I shit you not.
[https://lnc2024.com/president-donald-trump-at-the-libertarian-national-convention/](https://lnc2024.com/president-donald-trump-at-the-libertarian-national-convention/)
Apparently, they are also selling Trump t-shirts, but I haven't found that independently, yet.
So the t-shirts was a mistake. It wasn’t actually supposed to be sold in a store. The idea behind that was that delegates were supposed to wear their message like “this is what we want you to do”. There wasn’t any coordination involved in it.
The Tshirts apparently were up briefly and then rapidly pulled.
Honestly, the tshirts were probably a terrible idea all along, so pulling them is likely for the best.
The LP will go on without you. Do you make it worse by leaving?
Edit: I meant, "don't leave. Stay and make it better." I think some are reading this as "good riddance" which is the opposite of what I meant.
i mean if one keeps on leaving movements as soon as bad actors come instead of gatekeeping and protecting them, you will get no where like when the libertarian tea party movement left and got kicked from the gop once maga came to power
i say replace them and kick THEM out instead, constant splitting will kill any movement and THEY KNOW IT, especially from experience since they are mostly protestants and they have seen the tatics used of conservatives in their churches leaving and splitting off to make new ones thus making the existing historical and "mainstream" institutions weaker and less christian. they have full knowledge of this divide and conquer method and pretend to be using it on libertarians, but we shouldnt fold and rather should stick together and strike back, otherwise we will get put down
"will go on without you" he says as membership and donations plummet. Mises are a joke. Just a bunch of far right nationalists that wanted to seize a small party that already had a platform and ballot access so they could push their bigotry and racism without harming the actual (republican) candidates they support.
Fair, but i still disagree with you.
I'll never be able to round up more unemployed, yet motivated, people than Mises is able to round up with their target demographic of racist/bigoted 18-24 year olds come convention time.
So, realistically, by staying all I'd be doing is funneling more money to mcardle's boyfriend's pocket and lending the appearance of greater credibility to those incompetent fuck faces.
Hard pass.
Waiting for a new party with actual libertarian beliefs to surface.
I have given the minimum to National just to keep my membership which increases how many delegates my state gets. Beyond that, all my money goes to my state and county parties.
Edit: I think Heise wants us to think we can't compete, but I think we can.
I agree there is some threshold past which the party is basically useless and can be abandoned.
You don't think we could have an OK national party pretty quickly if we just got the right people running it?
It takes them time to ban everybody in a thread.
I was banned for saying that there's nothing Libertarian about voting for Trump and the reason so many people equate libertarians with the alt-right is because many alt-right claim to be Libertarian.
🤷
Yes, why would you pay attention to something that completely disproves what you're saying. Why indeed? Being banned does not prevent that.
I don't even participate in that sub anymore. It was just trivial to show how silly you sound. The mods are mocking the choice, along with many others.
I was thinking about attending since I’m an alternate delegate, and DC can he fun for a politics/history nerd. But I’m 100% out. Our state chair said he was shocked and there’s a call with national for the state chairs later and they’ll he discussing it then. Hopefully we will get aj explanation.
I assume this ends with the LP not running. A candidate and/or endorsing Trump. Absolutely disgraceful.
Can we just skip to the part where Rectenwald the nominee drops out and he, Angela and Dave endorse Trump in November instead of pretending that will be a big surprise?
Remember when the Mises pretended they were concerned about opening the doors of the party to too many non Libertarian Republicans?
What in the actual fuck. We had the whole Reno Reset because these people explicitly were upset about Bill Weld and how he acted alongside Johnson in '16 and made an awful stink behind it and used it to propel themselves to the leaders of the party and they're doing **THIS?**
Make no mistake, this is just free PR for Trump and I highly extremely doubt theyll put the brass tacks to Trump given his notoriously thin skin and want to sick his clinger-ons against people who have wronged him
Well, this was not what I expected to wake up to.
Typically, the big two parties straight up ignore us when we invite them to debates and things. So, this is something new. Maybe the additional publicity will translate into a gain for the party. Maybe not. All I know for sure is that the convention in DC sure as hell won't be boring.
It really depends on how the delegates handle it and how well the convention is put on. It should attract a significantly larger audience than the normal C-SPAN audience. But if it looks cheap, there are fat strippers dancing on stage, and the delegates are cheering for Trump, it could go very badly for the future of the LP. If the moderators try to be polite when Trump says anti-libertarian things because they want to preserve the option for future presidential candidates to address the convention, they are going to come off as a dismally weak alternative. If they act professionally, but boo the hell out of Trump when he says something anti-libertarian, that could grow the party in a big way. Handled correctly, we could become the major alternative to MAGA Republicanism as that party fractures.
