Libertarian Nomination Thread

I think Rand Paul ended up not being a good (i.e. authentic) Libertarian candidate after trying to court the right. His anti-interventionist cred took a hit by adopting a more hawking stance on the Iran deal and his sucking up to the religious evangelical right was on display in supporting the Indiana religious liberty bill that was discriminatory against gays. If I recall correctly his comment pretty much summed it up, something along the lines of: "while the 1st amendment keeps government out of religion, it doesn't mean keep religion out of government." Whoa, easy there Mr. Falwell.

Not that his candidacy was going anywhere anyway especially given the fact that big buck guys such as Ted Thiel (Silicon) and the Koch bros had a better relationship with his day Ron not to mention the Ron Paul followers who didn't think Rand had true libertarian chops. In "Live Free or Die" New Hampshire, Ron Paul got around 20% while "also Rand" ended up at the bottom of the pile (1%).

 

Maybe Rubio but Bush was an extraordinarily weak candidate. Maybe it was just Trump that brought that out but somehow I don't think so.

 

How was he hawkish on Iran??

 

I think the GOP of today makes all moderate candidates who believe in government extraordinarily weak. The GOP is basically the party that believes in nothing to do with government at this point. They want to starve the beast to death and replace it with something else, but the something else lacks definition when the details are explored in depth.

If this sounds like a party having a going out of business sale, well I give you Donald Trump as the bankruptcy expert brought in to seal the deal.

 

Well, some libertarians such as his dad Ron Paul considered sanctions against Iran an 'act of war' and while that may sound a tad dramatic, in the case of some Iranian unable to obtain life-saving meds for a loved one, they could view such sanctions as a siege of sorts. Whatever, his son Rand by contrast said sanctions can be used as a tool to achieve a desired result (without war) and further, he didn't think the existing sanctions were designed to coerce a 'desired result' and that they shouldn't be lifted but instead phased out but only after a many-year period.

Now whether he really didn't feel that in his 'libertarian heart' and was just going that route because he was running for president and wanted to appeal to more hawkish donors I admit I'll never know. But even if that were the case, it was pretty dumb for him to stray from his dad's purely anti-interventionist foreign policy philosophy because there were 15 more reliably hawkish proxies to choose from and he only ended up alienating the only demographic in the country that actually liked him (and his dad). He went from appealing to pure libertarians to "not-the-worst-Republican" with his anti-Iran deal stance.

 

As someone sympathetic to libertarian (small-L) principles, I really wish the Libertarian (big-L) Party would go away. Libertarians (small or big-L) are horrible at organization and structure, so they inevitably come off as just a mixed gathering of regular-L loons.

I think Rand Paul, to his credit, had this pegged early on.

 

That is crazy.

 

he's at 13% in the polls now. 2 more percent and they have to include him on the debate stage.

 

really hoping he can get into the debates.

not entirely sure if I'll vote for him yet, but damn let's at least get a voice up there that isn't so party influenced.
if he doesn't cowtow to the NRA (like most libertarians do), and distances himself from the Tea Party, then he'll get my vote.

 

I don't think you'll have any luck finding a libertarian who is pro gun control, if that's what you mean.

 

well Johnson isn't really libertarian, but i agree that the party would eject him if he went with an anti-gun platform.
it would be like a democrat going anti-abortion.

but there is a big difference between gun control and gun reform, as long as you aren't the NRA.
if he won't consider any change that doesn't involve getting more guns into the hands of more people, then i'll know he's in the NRA's pocket, and I'll be disappointed.
I've previously heard him say he is pro-gun, but he's also open to discussion and change.

i hate whenever a gun proposal is made, candidates or elected officials stating they need to discuss it with the NRA.
the NRA is a lobby, representing a money making industry, and should not be part of the decision making process.
btw, that's exactly what Trump did. said he'd discuss with the NRA whether regulating based on the no fly list makes sense. pussy move, and i want a candidate who is capable of thinking outside of party lines and lobbies......
after all, that's why I'm considering Johnson to begin with.

 

How is he not really libertarian?

 

He's open about the fact he doesn't share all the libertarian viewpoints.
I'd suggest he's only switched to the party so he could have a shot at running for president, ie it's a marriage of convenience more than love......for both him and the party.

 

I would love to see more Reps and Dems admit they don't share all the same viewpoints as the rest of the party. I think it is a much bigger problem that so many politicians say what ever they need to keep in line with the party.
Just can't see why anyone would have a problem with a candidate openly admitting what Johnson did. It makes him much more believable when he states what his policy objectives are.

If they took the labels out of politics and just had the candidates truthfully state their objectives it would be a million times better overall. Maybe force everyone to take a survey to see which candidate they actually align with.

http://www.isidewith.com/elections/2016-presidential-quiz

 

By the end of the two conventions there'll be plenty of vomit around, too.

 

see where the problem is?

 

Of course, asking a politician not to breathe is much more attainable than asking them not to lie.