That is the slot the hated Massie currently occupies.
He’s just another Libertarian running in a race that he has no chance of winning. No Libertarian has ever been elected to a federal office. In fact, no Libertarian has ever been elected to a statewide office outside Alaska. That’s not to say that they don’t accomplish anything by running though. Plenty have made enough of a difference to help Democrats win close elections.
1 Like
How would a libertarian help a democrat win an election?
Basically promise Bullshit like isolationism and crap and it will take republicans away voting for the r. Basically happens a lot look at Ross Perot.
2 Likes
Republican voters want more involvement in foreign wars, not less, and certainly not none.
Of the people who voted for the Libertarian in an election, what portion would have voted for the Democrat and for the Republican if the Libertarian wasn’t on the ballot? The vast majority would have voted for the Republican. In fact, they have been shown to do so in other races on the same ballot. If the election is close, those small number of votes (typically between 1% and 3%), can cause the Democrat to end up with more. In most places, the person with the most votes wins the general election, even if they don’t have the majority of votes. This happened so many times in Georgia that the Republicans passed a law mandating a runoff (Presidential election excluded) between the top two vote getters if neither received 100%. The vast majority of times, the Republican wins the runoff because those who previously voted for the Libertarian vote for the Republican in the runoff. This happens all over the county. In 2016 Klinton won 46.9% of the vote in Minnesota. Trump won 45.3%, Johnson (Libertarian) won 3.9% and Stein (Green) won 1.3%. If the Libertarian and Green candidates hadn’t been in the race, Trump would have likely won the most votes. Those who want larger government have done a better job of realizing that we have a binary system. The socialists/communists are smart enough to realize that if they run against the Democrats, they’ll ultimately end up with more Republicans elected. Therefore, they run within the Democrat party as Democratic Socialists. Those who most want smaller government, Libertarians, have not come to realize that they’ll never get elected to anything doing the same thing that they’ve literally been doing for decades at this point. Their only path is within the Republican party. The only thing they’re doing now is helping Democrats get elected.
2 Likes
Well that’s simply not true because(per gop claims) libertarian principles are not shared by republicans who desperately want larger government
Thomas Massie is an excellent recent example with gop voters, journalists, party heads, and elected officials pointing out that libertarian principles are inline with democrat party principles.
Everything that I said is literally true. If you disagree, then please point out at the detail level where I’m incorrect. While some Libertarian principles do not align with Republican positions, both generally want smaller government. I’ll be the first to say that Republicans have done a pretty poor job of accomplishing this goal. BTW, I’m not making the case that the Republican candidates are entitled to the votes of those who vote Libertarian. They have to make their cases and convince the voters. What I am saying is that the Libertarians are actually working against their goal of smaller government by running Libertarian candidates instead of trying to work within one of the two primary parties that is most aligned with their goals.
From a morality (really a lack of morality) standpoint, Libertarian principles often align with Democrat principles. However, from a size of government and government involvement in your life standpoint, they don’t align at all. Massie voted against Republican legislation because he thought that it didn’t actually reduce the size of government. Unfortunately, that put him in the position of voting with the Democrats who were wanting legislation to grow the government. His voters didn’t like that, so he got voted out.
Straight ticket gop voters aconowledge that any mention of smaller government by a gop candidate running for office is false and that they will vote to achieve larger .gov once in office. The purpose of a system is what it does, not what it claims to do.
There is no way a gop voter is ever going to vote libertarian due to their political values being 180° opposite.
That’s me and plenty of other Republican voters that I know. Literally every one of us wants smaller government. You can disagree, but your making statements that are absolutely not true isn’t accomplishing anything. Also, it’s noted that you didn’t point out any of the details that I mentioned that you believe are incorrect.
Again, making statements that are completely false and not backed by any evidence does nothing to advance whatever point of view you’re trying to convey.
Gleefully getting rid of the 1 guy opposed to expanding government indicates the expansion is desired. Ron Paul was hated by most republican voters for the same reason.
The fact remains that republican voters who want government involvement in foreign wars, foreign welfare, increases in the number of police, total immunity for police, “reasonable” gun control, and so on simply aren’t going to vote libertarian.
Republicans arguably hate libertarians more than they do the most left wing democrats since the democrat will leave political infrastructure behind that republican officials will use later.
No. It indicates that the Republican voters wanted to get rid of a guy who wasn’t interested in passing the best legislation possible. Like I said before, a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. He chose to not be a link instead of choosing to be a strong link which would allow Republicans to remove one of their weak links. Now he’s not going to be a link permanently.