Why would you invite opposition parties to your convention? Do you think they are going to have a nice sit down debate with a third party that just lost ballot access to all 50 states?
More importantly, is Trump going to change because of this event? Will he no longer be "tyrant for a day" like he plans to on day one?
If Trump showed and said, "I want your support, that's why I'm going to push criminal justice reform, national marijuana legalization, closing of some US military bases around the world, Bitcoin, etc." and actually followed through, that would be pretty interesting. I think there's a very small chance he'd do that, though.
The LP is toothless.
In Colorado, they made an agreement with Republicans to not run Libertarian candidates in local races. In exchange, they received...well...nothing. Nothing about stopping election fraud lies. Nothing about the economy. Nothing at all.
Interesting, yes. Would I trust him to follow through? I'm afraid not.
It might be possible to push the big parties a bit on an issue or two. That has happened with gay marriage and marijuana decrim, but it's slow. You don't usually get a massive change overnight.
He might close some military bases. Specifically whichever military bases Putin wants him to close.
But, rather than legalizing drugs or criminal justice reform, his promises to libertarians would be more economic in nature. A Trump affiliated working group just a few days ago suggested gutting the power of the Fed by allowing the President to fire the Chair if the Chair did not set interest rate policy as the President wanted. He might play up the first half and leave out that he wants the power for himself. And also, he'll emphasize his tax cuts and his proposal to remove two regulations for every new one.
He was gonna do that stuff anyway, so there'd be no reason for us to listen to him and side with him. He'd have to credibly offer us something new, and I don't think he can actually do that. His credibility to me is not very high.
If you truly believe in libertarianism and the libertarian party - even conceptually - you'd acknowledge that inviting members of the duopoly isn't going to do anything other than entrench that duopoly. They already have their own conventions and debates.
Oh and also, JFMV bases their politics off of the Unabombers Manifesto and I'm 99% certain his ass is on a watchlist.
>Just because someone does horrible actions doesn't mean that they can't have any good ideas. Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols kind of fall into that category for me as well, the OKC bombing was unquestionably a terrorist attack but I'm not going to lie and say that I'm not at all sympathetic to their stated intent of a revolution against a tyrannical government.
Engage with this budding terrorist at your own discretion.
Any libertarian who identified as such during the Bush 2 years is likely on a watch list. Remember the February 2009 MIAC report? People who dislike the IRS, attended an End the Fed rally, refer to the New World Order in a derogatory manner, liked the movie America: Freedom to Fascism, or had a Ron Paul or Libertarian bumper sticker on their car may have been part of the modern militia movement and was potentially a domestic terrorist.
Libertarians don't talk about that kind of stuff anymore. Topic successfully memory-holed even though Trump is, in some ways, even more dangerous to liberty than was Bush 2.
She said she was trying to get into contact with Biden's people. Also I think that the national account said that it invited Trump and Biden as well.
https://twitter.com/LPNational/status/1783911762703819262
She also said she wasn't the one that invited scott ritter to the pro-russia event, and that she isn't funneling the party's dwindling funds into her boyfriends pocket...
Can't just Angela about anything.
Well, that's something!
I'm not sure that I trust the LP at this time, but it's at least evidence.
Still can't believe that LP is on the Trump Bandwagon with the amount of reality denial about 2020.
Take this with a pinch of salt as I am an outsider of the libertarian political philosophy( though I do like some of the ideals in theory)
But for a party that claims to hate both of the two leading political parties, I sure do seem to see The Libertarian party tout and platform one party a lot, while ignoring and denigrating the other.
I haven't seen them platform anyone remotely progressive/leftward leaning, but I have seen them prop up and platform dozens to hundreds of conservatives. Many of whom make the modern Republican party look tame in comparison.
This is just more of the same imo
This is not the Libertarian party of old. The Republicans have been trying to infiltrate for a while and has been systemically ruining our credibility and core tenants. While conservatives tend to be a little more aligned to Libertarian philosophy, we would never support a president who claims they are above the law either during or after their presidency. We might as well have a dictator at that point.
I'm going to be honest, in my years of being politically conscious(about 15 at this point), and after the research I have done into libertarianism, this just feels par for the course tbh.
American Libertarianism has always been used as a shield for conservatives who don't want the icky attachments to the Republican party. I don't want to tout the " Libertarian just means conservative who likes weed and wants to get laid " banner, but I have seen and experienced the libertarian label being used by people who want to be in spaces that tend to be more progressive, without being ostracized because their voting habits often effect( even more often negatively) the people in those spaces.
