It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Libertarian Party Gets Victory in Suit

page: 2
16
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 2 2017 @ 10:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi

Look at what was voted for. The two worst candidates in US history and they still voted two party. Not even enough protest votes to reach 5%. America is screwed, idiocracy is here to stay.


Yeah when Trump and Hillary became the two running candidates I felt that this was the most depressing election ever that two party system manged to vomit up these two candidates and finally it seemed to me there were no lesser of two evils.
I picked Gary Johnson I didn't think he was going to win by any stretch of the imagination but I hoped that at least he would get 5% just so an alternative party stood a chance in the future.
If he was not on ballot I most likely would have opted out of voting and I have voted in every national election since 96.
edit on 2-3-2017 by SolAquarius because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 2 2017 @ 10:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: SpeakerofTruth
a reply to: SolAquarius

Problem is, you can't get leftists and rightists to compromise. Both sides want EVERYTHING to be 100% their way.
The immigration problem would be a great place to start.


I don't want to go to far out on a limb here but I often circle back to the thought that the left and the right is just a clever form of social engineering to keep both sides fighting each other while the hidden hand makes it's moves behind the scene.....I feel I'm aloud to indulge such ideas every once in a while especially on a site known for conspiracies.

Or it could just be psychology tribalism and humans desire to belong to something that defines itself by it's opposing Ideology and enemy..........hell if I know.
edit on 2-3-2017 by SolAquarius because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2017 @ 11:09 PM
link   
a reply to: SolAquarius

Oh, I think on a very real level you're probably right. To say , "There is not an elitist conspiracy" is the height naivete. Of course there is.
Let's face it, power holders have always played upon duality to keep the "peasants" at odds. After all, if the "peasants" aren't preoccupied with bickering amongst each other, they're sure to start paying attention and seeing what's REALLY going on. Power brokers, i.e the elite, don't want that by any means.
edit on 2-3-2017 by SpeakerofTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2017 @ 11:15 PM
link   
a reply to: SpeakerofTruth

Well it certainly isn't new idea.
Not a fan of every thing ford was about but he seemed right on about this.

It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning. Henry Ford



posted on Mar, 2 2017 @ 11:51 PM
link   
Being in the national debates would be HUGE. It would eventually change the discourse of American politics. In a good way.



posted on Mar, 3 2017 @ 04:05 PM
link   
a reply to: SolAquarius

He also said, "I don't want thinkers, I want workers." Without going too deep, you can probably glean want he meant. That's the way the whole system is. Thinkers are not desired. It's a wonder it hasn't been deemed "illegal" to be in possession of a library card. Heh. I say that facetiously, but you get my drift.
edit on 3-3-2017 by SpeakerofTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 07:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: cleverhans
Just don't ask any questions about issues that he and his supporters are not interested or invested in due to their positions on foreign policy and therefore have no reason to study or learn about.

I fixed your post for you. I hope you don't mind, it's much a more accurate portrayal when phrased this way.
edit on 11-3-2017 by TheBadCabbie because: edit



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 07:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: SolAquarius

originally posted by: SpeakerofTruth
There's people who claim Paul Ryan is "Libertarian." Lol. Most Americans don't even know what a Libertarian is. Lol.


You know to be entirely honest I'm not even sure what it means and I only call myself a Libertarian sparingly. I do so because I know there is much debate of what it means to be libertarian.

I mean I hate to boil it down to fiscally conservative and socially liberal but that's pretty much were I am at.
Run government efficiently, respect the bill of rights keep out of my business with snooping. Keep social justice crap out of my life and keep religious social conservative crap out of my life.

I thought I would post this link to the Libertarian Party's platform page in a reply to make it easier for you and other interested readers to have a look at it.
www.lp.org...



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 07:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: SpeakerofTruth
a reply to: SolAquarius

That's a pretty good summation of a Libertarian. Where they kind of lose me is the wide open borders thing. I just don't think it's prudent.
I tend to consider myself an "extreme " centrist. I truly think that ninety percent of the problems of this country could be solved with a mix of conservative and liberal ideology. Problem is, you can't get leftists and rightists to compromise. Both sides want EVERYTHING to be 100% their way.
The immigration problem would be a great place to start. Legalize the 14+ million people here and make them adherent to our laws and taxes. Then build a wall, put troops on our borders or whatever is necessary to reduce further incursion. You're not going to rationally round up 14+ million people. It won't work. Alternately, you can't justify a blanket amnesty AND leave our borders porous. That's not going to work either

I tend to agree with you about the open borders thing. I think this position changes from cycle to cycle, depending on who's running. I seem to remember the other candidates not being quite as open border friendly as Johnson was, but perhaps I'm remembering it wrong. The Libertarian party is open to having differing positions within the party on controversial issues, like abortion for instance. A lot of Libertarians go either way on this issue, though there's probably a majority on the pro-choice side.



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 08:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheBadCabbie

I tend to agree with you about the open borders thing. I think this position changes from cycle to cycle, depending on who's running. I seem to remember the other candidates not being quite as open border friendly as Johnson was, but perhaps I'm remembering it wrong. The Libertarian party is open to having differing positions within the party on controversial issues, like abortion for instance. A lot of Libertarians go either way on this issue, though there's probably a majority on the pro-choice side.


Okay, my mistake, all three of the top candidates were pretty pro-immigration. I looked up the Stossel debate because you got me wondering about it.

If you jump to the 42:30 mark they get around to immigration there. If you notice Stossel's reaction to the candidates' answers, you can see my point that not all Libertarians agree on this issue.




top topics



 
16
<< 1   >>

log in

join