abandoned house just inside the district while also maintaining a “second” home far outside the boundaries. He apparently called up the local paper and TV station every day for three weeks to rant incoherently, and he also had a long rap sheet of petty crime convictions going back decades. The incumbent is a respected prominent citizen in town. The incumbent won, but Goofy McNotEvenEligible picked up about 33 percent.
It happened in Alabama, too. A guy named [Robert Kennedy Jr](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/robert-kennedy-jr-leading-polls-no-not-one-n788441) ran in the Democratic primary against Doug Jones.
The more people dug, the shadier it got. They could never prove anything directly but it was obvious what was happening.
This was a fascinating read. People need to take advantage of the sample ballot feature on .Gov websites (if that's a thing in your state--it is in mine) before elections and research the candidates. I don't expect everyone to go super hard, simply look if they have a website and go through their policy positions. I know there was the Super PAC in Smith's favor from most likely the right which is to blame, but it's also on the voters.
I tried to do this for a local election that was coming up last year, because I wanted to be informed when I voted and make decisions based on that. I can't tell you just how fucking hard it was to find ANY information on the policies or people. And then from what I did actually find, a lot of it was contradicted in other places. for example: "save the babies bill", gives more money to babies to save them. then on another source of information about it: "save the babies bill actually just goes into a slush fund where they will use it to fill up xyz's tires every six months"
shit like that. It really disillusioned me and it is nothing but frustrating as a voter TRYING to be informed and make decisions based on reality, to not be able to find any real fucking information. No wonder people can't vote in their own interests or lack the will to vote at all. It's a complete clusterfuck. Is there any nonpartisan website, outside of presidential elections, that lists what both sides are for without being full of shit? :(
> that lists what both sides are for without being full of shit?
The problem is that all you can do is report the names and text of the actual bills, and the bills are very hard to read. You also don't know what people really stand for, only what they say, and how they vote. So you have to have some kind of third-party analysis of the people and the laws, or you have to do it all yourself. Those are always going to have some bias by their nature.
> He's funded by an unknown, outside group. By winning the primary and then just standing on the sidelines, he hands the election to the Republican.
Well, the Democratic party is 100% to blame for this, then... it would be brain-dead simple to have rules requiring somebody to reveal funding sources, attend events, and fucking campaign. If you dont, you dont get to run in the primary ever again.
Im curious why they dont do that...
I chuckled at the screenshot of Michael Zak’s facebook profile. Right wingers seem to lack imagination, so many seem to have the same stern looking eagle with a flag background. When I see that profile pic I know I’m in for some rant about “evil leftists”.
"Creativity is the first step down a path to worshipping Satan and sucking dick in Hollyweird or Jew York"
-dudes with eagles and flags in their profile pic backgrounds
Your comment made me think of a song from the Aussie band TISM.
"If you're an adman, artist, poet or actor
Student, tutor, writer, chiropractor
If you design clothing
Or make a living from posing
If you paint pictures
Run a boutique for bitches
If you deal in antiques
Or anything chic
If your career involves feeling
Instead of hauling and kneeling
Here's the end of the matter
Yeah yeah
Here's the end of the matter
Yeah yeah
Here's the end of the matter
You can get stuffed"
- TISM, "If You're Creative, Get Stuffed"
See bullshit like this is exactly why I left the party. 😡
They've definitely upped the ante on attacking democrats, which I guess I wouldn't know since I don't get their newsletters or follow their twitter anymore.
Edit: There's all kinds of Dem-smearing and low key Russia defense.https://i.imgur.com/cWRKUc7.jpg https://i.imgur.com/B8OhIZE.jpg
She said it would be better if Trump won for fuck's sake. The Green Party are not progressives. If they were they'd realize they're just making shit worse.
Yup, that's the conclusion I'm coming to as well. It also explains why they were so adamantly against Stein challenging Trump and not Hillary with recounts...
Remember Jill Stein tried to offer top spot on the Green Party ticket to Bernie after he lost the primary, despite the fact that she wasn't even officially the Green Party candidate yet. If Bernie had done the stupid thing and taken her up on that it would have guaranteed a Trump victory. Thankfully, Bernie is neither dumb, nor compromised like Stein appears to be.
I tried posting links but it got removed by the spam filter. Google Jill Stein recount Margaret Flowers.
Flowers wrote an open letter to the Party, signed by 200 members, rebuking Stein for her half-hearted recount efforts. They removed her from the Green Party website shortly after.
If you go to the green party site now, it's got a tweet from Jill Stein regarding the Senate thing, right on the front page.
200 members might sound like a lot, but in the context of a national party... is it?
Also, they didn't rebuke her efforts because they weren't serious enough. She legitimately tried to force recounts in three states ( I think) - and she was met with a surprising amount of roadblocks by county and state officials and finally a judge. Does that make you feel good about our voting system that makes recounts difficult if not impossible, votes impossible to verify (using voting systems that are outlawed in the EU)?
From what I can see - I had trouble finding a link to the actual full letter, I think it's been taken down? - they didn't like the recount because they didn't like either the sources the donations were coming from or the fact that the result could be seen as favoring democrats and being too partisan, if the result ended up installing Hillary as president.
Jim Justice sold a coal mine to Russians for half a billion and then bought it back a seven years later for 5 million.
http://www.register-herald.com/news/money/justice-announces-buyback-of-bluestone-coal-operation/article_e0553656-a433-5b59-ace7-e862633c5baf.html
https://www.wvgazettemail.com/business/justice-paid-million-for-bluestone-coal/article_31b31e74-10c9-50da-9b0e-0f4f9bc8096e.html
that aholes words are being used by a Republican candidate for Senate as to why he switched from Dem to Repub. So infuriating. But hey, that's what Americas PAC will do to get more shit elected.
A month ago, I was walking on a college campus home from a class, and a guy with a clipboard stopped me and asked me to support his candidacy for a Democratic spot as somethingorother.
I asked him to tell me about himself. He explained that he’s a Virginia native, military veteran, family, kids, etc.
Not really what I meant, so I asked him about his political positions and plans. He explained that he’s pro-science, pro-environment, and wants to help tech companies find new opportunities in Virginia.
Hmm. Part of me thought it was a little odd that he’s running for a Democratic slot but hasn’t mentioned much about his political stance. Another part of me thought, well, he’s only asking to get on the ballot; and being a military vet, he should have a shot. And I wanted to ask more questions, but had a busy day ahead.
So, fine. I’ll sign. It’s only for candidacy, not an actual vote for the candidate.
A few days later, he started an AMA here. Someone else asked him the same question I asked - about his political stance - and he opened up ranting and raving about how Obamacare is unconstitutional and must be repealed.
I don’t know why he couldn’t say that to my face on campus, but it feels like deliberate obfuscation. Still, he’s running as an R in D’s clothing in a very liberal and politically aware town, so the odds he’ll go anywhere are zero.
I don't know where you are from, but around here (super-red SW Virginia), the democratic candidate is often just a republican that couldn't win their primary. Either because they are too "moderate" (using that term loosely) to win the republican nod, or in rare cases because they are too extreme for even the crazy-right around here and theres not a Dem running so why not bypass the primary process altogether!
It's a tough place to live as a democrat
A lot of this falls on the shoulders of the DNC. For decades, they would pick and choose where to run candidates and leave a massive amount of races around the county without a candidate. The result was the GOP taking over nearly every state legislature and most local governments. I think they are starting to realize that they need to at least have an actual candidate on the ballot wherever possible, but it will take a long time to undo the damage.
We should try this the other way around, because the GOP only cares about their "team." If bizarro-world 2016 had featured Trump as the Democratic nominee versus Bernie as the Republican nominee, with zero change to either candidate, Bernie would've had 90% of the votes. The left either votes for a candidate they love or does not vote. They don't care who the opposing candidate is. The right votes for whoever's got the (R). They don't care who *either* candidate is.
They'd be happy, too. They'd defend President Sanders (R) tooth and nail. They will rationalize and justify anything done in their name. It's not like their defense of the current fucking moron has any basis in his actions.