Assuming for the sake of argument that your depiction/portrayal of what Republican voters want is correct, which it isn’t, you’ve only proved my point. Due to the fact that Libertarians can only get votes in the low single digit percentage, they will never get elected to any office. Knowing this, you have to ask yourself what the impact of them running is. Which candidate would Libertarian voters vote for if the Libertarian wasn’t on the ballot. For the vast majority of them, the answer is they would have voted for the Republican over the Democrat. Therefore, the only thing that Libertarians ever accomplish is helping Democrats get elected.
2 Likes
Massie’s main downfall was not protecting elite human traffickers. Why the human traffickers in KY congressional district 4 ever thought he was on their side is a total mystery, but once his attacks against their colleagues mentioned in the epstein files made his position obvious they really got out the vote to defend their way of life.
Obviously libertarians will never win because roughly 99%+ of US voters want larger, more oppressive government with the only difference being whether they want Big Gov(R) or Big Gov(D)
Now you are being a bit more honest by acknowledging no legit Republican voter is EVER going to vote for a libertarian candidate or any other party promoting limited government.
You are simply upset that someone wanting smaller government might not fall for the gop campaign rhetoric that full time gop voters know is never intended to be followed through on.
Why gop stalwarts feel their Big Gov(R) candidate is entitled to votes from those wanting smaller government has always been odd.
Politics is the art of what is possible. Libertarians are moral suicide vest bombers at the delight of democrats.
3 Likes
Big Gov(R) checking in.
With having argued with Massie on the Hill, he tries to sound smart by throwing lots of tidbits at you without staying on target. He also does not care about the strength of the dollar and the strength of the dollar is not based on isolationism but on trade. The reason why gas is only at 4ish dollar on the high in and 5ish dollars for Diesel is because we have the reserve currency. This is also one of the reason why we have Aid programs overseas. It gets us influence. The reason why I was on the Hill is because people were upset with the results of a mission I led sanctioned by President Trump in 2017 because it was Counter Terrorism and Counter Human trafficking. What I learned from Massie that day was he does not care about rescuing Americans if the President does not ask first.
2 Likes
Well we definitely don’t have isolationism or other limits on .gov so everything is great.
This is complete 100% fabrication not based in fact. It’s interesting that you and many on the left are telling the same stories. Things are bad enough, yet you feel compelled to make things up. If you’re going to accuse someone of such egregious crimes, be man enough to give specifics. Who did what, when and how?
It must feel disheartening being in the 1% that are smart enough to figure it out while not having the ability to do anything about it.
You’re literally being dishonest by intentionally misstating my viewpoints and those of most Republicans.
I’m not upset. I’m baffled that the only measurable impact of Libertarians, the purest of the pure when it comes to limited government, is that they help Democrats/Socialists/Communists get elected. You’d think at some point they’d rethink their approach.
I literally stated above that they’re not entitled to votes from anyone and I’ve never heard of a Republican make such a claim. I have heard many point out that the measurable impact of voting Libertarian is to help leftists get elected. That’s true, so I don’t take issue with it.
Interesting. That sounds exactly like someone else here.
1 Like
Plenty on the left were involved with Epstein.
The epstein files were the only thing new for Massie this election cycle(gop opponents stated he had never worried about it before) so that narrows it down as to why so many wanted him gone.
Most of the 99% have it figured out and get what they want by voting democrat or republican.
It’s an observation based on years of watching the same claims during election cycles, the same outcomes when a favored candidate gets in, and the piling on by supporters when anyone points out the advertised claims aren’t even attempted once their guy is in office.
There are other parties that run on pro liberty/limited government platforms also and they are opposed by GOP politicians and voters.
How would any pro liberty/limited government party rebrand themselves to make democrat and republican voters think they will get the expanded government they want?
All 3rd parties combined rarely get more than 1% of the POTUS vote so even if you could give all votes to the gop candidate it wouldnt matter.
The only 3rd party to do well was Ross Perot who was anti 2A and extremely wealthy for the time which did siphon off gop votes, but at the end of the day there wasn’t any major difference between Bush I and Clinton.
As i pointed out, all 3rd parties(very few of which want limited .gov or individual liberty) combined rarely total 1% of the potus votes.
Gop voters wil not vote for a candidate that is pro liberty/limited government any more than a democrat will.
You claimed that the existence of a pro liberty/limited gov candidate was pulling gop voters away from the gop candidate which is simply not true THEN you included the detail that a pro liberty/limited gov candidate gave an option for a pro liberty/limited gov voter instead of joining with the gop.
Well we can argue I am just going off my personnel interactions with him. Part of the reason why I do not support lots of the libertarian positions.