• "Spreading the ideas of freedom loving people on matters regarding high finance, politics, constructionist Constitution, and mental masturbation of all types"

Why Libertarian Jo Jorgensen is the Best Candidate

the_shootist

Old Pasty White Guy
Midas Member
Midas Supporter ++
Joined
May 31, 2015
Messages
50,614
Likes
89,879
Location
Earth
#81
Political parties have been the most damaging element that has contributed to the destruction of America over the last 100 years!
 

Casey Jones

Ridin' that train
Silver Miner
Joined
Apr 4, 2020
Messages
1,758
Likes
2,771
Location
Down the road from the Kaczynski ranch
#83
Political parties have been the most damaging element that has contributed to the destruction of America over the last 100 years!
There is no alternative.

Campaigning for office, costs money. Associations of people who want to support the candidate, raise that money.

THAT is a political party. Whether it's called such, or not.

Have the government mandate, say, free media; free venues; equal time...and, presto! The GOVERNMENT is now a political party.

ONE party.

ONE PARTY RULE. Immediately the government will take sides.

Only government-approved candidates will get a hearing - or a slot on the ballot.

Like the Soviet Union. Or Mexico, until recently, with the PRI.

ONE PARTY, the GOVERNMENT PARTY.

Our system sucks, except for whatever else is second to it. They all suck, but ours sucks least.

And at least in theory and Constitutional law, our government is kept minimalist. Instead of government commissaries, government motor works, government utilities, government healthcare ("Single-Payer") and government internal passports.

All government sucks - but, it's a necessary evil. Dying, sucks, too - but both are unavoidable.
 

ZZZZZ

Platinum Bling
Platinum Bling
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Dec 23, 2017
Messages
6,185
Likes
13,424
Location
Northern Arizona
#84
There is no alternative.

Campaigning for office, costs money. Associations of people who want to support the candidate, raise that money.

THAT is a political party. Whether it's called such, or not.

Have the government mandate, say, free media; free venues; equal time...and, presto! The GOVERNMENT is now a political party.

ONE party.

ONE PARTY RULE. Immediately the government will take sides.

Only government-approved candidates will get a hearing - or a slot on the ballot.

Like the Soviet Union. Or Mexico, until recently, with the PRI.

ONE PARTY, the GOVERNMENT PARTY.

Our system sucks, except for whatever else is second to it. They all suck, but ours sucks least.

And at least in theory and Constitutional law, our government is kept minimalist. Instead of government commissaries, government motor works, government utilities, government healthcare ("Single-Payer") and government internal passports.

All government sucks - but, it's a necessary evil. Dying, sucks, too - but both are unavoidable.
Sure, political parties are an expression of freedom of association,

But there is no "constitutional right" to have a D or an R or an L or G next to your name on an election ballot.

Getting rid of the party labels on ballots will go a long way to reducing the corrupting power of the parties. All of them. Especially for state and local elections, voters might have to think for at least half a second who they are voting for.
.
.
 

chris_is_here

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
1,542
Likes
2,282
Location
People's State of Mask-achusettz
#85
I don't know where you got your history from but that's not what happened. The Founding Fathers warned against the evils of all organized political parties. They opposed the entire concept, but they especially warned about the evils of political power being vested in only two parties. Unlike many other "democracies", political parties are not mentioned anywhere in the US Constitution.

Maybe you've forgotten that (Dis)Honest Abe was the third party candidate when he got elected. Actually I wish the Whigs were still the second largest party.
True, George Washington despised partism. It wasn't because everyone's views were homogeneous back then (the Burr-Hamilton duel proved that), they just knew that factions would ultimately rip the country apart and that is exactly what happened, thanks to that long-legged tyrant Lincoln.

Lincoln was a true political opportunist, he campaigned against slavery to get elected (knowing full well he could blow off the southern vote and still win in the electoral college) and then tried to do a volte-face once elected and claim he only wanted to contain slavery, when the southern states were breaking away. The south knew better. Lincoln would have been right at home with the politicians of our era.

In retrospect, Stephen Douglas would have been a better choice. Under Douglas, I don't think the south would have left the union. Douglas was more of a moderate on the issue of slavery and he would not have generated the distrust that Lincoln did. Slavery was a doomed enterprise anyway, but to try to eliminate it at the stroke of a pen and against the wishes of 11 southern states (and several territories) was guaranteed to provoke a war, which Lincoln knew full well.