Using the cult's behavior against their own bigotry is a stopgap for fixing our terrible ballot system.
Libertarians are people who read the first chapter of an economics text book: "Chapter one, the perfect free market", got super excited decided to base their entire belief system on that and never read the rest of the book.
> There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.
[John Rogers](http://kfmonkey.blogspot.com/2009/03/ephemera-2009-7.html)
I remeber seeing that scholarship years ago. It was pretty good money but I hate Ayn Rand. I considered doing it anyway just so they'd waste their money on a filthy lib. There's a Fountainhead scholarship too.
You wouldn't have wasted their money. Look at it from their perspective - you're forcing tens of thousands of kids to read, comprehend, and critically analyze (potentially buy) your book every year, for the cost of some small scholarships to a handful of them. It's one of the most cost-effective propaganda tools I've seen.
I think a big source of this is people thinking that economic "laws" are like physical laws, when in reality they are **intentionally idealized** theoretical models that will not fit will the real world 100% of the time because of the messy realities of social science.
Exactly, there are lots of times where there's a regime where a given physical law no longer applies. Ohm's law at low temperatures, Newton's law of gravity near large masses, Kepler's laws in a gravitational potential that's not a point source, etc. The trick is to be aware of which assumptions are valid and which ones aren't. Economic laws follow the same idea - it's a model of how a system behaves under certain conditions, but no models yet conceived describe all systems under all conditions.
"All models are wrong; some models are useful."
The real failure is treating descriptive rules as prescriptive. Econ 101 describes how a simple market can find sensible prices for butter versus guns. Libertarians pretend that means any deviation from producing butter and guns is why poor people deserve to starve.
Yet many of them zero in on Venezuela as evidence of how communism/socialism can't possibly work.
Maybe we can all agree that economic failure in third world countries is generally more likely to be a result of destabilization by imperialist powers than a reflection of fundamental truths about their economic system?
Same argument worked for Ayn Rand, why shouldn't it work for them?
But yeah, they should be thankful for the help they received. Trying to take it away from others isn't being thankful.
Yep. All middle or upper class guys who "paid their own way."
They're very bootstrappy after graduating from excellent public schools, and enjoying the peace and comfort provided by a tax-paying public.
Somebody on reddit came up with a pretty detailed explanation as to why a few years ago. His/her/their comment boiled down to the government being literally the only thing in their world that can stop them from doing things. When everything and everybody else goes their way, the government is the only thing capable of telling them ‘no’. That’s why they want to get rid of it. To a libertarian, the government is the only Institution that can stand in their way.
I’m butchering the persuasive part of the argument here, but it really explained to me why you don’t see a lot of members of disadvantaged groups joining the libertarian party. The government helps them rise up. When you’re already at the top, the government can’t help you anymore because you don’t *need* help like most other people do.
Except you'll find most libertarians work government jobs or as government contractors. Government is usually the only thing supporting a Libertarian's way of life.
Libertarianism is basically the economic manifestation of privilege. You're only a libertarian if you assume you'll always be in the oppressing class. The poor and the marginalized know it's a scam, unless they're among the moronic and downtrodden conservatives who have been duped into thinking they're oppressors.
Yeah, I don't think I have *literally ever* encountered a Libertarian who wasn't a white male. It's almost like belief in a system wherein the haves can freely prey upon the have-nots and it'll be "fair" because it's "free" is going to be closely linked to privilege.
Spend some time on the Libertarian subreddit and actually pay attention to the comments. There's at least four kinds of Libertarian.
First is the aforementioned "I'm totally not a Republican." They're defensively libertarian. You really don't hear from many of them. Rand Paul is their icon. They agree with the fiscal side of libertarianism, and conveniently ignore a lot of social aspects.
Second is anarcho-capitalist. The world should be a free market. No taxes, no regulation whatsoever, no anything. Why have a government when we can do it ourselves? The Libertarian subreddit has a tendency to call this out. This is the generic "I read Atlas Shrugged once" dumbass. Am I being detained?
Third is the right libertarian. They are for things like border protection and a military, and recognize that taxes are needed for that. They don't see taxation as theft, but a necessary vice that should be absolutely minimized. They run into issues with social programs and are vehemently anti-welfare. Regulations cause issues, but it's hard to argue against externalities, so there's a bit of give and take. A major mindset is "If I'm going to be taxed, I should be able to choose where my taxes go." Usually decently informed, if not well informed. These are the real libertarians, if you have to choose one group.
Fourth is the left libertarian. Same as above, but not anti-social programs. Actually giving serious consideration to Universal Basic Income and Healthcare. Basically a Nordic model of libertarianism. Consider them as "Free market requires a fair foundation."
That's part of the problem with the group. They have issues agreeing to the foundations. Anyone from the first group gets hated and called "Not a true Libertarian!" by the other three... Then the second also yells at the third and fourth.
Groups three and four are OK with increasing taxes to reduce the deficit. One and two are too self-centered to realize that increasing taxes is necessary at times.
*I may be slightly off in my descriptions. Just trying to show how they can't be lumped in together so easily.*
group 1 totally not a Republican
group 2 !not a Republican
group 3 the republican
group 4 wait that's a far left democrat
This basically feels like a trap ideology with too few actionable wants and needs. Instead of grouping together to get their wants addressed, they fight against each other to define what libertarian means
Group 1 is a Republican with ethics, who reluctantly votes republican because they don't have anyone who fits their ideals better, and dislike the corruption of the current party.
Group 2 is definitely not Republican. At all. They'd be pro-choice, pro-drugs, etc.
Group 3 gets angry at a lot of Republican talking points. More aligned than group 2, but you'd be hard pressed to say they align with guys like GWB or Romney. Literally, to them, The AMERICAN PATRIOT Act is the worst thing to ever happen to America.
Group 4 isn't Democrat at all, either. And they're not even that extreme. Honestly, most left-libertarian ideas are pretty tame.
Agreeing on some issues doesn't make you part of one of two parties. This is why America's FPTP system sucks. Coalitions can exist.
Which is the philosophy behind Rand’s “objective realism” but hers has a dash of, well more than a dash,of superiority, and shitloads of hypocrisy.
See The Koch’s and the Mercer’s for excellent examples.
I literally want to smack the shit out of people when they say this. I’m gay and one gay friend is super libertarian and says this all the time. I have to explain to him how things like roads and a standing army work. Good luck stopping literally any foreign country from invading your land when you have no taxes and no army.
>Benjamin Franklin to Robert Morris
>25 Dec. 1783
>Writings 9:138
>The Remissness of our People in Paying Taxes is highly blameable; the Unwillingness to pay them is still more so. I see, in some Resolutions of Town Meetings, a Remonstrance against giving Congress a Power to take, as they call it, the People's Money out of their Pockets, tho' only to pay the Interest and Principal of Debts duly contracted. They seem to mistake the Point. Money, justly due from the People, is their Creditors' Money, and no longer the Money of the People, who, if they withold it, should be compell'd to pay by some Law.
>All Property, indeed, except the Savage's temporary Cabin, his Bow, his Matchcoat, and other little Acquisitions, absolutely necessary for his Subsistence, seems to me to be the Creature of public Convention. Hence the Public has the Right of Regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the Quantity and the Uses of it. All the Property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. **He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it.**
The response I normally get is "well you wouldn't need a standing army if everyone were libertarians, and if you did the free market would respond to the need".
Seriously replace free market with "god" and they sound like they are straight out of an early roman cult.
>the free market would respond to the need
In a dark future Jeff Bezo tells Alexa to send his private robotic death squad into battle against the child slave army of the Walton Family. You huddle around the fire with your family, listening to the battle as it's livestreamed. It's 5:00 PM, time for your daily devotion to the god of the Free Market. As your prostrate yourself before the shrine you think to yourself, thank the lord I am free. Moments later you are incinerated by a tactical McNuke, brought to you by Arbys: We Have the Meats!
