2016 Election Thread

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I'd like their chances better if they had a charismatic candidate. Johnson just isn't it.

True, but from what I know of the man, he's relatively moderate in his views.

 

If the Libertarian Party is *ever* going to be a force in American politics, they need to reel in their viewpoints and head toward the center. Basically, they need to become the pre-Southern Strategy Republican Party.

 

Until that happens, they'll always be a fringe element. There are things to like about their platform but it's too radical to ever go mainstream.

 

It's one of the things about third party advocates that make me chuckle. They want their party to gain traction but refuse to compromise their viewpoints at all, ensuring the party never goes mainstream.

[TheLeviathan]

I generally like Johnson in terms of what he believes, but they need someone to grab attention and build on it.  I'm not sure he's the guy for that.

[DaveW]

If the Libertarian party ever wants to be taken seriously they need to figure out how to reach other bases besides the White male base.

[TheLeviathan]

 

If the Libertarian party ever wants to be taken seriously they need to figure out how to reach other bases besides the White male base.

 

Step one for that is just getting their real message out there instead of guys like Cruz co-opting the name.  This is their chance to do that.

[Squirrel]

 

 

 

It's one of the things about third party advocates that make me chuckle. They want their party to gain traction but refuse to compromise their viewpoints at all, ensuring the party never goes mainstream.

It's more than that ... I never hear much about or from third parties except during presidential elections. If a large enough group really feels they want better representation, they need to be active, really active, in ALL elections, from the smallest to the largest. I understand that presidential elections give third party participants a larger stage, but in-roads will only be made if they build from a smaller level up. Until our two-party system changes, and it won't until there is more reason for it to other than people expressing dissatisfaction, third parties will not have a chance on a national level. Identify good candidates, get them into a large city government situation, or a county, and work up to state levels. It won't happen starting at the top.

 

I am ALWAYS looking for alternatives in Chicago elections, and there never seem to be good candidates, so Rahm gets elected, twice. And the way elections work in the city of Chicago, parties don't really matter; if a really good third party candidate would present themselves, it would be very interesting.

[TheLeviathan]

Chi....the two parties basically have a vice grip on the smaller elections.  Without their endorsement or backing, you don't go anywhere.

 

I agree with you in principle, but our system has basically made inroads impossible at all levels.  Look what it took in Minnesota to get a third party involved and even then Jesse had to basically go full pro-wrestling to get there.

[Mike Sixel]

I might vote Libertarian this year. While I don't agree with all their platform......I do agree with much of it.

[Squirrel]

 

Chi....the two parties basically have a vice grip on the smaller elections.  Without their endorsement or backing, you don't go anywhere.

 

I agree with you in principle, but our system has basically made inroads impossible at all levels.  Look what it took in Minnesota to get a third party involved and even then Jesse had to basically go full pro-wrestling to get there.

Not so ... not in Chicago elections. It's possible, very possible, for 3rd party candidates to work their way in in smaller elections and build a following and branch from there. Congress has not one iota of incentive to change how it works until people force their hand ... and that won't happen on a national level until large inroads are already in place.

 

In Chicago, it's not party sponsored. Anyone who wants to run, meets the qualifications, gets the signatures required, is on the ballot. However many people are on the ballot and they aren't designated by parties in the way it's done for all other elections, there are no primaries and the 'best' of each party runs in the final. It's an open field. If a candidate wins more than 50%, they are elected. If no one gets 50% of the vote, the top two vote-getters face off in a run-off election. While yes, in Chicago, the word 'Democrat' by your name holds a lot of sway, but a third party could really run an effective and successful campaign here.

[TheLeviathan]

No libertarian stands a chance in Chicago.  Hell, most people who aren't beholden to labor unions are a lost cause.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

No libertarian stands a chance in Chicago.  Hell, most people who aren't beholden to labor unions are a lost cause.

Chicago, no... But it'd be interesting to see what a strong Libertarian presence could do in Utah or Idaho or any other state with a large Mormon population.

 

I lived in Utah for four years and still have a few friends living in the area. They've become disenchanted with the GOP in recent years and I think Trump has pushed many Mormons over the edge. They don't even seem to like GOP "leaders" such as Cruz, they merely tolerate him.