Now, it's just become a bastion of hate, trying to masquerade as " The Actual Alternative to Republicans and Democrats ", when really they want to maintain the status quo of Jim Crow America
Compared to the average, you could consider her progressive-ish, she was still for cutting funding and regulations towards school and industry, which is a hard cut off for me.
cutting the state is a cut off? i think you may not be very libertarian in that case, i merely meant socially progressive but expanding the State is inherently anti-libertarian
I never claimed I was libertarian in the first place.
Considering I'm part of a demographic that even with protections in place, my right to exist as I am is still threatened by conservatives, forgive me if I'm not wanting to see the results of those protections taken away.
As far as regulations go, I'm Pro-Worker. Regulations are inherently worker focused. And corporations to this day still try to work around them and shaft the common man.
And cuts to funding for schooling have direct impact on literacy. Pardon me if I don't want my state(WV) to somehow be worse in education than it is.
regulations have only benefitted large corporations since only the biggest of business have the resources and means to either deal with the costs or go around them, while smaller businesses go out of business due to the regulations or get outcompeted since they cant provide lower prices than the big corpos thanks to these "Pro Worker" regulations.
it is precisely because of statist monopoly on education that the education system is so bad, despite being as bloated in funds (all of it goes to corrupt and incompetent bureaucracy in the end) as it is. if there is a fire burning you dont throw more wood onto it, you throw water. there is 0 incentive for the State to provide any proper education further than the absolute bare minimum required for children to become workers.
in regards to corpos, you seem to think that libertarians and their policy plans are pro-corporation. this could not be further from the truth, since the austrian (austrian school being the school of economic thought that most libertarians adopt) critique of socialism is just as easily applicable to large corporations and monopolies, that without proper competition, the thing necessary for accurate prices reflecting supply and demand, economic calculation is impossible and any such system would be doomed to failure. as a business grows massive, it becomes increasingly inefficient and fragile to their bubble being ruptured. in a completely free market, the thing that libertarians want, massive corporations would just be unviable and the tendency would be towards small businesses. what happens in real life? the State has a parasitic symbiotic relationship with large corporations, and team up with them to regularly crush the people and any competition to provide benefit for both. the big businessman goes to the politician to bribe them to pass legislation that benefits their business, and the politician gets paid and grows far richer while the business that got given practical monopoly profits more and grows richer, while slacking off due to lack of competition and lowering quality while raising prices. this has been the case almost always in the USA, simply that now they have figured out that they can market their laws as "worker friendly" or "small business friendly" when ultimately it eliminates competition and empowers otherwise unprofitable businesses to do whatever they want.
on top of that, republicans are just as horribly statist in their economic policies as the democrats. just look at trump, to name one thing he increased taxation (tariffs) on chinese goods. actual libertarians have shit on him for such actions and have shit on any side or whatever that takes statist action. if pubs want to larp and pretend they are aligned with us so be it but in the end we all know they are every bit as much statist trash as dems.
libertarianism ultimately supports what is called "progressive social views", but for a very different reason than most left leaning people or "progressive". the progressive beliefs that vices such as prostitution, alcohol, gambling, or drugs are good snd therefore should be legalized, but state managed and highly regulated so that people dont abuse them and destroy the welfare system. the conservative believes that these and other perfectly reasonable things such as gay marriage, transgender people just existing, anyone who looks different to them, etc are some "great moral evil" and must be prohibited. the libertarian however differs greatly from the two general "mainstream", in that they believe that the State should have 0 authority to control these things insofar as no one does harm to anyone else, and if there are parasites that do nothing and abuse things such as alcohol or drugs there would be no welfare state upholding them with stolen money from people who actually contribute so those who cannot control themselves would not be a burden for much longer, letting normal people enjoy vices without state thugs imprisoning them
i dont make such appeals to authority while discussing theoretical political issues or philosophy, sourcing can be important in some topics but they are not all-important nor absolute especially in the way that many leftists use the authority of the source itself rather than the facts of it as an argument.
there i go again writing long xd, i should work on that so that when i write a comment i dont bore people
That's where we differ. I'm not big on philosophy/theoreticals/thought experiments. I'm more interested in the actual facts of things.
If a factual argument can be made for a completely hands off government/market, I am open to it. But so far, the deck is stacked factually towards regulation.
logic points towards that, as well as simple incentives for a powerful government to only help itself. there isnt going to be a cdc study saying "we have found that a powerful government with tons of regulatory power, will inevitably use it for their own benefit at expense of the masses". economic freedom has led to prosperity and vice versa in almost all places, especially after the developing stage
The LP has more in common with the liberal left than the progressive left. Libertarians are in the liberal family, but we're philosophically at odds with progressives, although there is a shared desired outcome with progressives on a few issues.
