Johnson just lost my vote with his Anti 2A VP choice

[T.Lex]

Fundamental flaw of libertarianism is in not understanding that to implement their goals it will require a iron fist approach. Yes, you will have to force people to be free before you can walk away and let nature run its course.

Shutting down social security is not something that would happen quietly nor easily.

More freedom most certainly can be the end result, but the temporary means to get there isn't going to feel good.

You just expressed in your statement exactly why I said what I said. The majority will not vote for freedom, they do not want it and will actively fight against it. The only way to implement it is to forcibly rip away the chains.

People will always vote for safety over liberty.

I think Tombs is right. (Seriously.)

Freedom is scary. Liberty is dangerous. (And I'm not just talking Liberty Sanders.) With more freedom comes less safety net, more chance of ending up in really bad shape.

Rather than that being a motivating factor, pushing people not to mess up, generational decision to provide a gov't safety net have caused ordinary Americans to expect that safety net. Then, to expect more of it.

I don't think an "iron fist" is the right analogy. It is more like kicking a fledgling bird out of the nest so it can fly. Yes, it is a cold decision, but necessary for that bird to grow.

It doesn't take an iron fist to force people not to take social security. That doesn't make sense. You just take social security away. I'm not saying that's a good starting point - it isn't. Its a terrible starting point. But, we can probably start with some of the cheaper, more narrowly focused assistance programs to scale back. Incrementalism.

(Plus, GenX and younger aren't even counting on social security anyway.)

 

[Twangbanger]

Weld isn't a good picture of what a libertarian is but I do like the attempt to move towards the mainstream. As has been so graciously pointed out over and over the libertarians aren't going to win this election so we're in no danger of Weld making those decisions. However if Weld draws a lot of media and attention to the libertarians I think that can only be a good thing going forward.

As has been pointed out, the internal debate within the party has been whether to moderate the platform to bring in more members or keep it ideologically pure. I used to be for the latter but Im liking Johnsons approach more and more.

One good thing about libertarians not being elected to office is that those who run under the banner tend to be honest and straight forward. For the most part they aren't in it for personal political gain so their honest beliefs tend to be known.
Unlike certain self serving candidates of the mainstream parties of whom you're only ever trying to guess which issues they're lying to you on.

A "move to the mainstream" is one possible way of spinning this. But Weld is a sort of "blast from the past" that probably not one in fifty people have heard of, and from a state whose candidates tend not to play well in front of national audiences.

I wonder if a more accurate interpretation wouldn't be: "Getting the financial support of the Koch Brothers comes at a price." And a flag-flying CFR member as VP is the down-payment.

 

[IndyDave1776]

(Plus, GenX and younger aren't even counting on social security anyway.)

I am not counting on it either. The problem is that after past raids and the conversion from an investment fund to part of the general fund with people collecting receiving from the money being paid in by today's earners, rather than as a return on investment, how do you fairly deal with the people who have paid in and did not have funds available for their own retirement preparations by virtue of those funds having been forcibly taken?

Social Security is unconstitutional and should not exist, but then again, how do you deal with the above? At one time, I might have said that those involved should not have been asleep at the switch when the theft occurred that emptied the trust fund, or when Roosevelt hatched the idea, among others. Then again, the same could be said of us regarding the Kenyan and Obamacare. Then, you have to consider that most of those to whom this issue applies are already dead and those left holding the bag did not have a choice in it.

Under those circumstances, coupled with the unsustainability of that program, I don't see any way it can end well.

A "move to the mainstream" is one possible way of spinning this. But Weld is a sort of "blast from the past" that probably not one in fifty people have heard of, and from a state whose candidates tend not to play well in front of national audiences.

I wonder if a more accurate interpretation wouldn't be: "Getting the financial support of the Koch Brothers comes at a price." And a flag-flying CFR member as VP is the down-payment.

This sounds like a very good appraisal of the situation. Weld not only is an establishment hack, he is a dumbass who needs run out of the country on a pine rail.

Here is his latest:

Gary Johnson 'absolutely' stands by Weld's Holocaust reference to Trump plan - CNNPolitics.com

So, Trump's unwillingness to admit people who are high risks for terrorism on the honor system makes him a Nazi?

Oh, damn, I almost forgot that the LP supports open borders. Sure doesn't sound like they intend to work for us.

 

[Jludo]

.

Here is his latest:

Gary Johnson 'absolutely' stands by Weld's Holocaust reference to Trump plan - CNNPolitics.com

So, Trump's unwillingness to admit people who are high risks for terrorism on the honor system makes him a Nazi?

Oh, damn, I almost forgot that the LP supports open borders. Sure doesn't sound like they intend to work for us.

