• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How did the Libertarian Party do this election?[W:89]

How did the Libertarian Party do


  • Total voters
    23
The public perception of libertarians is nill because most people don't even know what a libertarian is or associate it with the likes of the Tea Party.



No. They are not the party of business. Nor do they potray themselves as such. They are the party of the market and want businesses to have to hold their own instead of getting bailed out, subsidized, and protected in the name of being "business friendly."



Because Libertarian candidates aren't usually establishment politicians with connections and the will to sell themselves to the highest bidder? Because Libertarian policies, for the most part, disfavor big business? There's a thousand and one reasons to explain that other than "they suck." i consider their lack of corporate funding to be the most attractive part of the party, not a downfall.

"party of the market"

Do you understand what would've happened to the USA if we decided "**** it, let the banks go down in hell I don't care!" during the recent recession?

Oh boy, the word "Screwed" comes to mind even though it'd be much worse than that.

That was always one of my few disconnects with the libertarian party and one of the few reasons I will most likely never vote third party.
 
"party of the market"

Do you understand what would've happened to the USA if we decided "**** it, let the banks go down in hell I don't care!" during the recent recession?

Oh boy, the word "Screwed" comes to mind even though it'd be much worse than that.

That was always one of my few disconnects with the libertarian party and one of the few reasons I will most likely never vote third party.


so if the oil companies were to go down, and leave most of Americans stranded, government should bail them out too?

since it would effect cars and parts, as well as the service industry.
 
so if the oil companies were to go down, and leave most of Americans stranded, government should bail them out too?

since it would effect cars and parts, as well as the service industry.

Did they?

Are there alternatives to oil?

Stick to banks since those are what mainly got bailed out. And there is no alternative to banking.
 
Did they?

Are there alternatives to oil?

Stick to banks since those are what mainly got bailed out. And there is no alternative to banking.

my question is...........are we to bail out corporations, which have an enormous impact on the economy?

you forget GM WAS BAILED OUT.


first of all its not constitutional and second its not equality of the law.
 
my question is...........are we to bail out corporations, which have an enormous impact on the economy?

you forget GM WAS BAILED OUT.


first of all its not constitutional and second its not equality of the law.

How so is it not constitutional?

And stick to my hypothetical which you quoted, and that is the banks.

What would have happened if we gave the banks a middle finger? I could tell you, and it wouldn't be pretty, but I want to see if you can come up with a conclusion.
 
How so is it not constitutional?

And stick to my hypothetical which you quoted, and that is the banks.

What would have happened if we gave the banks a middle finger? I could tell you, and it wouldn't be pretty, but I want to see if you can come up with a conclusion.

do you see banks in the Constitution, do you see bailouts in the Constitution?

so what your saying is banks are protected by government no matter how they run their operations.......they have to show no financial responsibility, because they are going to be taken care at any cost to the people.
 
do you see banks in the Constitution, do you see bailouts in the Constitution?

so what your saying is banks are protected by government no matter how they run their operations.......they have to show no financial responsibility, because they are going to be taken care at any cost to the people.

The constitution is a document aimed at limiting government and giving rights to the people, right?

So is there anything in the constitution that limits government and says that the government cannot, in times of emergency, bail out certain industries and banks?

And the cost to the people would have been multiplied had the banks not been bailed.
 
The constitution is a document aimed at limiting government and giving rights to the people, right?

So is there anything in the constitution that limits government and says that the government cannot, in times of emergency, bail out certain industries and banks?

And the cost to the people would have been multiplied had the banks not been bailed.

the Constitution is a limiting document on the federal government creating federalism.......it does not grant any rights to the people or powers to the states.

since we have federalism, only those powers which are delegated in the Constitution are powers of the federal government , all other powers are RETAINED by the states.


The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
 
So is there anything in the constitution that limits government and says that the government cannot, in times of emergency, bail out certain industries and banks?

That is not how the Constitution works at all. Everything that is listed as a power is something the government has the power to do, while everything that is not they do NOT have the power to do. If they were not given the power to bail out banks then they do not HAVE IT.
 