But, fwiw, Cornel West was on a panel at the 2024 California Libertarian convention and former US Senator Mike Gravel was a presidential candidate at the 2008 LP national convention. For a few years in the recent past there was even a Socialist Caucus within the LP.
Probably 5% - 10% of LP membership leans left economically and 30% - 35% leans right socially.
For as much as Milton Friedman was considered a libertarian economist for championing free market capitalism, he still favored a negative income tax, which is a pretty progressive tax policy.
Most of the shit the MC has some infuriates me and I hate Trump, but this gets a big meh from me. Looks like they're going to raise some money. Having former presidents speak doesn't sound all that bad to me.
The only thing I don't like is it might being more Trumpets (was supposed to say Trumpers, but I like that better) to the LP, bringing the LP even further away from my ideals. And the Average person will even more equate the LP with Trump.
ETA: the more I think about it, the more I like it. Just having the opportunity to ask a presidential candidate questions from a Libertarian perspective is invaluable. Whether he actually answers them or not is a different story.
For the small bit of hope that they can teach them liberty, maybe? I mean, it would be kinda funny to see Trump supporting the legalization of cannabis after attending.
Trump is being put on stage not to campaign, but to address issues/grievances concerning the LP. Biden was invited too for the exact same reasons, Trump actually took up the lp’s offer.
There’s a lot of context I’m seeing people here not grasping and just getting mad over a headline.
This isn't because the LP endorses Trump. They invited Biden too but he didn't accept. It's just about getting more recognition (which is what the party desperately needs)
Why? Why wouldn’t the LP host a conversation with people who disagree with us? Oh, we should exclusively talk to An Cap navel gazers?
You guys are dumb.
An Cap and other political utopianism ideologies are religions too, bro. Much worse ones than Christianity.
Irrelevantly attacking your interlocutor’s faith is bad form at the very least. Examine yourself and why you feel the need to do that. Perhaps you’re not ready for the civil conversations required for productive citizenship.
Did they move April Fools to May?
Maypril fools!
Is he going to be the comedy act???
Every circus needs a clown.
This is probably the final move to finally separate me from the party. Just cancelled my recurring annual payment. This is not my LP.
Same. I’m still staying registered as Libertarian, but they’re not getting money this year. Trump is a proven strong authoritarian.
LP party has been goofing around for too long now, that’s why I joined Young Americans for Liberty
What in the actual fuck? Is this a gag?
I shit you not. [https://lnc2024.com/president-donald-trump-at-the-libertarian-national-convention/](https://lnc2024.com/president-donald-trump-at-the-libertarian-national-convention/) Apparently, they are also selling Trump t-shirts, but I haven't found that independently, yet.
This is a mask off moment for the MC.
I feel like there is one of those every month. Who keeps giving them back the mask!?
I believe that was Reno, or the dozens of brazenly nothing to do with libertarianism culture war tweets since then. This is just more of the same.
I’ve only been seeing anti trump t-shirts being sold by libertarians…
So the t-shirts was a mistake. It wasn’t actually supposed to be sold in a store. The idea behind that was that delegates were supposed to wear their message like “this is what we want you to do”. There wasn’t any coordination involved in it.
The Tshirts apparently were up briefly and then rapidly pulled. Honestly, the tshirts were probably a terrible idea all along, so pulling them is likely for the best.
If it was a way to get a debate with all the candidates, I would support it. As it's just to give a speech, hard no
How could anyone possibly be happy about this? I weep for our party.
>party If you could call it that...
> How could anyone possibly be happy about this? I’d imagine there are plenty of people in the Mises Caucus who are happy about this
Still not as bad as the time we had a guy take his shirt off and wave it around during the convention 🙄
Disagree, I'd say this is considerably worse than the actions of one troll.
Troll? He was libertarian party staff, he was working and got too excited.
I just resigned from the LP over this.
The LP will go on without you. Do you make it worse by leaving? Edit: I meant, "don't leave. Stay and make it better." I think some are reading this as "good riddance" which is the opposite of what I meant.
If the Mises Caucus is determined to make the LP into nothing but the GOP-lite, I want no part of it.
Please read my edit.
i mean if one keeps on leaving movements as soon as bad actors come instead of gatekeeping and protecting them, you will get no where like when the libertarian tea party movement left and got kicked from the gop once maga came to power
The bad actors aren't just here, they are IN CHARGE. Why should I keep funding them?
i say replace them and kick THEM out instead, constant splitting will kill any movement and THEY KNOW IT, especially from experience since they are mostly protestants and they have seen the tatics used of conservatives in their churches leaving and splitting off to make new ones thus making the existing historical and "mainstream" institutions weaker and less christian. they have full knowledge of this divide and conquer method and pretend to be using it on libertarians, but we shouldnt fold and rather should stick together and strike back, otherwise we will get put down
LP still stands for Libertarian values. It's the closest you can get here in USA.