 

The Mormon church has come out hard in favor of refugee asylum and the Mormon population, many having served Missions abroad, doesn't fear the Outsider as many other Christians do (also because Mormons *are* outsiders).

 

A conservative party that isn't hung up on some of the worst GOP talking points could make inroads into those areas.

[TheLeviathan]

I think those states and places like Minnesota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, etc. are also good places.  Basically, the "purple" states.

[PseudoSABR]

What does the Libertarian Party offer that you guys like?  I get the personal liberty and foreign policy, but their economic/regulatory policy is as bad or worse than the Republicans; it's basically neoliberalism on speed.  Their stances on the environment, healthcare, education, labor, social-safety nets etc. are all abysmal.   You can check out their platform here.  

[Brock Beauchamp]

What does the Libertarian Party offer that you guys like? I get the personal liberty and foreign policy, but their economic/regulatory policy is as bad or worse than the Republicans; it's basically neoliberalism on speed. Their stances on the environment, healthcare, education, labor, social-safety nets etc. are all abysmal. You can check out their platform here.

There's a reason I'm no longer Libertarian. We got a taste of deregulation and it crashed the world economy. The fact people still buy into that line of economic thought is... Unsettling.

 

If the 2008 crash didn't teach everyone a lesson, I don't know what will.

[Squirrel]

 

No libertarian stands a chance in Chicago.  Hell, most people who aren't beholden to labor unions are a lost cause.

Well, no, but by third party I was thinking maybe the Green Party or Socialist Party could in Chicago.

[Mike Sixel]

 

What does the Libertarian Party offer that you guys like?  I get the personal liberty and foreign policy, but their economic/regulatory policy is as bad or worse than the Republicans; it's basically neoliberalism on speed.  Their stances on the environment, healthcare, education, labor, social-safety nets etc. are all abysmal.   You can check out their platform here.  

 

Mostly that it is not either of the two major parties. Ya, you are right, I won't end up voting that way.

 

btw, today is national flip flop day, I think it's supposed to be about the things on your feet, but I like to think of it as national Hillary day....

[Squirrel]

 

 

 

btw, today is national flip flop day, I think it's supposed to be about the things on your feet, but I like to think of it as national Hillary day....

Wrong thread, Mike. And from me you get an eyeroll ... but friendly-like.

[Craig Arko]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1zREZk6AU4

[Willihammer]

There are a few issues that divide R and D members- pot, gays, prison, guns maybe, those are probably the biggest. For a third party to really hold there will need to be a critical mass of pet issues that force R's and D's to caucus together. I don't think we're particularly close yet.

 

No reason to put anything but an R or D by your name at the local level, if you put any letter at all.

[TheLeviathan]

 

What does the Libertarian Party offer that you guys like?  I get the personal liberty and foreign policy, but their economic/regulatory policy is as bad or worse than the Republicans; it's basically neoliberalism on speed.  Their stances on the environment, healthcare, education, labor, social-safety nets etc. are all abysmal.   You can check out their platform here.  

 

Libertarian is a wide net, the actual party isn't one I support necessarily.  What I support is simple: personal liberty and smart, responsible government.  

 

I want a party that will cut the military spending.  I want a party that will allow gays to marry, drugs to be decriminalized, and abortion laws to stay flexible for women who need them.  I want a party that says "college is getting hard for some to afford" and crafts good policy.  Not just throws money at it.  I want a party that will roll back or presence around the world.  I want a party that will simplify taxes and make it more equitable for all.  

 

Basically, I want a party that doesn't make me slap my forehead constantly.

[Squirrel]

 

Libertarian is a wide net, the actual party isn't one I support necessarily.  What I support is simple: personal liberty and smart, responsible government.  

 

I want a party that will cut the military spending.  I want a party that will allow gays to marry, drugs to be decriminalized, and abortion laws to stay flexible for women who need them.  I want a party that says "college is getting hard for some to afford" and crafts good policy.  Not just throws money at it.  I want a party that will roll back or presence around the world.  I want a party that will simplify taxes and make it more equitable for all.  

 

Basically, I want a party that doesn't make me slap my forehead constantly.

Then I think what you are seeking is a party yet-to-be named.