In California alone, little more than half of a percent of those eligible to vote are registered Libertarians (Google CAs Secretary of State and you can find the Excel spreadsheet to download that testifies so). It's not really changed over the decades. Really, 'nuff said about the "chances" of the LP ever being a player.

The LP has experienced steady and significant growth since it's inception in 1971. Fact Prove me otherwise.

As to your oppositional defiance about women, your tendency to see non-libertarian women as "weak and dependent" is your own issue. So don't go wiping your sh!t onto me.

Wow, talk about deflecting from your misogynist BS. Peg women as dependent, weak voters and then accuse me of saying as such. Your intellectual dishonesty knows no bounds...

With regard to you being a woman and me being a man, that, in your opinion makes me "unqualified" to speak statistically on women, is, of course, pure nonsense. If you truly knew what appeals more to women and what doesn't you'd think twice about saying that the LP appeals to women as much as it does to men, as that's pure and common knowlege BS.

It's not "pure nonsense." You, a man, are attempting to tell a woman how women think. The epitome of ignorance. Stop pretending like you know how we think, what we want, and what we look for in a political party. Because you have no ****ing clue and it shows.

Your assumption that "pro-life" is male and "pro-choice" is female is, of course, preposterous, strongly indicating that you are out of touch with mainstream women.

Poll: More voters, women are turning pro-choice | WashingtonExaminer.com

You see, unlike you, I can back up the claims I make.

The LP has simply not grown "immensely". That's laughable.

The Libertarian Party grew from 4 angry voters in a basement to garnering over a million votes on a national level and having candidates represent us on nationally televised debates. i'd say that's immense growth, wouldn't you say?

The libertarian philosophy is simply an extremist wing philosophy, a schizoid simultaneous left (social) and right (fiscal-economic) plotting on the traditional political spectrum. That's so absurdly extreme that libertarians had to invent their own spectrum ("the political compass") to spin legitimacy.

You literally just admitted we're a centrist party. Tell us how we don't fit again? The political compass was not created by the LP to place itself on a political chart. It was created because one axis was not enough for many voters that hold views outside conventional thought. For example...social conservatives that are socialist. Or economically right social liberals. One axis isn't enough to accurately pin down the views of many people. Hence why alternative charts are pretty popular among those involved in politics outside of the election year(political nerds, so to speak). You can get a decent guess with left/right, but overall charts with with a Y and X axis are more accurate. Has nothing to do with extremism but rather simplicitly.

Sadly, the census does not track specific party affiliation, and state secretaries don't track party affiliation by gender or age, so neither you nor I can prove our assertions about the percentage of women who are members of the Libertarian Party.

Oh, how convienient. Make a grandiose claim that you can't back up. :roll:

But I've done sample polling with women I've known who would seem to identify with libertarianism, and none of them were registered with the Libertarian Party. I think my "less than 10% of registered Libertarians are women" statement is likely true.

Oh, you've done "sample polling." Is that right? :lamo

The Libertarian Party appeals to young, white, single, childless male perspectives on life; the playboy philosophy. That's simply a fact. The reason the Libertarian Party will never be a player is because the young get older and mature, single people get married and love changes perspectives, they then have children, and boy will that change a person's attitude quickly.

You are so full of ****. Some of the most influential libertarian thinkers were, in fact, old. The LP attracts alot of young voters but that is true of any party not stuck in the stone age on social issues. Democrats amd Greens also have a significant youth base. Even the GOP, as it becomes more moderate/libertarian, is also starting to see an increase on popularity among youth. That is until they put up Ken Cuccinelli types that want to make sodomy a felony. That doesn't really help.

We also have a great deal of older men and women as well. In fact, despite our strong youth base, I'd still say most Libertarians are high up there in age. Just look at our candidates. You can't even run for President until you're 35 and we've put up a candidate every year since 1972.

So the Libertarian Party is simply a transition party, which accounts for why today it simply isn't any more or less of a non-player political party than it ever was.

Every party not Republican or Democrat is a "non-player" by your standards. That is because we have a two party system. As far as third parties go, the LP is the biggest and most influential. That is a fact. We came in 3rd place in 2012, have had several candidates represent us in nationally televised debate, have candidates running all over the country, and have a great deal of name recognition these days. That's pretty big for a third party.

