I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.

[Hank Chinaski]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hc80xcLio6Y

Trump theme song? (and just won the funk comp here?)

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Um, dude. Your problem is that most Republican voters turn out to be completely uninterested in Libertarian ideas and policies. Just about all of Trump's divergences from the prior orthodoxy move the party away from where you want to be. No one is forcing anyone to vote for Trump -- he destroyed the other candidates in the primary. Trump voters are not interested in being socially tolerant. They want to restore traditional social hierarchies, and they want to use the government to do it. The notion that Trump has somehow opened the door to a GOP that is more open to Libertarian ideas is a delusion. If that's what you tell yourself to make yourself feel better, enjoy the placebo, but if I were a Libertarian, I would be looking to shore things up with the Democrats to try to get a little leverage. The notion that you get leverage from Gary Johnson is silly. The Mormons at least have a clue about how to play this game -- Libertarians, not at all.

Libertarians are a better fit with Democrats. The social positions are much more aligned. And right now, the Democrats are the party of free trade.

But for whatever reason, the Libertarians who've made progress have done so within the GOP. So the most efforts are aimed at expending on those gains.

Ideally, however, Libertarian ideals will infect both parties. And you can see some of that happening already with marijuana and gay marriage. At a state level, you can see it happening with tolerance for gambling as a legitimate industry.

Inevitably, both parties trend somewhat more Libertarian. The nanny state and regulatory state are too expensive to indefinitely run effectively. I think we're too splintered, large, and complex a country to micromanage at the level either party desires. We're in a bit of organizational entropy right now that'll probably accelerate, and as it does, we'll become more and more de facto Libertarian.

And that's a good thing. Because the option is severe state control.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

After Heller, how can anyone screw with the Second Amendment?

If the question's framed properly to create a controversy enticing SCOTUS, what can't be?

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

And you can see some of that happening already with marijuana and gay marriage.

Hold the f up. Your lot doesn't get credit for gay marriage. The gays did that.

At a state level, you can see it happening with tolerance for gambling as a legitimate industry.

You should be so proud.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Libertarians are a better fit with Democrats. The social positions are much more aligned.

Disagree. Libertarians are not interested in setting up the protections required to protect those of us who face discrimination. This argument is in the same vein as those bullshit artist Republicans who say, "I'm socially liberal, but fiscally conservative." No you're not. Because there's no such thing. Whenever it comes down to actually funding support for those social issues you pretend you care about, you're nowhere to be found. And that's because you don't really care about them. All you care about is less taxes.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

But for whatever reason, the Libertarians who've made progress have done so within the GOP. So the most efforts are aimed at expending on those gains.

See above.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Ideally, however, Libertarian ideals will infect both parties. And you can see some of that happening already with marijuana and gay marriage. At a state level, you can see it happening with tolerance for gambling as a legitimate industry.

I think you overstate the impact of what you're deeming "libertarian ideals." People who support (or don't block) gay marriage or marijuana aren't embracing libertarianism. They have (i) evolved into understanding that gay people are people and (ii) figured out that marijuana is no more harmful (and probably much less harmful) than the drugs we take which are currently legal, everyone is doing that shit already, and it is a great source of tax revenue.

TM

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Adder

Hold the f up. Your lot doesn't get credit for gay marriage. The gays did that.

Why won't anyone give Rand Paul credit for the Goodridge Decision?!? Just because he was busy defending Lochner at the time? Or arguing that people ought to be able to deny service at lunch counters because Freedom?!?

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Everyone is doing that shit already.

Wha???

Here is a real nice funky groove to start the week. Reginald Milton and the Soul Jets. Clap Your Hands. "I want you. I need you. Right now." The Daily Dose:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4k4GDdmOl-o

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

It's entirely rational. I want the Libertarian Party to gain a greater voice in politics. Getting Johnson/Weld over 10% nationally will do that. HRC is going to win my state by a landslide, and I am not enthused by her, so a vote for her would be both wasted and the selection of candidate I don't particularly like for no good reason.

The logic of voting for Johnson is entirely rational considering: (1) my goal of enhancing the Libertarian Party's presence in the political discourse; and, (2) there is no risk associated with it. To vote for HRC or Trump would be illogical and indefensible given my views and objectives.

What you are really saying is, I think, "Libertarians are never going to win the White House, and voting for one is foolish." I understand that pragmatic reasoning. But you also understand you're missing the point. I don't expect Libertarians to win. I expect them to get more coverage, and their views to become more mainstreamed into the political discourse. As they become a more traditional voice in politics, their views and policies will inform the political platforms of the two entrenched parties.

It's a variant of what Bernie did -- converting positions previously considered within the "sphere of deviancy" into acceptable, debatable policy. Voting for Johnson couldn't be more rational for me.

Sebastian, I am probably the one person here most receptive to your third-party candidate arguments. But the more I learn about Johnson (thanks, John Oliver), the more I realize how flawed these arguments are in this instance. Don't get me wrong, I would be fine sitting down for a bong-fest with the dude if he promises not to grab any Everest pussy. But a vote for Johnson is not going to create some energy behind core Libertarian values because Johnson is so incredibly fucking stupid and uninformed that you would likely be doing more to advance the Libertarian agenda writing in "Libertarian Q. McLibertarian" than if you voted for Johnson. I don't know you but I know you are too smart to vote for this ridiculous human. Please don't prove me wrong.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

Sebastian, I am probably the one person here most receptive to your third-party candidate arguments. But the more I learn about Johnson (thanks, John Oliver), the more I realize how flawed these arguments are in this instance. Don't get me wrong, I would be fine sitting down for a bong-fest with the dude if he promises not to grab any Everest pussy. But a vote for Johnson is not going to create some energy behind core Libertarian values because Johnson is so incredibly fucking stupid and uninformed that you would likely be doing more to advance the Libertarian agenda writing in "Libertarian Q. McLibertarian" than if you voted for Johnson. I don't know you but I know you are too smart to vote for this ridiculous human. Please don't prove me wrong.

Also, have you heard Savoy Motel? I think you might dig them:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fiXj6bo99iY

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

Also, have you heard Savoy Motel? I think you might dig them:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fiXj6bo99iY

Stop this. When you respond to your own posts and start talking to yourself I have an immediate urge to start posting a lot of "low hanging fruit" style jokes. I'm sitting here like Adam, fruit in front of me, trying to resist....

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

So much irony. So little time.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Stop this. When you respond to your own posts and start talking to yourself I have an immediate urge to start posting a lot of "low hanging fruit" style jokes. I'm sitting here like Adam, fruit in front of me, trying to resist....

I don't get why people always talk about low hanging fruit as if it is a bad thing. Low hanging fruit is easier to reach and just as delicious as high hanging fruit. End. Of. Argument.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

Also, have you heard Savoy Motel? I think you might dig them:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fiXj6bo99iY

Couple of thoughts,

Not Bob will probably dig this cuz of the hot chicks being featured- BUT not in an explicit way, they seem a really evolved band. Good for them!

Me, I think all left handed guitar players should play a right handed guitar, but I'm old, and ambidextrous.

But 2 as to Sebby liking the band- NO HORNS HA HA HA HA!!!!!

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

So much irony. So little time.

one of my Tea Party FB "friends" just posted that he hopes President Trump prosecutes "all the criminal Politicians." I resisted the urge, but boy oh boy, that was not easy.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

I don't get why people always talk about low hanging fruit as if it is a bad thing. Low hanging fruit is easier to reach and just as delicious as high hanging fruit. End. Of. Argument.

If you're a giraffe, low hanging fruit is a real pain in the neck.

TM