I'm not sure if you saw the statement or not but its in reference to rounding up and deporting millions of people.

 

[Jludo]

A "move to the mainstream" is one possible way of spinning this. But Weld is a sort of "blast from the past" that probably not one in fifty people have heard of, and from a state whose candidates tend not to play well in front of national audiences.

I wonder if a more accurate interpretation wouldn't be: "Getting the financial support of the Koch Brothers comes at a price." And a flag-flying CFR member as VP is the down-payment.

I'm confused as to whether the Kochs know libertarians are unelectable and are throwing their money away or are bent on turning the libertarians into a viable 3rd establishment party of hacks?
Or, even crazier, the Koch brothers might not even be involved?

 

[IndyDave1776]

I'm not sure if you saw the statement or not but its in reference to rounding up and deporting millions of people.

OK, I am going to have to stop reading too many things at the same time! We moved back to illegals. So then, I fail to see the problem. If I burgle your house and make it to the curb with your belongings, you wouldn't say that I cleared the property line, so I'm good to go with official blessing. Likewise, I fail to see the problem with deporting people who shouldn't be here in the first place.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I'm confused as to whether the Kochs know libertarians are unelectable and are throwing their money away or are bent on turning the libertarians into a viable 3rd establishment party of hacks?
Or, even crazier, the Koch brothers might not even be involved?

I see potential for a two-way chance at winning for them: Between Trump and Hillary, Hillary is already a wholly-owned subsidiary of the establishment, Trump is not, and the Libertarians could be with proper handling and appeal to the right weak spots for temptation.

By throwing down enough money to put Johnson on the map and take a multiple-percentage share of the vote in the general election, there is a realistic chance of taking an election away from Trump that he would otherwise have won, putting Hillary in office, hence securing the government in establishment hands. It probably won't happen this time, but by putting the LP on the map while sinking the tentacles into it, a replacement establishment party could be manufactured out of a far less distressing raw material. A name implying the exact opposite would have a remarkably sinister similarity with the self-contradictory name of the Institutional Revolutionary Party which ruled Mexico for generations.

 

[Jludo]

OK, I am going to have to stop reading too many things at the same time! We moved back to illegals. So then, I fail to see the problem. If I burgle your house and make it to the curb with your belongings, you wouldn't say that I cleared the property line, so I'm good to go with official blessing. Likewise, I fail to see the problem with deporting people who shouldn't be here in the first place.

You can see the problem with sending police into Hispanic sections of towns going door to door rounding up families to the scale of millions of people though can't you?

 

[IndyDave1776]

You can see the problem with sending police into Hispanic sections of towns going door to door rounding up families to the scale of millions of people though can't you?

First, it isn't just Hispanics. I am against illegal entry, be the invaders Mexican or Canadian, British, French, or Icelandic.

Second, I really don't think that door-kicking block parties hosted by the police are necessary. Locating illegals isn't that difficult if you really want to find them. The problem is that no one other than those hiring them seem to want to find them.

 

[chipbennett]

I am not counting on it either. The problem is that after past raids and the conversion from an investment fund to part of the general fund with people collecting receiving from the money being paid in by today's earners, rather than as a return on investment, how do you fairly deal with the people who have paid in and did not have funds available for their own retirement preparations by virtue of those funds having been forcibly taken?

Social Security is unconstitutional and should not exist, but then again, how do you deal with the above? At one time, I might have said that those involved should not have been asleep at the switch when the theft occurred that emptied the trust fund, or when Roosevelt hatched the idea, among others. Then again, the same could be said of us regarding the Kenyan and Obamacare. Then, you have to consider that most of those to whom this issue applies are already dead and those left holding the bag did not have a choice in it.

I don't know how to solve the problem, but I do know that it is morally wrong to a) force me to contribute to the system against my will, b) force me to pay for those who previously paid into the system, voluntarily or by force, and c) to guilt-trip me by implying that I bear some responsibility for the problem.

Social Security isn't my problem. I didn't create it. I don't want it. I am forced to contribute to it against my will. And I'll never see a penny of what I contribute. It is nothing more than a legalized Ponzi scheme of wealth redistribution.

So, I really couldn't care less how it ends.

 

[chipbennett]

You can see the problem with sending police into Hispanic sections of towns going door to door rounding up families to the scale of millions of people though can't you?

Why are we under the assumption that what you describe is the only way to carry out lawful deportation of illegal aliens?

 

[Jludo]

First, it isn't just Hispanics. I am against illegal entry, be the invaders Mexican or Canadian, British, French, or Icelandic.

Second, I really don't think that door-kicking block parties hosted by the police are necessary. Locating illegals isn't that difficult if you really want to find them. The problem is that no one other than those hiring them seem to want to find them.