60 percent of women, according to Keirsey ("Please Understand Me II") are feelers over thinkers, with men the opposite 60 percent thinkers. This is the only temperament component of the four that shows a gender preference.

So now you are claiming that women disfavor the LP because they are not thinkers.....

Thus women are more apt to be communalists, and would find a "Justicerian" political party appealing.

Meh. Not really.

For a woman to identify with the playboy philosophy is .. noteworthy.

:yawn:

Call the previous national chairman of the whole damn party a "trailblazer" then....

And all the female candidates that ran this year.

And all the female libertarians on this board.

And the first female VP candidate to ever get an electoral vote.

And, and, and, and.....

That's reality, Telekat.

The "reality" you couldn't statistically back up any part of. :coffeepap
 
Last edited:
The LP has experienced steady and significant growth since it's inception in 1971. Fact Prove me otherwise. Wow, talk about deflecting from your misogynist BS. Peg women as dependent, weak voters and then accuse me of saying as such. Your intellectual dishonesty knows no bounds... It's not "pure nonsense." You, a man, are attempting to tell a woman how women think. The epitome of ignorance. Stop pretending like you know how we think, what we want, and what we look for in a political party. Because you have no ****ing clue and it shows. Poll: More voters, women are turning pro-choice | WashingtonExaminer.com You see, unlike you, I can back up the claims I make. The Libertarian Party grew from 4 angry voters in a basement to garnering over a million votes on a national level and having candidates represent us on nationally televised debates. i'd say that's immense growth, wouldn't you say? You literally just admitted we're a centrist party. Tell us how we don't fit again? The political compass was not created by the LP to place itself on a political chart. It was created because one axis was not enough for many voters that hold views outside conventional thought. For example...social conservatives that are socialist. Or economically right social liberals. One axis isn't enough to accurately pin down the views of many people. Hence why alternative charts are pretty popular among those involved in politics outside of the election year(political nerds, so to speak). You can get a decent guess with left/right, but overall charts with with a Y and X axis are more accurate. Has nothing to do with extremism but rather simplicitly. Oh, how convienient. Make a grandiose claim that you can't back up. :roll: Oh, you've done "sample polling." Is that right? :lamo You are so full of ****. Some of the most influential libertarian thinkers were, in fact, old. The LP attracts alot of young voters but that is true of any party not stuck in the stone age on social issues. Democrats amd Greens also have a significant youth base. Even the GOP, as it becomes more moderate/libertarian, is also starting to see an increase on popularity among youth. That is until they put up Ken Cuccinelli types that want to make sodomy a felony. That doesn't really help. We also have a great deal of older men and women as well. In fact, despite our strong youth base, I'd still say most Libertarians are high up there in age. Just look at our candidates. You can't even run for President until you're 35 and we've put up a candidate every year since 1972. Every party not Republican or Democrat is a "non-player" by your standards. That is because we have a two party system. As far as third parties go, the LP is the biggest and most influential. That is a fact. We came in 3rd place in 2012, have had several candidates represent us in nationally televised debate, have candidates running all over the country, and have a great deal of name recognition these days. That's pretty big for a third party. So now you are claiming that women disfavor the LP because they are not thinkers..... Meh. Not really. :yawn: Call the previous national chairman of the whole damn party a "trailblazer" then.... And all the female candidates that ran this year. And all the female libertarians on this board. And the first female VP candidate to ever get an electoral vote. And, and, and, and..... The "reality" you couldn't statistically back up any part of. :coffeepap
:roll:

dlnerrobei

http://www.debatepolitics.com/general-political-discussion/145001-libertarian-abnormal-psychology.html#post1061216315
 
Taking into account the massive resistance by the system against them, I would say they did quite well. Ballot access is an issue. It is tough when the two major opponents have months more of campaigning to do before the libertarian is not even on the ballot yet. Pile onto that lack of large donors like the major parties (not that I want them to get bought off like the other parties) causes a lack of ability to compete in advertising and campaigning. Finally, the media shutting them out of debates, and lack of knowledge all cause these numbers to drop. I think considering all the above, it was a good election for the party.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Cut out the personal sniping, and debate the OP.
 