I’m tired and didn’t connect the dots together lmao. It’s because libertarians are often against protected classes because that’s more govt so a gay libertarian is more or less going to think that being gay should not be protected and even if gay people are discriminated against, that “the free market will just sort it out”.
"being discriminated against? just buy basic decency from your aggressor. if someone is insulting your entire being, pay them to stop. free market!"
"also, now for sale, animal weddings, the perfect addition to our 'slippery slope' product. ask about the package deal at your local free market today."
Does said friend believe that services like fire department and police should be privatized and reliant upon you paying for their service?
If so, ask him this: Suppose you live in an apartment building, you pay for fire protection, but the person below you does not. Now his apartment catches on fire. How will the fire fighters you pay for, keep your apartment safe, while at the same time, not giving your downstairs neighbor a "freebie"?
> “Libertarianism” is just a cover word for anarcho-capitalism.
[Which doesn't exist....](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/the-anarchist-faq-editorial-collective-an-anarchist-faq-07-17)
How funny... anarchists trying to set up rules for what is and isn't.
Also, gotta admit, skimming this, but they seem to talk a lot about "equality" and such. How will an anarchist ensure equality is maintained?
All I will say is. What makes this article the supreme authority on the matter?
Used to work with a guy who was always on about self-reliance and personal sovereignty, his answer to everything was that you should do it yourself instead of relying on somebody else.
Well one time we were kind of into it, as we often were, and I asked him:
* What about roads, who is going to build and maintain the roads? - build your own roads if you want them
* What about crime? Who decides the law and what to be done with criminals - you decide, in a perfect libertarian government, your property is your domain
* What about foreign conflict? Who maintains a military, and not just a militia but a modern military? - well, there'd have to be enough government to maintain that, I guess
* What about medical and scientific research? Do I do that myself too? - he didn't have an answer for that one
* What about electricity? Should I build my own power plant too?
* Do I also have to set up my own telephone and internet system?
.
I'm not interested in living like a 17th century pioneer, I'm not Daniel Boone or some shit. None of us are, that's not realistic, we have society so we don't have have to live our lives focused only on basic survival.
I had somebody introduce themselves to me as a libertarian a few weeks ago. That was odd in and of itself, but it was really difficult to hold back my gut reaction of "Oh, so you don't live in reality... That's nice."
My favorite is when someone claims to be a libertarian, and then complains about their taxes being wasted and road construction causing delays almost within the same breath.
My guess is that the article wasn't read or was possibly misconstrued. The Republicans in Erie county went door to door to get signatures for a petition to put one of their own on the Erie County Green Party Ballot line. Essentially, stealing the spot from the Erie County Green Party.
Reading the stance of the Erie County Green Party, they appear quite progressive and a possibly little further left than the Dems in Erie County: http://eriecountygreenparty.nationbuilder.com/issues
Whether those stances rings true for the national Green Party is up for debate.
Libertarians are worse than that, Libertarian leaders and prominent figures are all in on it, they are basically a way to recruit young people who are socially liberal into slow becoming Republicans.
They appeal to the youth with their pro-legal weed and gay marriage stances, then brainwash them with bullshit 'free-market', 'invisible hand', 'privatize everything', 'regulations kill businesses' nonsense.
I'm not that much better. I call myself an independent, but that basically just means I voted democrat and then bitch about voting for candidates I don't like. I'd never actually vote for a republican
True! The Green Party is in a confidence and supply arrangement with the Labour party here in NZ. The ministers for climate change, women, and conservation are Green Party MPs.
That's not true.
The Green Party was filled with idealists who want to make the world a better place, but after Nader became a factor in the 2000 election, Republicans and other evil-doers decided to infiltrate it.
What the real sham is, is a two party system that doesn't allow for any derivation in opinion or political action. The Republicans are the bad guys here, not the Green Party. They're the victims of this back-stabbing political arena.
> They're the victims of this back-stabbing political arena.
I'm sure Jill Stein thinks she's a victim. But if you look at her actions (involvement with Russia, campaigning only in swing States, ripping only on Dems), you have to be a bit delusional to deny that she was an active participant in the Green Scam.
**G** et
**R** epublicans
**E** lected
**E** very
**N** ovember
Been going on for a while.
[Election 2000: GOP Group To Air Pro-Nader TV Ads](https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/20001027/aponline115918_000.htm)
[Election 2004: Republicans fund Nader as decisive electoral weapon](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/aug/10/uselections2004.usa)
The Dems are more than half moderate liberals, while the Conservative are a strong majority of hard right ideologies.
Dems are always much easier to peel off because they don't really offer party loyalty or loyalty of any kind really. A much higher proportion of liberals are swing voting moderates. False equivalency is part of an effort to flip and create division apathy at the same time.
I don't think you will divide Dems and not also create apathy. I think they are driven to apathy by division, among other things.
The goal is the same, the strategy is the same, but the way it impacts people is different. Some see division and become depressed and embrace defeatist reason as a coping mechanism. Some see division and polarize against it trying to use their vote as leverage. Some people outright fall for the promises that something new is always something better. The scam works on multiple levels, not just to divide Dems. Division likely always cause net apathy because it steals potential from the party.
It sounds great that Dems will rally in fear, but fear itself tends to create apathy over time too as human coping mechanisms try to bargain their way out of fear and stress. Just using the same strategy too often can also create apathy because things always feel the same.
Well said.
There's something else at work too that makes the Dems easier to split.
The GOP has spent the last half century using Identity Politics to narrow the party down to where it is today: The 'White Christian Party', in order to win elections.
Consider:
[In a country that is ~61% White](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Hispanic_whites)
* [95% of the GOP congress is white.](https://www.senate.gov/CRSpubs/b8f6293e-c235-40fd-b895-6474d0f8e809.pdf)
* [95% of all GOP congressional districts are majority white](http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2014/08/12/95-of-republican-house-districts-are-majority-white/)
* [95% of self-identified Republican primary voters in 2016 were white.](http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/03/16/fallout-from-the-gops-lack-of-diversity/)
* [100% of the new Republican congressmen in 2016, were white.](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/8ffpo8/once_more_for_the_people_in_the_back_anyone_who/dy3gijc/)
Likewise:
[In a country that is 77% Christian](http://www.gallup.com/poll/159548/identify-christian.aspx)
* [99.6% of the GOP congress is Christian.](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/05/congress-religious-affiliation_n_6417074.html)
Meanwhile, the Democrats are, by default, "the party of everyone else":
The Muslim shopkeeper in Detroit
The Jewish teacher in New York
The lesbian college student in Alabama
The Black civil servant in St. Louis
The PhD researcher in Silicon Valley
The catholic grandmother in Pennsylvania
The Buddhist Vietnamese fisherman in Texas
The Hindu engineer in Seattle
The Mexican-American small business owner in Arizona
The 20 year old Black waitress in Ohio
The white liberal soccer mom in Georgia
What holds these people together?
Considering he’s a pharma guy he should obviously replace Kellyann Conway in solving the opioid epidemic. Brilliant!!
Then Kellyann can move on to dumping gas on-I mean, solving the problem of lack of trust in the media.
Expect to see this a lot more as Republicans jump ship from the toxic brand without dumping their toxic ideology.
Also the Green Party in the US is a fucking shambles with no leadership or accountability, that sold out to Russian money to help get Trump elected, and gives a platform to idiot anti-vaxxers and other anti-science imbeciles.
If you don't like where the Democratic party is or is headed, vote in the damn primaries, but do NOT help Republicans get elected.
The liberals who still support the Green Party.. WTF is wrong with you! How can you be so easy to fool and divide? STOP THAT!
Of fucking course they want to divide you! It's a dirt cheap way to win elections!
Especially when there are alternatives. See Working Families Party (although they’re not in every state yet) who use a strategy of trying to win Dem primaries in order to not split the vote in a general election. They only rarely run a candidate in the general, if it’s a race where there is no risk of splitting the vote. I love they’re philosophy- push the Dems to the left but be pragmatic about it.