[mikecgrimes]

 

Find me one politician or reputable liberal or even a poster on this board who has advocated for a total ban of guns. No one thinks that, only in right-wing nightmares.  It's all kinds of wrong to guess what is actually in people's hearts, especially when it betrays what they actually tell you. 

4 years ago I couldn't find you one person who was open and honest about ObamaCare.  We didn't need Johnathan Gruber to tell us what was actually going on but we were still called paranoid back then.  Gruber made clear why Democrats do things the way they do.  They can't even get a vote on this issue for good reason.  Terms like "common sense" and "things we all agree on" aren't going to work because we are aware how the game is played and what the desired end result is.  Sorry, maybe if the Democrats had no history of playing dirty we could give a little on this issue but we can't.  By the way it's politics so I can respect playing dirty.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

 

No one cried about any rights being taken away, and anyone who has attempted to use "more intrusive" search techniques as a free pass to commit criminal acts upon travelers has been severely punished.

 

 

 

No offense, but if you believe the first part of your statement you weren't paying attention.  I'm not so certain the second part is true either, but that' a bit harder to prove. 

 

People to this day are upset about how the government handled this, not to mention the federalization of airline security as a nice handout to the industry who had to fund it prior... and if you think the TSA is well run, efficient, and even remotely good at what it does.... well, I cannot help you.  They maintain the allusion of security... and it's just that, an allusion. 

 

Gun control by the way isn't much different.  In my limited understanding of human sociology, I've discovered one fundamental truth... Criminals break the law.  I'm being a bit sarcastic here, but the reality is that no gun law is going to prevent someone from getting machine gun.  It may make it harder, but it won't make it impossible.  Any gun regulation falls into that as it will be the law abiding citizens who end up without guns and will have no option but to hide when seconds matter and the government is minutes away.  There are, on estimate 192 million guns in the US.  They aren't going anywhere, and making them harder to obtain will create a black market that will eventually see the transfer of these weapons out of the hands of those who should have them and into the hands of those who shouldn't.  Let's stop putting whitewash up on our crumbling walls.  Gun control isn't the answer here.  It may make people feel better, but it won't stop these events.  If anything, it will create a greater target rich environment for them. 

[Mike Sixel]

 

No offense, but if you believe the first part of your statement you weren't paying attention.  I'm not so certain the second part is true either, but that' a bit harder to prove. 

 

People to this day are upset about how the government handled this, not to mention the federalization of airline security as a nice handout to the industry who had to fund it prior... and if you think the TSA is well run, efficient, and even remotely good at what it does.... well, I cannot help you.  They maintain the allusion of security... and it's just that, an allusion. 

 

Gun control by the way isn't much different.  In my limited understanding of human sociology, I've discovered one fundamental truth... Criminals break the law.  I'm being a bit sarcastic here, but the reality is that no gun law is going to prevent someone from getting machine gun.  It may make it harder, but it won't make it impossible.  Any gun regulation falls into that as it will be the law abiding citizens who end up without guns and will have no option but to hide when seconds matter and the government is minutes away.  There are, on estimate 192 million guns in the US.  They aren't going anywhere, and making them harder to obtain will create a black market that will eventually see the transfer of these weapons out of the hands of those who should have them and into the hands of those who shouldn't.  Let's stop putting whitewash up on our crumbling walls.  Gun control isn't the answer here.  It may make people feel better, but it won't stop these events.  If anything, it will create a greater target rich environment for them. 

 

What is? doing nothing? Because the VAST majority of gun deaths have nothing to do with religion or terror. What is the answer?

[PseudoSABR]

 

4 years ago I couldn't find you one person who was open and honest about ObamaCare.  We didn't need Johnathan Gruber to tell us what was actually going on but we were still called paranoid back then.  Gruber made clear why Democrats do things the way they do.  They can't even get a vote on this issue for good reason.  Terms like "common sense" and "things we all agree on" aren't going to work because we are aware how the game is played and what the desired end result is.  Sorry, maybe if the Democrats had no history of playing dirty we could give a little on this issue but we can't.  By the way it's politics so I can respect playing dirty.

I have no idea what you are talking about.  Liberals want single-payer heath care, and openly admit it.  We got ObamaCare b/c of compromise and corporate interests.   No one secretly wants to take your guns, and the ObamaCare debate certainly doesn't prove that liberals or Democrats have some secret dark-hearted agenda.  It's just right-wing paranoia and it's crippling the government. 

