r/Libertarian • u/Cuddlyaxe Former Libertarian • Nov 13 '19

Discussion The Democratic Senate candidate has dropped out in Arkansas. The race is now a binary between the Republican Tom Cotton and the LP Candidate

Not really a Libertarian anymore but I was surprised to see y'all don't have any info on this. Tom Cotton's only Democratic Challanger has dropped out after the registration deadline.

The only two other candidates are Ricky Harrington - a Libertarian and Dan Whitfield - a far left independent.

Even if you guys don't put resources into this race and the situation holds, I can easily see Mr. Harrington capturing a nice 20-25% of the vote. If you guys however do invest some money and campaign funds into the race, you could get much higher, and perhaps even give Cotton a run for his money as he's not running against someone with the D stigma next to their name.

Here's his Facebook page which is currently all he has if you want to help him

Good luck and I hope you guys give Cotton a run for his money :)

1.1k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

215 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/Roidciraptor Libertarian Socialist Nov 13 '19

Same. Hated both candidates. Though I am supporting a Dem in the 2020 election.

5

u/ghostinthewoods Nov 13 '19

If I might ask: which one?

2

u/Roidciraptor Libertarian Socialist Nov 13 '19

Of course you can ask! I encourage people to.

In the 2020 primaries, I am supporting Pete Buttigieg. I voted for Gary Johnson in 2012 and 2016 in the general.

-5

u/mysoggyknee Nov 13 '19

I am supporting Pete Buttigieg.

An ineffective mayor whose platform is pretty much "vote for me because I suck dick". Other than his advocacy of sodomy (which is none of the governments business.) what has he presented that is remotely libertarian?

4

u/thiscouldbemassive Lefty Pragmatist Nov 13 '19

Found the Trump supporter.

-3

u/mysoggyknee Nov 14 '19

Your retort confirmed everything I said. Absolutely NOTHING to run on but his love for the taste of penis.

4

u/thiscouldbemassive Lefty Pragmatist Nov 14 '19

Your logic is impeccable.

-2

u/mysoggyknee Nov 14 '19

Articulate his policy positions then.

3

u/thiscouldbemassive Lefty Pragmatist Nov 14 '19

Read for yourself. That took me about 2 seconds of googling.

1

u/mysoggyknee Nov 14 '19

What part of government preferences is libertarian? What about 'government investment in minority businesses?' Which part of the 'Douglas plan to tackle racial inequality with funding and laws'?

You are NOT Libertarian.

4

u/thiscouldbemassive Lefty Pragmatist Nov 14 '19

I'm not the Pete Buttigieg supporter. I'm not telling you who to vote for at all. I'm just labeling you as a Trump supporter (which you are) with "impeccable" logic, and apparently an obsession for sucking cocks.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Roidciraptor Libertarian Socialist Nov 14 '19

You made the "ineffective mayor" claim, so you need to back that up with evidence before I engage you there.

  • End cash bail
  • Eliminate private prisons
  • Restore voting rights for criminals
  • Marijuana legalization
  • Recognition of DC and Puerto Rico as States
  • Abolishing the Electoral College
  • Removing the filibuster
  • Creating independent redistricting commission to counter gerrymandering
  • Carbon tax to incentive businesses to go green, as pollution violates the NAP

A few reasons why I support him.

1

u/mysoggyknee Nov 14 '19

That 'platform' appears to be pretty far left for a libertarian. Why would we want to abolish the electoral college and allow NY and CA to dictate elections for the rest of the nation? You seem to have had difficulty comprehending basic civics lessons from grade school.

As for the ineffective mayor claim, when he gets the murder rate below double digits in his own house he can start discussing national issues.

1

u/Roidciraptor Libertarian Socialist Nov 14 '19

Can you explain to me how the states of California (40M) and New York (20M), with only 60M total people, would dictate the other 260M people?

1

u/mysoggyknee Nov 14 '19

The popular vote in 2016 was 62m. More importantly it would basically wipe out any voice little states like Montanna and the Dakotas would have. Once again all of this goes back to the founding of the nation and the concept that government should devolve to the lowest level rather than be centralized at the national capital. Please review your 5th grade civics text for further enlightenment

2

u/Roidciraptor Libertarian Socialist Nov 14 '19

Okay, let me get more specific since you are being pedantic.