They should take a look at US history, especially when it comes to [political parties](http://www.davidwalbert.com/extras/political_parties_poster.pdf). It's one big lesson on the Spoiler Effect.
I think Ralph Nader-- who pushed the whole "the major parties are equivalent" garbage back in the run up to the 2000 election-- at least *thought* he meant well.
However, we've seen object evidence since the 2000 election of precisely how untrue that is.
Nader has hung onto the idea that he wasn't a "spoiler" in the 2000 election (and that neither was Jill Stein), and perhaps he wasn't. And I don't think Jill Stein necessarily was, either. They certainly didn't help, but they wouldn't be the first, nor is it the case that Democrats have never benefited from a spoiler either (Perot). But the damage Nader and Stein caused wasn't mainly in vote stealing.
It was, and is, their continued (and wholly deluded) insistence to anyone who will listen that the D and R parties are the same. They're not. They're *especially* not in terms of their commitment (or lack thereof) to equality of rights.
If you're an upper income white male who doesn't care about anyone else, maybe they're somewhat similar. But if you're pretty much anyone else, *or* if you care about anyone else, they are massively not the same.
And anyone who continues to push that idea should be harshly and repeatedly be reminded of that.
The Sierra Club wrote a letter to Nader pleading with him not to campaign in swing states, since his goal was to get to the 5% threshold. He did anyway, including in Florida, which Gore lost by 500 votes. It was common at the time to hear "both parties are the same" and "Bush isn't going to be any worse than Gore."
Nader also argued republicans were good for the Sierra club because their membership went up under republicans. Because you know people were worried about the environment now because republicans were back in power. Which nader thinks is a good thing always.
[Here's a good article on Nader in that race](http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/ballot_box/2000/10/ralph_the_leninist.html)
>Yeah, climate change is horrific, but it’s not happening tomorrow.
-GPUSA Presidential Candidate 2012, 2016 Jill Stein
Green Party is pretty tainted from top to bottom.
Slow-claps for Green/Stein voters in 2016: congratulation, you got played by the GOP like a fiddle.
And NO, I don't believe that you won't make the same mistake in 2018/2020: because when your candidate told you that HRC will start a WWIII and Trump won't, and you BELIEVED her, then I doubt you have the sufficient judgment and logical thinking to make a "right" decision in upcoming election.
Then, again, it is incredibly easy to fake a Green Party candidacy. All you have to do is fear modern technology, think muscle testing works, and have a foreign policy that's nothing but contrarianism.
This comment by user autranep a while back is a scathing indictment of the green party as a whole, and Jill Stein in particular: it wonderfully illustrates how their sole reason for existing seems to be to destroy the Democrats chances of victory in elections:
* Explain this: http://www.newsweek.com/russian-green-activists-brand-us-green-party-accomplice-putin-496359
* What the hell is the Green Party candidate doing advocating for closer relations with a dictator who is despised by environmentalists in his own country.
* Why is a Green Party candidate campaigning in swing states instead of solidly progressive states where they have a higher chance of securing the votes necessary for federal funding, on a platform of siphoning votes from the other progressive candidate?
* Why is a Green Party candidate spreading Russian propaganda against the democratic nominee, while remaining silent about the Trump campaign?
* Why is a Green Party candidate PERSONALLY meeting with Vladimir Putin?
* Why is a Green Party candidate directly advocating for Brexit, which is a staple of Russia’s geopolitical agenda?
* That’s a downright implausible number of coincidences. You’re telling it’s blind luck that Stein acted exactly how a Russian stooge/useful idiot would act? If that’s true then Putin is the luckiest man on earth.
Essentially the [same thing](https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/06/19/zombie-campaign-congress-giving-democrats-fits/82892598/) is happening in Ohio. There's a candidate who always seems to win the democratic nomination due to his common name, but then he doesn't do any campaigning or public events. He's funded by an unknown, outside group. By winning the primary and then just standing on the sidelines, he hands the election to the Republican.
That really shows how completely disengaged the average voter is. Butch Smith has won 2 primaries despite *not campaigning*. Honestly this is the reason why our politics are so screwed up: democracy only works with a well-informed electorate.
You're absolutely right. The OH Democratic Party has officially told voters *not* to vote for this one candidate, but we'll see how it goes on the May 8th primary. His opponents have some name recognition in the area this time at least. One has been active in local politics for years, and the other served in the Obama admin.
I don’t get this, why doesn’t the party just reject his nomination?
That would be illegal, sadly.
Then everyone should run as Republican today. Have 20 names on each Republican balot.
Hmm TIL. I thought parties could go by whatever method they chose. Relatedly, anyone know if Jill Stein was nominated via primary in the Green Party? Edit nvm, I googled it, yes she did.
Are you sure that would be illegal? I thought that states couldn't require Parties to put forth certain candidates because that would violate their constitutional rights to associate.
But why? Aren't political parties sort of like private organizations? Or maybe have a stipulation that all candidates over a certain threshold are subject to an interview with the party leadership to determine eligibility/seriousness?
Same reason the Republicans in Chicago have to endure that one crazy neo Nazi fucker every time.
It's less about our electorate being *un*informed and more about it being *mis*informed. Uninformed people either know they don't know something, or they have a wide distribution of incorrect beliefs. That's not what's going on here. A frightening percentage of Americans hold *exactly the same incorrect beliefs*, and they clutch them for dear life. That's a telltale sign of an indoctrinated populace.
In one of my local (nonpartisan) races in 2016, there were two candidates, the incumbent and a complete nut who got mad that the local paper wasn’t printing his positions (he never told them what they were) and was registered as living in an obviously abandoned house just inside the district while also maintaining a “second” home far outside the boundaries. He apparently called up the local paper and TV station every day for three weeks to rant incoherently, and he also had a long rap sheet of petty crime convictions going back decades. The incumbent is a respected prominent citizen in town. The incumbent won, but Goofy McNotEvenEligible picked up about 33 percent.
It happened in Alabama, too. A guy named [Robert Kennedy Jr](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/robert-kennedy-jr-leading-polls-no-not-one-n788441) ran in the Democratic primary against Doug Jones. The more people dug, the shadier it got. They could never prove anything directly but it was obvious what was happening.
This was a fascinating read. People need to take advantage of the sample ballot feature on .Gov websites (if that's a thing in your state--it is in mine) before elections and research the candidates. I don't expect everyone to go super hard, simply look if they have a website and go through their policy positions. I know there was the Super PAC in Smith's favor from most likely the right which is to blame, but it's also on the voters.
I tried to do this for a local election that was coming up last year, because I wanted to be informed when I voted and make decisions based on that. I can't tell you just how fucking hard it was to find ANY information on the policies or people. And then from what I did actually find, a lot of it was contradicted in other places. for example: "save the babies bill", gives more money to babies to save them. then on another source of information about it: "save the babies bill actually just goes into a slush fund where they will use it to fill up xyz's tires every six months" shit like that. It really disillusioned me and it is nothing but frustrating as a voter TRYING to be informed and make decisions based on reality, to not be able to find any real fucking information. No wonder people can't vote in their own interests or lack the will to vote at all. It's a complete clusterfuck. Is there any nonpartisan website, outside of presidential elections, that lists what both sides are for without being full of shit? :(
In general, anything below state rep seats it gets really difficult to find any information of candidates. County auditor race? Good luck.
> that lists what both sides are for without being full of shit? The problem is that all you can do is report the names and text of the actual bills, and the bills are very hard to read. You also don't know what people really stand for, only what they say, and how they vote. So you have to have some kind of third-party analysis of the people and the laws, or you have to do it all yourself. Those are always going to have some bias by their nature.
This is why we need to abandon FPTP in favor of instant run-off voting.
[удалено]
The electoral college is not necessary.
