The photos:
३० मार्च, २०१६
The libertarian candidates for President are going to do a debate — on real television.
And John says: "Based on the photos, I'd say: Johnson for president, Petersen for vice president, and McAfee for head of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives."
The photos:
The photos:
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
६० टिप्पण्या:
Based on the photos I would want to know what their policy goals are.
Who gives a damn about their photos?
I love that McAfee won't wear a suit and tie even for a photo. He looks like he's saying "take your photo quick, I have more log-choppin' to do and we're losing sunlight".
Johnson, unlike the two major party nominees, has actually served as a governor.
C'mon. Those photos clearly call for a rousing round of Shag, Marry, Push Off A Cliff.
Liberty includes freedom of the neck.
By the way, I'm of English extraction (big surprise, I know, given my photo) so it's not cultural appropriation for me to use the UK version of the name for FMK, or whatever BuzzFeed is calling it these days.
cant mcafee be appointed drug czar
"Liberty includes freedom of the neck."
I'd vote for the guy on his necktie policy alone.
It's on April 1. I LOL'd.
No, seriously, I'm excited about this, and am currently planning on voting L this go 'round, given the circumstances. (Before you point out that that's just a vote for Hillary, let me point out that I live in a state so red that if my vote winds up mattering, we're in really, really big trouble. I'm not sure what I'd do if it did matter, but it's a relief that it doesn't.).
McAfee's probably wearing shorts too.
If we're judging based on photos, there's always the Putinesque photo of Gary Johnson from his 2011 GQ magazine piece:
here
Remember when McAfee came out and said he and his team of hackers could break into the San Bernardino iPhone for the FBI in 2 weeks?
I wonder if that's who did it?
At least we know a President McAfee won't be spending all his time on expensive vacations in Belize.
Lyssa,
Welcome to the Libertarian Party! I think almost all libertarians believe the Libertarian Party can grow into a largescale political movement and perhaps, during the next realignment (whenever that might be), succeed either the Republicans or Democrats as one of the two major political parties.
But I personally don't believe it can happen until the Libertarian Party starts attracting more pragmatic, moderate and mainstream personalities who are willing to develop serious policy proposals over the unrealistic but ideologically-pure absurdities that currently permeate much of our platform.
So, after you cast your vote for Gary Johnson (assuming he's our nominee, of course), please do consider sticking around a while!
I didn't know Al Pacino was running.
"No, seriously, I'm excited about this, and am currently planning on voting L this go 'round, given the circumstances. (Before you point out that that's just a vote for Hillary, let me point out that I live in a state so red that if my vote winds up mattering, we're in really, really big trouble. I'm not sure what I'd do if it did matter, but it's a relief that it doesn't.)."
I for one wouldn't blame you--from a libertarian perspective, the two major parties are asking you to choose between the two most un-libertarian, pro-authoritarian and lawless candidates they've put up in generations. It's a shame they've presented such unappealing choices, and it's understandable to want nothing to do with either of them. The only reason I have no idea how I would vote this fall is both Trump and Clinton continuously manage to find new and deeper ways to disgust me, and I'm sure in the next seven months they'll both sink even lower.
Though living in a deep blue state my vote won't matter either.
"So, after you cast your vote for Gary Johnson (assuming he's our nominee, of course), please do consider sticking around a while!"
Johnson's the sort of guy the GOP should be nominating. But it's a crazy year.
Any guess on the audience size for this extravaganza? 50,000?
McAfee vs. Hillary. Two people skirting criminal charges.
At least they didn't use this photo:
http://www.wired.co.uk/magazine/archive/2013/02/features/dangerous
Thought that was Walker, Texas Ranger. Elect the dude that can wrassle a bear and land a 747!
As the old saying goes...
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
Libertarians have some very good ideas. They challenge me a lot.
The problem is that they are clueless about politics, and all the messiness that ensues in trying to get their policies enacted. In college, we called them Republicans who like to smoke dope.
You and me both, Lyssa.
But I personally don't believe it can happen until the Libertarian Party starts attracting more pragmatic, moderate and mainstream personalities who are willing to develop serious policy proposals over the unrealistic but ideologically-pure absurdities that currently permeate much of our platform.
I agree. I've been a fan and considered myself libertarian-ish for a while, but the party itself has had little appeal. Johnson seems like a really good start, though. Would be great to see more governors. As Bobby suggested, both major parties are going so horribly anti-libertarian this year that there's really nothing that I can feel comfortable with. I truly am not sure what the lesser of the two evils is here. Maybe this brings about some hope that a more workable libertarian party can come out of the ashes of this dismal year.