The libertarian philosophy is simply an extremist wing philosophy, a schizoid simultaneous left (social) and right (fiscal-economic) plotting on the traditional political spectrum. That's so absurdly extreme that libertarians had to invent their own spectrum ("the political compass") to spin legitimacy.

Actually libertarianism is the only ideology of the big three that is actually logical. Modern conservatism is especially illogical. How is small government ideology intrinsically compatible with social conservatism, when the latter implies a strong government role in regulating marriage, reproductive activities, adult media, alcohol and narcotics? And how is small government-fiscal conservatism philosophically compatible with strong militarism and a very aggressive foreign policy, especially when the latter implies loads of bureaucracy and big government spending? The Republican platform is a mash up of three different ideological parties (social conservatives/evangelist, chicken hawks, and fiscal conservatives) who formed an alliance many years ago to defeat Democrats, but the ideologies are very conflicting and incompatible. In the past, socially conservative and nationalistic regimes were always in support of big government, because you need lots of government to control peoples lives and to conduct large scale warfare. These were the monarchist, fascist and communist. Like those groups, Republicans also want war and want to control peoples lives, but want to do it with small government and unrestricted free market capitalism? That is completely "schizoid."
 
Actually libertarianism is the only ideology of the big three that is actually logical. Modern conservatism is especially illogical. How is small government ideology intrinsically compatible with social conservatism, when the latter implies a strong government role in regulating marriage, reproductive activities, adult media, alcohol and narcotics? And how is small government-fiscal conservatism philosophically compatible with strong militarism and a very aggressive foreign policy, especially when the latter implies loads of bureaucracy and big government spending? The Republican platform is a mash up of three different ideological parties (social conservatives/evangelist, chicken hawks, and fiscal conservatives) who formed an alliance many years ago to defeat Democrats, but the ideologies are very conflicting and incompatible. In the past, socially conservative and nationalistic regimes were always in support of big government, because you need lots of government to control peoples lives and to conduct large scale warfare. These were the monarchist, fascist and communist. Like those groups, Republicans also want war and want to control peoples lives, but want to do it with small government and unrestricted free market capitalism? That is completely "schizoid."

The libertarian philosophy is eminently logical... on paper. Where it utterly falls apart is that it doesn't take into account that humans will be involved. Humans are quite illogical.
 
Actually libertarianism is the only ideology of the big three that is actually logical. Modern conservatism is especially illogical. How is small government ideology intrinsically compatible with social conservatism, when the latter implies a strong government role in regulating marriage, reproductive activities, adult media, alcohol and narcotics? And how is small government-fiscal conservatism philosophically compatible with strong militarism and a very aggressive foreign policy, especially when the latter implies loads of bureaucracy and big government spending? The Republican platform is a mash up of three different ideological parties (social conservatives/evangelist, chicken hawks, and fiscal conservatives) who formed an alliance many years ago to defeat Democrats, but the ideologies are very conflicting and incompatible. In the past, socially conservative and nationalistic regimes were always in support of big government, because you need lots of government to control peoples lives and to conduct large scale warfare. These were the monarchist, fascist and communist. Like those groups, Republicans also want war and want to control peoples lives, but want to do it with small government and unrestricted free market capitalism? That is completely "schizoid."
You cognitively distort a conflation about the "size" of government with governing "behaviors" that simply go against libertarian "philosophy". :roll:

Typically, there is a paranoid libertarian reaction to "big bad government" ..

.. Thereby implicating the typical libertarian's unresolved family of origin damage at the hands of personal authority figures which is transferred and displaced onto the libertarian's adult "Authority": government.

Thankfully, libertarianism isn't "catching" .. so it will always be a non-player in American politics, the quintessential acting out behavior of a comparative handful who've yet to get therapy and counseling for childhood problems inflicted at the hands of "authoritarian" parents, teachers, whomever.

Thus, as the OP presents, the Libertarian Party continues to show us nothing, and will continue to do that, just as it has always done in the past.
 