The Name You Know! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uO1B5yaoJyU
> He's funded by an unknown, outside group. By winning the primary and then just standing on the sidelines, he hands the election to the Republican. Well, the Democratic party is 100% to blame for this, then... it would be brain-dead simple to have rules requiring somebody to reveal funding sources, attend events, and fucking campaign. If you dont, you dont get to run in the primary ever again. Im curious why they dont do that...
I chuckled at the screenshot of Michael Zak’s facebook profile. Right wingers seem to lack imagination, so many seem to have the same stern looking eagle with a flag background. When I see that profile pic I know I’m in for some rant about “evil leftists”.
"Creativity is the first step down a path to worshipping Satan and sucking dick in Hollyweird or Jew York" -dudes with eagles and flags in their profile pic backgrounds
Your comment made me think of a song from the Aussie band TISM. "If you're an adman, artist, poet or actor Student, tutor, writer, chiropractor If you design clothing Or make a living from posing If you paint pictures Run a boutique for bitches If you deal in antiques Or anything chic If your career involves feeling Instead of hauling and kneeling Here's the end of the matter Yeah yeah Here's the end of the matter Yeah yeah Here's the end of the matter You can get stuffed" - TISM, "If You're Creative, Get Stuffed"
they're also most likely to walk into a bar with their friends, all wearing the exact same fucking outfit, in slight variations.
Just a reminder that Jill Stein has refused to cooperate with investigators. Edit: a word.
To Mueller or the Senate Intel Committee?
The senate committee. Saying no to Muller is saying yes to a subpoena and an early morning no knock raid.
Sometimes saying no to Mueller is saying yes to hours and hours of day drinking and 18 news interviews while you're totally schnockered.
In essence, saying no to Mueller is saying yes to Mueller in a different way at a slightly later date.
And trying on fashionable ankle bracelets.
Senate Intel Committee
Yeah that is my recollection. If she withheld docs from Mueller I could only get so erect when the subpoenas go out.
She's going to discuss it over dinner with Putin and Flynn first
Her defense is that she was only at that table for two minutes. What kind of a dinner lasts two minutes?
The kind where they serve you severed toes in a suitcase, and say you have 6 hours to pay them back.
On the grounds that 'we're all Russians if you think about it.'
Also a reminder that the Green Party disavowed her immediately after the election.
IDK... they haven't taken away [her twitter access](https://i.imgur.com/NLhcOdR.png).
See bullshit like this is exactly why I left the party. 😡 They've definitely upped the ante on attacking democrats, which I guess I wouldn't know since I don't get their newsletters or follow their twitter anymore. Edit: There's all kinds of Dem-smearing and low key Russia defense.https://i.imgur.com/cWRKUc7.jpg https://i.imgur.com/B8OhIZE.jpg
Nothing low-key about her Russian defense.
She said it would be better if Trump won for fuck's sake. The Green Party are not progressives. If they were they'd realize they're just making shit worse.
I wouldn't be surprised to find out the US Green Party, was a koch industries gambit.
Wtf? So how much you wanna bet the Green Party got funding from Russia?
Yup, that's the conclusion I'm coming to as well. It also explains why they were so adamantly against Stein challenging Trump and not Hillary with recounts...
Remember Jill Stein tried to offer top spot on the Green Party ticket to Bernie after he lost the primary, despite the fact that she wasn't even officially the Green Party candidate yet. If Bernie had done the stupid thing and taken her up on that it would have guaranteed a Trump victory. Thankfully, Bernie is neither dumb, nor compromised like Stein appears to be.
Got a link to support that? This is the first I've heard of it. EDIT: Assuming no after two days of non-response.
What? I never heard this and I don’t see anything like that...
I tried posting links but it got removed by the spam filter. Google Jill Stein recount Margaret Flowers. Flowers wrote an open letter to the Party, signed by 200 members, rebuking Stein for her half-hearted recount efforts. They removed her from the Green Party website shortly after.
If you go to the green party site now, it's got a tweet from Jill Stein regarding the Senate thing, right on the front page. 200 members might sound like a lot, but in the context of a national party... is it? Also, they didn't rebuke her efforts because they weren't serious enough. She legitimately tried to force recounts in three states ( I think) - and she was met with a surprising amount of roadblocks by county and state officials and finally a judge. Does that make you feel good about our voting system that makes recounts difficult if not impossible, votes impossible to verify (using voting systems that are outlawed in the EU)? From what I can see - I had trouble finding a link to the actual full letter, I think it's been taken down? - they didn't like the recount because they didn't like either the sources the donations were coming from or the fact that the result could be seen as favoring democrats and being too partisan, if the result ended up installing Hillary as president.
Yeah, Republicans are well known for trying to run as Democrats and others on the left. When you can't win on policy, you have to cheat.
*Looks at current WV governer* Yarp.
Yeah, that party switch by Governor Justice was really underhanded. You guys in West Virginia deserve so much better.
Jim Justise should have never won a primary. The dude is like a caricature of evil cartoon corporate politician.
[удалено]
Someone that wanted to have an EPA staffed entirely by Captain Planet villains?
That's probably why he won. People are morons and love that kind of shit.
> You guys in West Virginia deserve so much better. This is the first time anyone has ever said that
Jim Justice sold a coal mine to Russians for half a billion and then bought it back a seven years later for 5 million. http://www.register-herald.com/news/money/justice-announces-buyback-of-bluestone-coal-operation/article_e0553656-a433-5b59-ace7-e862633c5baf.html https://www.wvgazettemail.com/business/justice-paid-million-for-bluestone-coal/article_31b31e74-10c9-50da-9b0e-0f4f9bc8096e.html
that aholes words are being used by a Republican candidate for Senate as to why he switched from Dem to Repub. So infuriating. But hey, that's what Americas PAC will do to get more shit elected.
*Looks at Sheriff Clarke from Milwaukee*
[удалено]
A month ago, I was walking on a college campus home from a class, and a guy with a clipboard stopped me and asked me to support his candidacy for a Democratic spot as somethingorother. I asked him to tell me about himself. He explained that he’s a Virginia native, military veteran, family, kids, etc. Not really what I meant, so I asked him about his political positions and plans. He explained that he’s pro-science, pro-environment, and wants to help tech companies find new opportunities in Virginia. Hmm. Part of me thought it was a little odd that he’s running for a Democratic slot but hasn’t mentioned much about his political stance. Another part of me thought, well, he’s only asking to get on the ballot; and being a military vet, he should have a shot. And I wanted to ask more questions, but had a busy day ahead. So, fine. I’ll sign. It’s only for candidacy, not an actual vote for the candidate. A few days later, he started an AMA here. Someone else asked him the same question I asked - about his political stance - and he opened up ranting and raving about how Obamacare is unconstitutional and must be repealed. I don’t know why he couldn’t say that to my face on campus, but it feels like deliberate obfuscation. Still, he’s running as an R in D’s clothing in a very liberal and politically aware town, so the odds he’ll go anywhere are zero.
I don't know where you are from, but around here (super-red SW Virginia), the democratic candidate is often just a republican that couldn't win their primary. Either because they are too "moderate" (using that term loosely) to win the republican nod, or in rare cases because they are too extreme for even the crazy-right around here and theres not a Dem running so why not bypass the primary process altogether! It's a tough place to live as a democrat
A lot of this falls on the shoulders of the DNC. For decades, they would pick and choose where to run candidates and leave a massive amount of races around the county without a candidate. The result was the GOP taking over nearly every state legislature and most local governments. I think they are starting to realize that they need to at least have an actual candidate on the ballot wherever possible, but it will take a long time to undo the damage.
[удалено]
Dinos sounds more fun than Rinos
Like this guy: http://m.startribune.com/former-george-w-bush-ethics-lawyer-to-run-for-u-s-senate-as-a-democrat/481182291/
We should all be skeptical about a guy that was the ethics lawyer for the Dubya administration.
I expect a lot more of this in the coming months.