New Mexico is kind of a strange place and sometimes we elect strange people to office.
Gary Johnson was a bit strange even for New Mexico.
Libertarians (I consider myself one, probably of the small "l" variety) also need better propaganda.
Bay Area Guy,
"Libertarians have some very good ideas. They challenge me a lot.
The problem is that they are clueless about politics, and all the messiness that ensues in trying to get their policies enacted. In college, we called them Republicans who like to smoke dope."
But we're clueless about politics because we're overwhelmingly populated by people who aren't really interested in seriously participating in the political process and, as a result, don't have to think about policy proposals in a serious manner. The Democrats and Republicans have those types, too, but they're considerably outnumbered by those who would prefer incremental but achievable gains over the all-or-nothing "principled" positions that invariably yield, well, nothing.
If we could grow the percentage of more pragmatic libertarians, we could actually compete for voters, win some offices and influence the political process on a handful of issues. But most of my brethren are not the least bit interested in that.
Meade you worthless cunt. Stop posting on my threads at Lem's. You are not wanted. You will be deleted. Just the way you delete Mary here. It is the same campaign of trolling and harassment. I know you and the Evil Blogger Lady are the poster children for hypocrisy but get a clue and stay away.
One thing wrong that the article that John links to is that this isn't the "first ever nationally televised libertarian debate".
As part of their coverage of LP national conventions, C-SPAN has broadcast LP presidential debates that occur at their national conventions.
It's probably the first one on commercial television. At the very least it's the first televised LP presidential debate this election cycle.
As I plan on being a delegate to the LP National Convention, I'm looking forward to the debate.
When the two most popular things the federal government does are Social Security and Medicare and with a $600 billion a year global military apparatus, how exactly does a libertarian get votes? Sure you might get a lot of Americans saying they want to shrink the size of government and decrease the deficit, but when you ask them about individual government programs, it turns out they mostly just want to cut foreign aid.
@Bobby,
If we could grow the percentage of more pragmatic libertarians, we could actually compete for voters, win some offices and influence the political process on a handful of issues. But most of my brethren are not the least bit interested in that.
I hear ya. It's a political dillemna -- form a third party (Libertarian) and never win an election or join either the Dems or Repubs and have to compromise to say politically alive.
I think Gary Johnson won as a Republican in New Mexico. Ron and Rand Paul were/are both Republicans.
It'd be real nice if the Dems became more Libertarian on economic issues. But they are dominated by statists.
The country has become much more Libertarian on cultural issues, so the Libertarians can certainly declare and/or share in victory on that front.
McAfee looks like someone who could manage a convenience store.
Are there any Libertarians who are not billionaires, dopers, or pornographers?
If people are best at determining what is in their best interests, and voting Libertarian would be in their best interests, why do so few people vote Libertarian?
@Terry:
Don't forget beta male nerds and tech geeks. Huge numbers are libertarians. And if most people believed and acted the way they did, libertarianism would make a lot of sense. Unfortunately, they don't, and it doesn't.
"McAfee looks like someone who could manage a convenience store."
And the expression he's making looks like the way he would look at you if you tried to buy $10 worth of candy with just pennies.
Blogger Mingus Jerry said...
At least we know a President McAfee won't be spending all his time on expensive vacations in Belize.
3/30/16, 11:28 AM
--------------------
Heh
Did McAfee beat that murder rap?
McAfee should be in charge of the Secret Service. He looks like he might enjoy Columbian pussy.
"Did McAfee beat that murder rap?"
He looks like the sort of guy who'd make his lawyer use the "victim needed killin'" defense. And then he'd pay his lawyer in bags of soil.
but when you ask them about individual government programs, it turns out they mostly just want to cut foreign aid.
That was my impression of the Tea Party, along with an inclination to use the Power of Government to enforce morality.
Yes, the Libertarian party has more than a share of drug users, and queers. There is also a core of serious, successful people concerned with excess Government control and regulation. Their vision is a smaller Federal Government with more fiscal responsibility and less restriction of individual freedoms.
Those folks do understand and are willing to accept the personal consequences of chopping Government social programs - where most Government money and influence is found.
It's a hard sell.
Not made easier by the conventional Media. More power aggregated to Government > more advertising money invested to control that power > more newspapers and air-time sold.
Not made easier by an expanded electorate and reduced taxpayer base. When the People find they can vote themselves the use of other people's property, the Republic is doomed.
To their credit Libertarian Party members - druggies and queers included - are a civil and respectful bunch. They will not be found disrupting or invading political events of other Parties. Their concern is to recover personal freedoms now bailed to the Government, not to seize and use the Powers aggregated there.