I don't think we should pretend we're talking icelandic immigrants.
Locating illegals, I'm sure you're right, wouldn't be terribly difficult, it's the enforcement that's the issue. I can just see the downhill spiral, a family refusing to leave, violence erupting, police turning towards their 'safer' no knock night raids to mitigate risk to office safety.

 

[nate77]

I don't think we should pretend we're talking icelandic immigrants.
Locating illegals, I'm sure you're right, wouldn't be terribly difficult, it's the enforcement that's the issue. I can just see the downhill spiral, a family refusing to leave, violence erupting, police turning towards their 'safer' no knock night raids to mitigate risk to office safety.

It's not rocket science, no green card equals no jobs, no government benefits, no education, no medical care, no driver license; deportation will take care of its self.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I don't know how to solve the problem, but I do know that it is morally wrong to a) force me to contribute to the system against my will, b) force me to pay for those who previously paid into the system, voluntarily or by force, and c) to guilt-trip me by implying that I bear some responsibility for the problem.

Social Security isn't my problem. I didn't create it. I don't want it. I am forced to contribute to it against my will. And I'll never see a penny of what I contribute. It is nothing more than a legalized Ponzi scheme of wealth redistribution.

So, I really couldn't care less how it ends.

 

[Robert Richardson]

He never had mine

 

[Twangbanger]

I'm confused as to whether the Kochs know libertarians are unelectable and are throwing their money away or are bent on turning the libertarians into a viable 3rd establishment party of hacks?
Or, even crazier, the Koch brothers might not even be involved?

I saw a story just last week, that the Koch Brothers have become disillusioned with the effectiveness of their past donations, and have now settled on the approach of pledging financial support for Gary Johnson.

William Weld is such an inexplicable VP pick, it really makes one wonder: why? Is it that, with Trump populism running amok for now, the Koch-globalists have deemed the GOP out of reach for their policy aims? Do they now see buying the Libertarian Party as preferable to buying the GOP? Is Johnson/Weld now seen as a more reliable method for achieving Mitt Romney's goal of a 3rd candidate to ensure Trump's defeat?

It is troubling to consider the Libertarian Party might now be the primary stalking horse for advancing CFR Globalism in America.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I don't think we should pretend we're talking icelandic immigrants.
...

The point isn't that we're talking about Icelandic immigrants. The problem is that we're talking about unlawful trespassers, and whether their skin is brown or black or purple polka dots is immaterial. The important point is that they are breaking the law just by being here and the only way to change that is either to change the law or remove them.

Changing the law is not the solution, any more than it would be to saying that someone entering the store down on the corner with a shotgun and robbing the place because they had what he wanted is the solution to robbery. A harm is done, a real, demonstrable loss is evident.

This is where "justice is blind" comes into play. It doesn't matter the color of their skin or the amount of money in the bank, only the actions they've performed. Or at least, that's what "justice" is supposed to be.

That a majority of those unlawful trespassers happen to have come across the Southern border is coincidental, and is only used to cloud the issue and shame those who think American benefits should be for Americans.

And for the record, as I unequivocally describe myself as a small-L libertarian, no, I don't favor arbitrary borders. I favor the removal of incentives for those who just can't see their way clear to fit into a society, rather than to break into it.



Blessings,
Bill

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I don't think we should pretend we're talking icelandic immigrants.
Locating illegals, I'm sure you're right, wouldn't be terribly difficult, it's the enforcement that's the issue. I can just see the downhill spiral, a family refusing to leave, violence erupting, police turning towards their 'safer' no knock night raids to mitigate risk to office safety.

LOLWUT.

I could have sent back a dozen a week if ICE wanted them just from traffic stops. Calling ICE that you've got an illegal is like calling ISP to report a motorist doing 60 mph on I-465.

 

[Bill of Rights]

LOLWUT.

I could have sent back a dozen a week if ICE wanted them just from traffic stops. Calling ICE that you've got an illegal is like calling ISP to report a motorist doing 60 mph on I-465.

I don't know why, but this reminds me of stampeding cattle.


Through the Vatican.

 

[chipbennett]

LOLWUT.

I could have sent back a dozen a week if ICE wanted them just from traffic stops. Calling ICE that you've got an illegal is like calling ISP to report a motorist doing 60 mph on I-465.

This.

There's no need to go door-to-door, jackboot style. Start with vehicular citations, crash reports, crimes, hospital visits/ambulance calls, other social service uses, etc. Then, cut off all access to such services. Then go after employers paying illegals under the table. Put men with guns (with real, lead bullets) on the border, and aggressively monitor crossing attempts.