We should try this the other way around, because the GOP only cares about their "team." If bizarro-world 2016 had featured Trump as the Democratic nominee versus Bernie as the Republican nominee, with zero change to either candidate, Bernie would've had 90% of the votes. The left either votes for a candidate they love or does not vote. They don't care who the opposing candidate is. The right votes for whoever's got the (R). They don't care who *either* candidate is. They'd be happy, too. They'd defend President Sanders (R) tooth and nail. They will rationalize and justify anything done in their name. It's not like their defense of the current fucking moron has any basis in his actions. Using the cult's behavior against their own bigotry is a stopgap for fixing our terrible ballot system.
The Green Party as a whole is a complete sham intended to trap people who think "both sides are just as bad".
[удалено]
Libertarians are people who read the first chapter of an economics text book: "Chapter one, the perfect free market", got super excited decided to base their entire belief system on that and never read the rest of the book.
That and Atlas Shrugged.
> There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs. [John Rogers](http://kfmonkey.blogspot.com/2009/03/ephemera-2009-7.html)
[удалено]
What scholarship was that? Koch's R Us?
It was the Aryn Rand Institute or something like that.
Makes sense!
I remeber seeing that scholarship years ago. It was pretty good money but I hate Ayn Rand. I considered doing it anyway just so they'd waste their money on a filthy lib. There's a Fountainhead scholarship too.
You wouldn't have wasted their money. Look at it from their perspective - you're forcing tens of thousands of kids to read, comprehend, and critically analyze (potentially buy) your book every year, for the cost of some small scholarships to a handful of them. It's one of the most cost-effective propaganda tools I've seen.
that time travel movie with Tom hanks and Halle berry?
No, that's Cloud Atlas. I would love to see a spoof of Cloud Atlas Shrugged tho.
Actions have consequences spanning centuries. A moocher today erodes society tomorrow.
which One Punch Man episode is that from?
In which century is John Galt?
I'll do you one better: WHY is John Galt?
I always thought Bioshock was kind of a spoof on Altas Shrugged.
It wasn’t a time travel movie, btw.
No...that one had a positive message. Libertarians do not.
I think a big source of this is people thinking that economic "laws" are like physical laws, when in reality they are **intentionally idealized** theoretical models that will not fit will the real world 100% of the time because of the messy realities of social science.
Physical laws are also intentionally idealized, although they are often a better approximation of reality than economic laws.
Exactly, there are lots of times where there's a regime where a given physical law no longer applies. Ohm's law at low temperatures, Newton's law of gravity near large masses, Kepler's laws in a gravitational potential that's not a point source, etc. The trick is to be aware of which assumptions are valid and which ones aren't. Economic laws follow the same idea - it's a model of how a system behaves under certain conditions, but no models yet conceived describe all systems under all conditions.
"All models are wrong; some models are useful." The real failure is treating descriptive rules as prescriptive. Econ 101 describes how a simple market can find sensible prices for butter versus guns. Libertarians pretend that means any deviation from producing butter and guns is why poor people deserve to starve.
All the libertarians I've met were born on third and thought they hit a triple. -shameless
[удалено]
But when you bring up Somalia, they argue in an exasperated manner about why Somalia doesn't count.
Yet many of them zero in on Venezuela as evidence of how communism/socialism can't possibly work. Maybe we can all agree that economic failure in third world countries is generally more likely to be a result of destabilization by imperialist powers than a reflection of fundamental truths about their economic system?
Literally every libertarian I've met was a young white guy who was born upper-middle class, at least.
[удалено]
The kind of people who believe that in a libertarian world they'd be on top exploiting everyone else rather than being exploited.
[удалено]
Same argument worked for Ayn Rand, why shouldn't it work for them? But yeah, they should be thankful for the help they received. Trying to take it away from others isn't being thankful.
Yep. All middle or upper class guys who "paid their own way." They're very bootstrappy after graduating from excellent public schools, and enjoying the peace and comfort provided by a tax-paying public.
Somebody on reddit came up with a pretty detailed explanation as to why a few years ago. His/her/their comment boiled down to the government being literally the only thing in their world that can stop them from doing things. When everything and everybody else goes their way, the government is the only thing capable of telling them ‘no’. That’s why they want to get rid of it. To a libertarian, the government is the only Institution that can stand in their way. I’m butchering the persuasive part of the argument here, but it really explained to me why you don’t see a lot of members of disadvantaged groups joining the libertarian party. The government helps them rise up. When you’re already at the top, the government can’t help you anymore because you don’t *need* help like most other people do.
Except you'll find most libertarians work government jobs or as government contractors. Government is usually the only thing supporting a Libertarian's way of life.
Libertarianism is basically the economic manifestation of privilege. You're only a libertarian if you assume you'll always be in the oppressing class. The poor and the marginalized know it's a scam, unless they're among the moronic and downtrodden conservatives who have been duped into thinking they're oppressors.
Yeah, I don't think I have *literally ever* encountered a Libertarian who wasn't a white male. It's almost like belief in a system wherein the haves can freely prey upon the have-nots and it'll be "fair" because it's "free" is going to be closely linked to privilege.
Exactly my dad except he's still on it, decades later.
My experience is 100% on the white guys, 50% on the class they're in. I know some poor ass libertarians. They're just kinda paranoid.
I know one who was born lower class, but he developed tech skills and is now solid upper middle. Also white male with no family.
Libertarianism is astrology for rich white dudes.
Spend some time on the Libertarian subreddit and actually pay attention to the comments. There's at least four kinds of Libertarian. First is the aforementioned "I'm totally not a Republican." They're defensively libertarian. You really don't hear from many of them. Rand Paul is their icon. They agree with the fiscal side of libertarianism, and conveniently ignore a lot of social aspects. Second is anarcho-capitalist. The world should be a free market. No taxes, no regulation whatsoever, no anything. Why have a government when we can do it ourselves? The Libertarian subreddit has a tendency to call this out. This is the generic "I read Atlas Shrugged once" dumbass. Am I being detained? Third is the right libertarian. They are for things like border protection and a military, and recognize that taxes are needed for that. They don't see taxation as theft, but a necessary vice that should be absolutely minimized. They run into issues with social programs and are vehemently anti-welfare. Regulations cause issues, but it's hard to argue against externalities, so there's a bit of give and take. A major mindset is "If I'm going to be taxed, I should be able to choose where my taxes go." Usually decently informed, if not well informed. These are the real libertarians, if you have to choose one group. Fourth is the left libertarian. Same as above, but not anti-social programs. Actually giving serious consideration to Universal Basic Income and Healthcare. Basically a Nordic model of libertarianism. Consider them as "Free market requires a fair foundation." That's part of the problem with the group. They have issues agreeing to the foundations. Anyone from the first group gets hated and called "Not a true Libertarian!" by the other three... Then the second also yells at the third and fourth. Groups three and four are OK with increasing taxes to reduce the deficit. One and two are too self-centered to realize that increasing taxes is necessary at times. *I may be slightly off in my descriptions. Just trying to show how they can't be lumped in together so easily.*
group 1 totally not a Republican group 2 !not a Republican group 3 the republican group 4 wait that's a far left democrat This basically feels like a trap ideology with too few actionable wants and needs. Instead of grouping together to get their wants addressed, they fight against each other to define what libertarian means
Group 1 is a Republican with ethics, who reluctantly votes republican because they don't have anyone who fits their ideals better, and dislike the corruption of the current party. Group 2 is definitely not Republican. At all. They'd be pro-choice, pro-drugs, etc. Group 3 gets angry at a lot of Republican talking points. More aligned than group 2, but you'd be hard pressed to say they align with guys like GWB or Romney. Literally, to them, The AMERICAN PATRIOT Act is the worst thing to ever happen to America. Group 4 isn't Democrat at all, either. And they're not even that extreme. Honestly, most left-libertarian ideas are pretty tame. Agreeing on some issues doesn't make you part of one of two parties. This is why America's FPTP system sucks. Coalitions can exist.
"fuck you, I tricked you into giving me yours".
Which is the philosophy behind Rand’s “objective realism” but hers has a dash of, well more than a dash,of superiority, and shitloads of hypocrisy. See The Koch’s and the Mercer’s for excellent examples.
