He is THAT Libertarian!

@bareboards2 Ma'am, I apologize both for the factually untrue statement, which I made without keeping with proper English debate/conversation etiquette, and also for assuming a gender for you title without proper evaluation.

To make clear my position, as I believe many, if not all of you here (@PlayhousePals @newtboy @Januari @bareboards2) mistake my position and/or personal political siding...

Firstly, I DO NOT like Trump, his policies, his manner, his monomaniacal bent towards the topics he figures are worth his time to address, not much of anything, actually.

Secondly, yes, I am conservative, and for a young male in British society, this leaves me at rather an odd way with those of an opposing political bent, particularly those of the Liberal/Progressive variety(Liberal less so, as it is an off-take of Libertarianism). I believe that effectually bending society over backwards to meet the stresses of a brave new world is a brash and undeveloped concept. I believe the perfect society is a logical one, where all that are able are held to an advantageously high level of acumen, education, etiquette, state of public dress, etc. I do not believe in the idea of "Utopia", as basic human psychology(which I have the equivalent of the american bachelors degree in) denies the facet of a cohesive human culture/society.

Thirdly, I arrive in support of Trump not out of a liking for him or his policy, but an awareness of what the enaction of his policies would bring. This awareness is spawned by the awareness of the state of the American Political Establishment, as is governed by people with power beyond reckoning, the face of which happens to be Hillary Clinton. Trump's policies, if allowed to be implemented, would cause such as rift in the political establishment/climate, as well as the hearts and minds of the American people, as to bring about change.

So, in effect, I support Trump for the very reason many of you don't, the Chaos that would almost inevitably ensue. A chaos that would likely go unnoticed, as such shifts occur without common knowledge...

Or... You could vote for a woman who has on more occasions than is accountable, broken Federal Law, covered up her husband's brutalization of women, and God knows what else, and only manages to escape prison because she is one of the sharpest tools the totalitarian American political establishment has...

That would be great, who should I speak to about changing that culture of ours?

As far as letting people fly, I never said I agree with it. I was referring to it because President Obama used it as an example. I said, somewhat sarcastically, that it wasn't a constitutional right. I never said we SHOULD ban people from flying.

I absolutely do not think we should limit a person's ability to travel based on an arbitrary list, especially since this incident pretty much proves that it doesn't necessarily stop terrorists. If a gun ban was in place, the shooter would still have been able to get weapons because he was removed from the list for some unknown (as of yet) reason.

Yes, in hindsight the Patriot Act should never have been passed. That is one of the main points of what I have been saying. We are in a crisis situation and people are knee-jerking the way they did after 9/11. Do we really need to have our government pass the Patriot Act Part Deux?

I understand the anger, the sadness, even the rage we all are feeling right now because of this incident. I've tried to remain relatively calm and not release vitriol on anyone I've replied to. I'm sure that I might have angered quite a few by not caving on my stance, but I refuse to back down because someone is pissed at me. I am not a member of the NRA. I am a fiscal conservative, a constitutionalist, and yet still a liberalist when it comes to personal life styles or choices. I've voted Republican, Democrat, Independent, and Libertarian. I think the fact that Paul Ryan ignored a possible discussion on gun laws is a bunch of horseshit. We should be able to at least talk about things, even if we might not agree with each other.

@lawdeelaw, my main problem with libertarians is two fold.

First, they're a fucking disaster for the environment. Did you hear that moron on climate change? "If it exists, the government should stay out of it"
Really?? I cannot even begin to comprehend the stupidity of such an argument.

Second, they're zealots. They ignore the fact that some things actually work in government because it doesn't suit their ideology. Did you actually watch the video? They wanted people to be able to drive on roads without a licence....that's just fucking nuts. Never mind things like public healthcare, social services, etc; all of which work perfectly well in plenty of countries around the world.

I agree with a lot of libertarian policy, but it how they arrived at that policy.

Fundamentally, they're children. They're selfish, short-sighted and convinced they're right.

I don't trust anyone who thinks they have a simple answer to the worlds problems. The world is complex and sometimes it needs complex solutions. Sometimes, it's private industry (look at how Tesla is slowly fixing transport emissions) and sometimes it's government based (look at the absolute disaster that is privately run prisons).

Okay, Libertarians stand for:

End to the endless wars: This is much more important than any social policies they might hate. Those programs will fail if we cannot control this bullshit, and then what? Austerity.

Gay rights: (Liberal view.) Not just marriage, but all gay rights. Get the government out of the marriage / contracts etc. and give full rights to people who are different.