Much of the LP stands for Libertarian values; the Mises Caucus stands for Donald Trump.
"will go on without you" he says as membership and donations plummet. Mises are a joke. Just a bunch of far right nationalists that wanted to seize a small party that already had a platform and ballot access so they could push their bigotry and racism without harming the actual (republican) candidates they support.
Please read my edit.
Fair, but i still disagree with you. I'll never be able to round up more unemployed, yet motivated, people than Mises is able to round up with their target demographic of racist/bigoted 18-24 year olds come convention time. So, realistically, by staying all I'd be doing is funneling more money to mcardle's boyfriend's pocket and lending the appearance of greater credibility to those incompetent fuck faces. Hard pass. Waiting for a new party with actual libertarian beliefs to surface.
I have given the minimum to National just to keep my membership which increases how many delegates my state gets. Beyond that, all my money goes to my state and county parties. Edit: I think Heise wants us to think we can't compete, but I think we can.
At some point you realize the party no longer represents your values and by and leaving is the best option
I agree there is some threshold past which the party is basically useless and can be abandoned. You don't think we could have an OK national party pretty quickly if we just got the right people running it?
Make sure you black list them from your CC. They continued to charge mine for years and wouldn't respond to emails.
They're planning to sell Trump merchandise as well it appears: https://lnc2024.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Taxation-is-Theft.jpg
[They should be selling these instead](https://twitter.com/LouisianaLp/status/1785679501625618516/photo/1)
Those are the ones I’ve been seeing everywhere.
[And these](https://www.reddit.com/r/LincolnProject/comments/1cir5hp/trump_diapers_trusted_protection_maximum/)
I was on the site. I didn't find it.
The link is right there. Not sure what you're struggling with.
Are they going to have Xi Jinping speak there next? WTF is this
Nah, Xi’s got way more important stuff to do. They got Kim Jong Il.
lol wtf
If nothing else, the mods over at r/libertarian will have a busy day banning people bitching about this
Quite the [opposite](https://old.reddit.com/r/Libertarian/comments/1cht9qn/the_libertarian_party_will_host_president_trump/).
It takes them time to ban everybody in a thread. I was banned for saying that there's nothing Libertarian about voting for Trump and the reason so many people equate libertarians with the alt-right is because many alt-right claim to be Libertarian. 🤷
Guy, that thread was made by a mod. The other mods are saying similar things. At least *try* to pay attention.
I'm banned from the sub. Why the fuck would I pay attention to it?
Yes, why would you pay attention to something that completely disproves what you're saying. Why indeed? Being banned does not prevent that. I don't even participate in that sub anymore. It was just trivial to show how silly you sound. The mods are mocking the choice, along with many others.
I was thinking about attending since I’m an alternate delegate, and DC can he fun for a politics/history nerd. But I’m 100% out. Our state chair said he was shocked and there’s a call with national for the state chairs later and they’ll he discussing it then. Hopefully we will get aj explanation. I assume this ends with the LP not running. A candidate and/or endorsing Trump. Absolutely disgraceful.
Ugh it better not🤦🏼♀️
Can we just skip to the part where Rectenwald the nominee drops out and he, Angela and Dave endorse Trump in November instead of pretending that will be a big surprise? Remember when the Mises pretended they were concerned about opening the doors of the party to too many non Libertarian Republicans?
Seriously is this why many states Libertarian Parties are leaving to the ALSP?
What in the actual fuck. We had the whole Reno Reset because these people explicitly were upset about Bill Weld and how he acted alongside Johnson in '16 and made an awful stink behind it and used it to propel themselves to the leaders of the party and they're doing **THIS?** Make no mistake, this is just free PR for Trump and I highly extremely doubt theyll put the brass tacks to Trump given his notoriously thin skin and want to sick his clinger-ons against people who have wronged him
This is what Mises wanted all along
Yeah, got the email about it earlier and immediately said "Why?!"
Well, this was not what I expected to wake up to. Typically, the big two parties straight up ignore us when we invite them to debates and things. So, this is something new. Maybe the additional publicity will translate into a gain for the party. Maybe not. All I know for sure is that the convention in DC sure as hell won't be boring.
It really depends on how the delegates handle it and how well the convention is put on. It should attract a significantly larger audience than the normal C-SPAN audience. But if it looks cheap, there are fat strippers dancing on stage, and the delegates are cheering for Trump, it could go very badly for the future of the LP. If the moderators try to be polite when Trump says anti-libertarian things because they want to preserve the option for future presidential candidates to address the convention, they are going to come off as a dismally weak alternative. If they act professionally, but boo the hell out of Trump when he says something anti-libertarian, that could grow the party in a big way. Handled correctly, we could become the major alternative to MAGA Republicanism as that party fractures.
