ADVERTISEMENT

Gary Johnson is now polling at 13%. 2% more and he is in the debates!

Gary might be more unfit than the Orange Raccoon to be President, and that is saying quite a lot.

3 totally and utterly worthless pieces of dog s#it. Congrats 'Murica.
 
FRENCH TOAST DUDE!! Another Aleppo moment. Can't name any other world leader. This guy is a tool. Where is Rand and Ron when you need them?

 
Last edited:
Seriously folks - if it's going to be that close in Florida again to decide the election, consider holding your nose and voting for Trump. Do you want to see more escalation in Syria and "boots on the ground". Hillary is war monger and crazy to prove something. At least with Trump, common sense will prevail one would hope.

Why is working with the Russians to get rid of ISIS such a bad plan? I love it!!
 
And I'll also say this - for all the UCF Florida libertarians that can commit to voting for Trump, I will line up one of my conservative buddies to vote for Johnson, so the people are heard in the aggregate. :eek:[banana]:boxing:
 
Seriously folks - if it's going to be that close in Florida again to decide the election, consider holding your nose and voting for Trump. Do you want to see more escalation in Syria and "boots on the ground". Hillary is war monger and crazy to prove something. At least with Trump, common sense will prevail one would hope.

Why is working with the Russians to get rid of ISIS such a bad plan? I love it!!

I couldn't parse the bolded section.
 
Seriously folks - if it's going to be that close in Florida again to decide the election, consider holding your nose and voting for Trump. Do you want to see more escalation in Syria and "boots on the ground". Hillary is war monger and crazy to prove something. At least with Trump, common sense will prevail one would hope.

Why is working with the Russians to get rid of ISIS such a bad plan? I love it!!
Its not but leaving the Assad regime in place is. Since when has a Republican candidate been against putting boots on the ground?
 
The Libertarian answer is Trumps answer. NO WAR. NO LIVES LOST. Assad is the man. Let's work with the Russians, get rid of ISIS TOGETHER and let the healing begin. Followed up by PEACE IN ISREAL!!

You have zero chance of that happening with Hillary #fact
 
The Libertarian answer is Trumps answer. NO WAR. NO LIVES LOST. Assad is the man. Let's work with the Russians, get rid of ISIS TOGETHER and let the healing begin. Followed up by PEACE IN ISREAL!!

You have zero chance of that happening with Hillary #fact
How does healing begin by leaving someone who has used chemical weapons on his own people in power?
 
I'll also say 90% NINETY PERCENT of the American public fortunately did not want an escalation in Syria, and war machine Obama had no choice but to listen.

The so-called "red line" was nothing but a false flag done by Turkey and ISIS. Freaking pitiful. This is why we need BRAND NEW THINKING in the white house on foreign policy. And the best candidate for that right now is Trump.
 
The more I think about that question, the more I realize it was a perfect question for that forum, to knock him down. It's MSNBC. To them, most of Europe should be looked up to. To them, just about any foreign leader should be admired. You heard him, "just name one, any foreign leader".
They finally arrive at Germany's Merkel. Who again, is basically a true American conservative (not to be confused with the republican party). However doesn't fit the libertarian views on social liberalism.
Let's say that's his answer straight away. Conservatives are probably not watching MSNBC, so they don't even see that it's an "good" answer in their perspective. To a democrat leaning voter, Merkel might be one of the worst answers and they're all watching... and again to a libertarian, probably any answer is wrong.

Well played MSNBC.
 
True. But do you want to go to war with every country who uses a a weapon we don't like?

For God good graces, we carpet, fire bombed and nuked innocent people. Let's not act we are morally superior.
Depending on the weapon, yes. I would like NATO to intervene rather than standby and let thousands of people die.
 
Depending on the weapon, yes. I would like NATO to intervene rather than standby and let thousands of people die.

It took me a long time to get this, but we or NATO go into "help" people sometimes it includes killing lots of people. There is no more dignity dieing from smart bomb than from a dirty one.

There is no moral superiority that justifies military interventions aka killing lots of people.
 
The more I think about that question, the more I realize it was a perfect question for that forum, to knock him down. It's MSNBC. To them, most of Europe should be looked up to. To them, just about any foreign leader should be admired. You heard him, "just name one, any foreign leader".
They finally arrive at Germany's Merkel. Who again, is basically a true American conservative (not to be confused with the republican party). However doesn't fit the libertarian views on social liberalism.
Let's say that's his answer straight away. Conservatives are probably not watching MSNBC, so they don't even see that it's an "good" answer in their perspective. To a democrat leaning voter, Merkel might be one of the worst answers and they're all watching... and again to a libertarian, probably any answer is wrong.

Well played MSNBC.