 

The notion that a controlling party shouldn't allow a vote if they won't like the results is anti-democratic any way you slice it. 

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

I generally like Johnson in terms of what he believes, but they need someone to grab attention and build on it.  I'm not sure he's the guy for that.

 

I agree that helps, but the problem is that we find ourselves looking at qualities that have nothing to do with whether or not the candidate will do a decent job in the WH.  Sorry, but I don't think either Hillary or Trump is good for this nation.  Johnson may not have charisma, but he's at least talking to the country's problems with solutions that will actually work.  Trump and Hillary are more of the same.  People have to get beyond that as the Reps/Dems are two wings of the same bird flying straight into the ground.

[Willihammer]

15 years of TSA "security" is proof the terrorists won on 9/11. They aren't even good at what they do. Audits show them failing to detect mock explosives constantly. I'm not entirely sure why the skies have been safe since 9/11, but I think we can safely say the costs outweigh the benefits as far as the freaking TSA imposing on people's privacy / time / freedom goes.

[Mike Sixel]

I don't think Trump is more of the same....not even close. Hillary? Yes, she's more of the same. Of course, the last 8 years have been pretty good for a lot of the country....so that might not be the end of the world like some are predicting.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

Chi....the two parties basically have a vice grip on the smaller elections.  Without their endorsement or backing, you don't go anywhere.

 

I agree with you in principle, but our system has basically made inroads impossible at all levels.  Look what it took in Minnesota to get a third party involved and even then Jesse had to basically go full pro-wrestling to get there.

 

Yeah, this whole system needs to change.  Reps and Dems get federal matching funds.  The press is allowed to exclude them from the debates despite it being mathematically possible for them to win.  What really needs to happen is even up the playing fields:

• No federal matching funds to any party.
• Candidates appearance in the debates should only be contingent on whether or not it's possible for said candidate to acquire the necessary electoral votes (oh yeah, and they all get a chance to answer the same questions, not "what do you think of the color blue?" type questions that someone designated as a long shot gets.
• Corporations and PACs should be treated and capped in the same way an individual is in terms of their donations. 

That right there would give 3rd parties a fair chance... and it is quite honestly embarrassing that our country allows the contrary. This is nothing short of legalized vote tampering. 

[mikecgrimes]

 

Johnson will need to hit a 15 percent polling average to qualify for debates (I'm not sure how this works exactly, what polls, by what date, etc.).  I think the libertarian the rational conservative, and the conservative women  vote will stick to Trump regardless whether there's a third-party candidate in the debates.  I tend to think the more time Trump can talk the worse it is for him, so adding another person to the debate will limit Trump's risk/exposure.  

 

The problem with third party candidates usually is it limits the potential votes to people that like to reject candidates.  This year might be different because a much more reasonable person could easily reject both Clinton and Trump.  I'll wait until after the convention to worry about what I'm doing but as much as I would want the punish Republicans with a Clinton vote that probably can't happen meaning Johnson will easily get my vote.  I was hopeful I was done voting third party again and still am hopeful I can vote for Scott Walker or Ted Cruz on the Republican ballot line.  By the way saw a poll today with Trump at 29, most polls have him in the 36 to 38 range, so Johnson won't have a ton to get into this contest with or without the debates.  Clinton's poll numbers are also remarkably low considering she should have over 60% of the vote to work with.  This is not a normal election, I wish the alternative was better then Johnson but he might play better with the masses.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

There's a reason I'm no longer Libertarian. We got a taste of deregulation and it crashed the world economy. The fact people still buy into that line of economic thought is... Unsettling.

If the 2008 crash didn't teach everyone a lesson, I don't know what will.

 

Not every libertarian is a full deregulation fan.  I think most of us just recognize that most regulations don't accomplish what they should and that they are better left off in state or local areas, something that Republicans used to stand for.

 

2008 could have been prevented by not repealing the Glass-Steagle act, which I might add falls under that whole inter-state commerce thing that the federal government is granted authority.  It could also have been prevented if the government would actually go after people who commit financial crimes instead of bailing them out, but this something that died long before 2008, and it's why the elite continue to do the same things that caused 2008, and its why another 2008 is not far away.  As a whole, there have been more laws, not less.