Little known fact: Lincoln had his own paramilitary youth organization called the "Wide Awakes" (sound familiar?) that he used as muscle during his political rallies, his own version of the Brown Shirts. Of course, you'll never hear that in any history class - or the fact that Lincoln jailed newspaper reporters that were critical of him during the civil war.
 

gringott

"Veteran of the Battle of Knob Creek"
Midas Member
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
16,583
Likes
24,083
Location
Stable
#86
This is the real best candidate, but we cannot have him.

 

Voodoo

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
2,304
Likes
3,162
Location
Deep Underground Bunker
#87
I saw an actual Jorgenson bumper sticker today. Very poorly designed as it was light blue with white letters. Barely legible even when I stopped right behind the car.
 

arminius

Platinum Bling
Platinum Bling
Midas Supporter ++
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Messages
5,734
Likes
8,406
#88
Lincoln would have been right at home with the politicians of our era.
What, that he was a psychopath, and as with many (most) politicians discover they can feed their psychopathy with politics.
 

ZZZZZ

Platinum Bling
Platinum Bling
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Dec 23, 2017
Messages
6,185
Likes
13,424
Location
Northern Arizona
#89
This is the real best candidate, but we cannot have him.

His old man was even better :D, but I'd have to put down my Libertarian Party membership card and strongly support Rand as the presidential candidate of the Party of Elephants.
.
.
 

Casey Jones

Ridin' that train
Silver Miner
Joined
Apr 4, 2020
Messages
1,758
Likes
2,771
Location
Down the road from the Kaczynski ranch
#90
Maybe some more revisiting of history, is in order.

1971. The fake conservative, Nixon - the staunch anti-Communist Cold Warrior who made nice-nice with Mao Tse-tung...the sound money defender who took the nation to Fiat Hell...he was running for re-election.

Forget Watergate. That comes later - let's consider the candidates as were presented. Nixon, a failing fraud...and McGovern, a deranged beta cuck, with no-longer-secret admirations for Communism. Remember his proposal to prevent the bequeathing of estates? You work all your life, build a business...but it ain't yours. It's GOVERNMENT'S - and they take it when you die.

Sure. Property rights, my arse.

This was the choice. Liberal Republican who had been hoisting a false flag all his life...or surrender-monkey cuck from the the State of South Dakota. Given the times, it was understandable, their isolation from realities.

But those were the choices offered the nation.

BUT FOR...the American Independent Party. John Schmitz, a cipher from Orange County, a back-bencher former Republican House member.

Obviously, given the choices offered, on pure logic, Schmitz would have been preferable to either. BUT...what chance did he have, given that neither he nor his new third party had standing or cred?

Nixon, like Trump, was the best choice of the moment. Because, remember - the time to vote FOR the best man is in your party's primary.

At General Election time, you vote AGAINST the Other Guy.

There is no other way it can work. Only government interference with elections, and, thus, government creating its own de-facto party, could make it different - and it would make the US like the PRI party made Mexican politics for 40 years.
 

Bigfoot

Gold Chaser
Sr Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 3, 2010
Messages
3,975
Likes
5,065
#92
Nixon, like Trump, was the best choice of the moment.
I don't agree with that. Nixon not only took us off the gold standard, he's the reason the government monitors everyone's bank accounts. He also left more the 600 live American POWs in Vietnam and Laos while telling the American people that they had all come home. To protect Nixon and Kissinger, a cover-up was initiated that has lasted all the way up to the present time. When Boris Yeltsin visited the US, he brought a list of 50 American POWs that been transferred to Russia from Vietnam. He wanted to give them back. But guess what? The US media together with the intelligence agencies covered it up! I've seen a DIA report about POWs in Laos from 2008.

People need to wake up to the level of corruption in this government, and the collusion with the MSM (includes Fox).
 
Last edited:

chris_is_here

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
1,542
Likes
2,282
Location
People's State of Mask-achusettz
#93
Maybe some more revisiting of history, is in order.

1971. The fake conservative, Nixon - the staunch anti-Communist Cold Warrior who made nice-nice with Mao Tse-tung...the sound money defender who took the nation to Fiat Hell...he was running for re-election.

Forget Watergate. That comes later - let's consider the candidates as were presented. Nixon, a failing fraud...and McGovern, a deranged beta cuck, with no-longer-secret admirations for Communism. Remember his proposal to prevent the bequeathing of estates? You work all your life, build a business...but it ain't yours. It's GOVERNMENT'S - and they take it when you die.

Sure. Property rights, my arse.

This was the choice. Liberal Republican who had been hoisting a false flag all his life...or surrender-monkey cuck from the the State of South Dakota. Given the times, it was understandable, their isolation from realities.