And yes, excepting Ted Cruz be the GOP Presidential Nominee, I'll by pulling the "L" lever in November. Both GOP and Dems are set on more laws and more Government as the solution to everyone's every problem. Not my vision.
Easy to be civil when you haven't a snowball's chance. All very theoretical then.
Who's running for the Vegetarian Party nomination?
"Easy to be civil when you haven't a snowball's chance."
Stop by Reason.com's comments section sometime. Civil? Not necessarily. Snarky? Yes, much.
I miss the Virginia Postrel error of Reason. Nick Gillespie is all right; Matt Welch insufferable. Isn't Reason pretty much full open borders at this point? That's a libertarian idea...a really, really bad one.
I voted Libertarian last time, and will do so again. Its the only way I can think of to exercise my right to vote, while at the same time saying Fuck You to the same old same old.
Don't bother giving me the "throwing your vote away" argument. I have to live with myself - you don't.
@ J Farmer
There's been too much social signaling lately by the reason columnists. I've been visiting less and less.
I going to either vote for Johnson or write in Dwayne the Rock Johnson if Trump's the nominee. And I live in a purple state.
I'm looking forward to the Constitution Party convention next month. (It's never a good sign, though, when the pre-registration discount has been extended all the way to the event's date.)
I voted for Rand Paul in the Ohio primary, despite him being out of the race after running a terrible campaign.
Oh well, he was the only guy I was comfortable with on either team.
"There's been too much social signaling lately by the reason columnists. I've been visiting less and less."
They do this a lot (looking at The Jacket and Robby Soave in particular) but totally get called out on it by the commenters.
Shika Dalmia is ridiculous.
The Jacket has been the worst! And yes, the commenters are usually on point.
What's this "beta male" bashing I keep seeing? Betas do fine, its the gammas and deltas that have to resort to PU artistry.
So normally a drinking game is appropriate for a primary debate. But I think an LP party debate deserves a bong hit party. So, take a toke:
- every time one of them says liberty
- every time one of them proposes a socially "liberal" idea while maintaining fiscal sanity
- every time one of them makes so much sense it hurts
- every time one of them defends the Oregon Ranchers and #blacklivesmatter in the same response
- every time one of them talks about the "fed" or monetary policy
- screw it, just take a toke
Enjoy the debate and remember to puff, puff, give!
I will definitely watch Stossel and company. With my #NeverTrump decision already made, I will need to know something about the Libertarian Candidates for whom I will vote if Trump wins the GOP top spot.
Great reasoning on the part of John Althouse Cohen, picking based upon photos.
It occurs to me that the "Big L" Libertarians might want to consider drafting Rand Paul to run at the head of their ticket. I would then guarantee that Trump cannot win. Rand Paul/Gary Johnson would win against Hillary and the Donald with some Koch money backing the play.
Blogger Bob Boyd said...
McAfee's probably wearing shorts too.
Fortunately - because he likely is not wearing pants.
"Are there any Libertarians who are not billionaires, dopers, or pornographers?"
[raises hand] ✋
Once, at school, I walked by the libertarian table during election season (State College, Pa) and talked for a few minutes.
I found out the candidate liked to smoke pot, lived in his mother's basement (really, in his early 40's), AND his mother was sitting next to him at the table.
That's who I want watching the Gold on the Sea-Steading platform.
So, I'm much more Smith than Marx, on-board with Hayek, prefer classical liberalism with a strong national defense and would like to see Anglosphere cohesion while maintaining American roots (no thanks to anarchy). I'm pretty agnostic on religion. I don't mind religious folks but hate true-believers of all stripes. I'm interested in the arts (enough to observe the world, often from outside) and the Sciences (enough to appreciate developments in a few fields).
'Crazy Eyes' McAfee for the win?
Donald F**kin' Trump?
The time-warp socialist?
The Corrupt, Desperate Pantsuit?
The Constitutional Conservative with a religious background, I guess.
It is what it is.
"Rand Paul/Gary Johnson would win against Hillary and the Donald with some Koch money backing the play."
Paul couldn't even come close to Trump in the primaries. How in Hades is he going to beat both in November?
@tim in vermont:
"What's this "beta male" bashing I keep seeing? Betas do fine, its the gammas and deltas that have to resort to PU artistry."
I was the only one who used the phrase "beta male" in this thread, and it wasn't to bash them. Hell, I basically am one.
Gary Johnson is a retread candidate. He was the nominee last time. Better to let some other unknown get some protest votes from the people who feel like voting
Bet you anything, the "retread candidate" argument is never used by someone who supported the "retread" the first time around.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा