NationStates

Proctopeo wrote:

The Liberated Territories wrote:Welcome to the world of President Rand Paul.

RON PAUL 2012

But the future refused to change.

Yea, Gary Johnson is a complete idiot.

The South Falls wrote:Yea, Gary Johnson is a complete idiot.

This is true but he would have made a good president.

Northern Davincia wrote:

The South Falls wrote:Yea, Gary Johnson is a complete idiot.

This is true but he would have made a good president.

A far better one than the three other options, certainly.

Northern Davincia wrote:

The South Falls wrote:Yea, Gary Johnson is a complete idiot.

This is true but he would have made a good president.

Last election cycle, there was no one running who would have made a good president. That being said, however, he would have been the least bad of the lot.

..pardon, why would past candidate Johnson not be fine. this question is out of discussion, it is merely for historical scaffolds.

also, given the U.s.a features, shouldn t the libertarians seek, and manage, to rally other political fringes. the past election was the good election.

instead I saw other 'minors' and various radicals going nowhere, scattered, alone, without 'libertarian' candidacy making them a unite constituency.

that was the true occasion for libertarians, I wonder if there will be an other. In my country, different, still there is an historical party (which was namely center-left), has also ruined.

Phoenicaea wrote:..pardon, why would past candidate Johnson not be fine. this question is out of discussion, it is merely for historical scaffolds.

also, given the U.s.a features, shouldn t the libertarians seek, and manage, to rally other political fringes. the past election was the good election.

instead I saw other 'minors' and various radicals going nowhere, scattered, alone, without 'libertarian' candidacy making them a unite constituency.

that was the true occasion for libertarians, I wonder if there will be an other. In my country, different, still there is an historical party (which was namely center-left), has also ruined.

The Libertarian Party has no strong leadership, partly thanks to constant infighting about who is more libertarian than the next guy. The Reform Party had a better model for success because it didn't mandate ideological purity.

Northern Davincia wrote:

Phoenicaea wrote:..pardon, why would past candidate Johnson not be fine. this question is out of discussion, it is merely for historical scaffolds.

also, given the U.s.a features, shouldn t the libertarians seek, and manage, to rally other political fringes. the past election was the good election.

instead I saw other 'minors' and various radicals going nowhere, scattered, alone, without 'libertarian' candidacy making them a unite constituency.

that was the true occasion for libertarians, I wonder if there will be an other. In my country, different, still there is an historical party (which was namely center-left), has also ruined.

The Libertarian Party has no strong leadership, partly thanks to constant infighting about who is more libertarian than the next guy. The Reform Party had a better model for success because it didn't mandate ideological purity.

The Libertarian Party has been going strong for 50 years, while the Reform Party collapsed overnight after Perot, since it had no ideological consistency.

The Liberated Territories wrote:

Northern Davincia wrote:The Libertarian Party has no strong leadership, partly thanks to constant infighting about who is more libertarian than the next guy. The Reform Party had a better model for success because it didn't mandate ideological purity.

The Libertarian Party has been going strong for 50 years, while the Reform Party collapsed overnight after Perot, since it had no ideological consistency.

But would the LP then be at risk of never growing since there's constant infighting? Surely that's what happened to the Reform Party?

Zurkerx wrote:

The Liberated Territories wrote:
The Libertarian Party has been going strong for 50 years, while the Reform Party collapsed overnight after Perot, since it had no ideological consistency.

But would the LP then be at risk of never growing since there's constant infighting? Surely that's what happened to the Reform Party?

Thus far, I think the LP has grown decently considering the infighting. But it's always a risk. The lack of strong leadership doesn't help this matter. LP also could do better at public outreach. Amongst many, libertarians still have the image of stuffy, cold intellectuals who don't give a damn about anything except dollar signs (this is particularly true when corporatism gets conflated with true capitalism). LP lacks the emotional appeal that discourages more youth involvement, and attracting younger voters is always key to the future success of any political movement.

Northern Davincia wrote:

The South Falls wrote:Yea, Gary Johnson is a complete idiot.

This is true but he would have made a good president.

Better at least.

Northern Davincia wrote:

Phoenicaea wrote:..pardon, why would past candidate Johnson not be fine. this question is out of discussion, it is merely for historical scaffolds.

also, given the U.s.a features, shouldn t the libertarians seek, and manage, to rally other political fringes. the past election was the good election.

instead I saw other 'minors' and various radicals going nowhere, scattered, alone, without 'libertarian' candidacy making them a unite constituency.

that was the true occasion for libertarians, I wonder if there will be an other. In my country, different, still there is an historical party (which was namely center-left), has also ruined.

The Libertarian Party has no strong leadership, partly thanks to constant infighting about who is more libertarian than the next guy. The Reform Party had a better model for success because it didn't mandate ideological purity.

Considering there are multiple schools of thought in libertarianism, I have to agree that ideological purity is a problem. I consider myself a libertarian, but my views differ enough from the LP to make it hard for me to support the party fully. Openness to other schools of thought would help gain more popular support.

Northern Davincia wrote:

Phoenicaea wrote:..pardon, why would past candidate Johnson not be fine. this question is out of discussion, it is merely for historical scaffolds.

also, given the U.s.a features, shouldn t the libertarians seek, and manage, to rally other political fringes. the past election was the good election.

instead I saw other 'minors' and various radicals going nowhere, scattered, alone, without 'libertarian' candidacy making them a unite constituency.

that was the true occasion for libertarians, I wonder if there will be an other. In my country, different, still there is an historical party (which was namely center-left), has also ruined.

The Libertarian Party has no strong leadership

Of course there isn't, they're libertarians.

The Liberated Territories wrote:

Northern Davincia wrote:The Libertarian Party has no strong leadership, partly thanks to constant infighting about who is more libertarian than the next guy. The Reform Party had a better model for success because it didn't mandate ideological purity.