But those were the choices offered the nation.

BUT FOR...the American Independent Party. John Schmitz, a cipher from Orange County, a back-bencher former Republican House member.

Obviously, given the choices offered, on pure logic, Schmitz would have been preferable to either. BUT...what chance did he have, given that neither he nor his new third party had standing or cred?

Nixon, like Trump, was the best choice of the moment. Because, remember - the time to vote FOR the best man is in your party's primary.

At General Election time, you vote AGAINST the Other Guy.

There is no other way it can work. Only government interference with elections, and, thus, government creating its own de-facto party, could make it different - and it would make the US like the PRI party made Mexican politics for 40 years.
John G Schmitz would have been my choice, despite his personal quirks. He once remarked that he was running to the right of Nixon. People actually thought he was joking, but he was just being truthful. By 1972, Nixon had moved so far to the left that he damn near bumped into the "Pansy Poet" (as Nixon referred to him). Nixon maintained his 'law and order' stance, which was enough to get him re-elected. He was political survivor, he could read the winds and adopt as needed to stay relevant. The 1972 election was a blowout. I think 2020 will be too, but not as lopsided as '72.
 

Casey Jones

Ridin' that train
Silver Miner
Joined
Apr 4, 2020
Messages
1,758
Likes
2,771
Location
Down the road from the Kaczynski ranch
#94
But Schmitz would never have won.

Because he was an unknown to most voters. I brought this up because this is ALWAYS how a third-party fringe candidate plays out. This is human psychology of voters, not a function of politics.

We have to recognize this. Failure to do that, is...failure. Just as the Marxists will not recognize their beautiful dream of collectivism flies in the face of how humans' brains WORK.
 

Ensoniq

Midas Member
Midas Member
Midas Supporter ++
Joined
Apr 9, 2013
Messages
8,618
Likes
17,581
Location
North Carolina
#95
there is a tipping point that the Libertarian party never gets close to in presidential elections.

i‘d rather have a libertarian than a republican too but I’m not willing to risk getting a democrat in a protest vote

the libertarian would need to be at least at 20% plus or minus to take the chance. Otherwise it’s what the Green Party did to the Democrats last cycle.

your Mileage may vary
 
Last edited:

ZZZZZ

Platinum Bling
Platinum Bling
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Dec 23, 2017
Messages
6,185
Likes
13,424
Location
Northern Arizona
#96
there is a tipping point that the Libertarian party never gets close to in presidential elections.

i‘d rather have a libertarian than a republican too but I’m not willing to risk getting a democrat in a protest vote

the libertarian would need to be at least at 20% plus or minus to take the chance. Otherwise it’s what the Green Party did to the Democrats last cycle.

your Mileage may vary
If the BIPARTISAN (not non-partisan) Presidential Debates Commission ever allowed a Libertarian on the stage, he or she would get that 20%.
.
.
 

Area51

Silver Member
Silver Miner
Joined
Oct 23, 2012
Messages
1,758
Likes
1,433
#97
Just like 5Zs, I would absolutely vote for Rand Paul. But here's the important question. Why exactly is it that we cannot have him?
Self preservation.

He’s smart enough to realize the moment he - - or anyone else - - puts forth the idea of a gold/silver backed currency is the moment he gets killed by a Lee Oswald-type patsy.
 

Bigfoot

Gold Chaser
Sr Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 3, 2010
Messages
3,975
Likes
5,065
#98
Self preservation.

He’s smart enough to realize the moment he - - or anyone else - - puts forth the idea of a gold/silver backed currency is the moment he gets killed by a Lee Oswald-type patsy.
Personally, I have to wonder whether the neighbor who attacked Paul had been drugged and programed to attack him. Similarly, I certainly consider is possible that the mob that greeted Paul the other night near the White House was out to harass any Republican politician, but I also
think it's worth considering if that was orchestrated, because it serves the current narrative extremely well.
 
Last edited:

Bigfoot

Gold Chaser
Sr Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 3, 2010
Messages
3,975
Likes
5,065
#99
i‘d rather have a libertarian than a republican too but I’m not willing to risk getting a democrat in a protest vote
I know a lot of people who are operating from the same premise you are. The problem with this logic, in my opinion, is that it focuses on short-term safety at the expense of long-term gains. Let me elaborate on that some.