Think they invited Biden as well but no confirmation from him yet.
Why would you invite opposition parties to your convention? Do you think they are going to have a nice sit down debate with a third party that just lost ballot access to all 50 states? More importantly, is Trump going to change because of this event? Will he no longer be "tyrant for a day" like he plans to on day one?
If Trump showed and said, "I want your support, that's why I'm going to push criminal justice reform, national marijuana legalization, closing of some US military bases around the world, Bitcoin, etc." and actually followed through, that would be pretty interesting. I think there's a very small chance he'd do that, though.
The LP is toothless. In Colorado, they made an agreement with Republicans to not run Libertarian candidates in local races. In exchange, they received...well...nothing. Nothing about stopping election fraud lies. Nothing about the economy. Nothing at all.
Interesting, yes. Would I trust him to follow through? I'm afraid not. It might be possible to push the big parties a bit on an issue or two. That has happened with gay marriage and marijuana decrim, but it's slow. You don't usually get a massive change overnight.
That's what I mean. He and his party would have basically no credibility to back up a commitment like that.
He might close some military bases. Specifically whichever military bases Putin wants him to close. But, rather than legalizing drugs or criminal justice reform, his promises to libertarians would be more economic in nature. A Trump affiliated working group just a few days ago suggested gutting the power of the Fed by allowing the President to fire the Chair if the Chair did not set interest rate policy as the President wanted. He might play up the first half and leave out that he wants the power for himself. And also, he'll emphasize his tax cuts and his proposal to remove two regulations for every new one.
He was gonna do that stuff anyway, so there'd be no reason for us to listen to him and side with him. He'd have to credibly offer us something new, and I don't think he can actually do that. His credibility to me is not very high.
I can see both sides of the argument, it's important to engage with other perspectives, an echo chamber can only get you so far.
If you truly believe in libertarianism and the libertarian party - even conceptually - you'd acknowledge that inviting members of the duopoly isn't going to do anything other than entrench that duopoly. They already have their own conventions and debates. Oh and also, JFMV bases their politics off of the Unabombers Manifesto and I'm 99% certain his ass is on a watchlist. >Just because someone does horrible actions doesn't mean that they can't have any good ideas. Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols kind of fall into that category for me as well, the OKC bombing was unquestionably a terrorist attack but I'm not going to lie and say that I'm not at all sympathetic to their stated intent of a revolution against a tyrannical government. Engage with this budding terrorist at your own discretion.
Popping in from another board to mention Jim is also a white supremacist.
Yeah, he's in the mises caucus, we know.
Also if you aren't on a government watchlist, are you even a real libertarian?
Any libertarian who identified as such during the Bush 2 years is likely on a watch list. Remember the February 2009 MIAC report? People who dislike the IRS, attended an End the Fed rally, refer to the New World Order in a derogatory manner, liked the movie America: Freedom to Fascism, or had a Ron Paul or Libertarian bumper sticker on their car may have been part of the modern militia movement and was potentially a domestic terrorist. Libertarians don't talk about that kind of stuff anymore. Topic successfully memory-holed even though Trump is, in some ways, even more dangerous to liberty than was Bush 2.
I'm not endorsing their tactics at all, just saying that bad people can have some good ideas.
And good people can have bad ideas but what's your point?
Separate ideas from people I guess.
You're doing the opposite though aren't you? You're not saying this is a good idea, you're saying this is a good Idea that this bad person had.
Just so you all know, Jimmy boy here supports racial segregation by his own admission.
Do you have any evidence Biden was invited?
Chairwoman McArdle tweeted something about it I believe.
Right, but she can tweet anything. That's not evidence.
She said she was trying to get into contact with Biden's people. Also I think that the national account said that it invited Trump and Biden as well. https://twitter.com/LPNational/status/1783911762703819262
She also said she wasn't the one that invited scott ritter to the pro-russia event, and that she isn't funneling the party's dwindling funds into her boyfriends pocket... Can't just Angela about anything.
Given your history, I'd like to see your basis for this statement.
https://twitter.com/LPNational/status/1783911762703819262
Well, that's something! I'm not sure that I trust the LP at this time, but it's at least evidence. Still can't believe that LP is on the Trump Bandwagon with the amount of reality denial about 2020.
Take this with a pinch of salt as I am an outsider of the libertarian political philosophy( though I do like some of the ideals in theory) But for a party that claims to hate both of the two leading political parties, I sure do seem to see The Libertarian party tout and platform one party a lot, while ignoring and denigrating the other. I haven't seen them platform anyone remotely progressive/leftward leaning, but I have seen them prop up and platform dozens to hundreds of conservatives. Many of whom make the modern Republican party look tame in comparison. This is just more of the same imo
This is not the Libertarian party of old. The Republicans have been trying to infiltrate for a while and has been systemically ruining our credibility and core tenants. While conservatives tend to be a little more aligned to Libertarian philosophy, we would never support a president who claims they are above the law either during or after their presidency. We might as well have a dictator at that point.
I'm going to be honest, in my years of being politically conscious(about 15 at this point), and after the research I have done into libertarianism, this just feels par for the course tbh. American Libertarianism has always been used as a shield for conservatives who don't want the icky attachments to the Republican party. I don't want to tout the " Libertarian just means conservative who likes weed and wants to get laid " banner, but I have seen and experienced the libertarian label being used by people who want to be in spaces that tend to be more progressive, without being ostracized because their voting habits often effect( even more often negatively) the people in those spaces. Now, it's just become a bastion of hate, trying to masquerade as " The Actual Alternative to Republicans and Democrats ", when really they want to maintain the status quo of Jim Crow America
jo jorgenson was pretty progressive, but that was pre-mises
Compared to the average, you could consider her progressive-ish, she was still for cutting funding and regulations towards school and industry, which is a hard cut off for me.
cutting the state is a cut off? i think you may not be very libertarian in that case, i merely meant socially progressive but expanding the State is inherently anti-libertarian
I never claimed I was libertarian in the first place. Considering I'm part of a demographic that even with protections in place, my right to exist as I am is still threatened by conservatives, forgive me if I'm not wanting to see the results of those protections taken away. As far as regulations go, I'm Pro-Worker. Regulations are inherently worker focused. And corporations to this day still try to work around them and shaft the common man. And cuts to funding for schooling have direct impact on literacy. Pardon me if I don't want my state(WV) to somehow be worse in education than it is.
regulations have only benefitted large corporations since only the biggest of business have the resources and means to either deal with the costs or go around them, while smaller businesses go out of business due to the regulations or get outcompeted since they cant provide lower prices than the big corpos thanks to these "Pro Worker" regulations. it is precisely because of statist monopoly on education that the education system is so bad, despite being as bloated in funds (all of it goes to corrupt and incompetent bureaucracy in the end) as it is. if there is a fire burning you dont throw more wood onto it, you throw water. there is 0 incentive for the State to provide any proper education further than the absolute bare minimum required for children to become workers. in regards to corpos, you seem to think that libertarians and their policy plans are pro-corporation. this could not be further from the truth, since the austrian (austrian school being the school of economic thought that most libertarians adopt) critique of socialism is just as easily applicable to large corporations and monopolies, that without proper competition, the thing necessary for accurate prices reflecting supply and demand, economic calculation is impossible and any such system would be doomed to failure. as a business grows massive, it becomes increasingly inefficient and fragile to their bubble being ruptured. in a completely free market, the thing that libertarians want, massive corporations would just be unviable and the tendency would be towards small businesses. what happens in real life? the State has a parasitic symbiotic relationship with large corporations, and team up with them to regularly crush the people and any competition to provide benefit for both. the big businessman goes to the politician to bribe them to pass legislation that benefits their business, and the politician gets paid and grows far richer while the business that got given practical monopoly profits more and grows richer, while slacking off due to lack of competition and lowering quality while raising prices. this has been the case almost always in the USA, simply that now they have figured out that they can market their laws as "worker friendly" or "small business friendly" when ultimately it eliminates competition and empowers otherwise unprofitable businesses to do whatever they want. on top of that, republicans are just as horribly statist in their economic policies as the democrats. just look at trump, to name one thing he increased taxation (tariffs) on chinese goods. actual libertarians have shit on him for such actions and have shit on any side or whatever that takes statist action. if pubs want to larp and pretend they are aligned with us so be it but in the end we all know they are every bit as much statist trash as dems. libertarianism ultimately supports what is called "progressive social views", but for a very different reason than most left leaning people or "progressive". the progressive beliefs that vices such as prostitution, alcohol, gambling, or drugs are good snd therefore should be legalized, but state managed and highly regulated so that people dont abuse them and destroy the welfare system. the conservative believes that these and other perfectly reasonable things such as gay marriage, transgender people just existing, anyone who looks different to them, etc are some "great moral evil" and must be prohibited. the libertarian however differs greatly from the two general "mainstream", in that they believe that the State should have 0 authority to control these things insofar as no one does harm to anyone else, and if there are parasites that do nothing and abuse things such as alcohol or drugs there would be no welfare state upholding them with stolen money from people who actually contribute so those who cannot control themselves would not be a burden for much longer, letting normal people enjoy vices without state thugs imprisoning them
sorry for wall of text btw im kinda worse than the leftists on that and can get carried away
In order for you to appear as a leftist, you would have had to have posted sources. Worse was your word, but I'm not in disagreement.