You cognitively distort a conflation about the "size" of government with governing "behaviors" that simply go against libertarian "philosophy". :roll:

Typically, there is a paranoid libertarian reaction to "big bad government" ..

.. Thereby implicating the typical libertarian's unresolved family of origin damage at the hands of personal authority figures which is transferred and displaced onto the libertarian's adult "Authority": government.

Thankfully, libertarianism isn't "catching" .. so it will always be a non-player in American politics, the quintessential acting out behavior of a comparative handful who've yet to get therapy and counseling for childhood problems inflicted at the hands of "authoritarian" parents, teachers, whomever.

Thus, as the OP presents, the Libertarian Party continues to show us nothing, and will continue to do that, just as it has always done in the past.

Arm chair psychology is corny. But for entertainment purposes I'd like to hear you diagnosis of social conservatives in regards to the origins of the jingoism, xenophobia and homophobia. Is the homophobia just projection? Is the need to control others rooted in fear caused by a larger amygdala (as the London study on the conservative brain suggest)? Does the xenophobia and extreme nationalism reflective of the minimal group paradigm or childhood insecurities rejection that manifest into a strong group mentality?
 
I am going to have to go with worse than expected. We can show well that the majority of the nation is unhappy with both Republicans and Democrats, and we can show that even though Congress has a single digit approval rating they also enjoy very high percentage re-election rates. Therefor, Libertarians and all other 3rd parties are doing far worse than they should. But it also tells us very well that ole (D) and (R) have such a strong hold over the political spectrum / process that it is becoming increasingly difficult for a 3rd party to do much about all that contempt.
 
Arm chair psychology is corny. But for entertainment purposes I'd like to hear you diagnosis of social conservatives in regards to the origins of the jingoism, xenophobia and homophobia. Is the homophobia just projection? Is the need to control others rooted in fear caused by a larger amygdala (as the London study on the conservative brain suggest)? Does the xenophobia and extreme nationalism reflective of the minimal group paradigm or childhood insecurities rejection that manifest into a strong group mentality?
If you don't like armchair psychology, you shouldn't engage in it.

Your "jingoism", "xenophobia", and "homophobia" erroneous hyperbole is based on the left-wing social issue ideology's (which includes libertarianism, obviously) over-the-top emotional reaction to the conservative opposition to the left-wing social issue ideology.

Employment of these terms is simply an extremist reaction to disappointment, nothing more.

It's politics as usual between the left and the right.

None of it is to be taken seriously.

It's simply the same old winger-typical heightened emotional response orienting from unresolved family of origin issues transferred and displaced onto the public political arena where the winger acts out his/her past drama in the futile hope of this time creating a different outcome to the original family of origin problem.

Those who employ such epithets simply reveal themselves for who they are.
 
I am going to have to go with worse than expected. We can show well that the majority of the nation is unhappy with both Republicans and Democrats, and we can show that even though Congress has a single digit approval rating they also enjoy very high percentage re-election rates. Therefor, Libertarians and all other 3rd parties are doing far worse than they should. But it also tells us very well that ole (D) and (R) have such a strong hold over the political spectrum / process that it is becoming increasingly difficult for a 3rd party to do much about all that contempt.
Congresspersons get re-elected because while people dislike congress, they like their congressperson.
 
Congresspersons get re-elected because while people dislike congress, they like their congressperson.

Clearly. But the point still stands on overall approval rating, and it suggests a 3rd party should be able to capitalize.
 
Clearly. But the point still stands on overall approval rating, and it suggests a 3rd party should be able to capitalize.
Except that the incumbent is often re-elected, for the mentioned reason, and even if not, 9 times out of 10 the other "big 2" party will pick up the position, because more money to spend (mainly).
 
Who needs Libertarians when you can get pot legalized with a ballot initiative?

You're right, we don't need Libertarians, just libertarian ideas.
 
Libertarian candidates give me a place to put a protest vote for those times when I despise both mainstream options. That's pretty much what it has come down to.

And the two parties will do anything to keep it that way.
 
Back
Top Bottom