Abortion: (Small government, get out of a woman's right to choose. Liberal/conservative point of view.)

Gun rights: Let the States limit gun rights. What works for California might not work in New York. Not my style, but less than conservatives want, more than liberals want. Honestly we have a shit policy out there now. With terrorism building, getting rid of all handguns is seeming ominous, as they will have access to guns despite bans. They have that support in droves, unlike the average criminal would. However, conservatives want ASSAULT rifles for everyone, which is stupid and dangerous. The paradigm has changed. Liberals taking guns from average people (who are most often responsible) and yet not preventing assault rifles from terrorists hands.

Libertarians won't solve the problem but at least their view that states, not an open-access ordered by the Federal Government, would put more restrictions than most conservatives would, and still offer handguns since times have changed.

War on drugs: Failure, stop punishing people, limit laws that predominantly punish minorities, and reduce prison population.

Where the fuck have liberals gone that they no longer support a party that supports their positions so much? Oh social programs...would suffer. Get over it. Programs will suffer from every party. And conservatives shouldn't complain either. For fuck sake people, change with the times. Stop viewing this party as the party of 1920....

I disagree with 1/2 of libertarian thinking, simply because I think they get too simplistic with 'just make government tiny, that's always best'. Clearly, deregulation is NOT always what's best, nor is eradicating all social programs (keep in mind, that includes roads, parks, police, firemen, the EPA, the FBI, the FCC, the FEC, Social Security, Medicare/aid, etc.). Most of those programs have SAVED America money and helped individuals too, both in the short and long term, not cost us or hobbled them, when you factor in all costs involved.
BUT, their social stances are EXACTLY what I want...equal protection under the law for all, freedom to decide what's immoral to each individual, and limits on government powers, especially against citizens.

If I can't vote for Sanders, I likely WILL vote for this guy over Trump or Clinton. Even though I don't think he has a chance to win...it could help in 4 years.

I vehemently disagree with a lot of libertarian thinking. In fact, I disagree with pretty much the entire ideology, but I would vote for this dude over Trump or Clinton.

OMFG! While I'm not a Libertarian, it's nice to see somebody who actually gets these sort of interviews and goes with it. Anytime I've seen interviews on Daily Show, Last Week Tonight or any of those shows, I'm always like, don't they know what sort of show they are being interviewed with/for? Now if only we can get the media to start giving Jill Stein some airtime too...

You can blame whomever you like. I will never vote for Hillary, which means I will be voting Libertarian this year. If that means Trump wins, then so be it. An inexperienced president is MUCH less of a threat than a corrupt one.

The worst harm Trump could do would be picking crappy SCOTUS judges, realistically an inexperienced President doesn't have that much power over anything else if Congress is against him/her. Look at Obama, other than the few years he had a Democratic led Congress, he has mostly been limited to presidential decrees that really don't do much.

Now a corrupt president that is motivated and knows how to work the system, that is an entirely different animal. I have no issues in saying that Hillary is the most corrupt person I have seen in the running for President since Nixon, and we all know how well that turned out. She is by far worse than Trump, who is just an idiot. Her husband was just as bad, his support of the deregulation policies of the late 1990s in regards to Wall Street directly led to the 2008 Depression.

I will not vote for Hillary, nor can I vote for Trump.

I am most likely going to cast my vote for whomever the Libertarians pick this year.

We really need a good third party option for years like this one. Neither the Democrats nor Republicans seem to be able to give us a candidate that offers what voters really want these days.

Jill Stein(Green) and Gary Johnson(Libertarian)
are both running.
...


Yes a third party will split the vote. That is the point. It gives people the power to choose the issues. It forces a realignment of the parties. If the effected party doesn't change or adopt the third parties views, they will consistently lose. If they do change, then the third party can die out having been successful.

Parties have failed before. The US wasn't started with Democrat vs Republican. As I see it it's past time for both the Democratic and Republican parties to die out. The long term benefits from a realignment of the parties platform is well worth the temporary disaster of a Trump presidency.

I sincerely don't think Trump would be worse than Clinton. He is a buffoon with little support in the government, and would be unable to accomplish anything as president. Hillary on the other hand has the ability and will to continue the transfer of control over our government away from its citizens.

Trump winning would be a true embarrassment and a great motivation to switch from "first past the post" to another voting system. Hillary winning... more of the same BS ad infinitum.

I'll be voting for Jill Stein if Bernie isn't the Democratic nomination. Regardless of the outcome I'll know my vote, no matter how insignificantly small, supported the end of the Republican/Democrat duopoly.

