Libertarians to have first state wide 3rd party primary in FL since 1920

[coredumped]

Socialists were supporting gay marriage (and gay rights in general) long before the "Libertarian" party even existed.

Well, sort of. The "Socialist" party of America was founded 2 years (1973) after the Libertarian party was founded (1971).

So while socialists themselves may have supported it, they had no party to represent them until after the libertarian party was formed.  But none of that really matters, since the party is pretty much defunct.

Like Gary always says "most people are Libertarians, they just don't know it yet..."

[Adam White]

Socialists were supporting gay marriage (and gay rights in general) long before the "Libertarian" party even existed.

Well, sort of. The "Socialist" party of America was founded 2 years (1973) after the Libertarian party was founded (1971).

So while socialists themselves may have supported it, they had no party to represent them until after the libertarian party was formed.  But none of that really matters, since the party is pretty much defunct.

Like Gary always says "most people are Libertarians, they just don't know it yet..."

The Socialist Party was founded in 1901. The current incarnation of that party is the Socialist Party USA.

[fsquid]

Exciting times for libertarians, CNN is holding a town hall right now. It's the only party increasing in size, the big 2 dysfunctional dinosaur parties are falling apart.

Glad the message is getting out.

I watched it last night and enjoyed it.   I'm hoping they get the 15% needed to be included in the debates.  The drawback is that Johnson doesn't seem like that great a speaker, so he might get mopped up by the other two.

[Tacachale]

^Even if he got to 15%, which they almost certainly won't, the networks will just raise the bar to exclude him. The only reason it's that high to begin with was to cut out third parties after Ross Perot in the 90's. And Perot had a considerably higher profile than modern-day Libertarians.

[Adam White]

^Even if he got to 15%, which they almost certainly won't, the networks will just raise the bar to exclude him. The only reason it's that high to begin with was to cut out third parties after Ross Perot in the 90's. And Perot had a considerably higher profile than modern-day Libertarians.

Ah, good old Ross Perot. I had forgotten about him. One of Dana Carvey's funnier impressions.

[fsquid]

^Even if he got to 15%, which they almost certainly won't, the networks will just raise the bar to exclude him. The only reason it's that high to begin with was to cut out third parties after Ross Perot in the 90's. And Perot had a considerably higher profile than modern-day Libertarians.

Maybe, I think the only reason CNN had that last night was to show an anti-republican option.  No reason the networks wouldn't think the same.

[Downtown Osprey]

I'm voting for Johnson, however, Weld sounded 1,000 more prepared and confident in his speaking. Almost feel like the ticket should be flipped but that's just me. Won't change my vote.

He addressed all the issues well with the exception of the women brought up her sons heroin addiction. Johnson sounded completely lost in his response.

[coredumped]

^Even if he got to 15%, which they almost certainly won't, the networks will just raise the bar to exclude him. The only reason it's that high to begin with was to cut out third parties after Ross Perot in the 90's. And Perot had a considerably higher profile than modern-day Libertarians.

I think he will, he's been polling as high as 12% in some polls, and that's with the media ignoring him.

It should be pointed out that the networks don't set the bar to exclude him, that's done by the Commission on Presidential Debates, which is controlled by, you guessed it the Dems and Repubs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission_on_Presidential_Debates

[finehoe]

What would you prefer? Prior restraint? Secret government lists to take away Constitutional rights without due process? Continued intervention in foreign affairs?
All those things they oppose and have costs thousands of American lives, and billions of dollars.

And libertarians were the first party to support gay marriage, long before liberals jumped on board.

The problem is not that there is too much government, but rather, the government which you have is tainted with corruption and needs a thorough cleaning and reform. Knock down all the fences if you will in the name of an unsustainable ideal, and give the ravening wolves free range for their plunder. And then be surprised.

Anyone who believes that not enforcing the rules, or even simply eliminating them, will result in the natural and efficient flow of productive activity has never driven on a modern freeway. This notion is just another version of a belief in the noble savage, the view that people are naturally good and rational, but are corrupted by rules and society. And those people who espouse this think that they are cavorting in some magical world with Peter Pan, instead of with some of the oldest and basest forms of evil against which good people have continually come together throughout history for their mutual protection.

And when the next crisis comes along, perhaps the people will not be so complacent and gullible, and see the real culprits behind the ideological scapegoats and fog of talk show hosts. But I'm not betting on it.

[coredumped]

I know you and I won't ever agree finehoe, and that's OK. But the way i see it is, "what has the government ever done right?" and "what is the function of government?"

Is it to protect us from ourselves by banning soda and drugs? If so, they've failed there, obesity is at an all time high, and drugs are easier to buy than alcohol for a minor.

Is it to protect us from companies? If so, they've failed there, remember asbestos?

Protect us from foreign countries? Every war we've been in since WWII has been a disaster.  Which, by the way, was the last time we actually did a formal declaration of war.

Is government to protect us against government? Look at the police state happening, look at the corruption.

Help us when we need? Social security is totally broke and a disaster. Making people hooked on government reliance is NOT compassionate.

Look no further than locally what government has done to our downtown. Demolitions, parking meters, regulation, etc.

Obamacare, social security, wars, drug wars, etc, they're all failures.

NASA might be the only thing the government does right, and they've cut that budget.

I believe government has a place in society, and that's to protect us from foreign affairs, but in a non-intervention way. Neither democrats or republicans are for less wars now. Government tries to do much and as a result, we have what we have. I don't believe the problem of government, is more government. Which is what both major parties stand for as of now.