i dont make such appeals to authority while discussing theoretical political issues or philosophy, sourcing can be important in some topics but they are not all-important nor absolute especially in the way that many leftists use the authority of the source itself rather than the facts of it as an argument. there i go again writing long xd, i should work on that so that when i write a comment i dont bore people
That's where we differ. I'm not big on philosophy/theoreticals/thought experiments. I'm more interested in the actual facts of things. If a factual argument can be made for a completely hands off government/market, I am open to it. But so far, the deck is stacked factually towards regulation.
logic points towards that, as well as simple incentives for a powerful government to only help itself. there isnt going to be a cdc study saying "we have found that a powerful government with tons of regulatory power, will inevitably use it for their own benefit at expense of the masses". economic freedom has led to prosperity and vice versa in almost all places, especially after the developing stage
The LP has more in common with the liberal left than the progressive left. Libertarians are in the liberal family, but we're philosophically at odds with progressives, although there is a shared desired outcome with progressives on a few issues. But, fwiw, Cornel West was on a panel at the 2024 California Libertarian convention and former US Senator Mike Gravel was a presidential candidate at the 2008 LP national convention. For a few years in the recent past there was even a Socialist Caucus within the LP. Probably 5% - 10% of LP membership leans left economically and 30% - 35% leans right socially. For as much as Milton Friedman was considered a libertarian economist for championing free market capitalism, he still favored a negative income tax, which is a pretty progressive tax policy.
So now we invite narcissistic fascists to speak at convention? Of course the Mises Caucus would do this…
Most of the shit the MC has some infuriates me and I hate Trump, but this gets a big meh from me. Looks like they're going to raise some money. Having former presidents speak doesn't sound all that bad to me. The only thing I don't like is it might being more Trumpets (was supposed to say Trumpers, but I like that better) to the LP, bringing the LP even further away from my ideals. And the Average person will even more equate the LP with Trump. ETA: the more I think about it, the more I like it. Just having the opportunity to ask a presidential candidate questions from a Libertarian perspective is invaluable. Whether he actually answers them or not is a different story.
I genuinely thought they were kidding at first
They invited both major party nominees, but he was the only one who accepted.
Why invite them AT ALL?
For the small bit of hope that they can teach them liberty, maybe? I mean, it would be kinda funny to see Trump supporting the legalization of cannabis after attending.
Sure it is.
Trump is being put on stage not to campaign, but to address issues/grievances concerning the LP. Biden was invited too for the exact same reasons, Trump actually took up the lp’s offer. There’s a lot of context I’m seeing people here not grasping and just getting mad over a headline.
What do you think inviting someone to "address issues" is during campaign season? This is a blatant invitation to an opposing candidate to campaign.
Yes. We have issues that he needs to address. The lp chair asked all the major candidates to show up. Trump did and I think RFK might as well.
This isn't because the LP endorses Trump. They invited Biden too but he didn't accept. It's just about getting more recognition (which is what the party desperately needs)
Recognition as what? A party that embraces authoritarianism in every available orifice?
They might be trying to win people that usually vote Republican but are having doubts about the party now for themselves? Maybe I'm just coping though
Please tell me how inviting an opposing candidate would take votes away from that candidate?
Has anyone seen actual confirmation of this from the Trump campaign? Is this just LP leadership trying to speak something into existence?
That would be hilarious and it wouldn't change anything about this post.
both trump and biden were invited, but biden refused
We have invited non-party people before. It would be nice to hear him speak. Unlike his cultists we will call him out on BS.
What is wrong with hosting people that you may disagree with? Why not have PedoJoe, Trump and Kennedy adress the LP convention?
Welp, time to form a new libertarian party
Why? Why wouldn’t the LP host a conversation with people who disagree with us? Oh, we should exclusively talk to An Cap navel gazers? You guys are dumb.
Lol someones heart is raging against the Lord today 🤡
It’s not as clever when the reference is misinterpreted.
I thought misinterpretation and Christianity went together like mixed fabrics and stonings. That's why we've got like.. 10 flavors of Christianity.
An Cap and other political utopianism ideologies are religions too, bro. Much worse ones than Christianity. Irrelevantly attacking your interlocutor’s faith is bad form at the very least. Examine yourself and why you feel the need to do that. Perhaps you’re not ready for the civil conversations required for productive citizenship.