As much as I am a Sander's supporter. I can't support the idea of him running as an independent. That would split the Democratic vote too much, and the idea of a Trump Presidency is far too dangerous. I think the fact that the polls show again and again that Sanders would do much better against Trump should show the DNC that Hillary needs Sanders and his supporters far more than Sanders needs her and her supporters.

If I were Hillary I'd offer Sanders the VP spot. Even if he doesn't accept, he gets the prime time keynote spot. Then you also promise the Congressional Progressive Caucus get's at least 60% of the rest of the prime time spots, with moderates getting 40% of the prime time spot. Off prime time the CPC still gets 40% (no less than 33%). Between Sanders and the CPC having the bulk of the prime time spots, it helps move the progressive message forward.

She then needs to have a known progressive on her ticket. If she can't secure Sanders, she'd probably consider Warren, but unfortunately, two women might make too many independent voters nervous. So I'd push for Dennis Kucinich. The advantage with Kucinich is that he's a known progressive, and he'd help give Clinton Ohio. If you can't get him, then find a rising member of the CPC. Again, the idea is to push the progressive agenda. Warren and Sanders have to have spots in the cabinet though if they want in.

There's enough hate of Trump in the Republican ranks that I think this year is the year to push for 3rd parties, especially the Libertarian party since that is the one most likely to pull votes from Republicans looking for an alternative to Trump... it won't pull the religious right who'll stick with Trump, but the more sane minded Republicans will probably consider it over absentee voting. The anti-Trump Republicans need to push the idea of the Libertarian party, and then push for Republicans for the Senate and House to avoid loosing the Senate, which is possible...

The Democrats meanwhile need to do something to get people out and vote. Democratic turnout keeps going down, beyond what one would expect purely from the Voter ID laws Republicans put in to lower Democratic votes. They need to rally the base into actually getting out and voting. To secure not only the Presidency from Trump, but to overtake the Senate and start making a push for the House. Of course one of the main way they do this is start appealing to Sanders supporters, and the party seems so intent on dissing his supporters.

The DNC is way too dismissive of the actions in Nevada. The Nevada people went out of their way to make sure Sanders didn't win, they knew people were still trying to get in when they made rule changes... people they were holding back on purpose so they could push those changes through, then when those people got in, they of course were upset. The DNC, a party that publicly tries to support those who have been disenfranchised from voting, is going out of their way to disenfranchise a large percentage of its base... all just because it's Clinton's turn or something. Fine, let it be her turn, but don't shut out the movement. She needs to step to the left, and add a large number of progressive voices to her team. She and the DNC needs to reach out to Sanders supporters and other progressives and unite the party... Trump seems to be pulling in the moderates to his side. As split as the Republicans were at the start, they are starting to pull together far better than the Democrats are... and it isn't up to Sanders to drop out and push his support to her, she needs to be the one to offer an olive branch and start wooing him and his supporters. Right now they seem to think it's Sander's job... no, it's the leader's job... It isn't the Republican moderates reaching out to Trump, it is Trump meeting with them and wooing them. Some to less success than others, true enough, but he's doing far better at starting an appeal to the moderates than Clinton is to Sanders, his supporters and the progressives.

@bobknight33 --

I continue to agree with you on a lot of what you're saying (but not all).

Trump and Sanders are both riding a wave of frustration in the people, as you say. Their current popularity, even if both only go downhill from here, has already partially sent that message to both parties. I don't think Trump would make a good president, but if he wins the election I think that really hammering home that message of frustration could be a significant positive outcome. Same goes for some hypothetical scenario resulting in Sanders getting elected, although I personally feel quite positive about the other stuff that I think Sanders would bring to the table, unlike how I feel about Trump.

If there's one area where I think the government could stand to get *bigger*, it's in oversight, evaluation, and accountability. Being under the microscope and heavily scrutinized perhaps isn't a recipe for optimal efficiency, but I think we desperately need more of it in government AND the private sector.

Early in my lifetime, a large corporation that had a relatively benign monopoly by today's standards was considered a big enough deal for the government to step in and break it up. AT&T / Bell got split into the "Baby Bells". Corporations now are vast juggernauts compared to that, but since they make gigantic profits I guess we collectively see them as bastions of Capitalism. But I think that in reality they are doing much more harm to Capitalism with their monopolies, collusion, and corruption.

I think Sanders is the candidate most likely to even *try* to do something to roll back that shift, and bring back oversight and accountability to government. Hillary sure as hell wouldn't do it. And I don't think Trump would either -- he is the literal face of a gigantic Corporation himself, after all.