Let's say that enough people switch from Republican to Libertarian, that Trump loses the current election. But, people stick to their principles, and elect a Libertarian in the 2024 election. Now maybe in would take more than just one election cycle, maybe it would take 3 or 5. The problem is that From Nixon to Reagan to Bush to Bush to Trump things have gotten worse. The debt gets higher and more and more power is concentrated in DC. The Republican presidents are not doing their constitutional duty. It's time to break out of the downward spiral to hell.
 

Ensoniq

Midas Member
Midas Member
Midas Supporter ++
Joined
Apr 9, 2013
Messages
8,618
Likes
17,581
Location
North Carolina
^^^
i can’t disagree with your logic but I don’t see it happening

in my opinion we can’t overcome the 48% voting for a living and the 95% that don’t understand the problem any deeper than the sound bites they are fed.

the most probable solution in my opinion is the Galt opt out strategy
 

Area51

Silver Member
Silver Miner
Joined
Oct 23, 2012
Messages
1,758
Likes
1,433
It doesn’t matter who gets elected - - Libertarian, Republican, Democrat or green party kook - - because the president has ZERO power to make any important decisions.

You’re living in a dream world if you think a president could decide to end the made-for-television “wars” or dissolve the fed or convert to a gold backed currency.

The US president is nothing more than a figurehead mouth piece.
 

Ensoniq

Midas Member
Midas Member
Midas Supporter ++
Joined
Apr 9, 2013
Messages
8,618
Likes
17,581
Location
North Carolina
It doesn’t matter who gets elected - - Libertarian, Republican, Democrat or green party kook - - because the president has ZERO power to make any important decisions.

You’re living in a dream world if you think a president could decide to end the made-for-television “wars” or dissolve the fed or convert to a gold backed currency.

The US president is nothing more than a figurehead mouth piece.
he has the power just not the balls to use it

stop signing appropriations bill or continuing resolutions and everyday tweet out and they’ll be no back pay when Congress eventually bends to his will

shut it all down
 

Joe King

Midas Member
Midas Member
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
11,066
Likes
13,249
Location
Instant Gratification Land
But, people stick to their principles, and elect a Libertarian in the 2024
Most peoples attention span isn't that long, and the potential damage a dementia joe presidency could do, isn't worth the risk.
 

FunnyMoney

Silver Member
Silver Miner
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
3,327
Likes
3,110
Most peoples attention span isn't that long, and the potential damage a dementia joe presidency could do, isn't worth the risk.
And what was the risk of allowing the mafia to merge with the corps and the gov't in 2016?

They guy congratulates dictators. I would take a drugged out, sleepy criminal over a zealot and always awake criminal any day.
 

plata_oro

Seeker
Seeker
Joined
Aug 15, 2012
Messages
328
Likes
235
Location
Treasure Valley
I heard Jo Jorgensen wants the gov't to fund tranny's medical procedures. If this is true, I will register Independent or Republican as I don't want anything to do with that agenda.

I turned 18 in 1996 and voted for Jack Kemp over Jo Jorgensen for VP and have no regrets about doing so. Jack Kemp was a sound money guy and Bob Dole's campaign was all about the 15% flat tax which would've effectively ended the national debt within 15 or 20 years.

But thanks to Newsweek, the information about the Clinton affair was withheld until January 1997; after the election. It would be a much different country today if the media had not been so selective on what to report. Any wonder why nobody trusts them anymore?
 

the_shootist

Old Pasty White Guy
Midas Member
Midas Supporter ++
Joined
May 31, 2015
Messages
50,614
Likes
89,879
Location
Earth
I'm not concerned about her positions in the least, I, like 99.99% of Americans, don't think about her at all
 

plata_oro

Seeker
Seeker
Joined
Aug 15, 2012
Messages
328
Likes
235
Location
Treasure Valley
Got a source for that? I find that impossible to believe.
.
.
My wife's facebook; something something....


When/If I get a link I will post it. Whether it's true or not I will be voting against Kamala Harris.


If you get a chance check out Irwin Schiff at the 1996 convention. Dude died in Federal prison because he refuse to pay the IRS.
 

ZZZZZ

Platinum Bling
Platinum Bling
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Dec 23, 2017
Messages
6,185
Likes
13,424
Location
Northern Arizona
My wife's facebook; something something....


When/If I get a link I will post it. Whether it's true or not I will be voting against Kamala Harris.


If you get a chance check out Irwin Schiff at the 1996 convention. Dude died in Federal prison because he refuse to pay the IRS.
Irwin Schiff was my family's insurance agent for a while way back in the 1960s, in Connecticut. I've read a couple of his books. As Peter Schiff says, he was a political prisoner..
.
.
 

plata_oro

Seeker
Seeker
Joined
Aug 15, 2012
Messages
328
Likes
235
Location
Treasure Valley
Irwin Schiff was my family's insurance agent for a while way back in the 1960s, in Connecticut. I've read a couple of his books. As Peter Schiff says, he was a political prisoner..
.
.