The Libertarian Party has been going strong for 50 years, while the Reform Party collapsed overnight after Perot, since it had no ideological consistency.

Since when have Libertarians posed an actual threat to the 2-party system? Perot did, we do not.

Free Arabian Nation wrote:

Northern Davincia wrote:The Libertarian Party has no strong leadership

Of course there isn't, they're libertarians.

Our fate is an ironic one.

Northern Davincia wrote:

The Liberated Territories wrote:
The Libertarian Party has been going strong for 50 years, while the Reform Party collapsed overnight after Perot, since it had no ideological consistency.

Since when have Libertarians posed an actual threat to the 2-party system? Perot did, we do not.

Free Arabian Nation wrote:Of course there isn't, they're libertarians.

Our fate is an ironic one.

It's even more hilariously ironic because half of you can't even unite against a common enemy (especially seeing as how some of you lean further left than others) and the other half of you are basically diet authoritarians. At least the libertarian left finds common ground in standing against the whole rest of the political compass depending on our moods lol

Torrocca wrote:

Northern Davincia wrote:Since when have Libertarians posed an actual threat to the 2-party system? Perot did, we do not.

Our fate is an ironic one.

It's even more hilariously ironic because half of you can't even unite against a common enemy (especially seeing as how some of you lean further left than others) and the other half of you are basically diet authoritarians. At least the libertarian left finds common ground in standing against the whole rest of the political compass depending on our moods lol

When you're a member of the Libertarian Party, your common enemy is other Libertarians.

So, I find myself embracing more and more of libertarianism, though there are still a few positions I’m not fully on board with. Take marriage privatization for example. I think it is a great idea in theory, but I don’t know if it would actually work for society.

Torrocca wrote:

Northern Davincia wrote:Since when have Libertarians posed an actual threat to the 2-party system? Perot did, we do not.

Our fate is an ironic one.

It's even more hilariously ironic because half of you can't even unite against a common enemy (especially seeing as how some of you lean further left than others) and the other half of you are basically diet authoritarians. At least the libertarian left finds common ground in standing against the whole rest of the political compass depending on our moods lol

That explains why lib leftist are always pretentious and yet never get anything done. :^)

West Leas Oros 2 wrote:

Torrocca wrote:
It's even more hilariously ironic because half of you can't even unite against a common enemy (especially seeing as how some of you lean further left than others) and the other half of you are basically diet authoritarians. At least the libertarian left finds common ground in standing against the whole rest of the political compass depending on our moods lol

That explains why lib leftist are always pretentious and yet never get anything done. :^)

Our camaraderie will be purer than your Trotskyist notions of revolution ever will be, at least. :^3

Torrocca wrote:

West Leas Oros 2 wrote:That explains why lib leftist are always pretentious and yet never get anything done. :^)

Our camaraderie will be purer than your Trotskyist notions of revolution ever will be, at least. :^3

I'll be honest, the last time I took any High-Left rhetoric about revolution seriously was the day before a Marxist-Leninist unironically said "The only freedom is the freedom from choice."...
On this very platform.

Frievolk wrote:

Torrocca wrote:
Our camaraderie will be purer than your Trotskyist notions of revolution ever will be, at least. :^3

I'll be honest, the last time I took any High-Left rhetoric about revolution seriously was the day before a Marxist-Leninist unironically said "The only freedom is the freedom from choice."...
On this very platform.

"Ours is a revolution for the people!" Cry the Leninist, the Stalinist, the Maoist, the Trotskyist, the Titoist, the Hoxhaist, and the Jucheist as they drive their daggers deeper into the hearts of the proletarians, again and again.

Torrocca wrote:"Ours is a revolution for the people!" Cry the Leninist, the Stalinist, the Maoist, the Trotskyist, the Titoist, the Hoxhaist, and the Jucheist as they drive their daggers deeper into the hearts of the proletarians, again and again.

I admit that you used to get on my nerves a bit when I first joined, but now that I've interacted with the tankies here, I couldn't be happier you are here.

Frievolk wrote:I'll be honest, the last time I took any High-Left rhetoric about revolution seriously was the day before a Marxist-Leninist unironically said "The only freedom is the freedom from choice."...
On this very platform.

This forum, and Reddit, are infested with tankies. This is probably because tankies are losers with nothing better to do than post on the internet all day.

Autarkheia wrote:

Torrocca wrote:"Ours is a revolution for the people!" Cry the Leninist, the Stalinist, the Maoist, the Trotskyist, the Titoist, the Hoxhaist, and the Jucheist as they drive their daggers deeper into the hearts of the proletarians, again and again.

I admit that you used to get on my nerves a bit when I first joined, but now that I've interacted with the tankies here, I couldn't be happier you are here.

Either my charm or my shitposting wins everyone over eventually. And I'm all outta charm, so... :3

Torrocca wrote:Either my charm or my shitposting wins everyone over eventually. And I'm all outta charm, so... :3

It's because if anarchists and liberals can agree on anything, it's that tankies are shit.

Torrocca wrote:

Autarkheia wrote:I admit that you used to get on my nerves a bit when I first joined, but now that I've interacted with the tankies here, I couldn't be happier you are here.

Either my charm or my shitposting wins everyone over eventually. And I'm all outta charm, so... :3

That may be true for certain values of everyone and eventually. It has not yet worked on me, however. I still find you logically consistent but mistaken.

Elwher wrote:

Torrocca wrote:
Either my charm or my shitposting wins everyone over eventually. And I'm all outta charm, so... :3

That may be true for certain values of everyone and eventually. It has not yet worked on me, however. I still find you logically consistent but mistaken.

Hence the "eventually", comrade. :^)