If (Liberal) MSNBC was smart...they should boost him up...as that GOP Establishment Ticket, under the guise of the Libertarian Party, would take more votes away from Trump vs Hillary.

With MSNBC making those GOP Establishment idiots look like morons, it actually helps Trump, hurts Hillary.
 
You see that's the thing. Hillary is so political, that she is going to do whatever she thinks is going to buy her political good will. Military escalations appeases the military industrial complex (big Clinton foundations supporters).
 
It took me a long time to get this, but we or NATO go into "help" people sometimes it includes killing lots of people. There is no more dignity dieing from smart bomb than from a dirty one.

There is no moral superiority that justifies military interventions aka killing lots of people.
There is if it prevents one group from being wiped off the face of the earth.
 
It took me a long time to get this, but we or NATO go into "help" people sometimes it includes killing lots of people. T

Welcome to the real world. Asaad isn't ideal, but he's a Western educated smart guy. Just let it be and refocus on those scumbags ISIS.
 
I'll also add, that I'm not super psyched about Trump either. The guy is a jackass, but you hope he starts to cement his legacy as President.

Any of those guys up on that stage would be up by 10 over H. That includes Kasich and Ted Cruz. But, it is what it is. The people have spoken.
 
True. But do you want to go to war with every country who uses a a weapon we don't like?

For God good graces, we carpet, fire bombed and nuked innocent people. Let's not act we are morally superior.


Had we not used the nukes we would have killed millions more Japanese than we did. not to say nothing that estimates were we would lose 1 million or more soldiers taking Japan. The Japanese were brutally tough fighters fighting for their God, Things would have been much worse for both Japan and Us had Truman not used the bomb, and put an end to the war.
 
If (Liberal) MSNBC was smart...they should boost him up...as that GOP Establishment Ticket, under the guise of the Libertarian Party, would take more votes away from Trump vs Hillary.

With MSNBC making those GOP Establishment idiots look like morons, it actually helps Trump, hurts Hillary.

Polling shows that Johnson pulls more from independant but historically democrat voters. It's why recently there have been hillary ads targeting johnson.

https://heatst.com/politics/hillary...ates-with-negative-ads-to-steal-their-voters/
 
  • Like
Reactions: MACHater02
Exactly, because any conservative knows that Johnson is a liberal fuktard.
No. He's for civil rights, something the Democratic party has reversed on, especially 2006+.

Remember, Republicans used to be the "Radical, Liberal" party. They passed the Civil Rights and Housing Acts, not the Democrats. LBJ was just President, and even thanked the Republicans for it. The Libertarian Party split in 1971 for a reason, as the Democrats found 'lip service' goes far when the Republicans forgot their radical roots.

Everything the Libertarians predicted about drugs, abortion, guns, etc... has come true. The arguments are hurting everyone. We're criminalizing everyone. We're legislating ourselves into a totalitarian society, one that puts everyone on lists and prevents anyone from exercising any civil right.

Honestly, people ... wake up!
 
No. He's for civil rights, something the Democratic party has reversed on, especially 2006+.

Remember, Republicans used to be the "Radical, Liberal" party. They passed the Civil Rights and Housing Acts, not the Democrats. LBJ was just President, and even thanked the Republicans for it. The Libertarian Party split in 1971 for a reason, as the Democrats found 'lip service' goes far when the Republicans forgot their radical roots.

Everything the Libertarians predicted about drugs, abortion, guns, etc... has come true. The arguments are hurting everyone. We're criminalizing everyone. We're legislating ourselves into a totalitarian society, one that puts everyone on lists and prevents anyone from exercising any civil right.

Honestly, people ... wake up!
You're giving Republicans credit for the Housing Act and the Civil Rights act. What are you smoking?
 
You're giving Republicans credit for the Housing Act and the Civil Rights act. What are you smoking?
Obviously you do not know your history!

The Republicans had repeatedly pushed everything on their platform from Women's equal rights (people forget that was still an issue in the '40s and '50s) to the two Civil Rights Acts in the '60s. LBJ repeatedly thanked the Republicans for passing it more than his own party! Once African-Americans could actually exercise the right to vote, no less than five (5) southern states swung Republican!

African-Americans did not start moving Democratic until their change in strategy in the '70s. Everything changed in the '70s, civil rights, drugs, etc..., which explains a lot of why the Libertarians split off. Heck, even MSNBC Democratic party mouthpiece Rachel Maddow has talked about this, speaking very highly of many Republicans, from Eisenhower to the Republican Congress of the '60s.

Seriously ... I'm tired of Americans not knowing their own history! Just look up the voting record of the '64 and '68 Acts!!!
 
Obviously you do not know your history!