Peter's products our my insurance against the shyster bankers.
 

Joe King

Midas Member
Midas Member
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
11,066
Likes
13,249
Location
Instant Gratification Land

Joe King

Midas Member
Midas Member
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
11,066
Likes
13,249
Location
Instant Gratification Land
And what was the risk of allowing the mafia to merge with the corps and the gov't in 2016?

They guy congratulates dictators. I would take a drugged out, sleepy criminal over a zealot and always awake criminal any day.
Just more of your "orange man bad" drivel.
...and if you think Trump being elected changed anything like what you are trying to accuse him of, you need to go back to learning about the previous 100 years. You obviously slept through that class.
 

gringott

"Veteran of the Battle of Knob Creek"
Midas Member
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
16,583
Likes
24,083
Location
Stable
Up to their old tricks of diverting voters to the fake-ass Libertarian Party.
I have received through the USPS 6 full color cardboard hard flyers (expensive) for a guy named Brad Barron, running for Senator in Kentucky, as a Libertarian. Never heard of him or his campaign before. They all came in the last two weeks, last one yesterday.

Odd in that there have been ZERO anything come in the mail for the Libertarian Party Presidential ticket.

Put on your thinking cap.
How does a nobody get the funds for this when the "big ticket" can't afford squat?

Now put that together with the fact that the Democrat in the Senate race against Mitch McConnell is almost exclusively funded by out of state donations. Of course, Mitch McConnell is no angel, he gets the majority of his donations from out of state as well. The chart below shows the relationship.

1602162071378.png


Can't even see Brad's donations. This should clear it up some:
1602162257849.png


Seems to me the Democrat Team is funding these flyers IMHO.
I guess the polls aren't going as well as Amy would like.
Typical Libertarian Party BS. I should add the flyers are mailed out from Tennessee. They don't say who funded them, if the candidate endorsed it, etc. In other words, nobody knows who paid for them.
 

ZZZZZ

Platinum Bling
Platinum Bling
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Dec 23, 2017
Messages
6,185
Likes
13,424
Location
Northern Arizona
Seems to me the Democrat Team is funding these flyers IMHO.
I guess the polls aren't going as well as Amy would like.
Typical Libertarian Party BS. I should add the flyers are mailed out from Tennessee. They don't say who funded them, if the candidate endorsed it, etc. In other words, nobody knows who paid for them.
Politics is a dirty business.

The Dems gave the Arizona LP a whole bunch of bucks in 2018 because they (wrongly) think Libertarians draw votes from Repubs. NOT TRUE., but that's another story.

And this year in several states, the Dems were successful in kicking Greenie Weenie Howie Hawkins off the ballot over minor technicalities.

Politics is a dirty business.
.
.
 

gringott

"Veteran of the Battle of Knob Creek"
Midas Member
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
16,583
Likes
24,083
Location
Stable
Politics is a dirty business.

The Dems gave the Arizona LP a whole bunch of bucks in 2018 because they (wrongly) think Libertarians draw votes from Repubs. NOT TRUE., but that's another story.

And this year in several states, the Dems were successful in kicking Greenie Weenie Howie Hawkins off the ballot over minor technicalities.

Politics is a dirty business.
.
.
On that we can agree!
 

Juristic Person

They drew first blood
Platinum Bling
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
6,141
Likes
4,593
This guy makes a strong case that Libertarian principles are the best for the USA over the long-term, and that the establishment parties are fundamentally flawed at this point.

Is Jo Jorgensen going to take on the Deep State?

I don’t think so. There isn’t a political agenda by a criminal cartel that is destroying America and one man stands in their way. One man isn’t taking the fight to them. That man isn’t Donald J Trump.
 

Bigfoot

Gold Chaser
Sr Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 3, 2010
Messages
3,975
Likes
5,065
Is Jo Jorgensen going to take on the Deep State?
Maybe not. But Biden and Trump are the Deep State. Have you seen how Trump keeps letting Biden, Obama, and Hillary get away? Did you see the news that Trump's biggest financial supporter is connected to the arrest and attempted murder of Julian Assange? Have you seen Pompeo call for Snowden's death? Have you noticed how Trump has given the MIC everything they want? Are you following Operation Warp Speed?
 
Last edited: