We'll settle it this time. I'm sure of it.
Utah State Senator Mark Madsen switches to the Libertarian Party.
- Thread starter ♪alt13
- Start date
My God please NOOOOOOO!
You know, nursing mothers an young parents, actually parents till you can legally kick the ******** out, put up with a lot. How is breathing threw your nostrils any different then breathing through a umbilical chord? Where do they wanna move the goalposts to? Three? Four years old? I think first trimester is plenty why not leave it at that? Why do liberals want to keep talking about this an move the goal post? Makes no sense.
The Thriller
Well-Known Member
That's basically what it's becoming.
Repubs who don't want anything to do with trump but hardly buy into the "Liberty from government" that libertarians desire.
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
The SCOTUS has decided this question. At viability. States have the ability to regulate and (IIRC)ban abortion under most circumstances after viability. I believe viability is right around 22 weeks.
They've decided the legal question. A libertarian could have a different idea and feel that a fetus has rights that need to be protected under the law. I suppose the vast majority of libertarians would be pro-choice, but it isn't necessarily mandatory.
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
I see it differently. New libertarians have to come from somewhere. I'd like to see the country move toward libertarianism. I'd like to see the gop die. I think that when politicians do accept the label of libertarian they tend to adjust their attitudes. Would I like to see social conservatism and xenophobia replaced as a base for a major party by a base that just wants people to mind their own damn business? You bet your *** I would.
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
That's true... but a politician can disagree with the SCOTUS til they are blue in the face it isn't going to change legally. The country is deadlocked politcally on the issue the SCOTUS has decided the issue based on precedent. I'm ready to move on.
They do have to come from somewhere. But I hope that the along with the influx of disaffected Rs is a wave of disaffected Ds. A mesh of ideas that prevents the Ls from being a subparty of either the left or right.
Jonah
Well-Known Member
It would be nice if there could be a New Libertarian Party. One that focuses on ending the war on drugs, expanding personal liberty, reducing government regulation, and a foreign policy that prioritizes defense over foreign entanglements. A good chunk of my opinions and values are libertarian in nature and I’d like to see a modern, moderate version of libertarianism take over or replace the Republican Party. But the Libertarian Party will never become a major national party until it purges some of its more extreme positions.
Johnson is a relatively reasonable guy and moderate compared to his activist base. But his base is nuts, even nuttier than the Tea Party/Palin base of Republicans and the far left fringe of Democrats. The nutty, activist base of the Libertarian Party has fossilized fringe ideas that have not been updated since the 1970s, and they actually expect their candidates to still campaign on them.
No Libertarian presidential candidate can be elected as long as he/she has to defend repealing the Civil Rights Act, phasing out and eventually ending Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, shutting down the Fed, the Departments of Labor, Education and HUD, and gutting anti-discrimination law. These are fringe ideas for good reason. In total, they have very little support amongst voters. (Johnson, to his credit, did say he would have voted for the Civil Rights Act and, of course, was loudly booed and called a sell-out at the recent Libertarian Convention.)
Gary Johnson should have pulled a Bernie Sanders and joined the Republicans and ran as one. Would have been more successful and maybe beat Trump with the kind of attention he would have got.
Just like Ron Paul right? HAHAHA.
Libertarians do not need run on Republican ticket we need apothetic voters to grow a spine.
Endorse Republican Party platform? Fuggettaboutit mate. That is not are style
We stand on principle something the democrats an repubs never will do.
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
US congressmen admits in interview that he feels the Johnson. First to endorse
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/07/us/politics/gary-johnson-libertarian-scott-rigell.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/07/us/politics/gary-johnson-libertarian-scott-rigell.html
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
Let's be fair to Jill Stein. I don't think she is anti-vax. IMV, Onebrow either is being disingenuous in his characterization of her views or is victim of someone that is. The woman is a physician and her position is surely more sophisticated and nuanced than it has been portrayed. It seems to me that she was asked a question by an anti-vaxer and rather than just shut it down pivoted to speak about the role of corporate money in medical regulation and standards in the US. I think it's totally fine to disagree with her so long as we are honest about her position. We should not set up a straw man. I think this whole Jill Stein is anti-vaccination thing is just manipulation politics.
Jonah
Well-Known Member
I’m not clear on the minutiae of the rules for third party admittance to the presidential debates.
The stated criteria of "a level of support of at least 15 percent of the national electorate as determined by five selected national public opinion polling organizations, using the average of those organizations' most recently publicly-reported results at the time of the determination,” is clear enough in the abstract but when exactly is that determination made and is it subject to change?
For example, the first debate is scheduled for September 26 while the last is not until October 19. If Johnson were to fall short of 15 percent in September polling but exceed 15 percent by October, would he be excluded from the first debate and then allowed to participate in the final debate?
My expectation is that Trump would fail miserably in a first one-on-one debate with Clinton and that, as a result, Johnson’s poll numbers could rise enough to put him over the 15 percent threshold and, theoretically at least, make him eligible for the last debate.
The stated criteria of "a level of support of at least 15 percent of the national electorate as determined by five selected national public opinion polling organizations, using the average of those organizations' most recently publicly-reported results at the time of the determination,” is clear enough in the abstract but when exactly is that determination made and is it subject to change?
For example, the first debate is scheduled for September 26 while the last is not until October 19. If Johnson were to fall short of 15 percent in September polling but exceed 15 percent by October, would he be excluded from the first debate and then allowed to participate in the final debate?
My expectation is that Trump would fail miserably in a first one-on-one debate with Clinton and that, as a result, Johnson’s poll numbers could rise enough to put him over the 15 percent threshold and, theoretically at least, make him eligible for the last debate.