"taxation is theft!"
I literally want to smack the shit out of people when they say this. I’m gay and one gay friend is super libertarian and says this all the time. I have to explain to him how things like roads and a standing army work. Good luck stopping literally any foreign country from invading your land when you have no taxes and no army.
They'll say the military is an 'OK' tax because it's for protection.
>Benjamin Franklin to Robert Morris >25 Dec. 1783 >Writings 9:138 >The Remissness of our People in Paying Taxes is highly blameable; the Unwillingness to pay them is still more so. I see, in some Resolutions of Town Meetings, a Remonstrance against giving Congress a Power to take, as they call it, the People's Money out of their Pockets, tho' only to pay the Interest and Principal of Debts duly contracted. They seem to mistake the Point. Money, justly due from the People, is their Creditors' Money, and no longer the Money of the People, who, if they withold it, should be compell'd to pay by some Law. >All Property, indeed, except the Savage's temporary Cabin, his Bow, his Matchcoat, and other little Acquisitions, absolutely necessary for his Subsistence, seems to me to be the Creature of public Convention. Hence the Public has the Right of Regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the Quantity and the Uses of it. All the Property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. **He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it.**
The response I normally get is "well you wouldn't need a standing army if everyone were libertarians, and if you did the free market would respond to the need". Seriously replace free market with "god" and they sound like they are straight out of an early roman cult.
>the free market would respond to the need In a dark future Jeff Bezo tells Alexa to send his private robotic death squad into battle against the child slave army of the Walton Family. You huddle around the fire with your family, listening to the battle as it's livestreamed. It's 5:00 PM, time for your daily devotion to the god of the Free Market. As your prostrate yourself before the shrine you think to yourself, thank the lord I am free. Moments later you are incinerated by a tactical McNuke, brought to you by Arbys: We Have the Meats!
Ah, you mean the 'perfectly spherical libertarian on a frictionless field!' argument.
What's the relevance of being gay?
I’m tired and didn’t connect the dots together lmao. It’s because libertarians are often against protected classes because that’s more govt so a gay libertarian is more or less going to think that being gay should not be protected and even if gay people are discriminated against, that “the free market will just sort it out”.
Ah. Libertarians in general are deluded.
"being discriminated against? just buy basic decency from your aggressor. if someone is insulting your entire being, pay them to stop. free market!" "also, now for sale, animal weddings, the perfect addition to our 'slippery slope' product. ask about the package deal at your local free market today."
Does said friend believe that services like fire department and police should be privatized and reliant upon you paying for their service? If so, ask him this: Suppose you live in an apartment building, you pay for fire protection, but the person below you does not. Now his apartment catches on fire. How will the fire fighters you pay for, keep your apartment safe, while at the same time, not giving your downstairs neighbor a "freebie"?
> “Libertarianism” is just a cover word for anarcho-capitalism. [Which doesn't exist....](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/the-anarchist-faq-editorial-collective-an-anarchist-faq-07-17)
How funny... anarchists trying to set up rules for what is and isn't. Also, gotta admit, skimming this, but they seem to talk a lot about "equality" and such. How will an anarchist ensure equality is maintained? All I will say is. What makes this article the supreme authority on the matter?
Used to work with a guy who was always on about self-reliance and personal sovereignty, his answer to everything was that you should do it yourself instead of relying on somebody else. Well one time we were kind of into it, as we often were, and I asked him: * What about roads, who is going to build and maintain the roads? - build your own roads if you want them * What about crime? Who decides the law and what to be done with criminals - you decide, in a perfect libertarian government, your property is your domain * What about foreign conflict? Who maintains a military, and not just a militia but a modern military? - well, there'd have to be enough government to maintain that, I guess * What about medical and scientific research? Do I do that myself too? - he didn't have an answer for that one * What about electricity? Should I build my own power plant too? * Do I also have to set up my own telephone and internet system? . I'm not interested in living like a 17th century pioneer, I'm not Daniel Boone or some shit. None of us are, that's not realistic, we have society so we don't have have to live our lives focused only on basic survival.
Libertarianism is astrology for men.
Exactly. The people who worship the free market are among those who understand it the least.
That's too kind. Libertarians are white people that were disappointed when they got their full check and never got over it.
I had somebody introduce themselves to me as a libertarian a few weeks ago. That was odd in and of itself, but it was really difficult to hold back my gut reaction of "Oh, so you don't live in reality... That's nice."
My favorite is when someone claims to be a libertarian, and then complains about their taxes being wasted and road construction causing delays almost within the same breath.
Rand Paul sealed the deal on that entire party ha.
Rand Paul: the “Libertarian” that lives in a gated HOA community.
Libertarians are just anarchists who have careers.
Libertarians are like housecats. Completely dependent on others for their every need, yet entirely convinced of their own self-sufficiency.
"Now that I've benefited from various public works I'd like to stop paying taxes please"
anarchy republicans as I call them.
Feudalists who think they will be the Lords
Libertarians are just GOP minor league farm teams.
Libertarianism was a conduit to trumpism in 2015/2016.
My guess is that the article wasn't read or was possibly misconstrued. The Republicans in Erie county went door to door to get signatures for a petition to put one of their own on the Erie County Green Party Ballot line. Essentially, stealing the spot from the Erie County Green Party. Reading the stance of the Erie County Green Party, they appear quite progressive and a possibly little further left than the Dems in Erie County: http://eriecountygreenparty.nationbuilder.com/issues Whether those stances rings true for the national Green Party is up for debate.
As soon as you hear Gary Whatever speak the whole thing falls apart
Someone on here put Johnson’s run in perspective by pointing out that he was the second most qualified candidate to run in 2016
The "what is Aleppo" flub is forever burned in my brain. Anyone who still pushed for him after that is unhinged.
Ha yeah I looked into it too, I realized they are just Republican's that are ok with smoking weed.
Libertarians are worse than that, Libertarian leaders and prominent figures are all in on it, they are basically a way to recruit young people who are socially liberal into slow becoming Republicans. They appeal to the youth with their pro-legal weed and gay marriage stances, then brainwash them with bullshit 'free-market', 'invisible hand', 'privatize everything', 'regulations kill businesses' nonsense.
I'm not that much better. I call myself an independent, but that basically just means I voted democrat and then bitch about voting for candidates I don't like. I'd never actually vote for a republican
US Green Party. Overseas it's a real thing.
True! The Green Party is in a confidence and supply arrangement with the Labour party here in NZ. The ministers for climate change, women, and conservation are Green Party MPs.
That's not true. The Green Party was filled with idealists who want to make the world a better place, but after Nader became a factor in the 2000 election, Republicans and other evil-doers decided to infiltrate it. What the real sham is, is a two party system that doesn't allow for any derivation in opinion or political action. The Republicans are the bad guys here, not the Green Party. They're the victims of this back-stabbing political arena.
Gotta change the voting system to eliminate the spoiler effect. Ranked choice is a great way to go. Approval voting is good too!
> They're the victims of this back-stabbing political arena. I'm sure Jill Stein thinks she's a victim. But if you look at her actions (involvement with Russia, campaigning only in swing States, ripping only on Dems), you have to be a bit delusional to deny that she was an active participant in the Green Scam.
that, and also to split the democrat votes
**G** et **R** epublicans **E** lected **E** very **N** ovember Been going on for a while. [Election 2000: GOP Group To Air Pro-Nader TV Ads](https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/20001027/aponline115918_000.htm) [Election 2004: Republicans fund Nader as decisive electoral weapon](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/aug/10/uselections2004.usa)
Thankfully we all learned our lesson when Nader gave us W. /notcopingwell
One in the same. Complete fuckin scam.