I had high hopes for Obama. He didn't live up to them, but to be fair I think the lion's share of that is on the Legislative branch. That taught me to be careful about putting much of any stock into Presidential campaign promises, particularly about things outside the scope of what the Executive branch can actually do.

I think Trump and Clinton both put *themselves* first, ahead of all else. I don't think Clinton gives a flying fuck about any of us plebs, beyond attempting to pander to large demographic blocks of us just enough to secure our votes. Maybe Trump cares more for Joe Average than Clinton, but only incidentally -- as a Capitalist he needs Joe Averages to buy his products, and buy into his image.

I don't get the same read from Sanders. I think he actually does give a shit. A lot of his agenda would require a cooperative Legislature, which he wouldn't get -- just like Obama. So in terms of changing the status quo, perhaps his biggest impact would simply be in sending the establishment a loud and clear message that we are no longer content with business as usual in Washington. A message very similar to what electing Trump would send.

It would/ will take me some soul searching, but assuming that Hillary gets the Democrat nomination over Sanders, a desire to send that message might be enough to get me to vote for Trump. But voting for a reasonably tolerable option from a minor party might serve that end just as well. Say Jesse Ventura running as a Libertarian, or Jill Stein from the Green Party. Stein has the very distinct advantage (from my perspective) of being the only current candidate who has said that she would grant a Presidential pardon to Ed Snowden (although Ventura would too, IF he runs). Pardons are one of the few things that a President can actually *do* unilaterally -- and that makes that a pretty damn good "single issue" prompt for my vote, in my opinion.

Write in votes are always ignored.

Instead vote for a third party candidate.

If the Green party or Libertarian party gets 5% of the popular vote, the next election they qualify for a $20,000,000 federal grant to fund their campaign.
http://www.fec.gov/press/bkgnd/fund.shtml

The GOP never to this point kowtowed to that part of the base anyway until they decided to attempt to harness the energy of that faction to the point that this faction has a stranglehold of the party, and yet are wholly ignorant on the issues. We're talking about people who hold up signs that read "Keep your government hands off my medicare" caliber people. Or people who think Obama isn't an American. Or people who think Obama is "a complete socialized take over of health care". Stuff like that which is so obviously untrue, it's laughable.

And I want to be clear. I'm not accusing the right of having a monopoly on stupid people in their base. There's PLENTY of stupid liberals. The difference is the Democratic party is doing a far better job of keeping their idiots supporting them without enacting what those idiots want or succumbing to their idiocy.

Here's proof - how many times do you see Democratic leaders constantly say crap like George W. Bush is a war criminal for Iraq? Name a Democratic presidential candidate who actually has said over and over again that Ted Cruz isn't a US citizen? Donald Trump, the current GOP frontrunner, over and over again insists Obama isn't a US citizen, as have many many Republican Congressmen.

When the GOP signed the deal with the devil so to speak by trying to co-opt the Tea Party movement, this was the inevitable outcome. The Tea Party has been hijacked twice by my count because the people within it are so incredibly ignorant, they don't seem to realize what they stand for. It was Libertarian in the beginning both socially and economically. Then it got hijacked to become more socially conservative and economically conservative. Now, it's been hijacked by Donald Trump, who nobody actually even knows what he is socially or economically at this point overall.

Why did this happen? Because GOP support is so contaminated and dominated by so much ignorance, you can have a TV personality say a bunch of stupid crap they want to hear but is certifiably absurd, that he can become the front runner. Building a wall to keep the Mexicans out, no matter how you feel about illegal immigration as far as ideals go, is simply not a practical solution to stop illegal immigration. You can't make Mexico pay for a wall even if you built it. Obama wasn't born in Kenya. Replacing Obamacare with something "terrific" is NOT a policy proposal; it's non-specific anti-Obama BS to make people who hate Obama love you. He could replace it with "Trumpcare" which could be basically Obamacare, and that could be "something terrific" for all you know.

Trump and Cruz don't exist without the Tea Party, and the Tea Party wouldn't be a thing if the GOP didn't decide to eventually attempt to galvanize it. Well, mission accomplished, but you're never going to get the support of the growing minority segments of the population. You've forfeited the support of moderates like myself, too. And young people by enlarge are rejecting this version of the GOP big time. Women are increasingly rejecting it, too.

Your second point... Umm, big fat no.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/03/21/the-last-presidential-candidate-who-was-as-unpopular-as-donald-trump-david-duke/