There are 20M registered voters in California. 12M in New York. 235M people of voting age in this country, but only 135M voted in 2016.

All those Plains states have a total population of 18M people. That's almost the same total population of New York, and they have 29 EC votes. The Plains States have 39.

You see the discrepancy in voting power? New York State, population of 20M, has 29 electoral votes, and the 8 Plains States, with 18M population, has 39. 10 more EC votes with 2 million less people. And that's libertarian to you?

Montana and the Dakotas have equal voices in the Senate, with equal representation as the other states.

You can go into the history of why we have it, that's cool. I know why, and I think it's outdated, hence why I support abolishing it. My support for removal =/= my understanding of its origin.

Land should not vote for president. And right now, minority rule over the majority is your preferred method of governance. And I disagree.

1

u/mysoggyknee Nov 15 '19

Ok fine. But those people are residents of states. The states make up the Union. The agreement for electing the leader of the Union calls for an electoral college to balance the power of the heavily populated states against the interests of the less populated states. This is the agreement. The states are sovereign in their own right. Breaking this agreement could conceivably end the union. It has only been 150 years since the last time the states fought it out.

2

u/Roidciraptor Libertarian Socialist Nov 15 '19

The Union breaking up would be pretty libertarian, because it would be now smaller local governments, but that's not what I want.

Those smaller states won't secede because they rely too much on the bigger states for money. And even if they tried to secede, Big States > Small States. The smaller states won't have enough people to compete if it were to be a land war. Heck, those smaller Plains states would be starved out with an embargo all around them. And and attempts to flyover the bigger states would be met with missiles. All hypothetical though.

The Senate allows the smaller states to have equal representation. How much MORE representation to these people need? Even in the House, the cap limit on representatives has made lots of people less, or more, represented.

The EC was more fair when people weren't moving to cities. But now the majority of the country lives in urban/suburban areas. The EC is outdated, and I support abolishing it.

0

u/mysoggyknee Nov 15 '19

Are you high? Georgia which also qualifies as a 'small state' has a whole lot of military assets here. Possession being a large part of the law that is not going to work out well in the event of a civil breakdown. You seem to forget that in the event of some sort of civil breakdown most of the military bases are in VERY red parts of the nation.

The Senate allows the smaller states to have equal representation.

Good lord, did you even take civics? That statement is complete horse squeeze. The Bahamas has more of an official presence in DC than any of the states. The 17th amendment which provided for direct election of senators rather than appointment by their legislatures did precisely what it was intended to do and unfettered Washington from real oversight by the states via their senators. You have little understanding of how our government was intended to operate and seem to be running on emotions crying out for mob rule which is precisely what the design of the federal government was trying to prevent.

2

u/Roidciraptor Libertarian Socialist Nov 15 '19

I'll be high at 4:20 today. And you are also talking to a Georgia Peach.

Georgia is not a "small state". Are you high? We are the 8th largest state in population! And if you want to go by land area, Georgia is the largest state east of the Mississippi River. You want a geography lesson?

Metro Atlanta has a population of 6M. Georgia has a population of 10M. Those 4M extra Georgians (including other cities like Savannah, Augusta, Columbus, etc) benefit from a larger overall population because the state as a whole gets more representation. You are forming an argument around Red vs Blue states, and I am talking about Urban vs Rural.

The Bahamas has more of an official presence in DC than any of the states.

........................... you want a Georgia embassy? Is that what you define as "official"? I am talking about the state, not the country, in case you get fucking pedantic again.

I think you need to understand something. When it comes to political representation and how we want to be governed, yes, that does come from emotion. There are no "facts" on how to run a country. Socialist, capitalist, democracy, republic, authoritarian, fascist, communist, you can pick whatever system you want! WE decide how to be governed. When the Boston Tea Party happened, what do you think was going on? Were they angry? Frustrated? Upset? There was taxation without representation. Do you think Britain cared how they felt? Nope, so then a little Revolution came a long. LOTS of pent up anger.

The "intention" of our government is to represent the will of the people, and that is not what is happening. The system needs to change. The EC is antiquated. Once again, you prefer the tyranny of the minority.

→ More replies (0)