The Republicans had repeatedly pushed everything on their platform from Women's equal rights (people forget that was still an issue in the '40s and '50s) to the two Civil Rights Acts in the '60s. LBJ repeatedly thanked the Republicans for passing it more than his own party! Once African-Americans could actually exercise the right to vote, no less than five (5) southern states swung Republican!

African-Americans did not start moving Democratic until their change in strategy in the '70s. Everything changed in the '70s, civil rights, drugs, etc..., which explains a lot of why the Libertarians split off. Heck, even MSNBC Democratic party mouthpiece Rachel Maddow has talked about this, speaking very highly of many Republicans, from Eisenhower to the Republican Congress of the '60s.

Seriously ... I'm tired of Americans not knowing their own history! Just look up the voting record of the '64 and '68 Acts!!!
LOL. I get it. Truman, Kennedy, and Johnson were all Republicans. Interesting African-Americans didn't just stay Republican.
 
LOL. I get it. Truman, Kennedy, and Johnson were all Republicans.
Yes, because obviously, the President passes laws (NOT). Sigh ... LBJ continued the work that Kennedy started with the Republicans in Congress. He often had to rely on the Republicans to end fillabusters and other things. Again, read up!

Interesting African-Americans didn't just stay Republican.
Indeed. That's the first time you've actually been correct.

By the mid '70s, African-Americans started going Democratic, especially after the combination of the "Southern Strategy" and the "Lip Service." The Republicans stayed focus on "equality" while the Democratic Party moved from being against equality, to "reparations" which became very popular, followed by the more tactful "affirmative" plan by the '90s.

Again ... this is why the Libertarians broke with the Republicans in the '70s.
 
Yes, because obviously, the President passes laws (NOT). Sigh ... LBJ continued the work that Kennedy started with the Republicans in Congress. He often had to rely on the Republicans to end fillabusters and other things. Again, read up!

Indeed. That's the first time you've actually been correct.

By the mid '70s, African-Americans started going Democratic, especially after the combination of the "Southern Strategy" and the "Lip Service." The Republicans stayed focus on "equality" while the Democratic Party moved from being against equality, to "reparations" which became very popular, followed by the more tactful "affirmative" plan by the '90s.

Again ... this is why the Libertarians broke with the Republicans in the '70s.
Of course the president doesn't pass law, but they can create it. Those are Democratic initiatives. As a result, all of the backwards people of the South went Republican, not due to their longing for equality.
 
Of course the president doesn't pass law, but they can create it.
Which LBJ did, yes. Goldwater was not the majority view of Republicans, although Goldwater's arguments were based on the fact that government helped create the problem in the first place (and might make it worse). In any case, nearly 80% of Republicans sided with LBJ, way, way more than Democrats.

That's why LBJ thanked the Republicans.

Those are Democratic initiatives.
Now that's re-writing history! The US media has you 100% duped!

No, they were Republican initiatives starting with Women in the '40s and '50s, which Eisenhower then also pushed through for African-Americans where he could (e.g., military), and it continued into the '60s.

JFK was the first, major Democratic candidate to agree, and that's because he was young and progressive. LBJ continued those initiatives. However, RFK was an entirely different animal. RFK has had his history re-written. RFK was no friend of MLK Jr. at first. It wasn't until the mid-to-late '60s that he changed, after the '64 Act had been passed.

LBJ, ironically being a racist Texan, was the literal, 'Only Nixon could go to China.' He used to call up his southern white friends and say, "We're going to pass the N(censored) Bill today, whether you like it or not."

As a result, all of the backwards people of the South went Republican, not due to their longing for equality.
Yes, because after the '60s, the Democratic Party started down the 'reparations' route, which eventually morphed into the 'affirmation' strategy. The Democratic Party also found allies in the Green movement, which was at odds with the Republicans business interests.

The Republicans, having accomplished most of the equal rights they had set out to do for 100 years, were more lost than anything. They now were taking issue with the 180 degree reversal with the Democratic party. That resulted in a radical change in the Republican party, on everything from drugs to religion. And that's when the major splits in the party started, for the first time since their foundation.

By the '90s, the Democratic Party had equalized in business relationships. And now, in the '10s, the Democratic Party has more big business alliances than the Republicans. This is also why Donald Trump has become extremely popular, because more and more Republicans are getting repulsed by the Oligarchy.

The Democrats say they do, and Sanders very much is honest about it, but the current administration is far, far more entrenched in special interest than even the W. administration. That's what happens when you grow government and give out so many monopolies as a result of a single, federal clearing house for lobbyists.

Which brings us back to how the Republican party is breaking apart after 50 years of losing its original foundation. They were very popular before the '70s for the same reasons most Americans now self-identify as Libertarian, fiscally conservative, socially tolerant.
 
ADVERTISEMENT