The Dems are more than half moderate liberals, while the Conservative are a strong majority of hard right ideologies. Dems are always much easier to peel off because they don't really offer party loyalty or loyalty of any kind really. A much higher proportion of liberals are swing voting moderates. False equivalency is part of an effort to flip and create division apathy at the same time. I don't think you will divide Dems and not also create apathy. I think they are driven to apathy by division, among other things. The goal is the same, the strategy is the same, but the way it impacts people is different. Some see division and become depressed and embrace defeatist reason as a coping mechanism. Some see division and polarize against it trying to use their vote as leverage. Some people outright fall for the promises that something new is always something better. The scam works on multiple levels, not just to divide Dems. Division likely always cause net apathy because it steals potential from the party. It sounds great that Dems will rally in fear, but fear itself tends to create apathy over time too as human coping mechanisms try to bargain their way out of fear and stress. Just using the same strategy too often can also create apathy because things always feel the same.
Well said. There's something else at work too that makes the Dems easier to split. The GOP has spent the last half century using Identity Politics to narrow the party down to where it is today: The 'White Christian Party', in order to win elections. Consider: [In a country that is ~61% White](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Hispanic_whites) * [95% of the GOP congress is white.](https://www.senate.gov/CRSpubs/b8f6293e-c235-40fd-b895-6474d0f8e809.pdf) * [95% of all GOP congressional districts are majority white](http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2014/08/12/95-of-republican-house-districts-are-majority-white/) * [95% of self-identified Republican primary voters in 2016 were white.](http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/03/16/fallout-from-the-gops-lack-of-diversity/) * [100% of the new Republican congressmen in 2016, were white.](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/8ffpo8/once_more_for_the_people_in_the_back_anyone_who/dy3gijc/) Likewise: [In a country that is 77% Christian](http://www.gallup.com/poll/159548/identify-christian.aspx) * [99.6% of the GOP congress is Christian.](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/05/congress-religious-affiliation_n_6417074.html) Meanwhile, the Democrats are, by default, "the party of everyone else": The Muslim shopkeeper in Detroit The Jewish teacher in New York The lesbian college student in Alabama The Black civil servant in St. Louis The PhD researcher in Silicon Valley The catholic grandmother in Pennsylvania The Buddhist Vietnamese fisherman in Texas The Hindu engineer in Seattle The Mexican-American small business owner in Arizona The 20 year old Black waitress in Ohio The white liberal soccer mom in Georgia What holds these people together?
The one silver lining to Trump’s presidency is that it has brought moderate republicans/democrats further left.
I dunno, fear as a lifestyle is doin pretty good for conservatives.
He lied? Give that corrupt politician a cabinet position!
Considering he’s a pharma guy he should obviously replace Kellyann Conway in solving the opioid epidemic. Brilliant!! Then Kellyann can move on to dumping gas on-I mean, solving the problem of lack of trust in the media.
Right now I wanna know why Roseanne is involved with the Green Party and tried to run for President in 2012 as their candidate.
She might just be stupid. Some people moved from Sanders to Trump. Some people like being anti establishment, regardless of actual policy or morality
She might be stupid, but I want confirmation. All this shit shady.
Expect to see this a lot more as Republicans jump ship from the toxic brand without dumping their toxic ideology. Also the Green Party in the US is a fucking shambles with no leadership or accountability, that sold out to Russian money to help get Trump elected, and gives a platform to idiot anti-vaxxers and other anti-science imbeciles. If you don't like where the Democratic party is or is headed, vote in the damn primaries, but do NOT help Republicans get elected.
The Greens in Russia even slammed Jill Stein for sucking up to Putin.
No wonder Jill Stein isn't turning over documents.
The liberals who still support the Green Party.. WTF is wrong with you! How can you be so easy to fool and divide? STOP THAT! Of fucking course they want to divide you! It's a dirt cheap way to win elections!
Especially when there are alternatives. See Working Families Party (although they’re not in every state yet) who use a strategy of trying to win Dem primaries in order to not split the vote in a general election. They only rarely run a candidate in the general, if it’s a race where there is no risk of splitting the vote. I love they’re philosophy- push the Dems to the left but be pragmatic about it.
Yep, that's the correct way to do this. You already see Nixon pushing Cuomo left in NY.
They should take a look at US history, especially when it comes to [political parties](http://www.davidwalbert.com/extras/political_parties_poster.pdf). It's one big lesson on the Spoiler Effect.
[удалено]
I think Ralph Nader-- who pushed the whole "the major parties are equivalent" garbage back in the run up to the 2000 election-- at least *thought* he meant well. However, we've seen object evidence since the 2000 election of precisely how untrue that is. Nader has hung onto the idea that he wasn't a "spoiler" in the 2000 election (and that neither was Jill Stein), and perhaps he wasn't. And I don't think Jill Stein necessarily was, either. They certainly didn't help, but they wouldn't be the first, nor is it the case that Democrats have never benefited from a spoiler either (Perot). But the damage Nader and Stein caused wasn't mainly in vote stealing. It was, and is, their continued (and wholly deluded) insistence to anyone who will listen that the D and R parties are the same. They're not. They're *especially* not in terms of their commitment (or lack thereof) to equality of rights. If you're an upper income white male who doesn't care about anyone else, maybe they're somewhat similar. But if you're pretty much anyone else, *or* if you care about anyone else, they are massively not the same. And anyone who continues to push that idea should be harshly and repeatedly be reminded of that.
The Sierra Club wrote a letter to Nader pleading with him not to campaign in swing states, since his goal was to get to the 5% threshold. He did anyway, including in Florida, which Gore lost by 500 votes. It was common at the time to hear "both parties are the same" and "Bush isn't going to be any worse than Gore."
Nader also argued republicans were good for the Sierra club because their membership went up under republicans. Because you know people were worried about the environment now because republicans were back in power. Which nader thinks is a good thing always. [Here's a good article on Nader in that race](http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/ballot_box/2000/10/ralph_the_leninist.html)
>Yeah, climate change is horrific, but it’s not happening tomorrow. -GPUSA Presidential Candidate 2012, 2016 Jill Stein Green Party is pretty tainted from top to bottom.
Green Party: Getting Republicans Elected Every November
[удалено]
The Green Party has been the best tool the GOP has had for almost 20 years.
thought this was going to be an article on Jill Stein.
Slow-claps for Green/Stein voters in 2016: congratulation, you got played by the GOP like a fiddle. And NO, I don't believe that you won't make the same mistake in 2018/2020: because when your candidate told you that HRC will start a WWIII and Trump won't, and you BELIEVED her, then I doubt you have the sufficient judgment and logical thinking to make a "right" decision in upcoming election.
The living example of why the US needs ranked choice preference or minimum vote election thresholds...
“cheat, cheat...if you can’t win.” - The Clash
I thought we already knew this prior to the election?
Another one? People should realize that as it is now third parties don't really do anything but siphon away votes from candidates that have a shot.
A vote for the Green Party is a vote for Putin.
Then, again, it is incredibly easy to fake a Green Party candidacy. All you have to do is fear modern technology, think muscle testing works, and have a foreign policy that's nothing but contrarianism.
This comment by user autranep a while back is a scathing indictment of the green party as a whole, and Jill Stein in particular: it wonderfully illustrates how their sole reason for existing seems to be to destroy the Democrats chances of victory in elections: * Explain this: http://www.newsweek.com/russian-green-activists-brand-us-green-party-accomplice-putin-496359 * What the hell is the Green Party candidate doing advocating for closer relations with a dictator who is despised by environmentalists in his own country. * Why is a Green Party candidate campaigning in swing states instead of solidly progressive states where they have a higher chance of securing the votes necessary for federal funding, on a platform of siphoning votes from the other progressive candidate? * Why is a Green Party candidate spreading Russian propaganda against the democratic nominee, while remaining silent about the Trump campaign? * Why is a Green Party candidate PERSONALLY meeting with Vladimir Putin? * Why is a Green Party candidate directly advocating for Brexit, which is a staple of Russia’s geopolitical agenda? * That’s a downright implausible number of coincidences. You’re telling it’s blind luck that Stein acted exactly how a Russian stooge/useful idiot would act? If that’s true then Putin is the luckiest man on earth.