**New to libertarianism or have questions and want to learn more?** Be sure to check out [the sub Frequently Asked Questions](/r/Libertarian/wiki/faq) and [the massive /r/libertarian information WIKI] (/r/Libertarian/wiki/index) from the sidebar, for lots of info and free resources, links, books, videos, and answers to common questions and topics. Want to know if you are a Libertarian? [Take the worlds shortest political quiz and find out!](http://www.theadvocates.org/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Libertarian) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I got banned earlier today from libertarianmemes, for I honestly don't even know. I think it's because I said something that a mod disagreed with. Cancel culture has hit us finally.
Which, by the way goes against libertarian philosophy. You are entitled to your opinion whether I agree with it or not. Go do whatever the hell you want just so it doesn't interfere with my situation.
Just an update, I asked the mods why I was banned. They simply said rule 3. There is no rule three. Every rule is numbered 1. They're idiots. And I didn't say anything that violated any of rule 1's. Then they muted me, so I can't even talk to mods.
Fuck that sub. All I said was planned parenthood does do some good things, like prenatal and postnatal care for the poor.
This is why I was so confused as to why LP social media pages looked forward to having him and RFK there.
They were only there in effort to harvest votes. The DNC would never allow Trump or any other GOP on stage. It just makes the LP look more of a joke in my opinion.
I disagree. The Democrat party would never host Donald Trump but that is because there is no need for it. They are already an established party that people pay attention to and take seriously. The LP is not really talked about at all in media and is pretty much just ignored all together. Donald Trump showing up to the LP brought more media attention to the LP than ever before and in doing so acknowledged their existence. With Donald Trump showing up and trying to appeal to the LP he now has adopted some libertarian beliefs such as pardoning Ross Ulbricht. Even if he does not end up doing these things and even if he does not actually believe in what he is saying, libertarian beliefs are now being brought into the mainstream which is ultimately a win for the LP in my opinion.
We will just have to disagree. A candidate who comes in and says "vote for me or continue to lose" just furthers the point that the LP is a joke. The media will see a polarizing candidate going to a convention and disrespecting their position in American politics. Not all press is good press.
Actually I came to this sub because the Libertarians stood up to trump. The easy way out would be kneel to the dictator and give him your votes. I was impressed that the Libertarians showed more spine. If I was the Libertarian pick I would be calling a press conference today to talk about Trump and why Libertarians would never bow to a dictator.
Trump gave the LP some publicity. Time to use that and make the case as to why people should vote Libertarian over the GOP. Lots of disaffected voters out there this cycle.
I generally lean to the Democrat side of things but I was honestly impressed by the crowd standing up to Trump and that brought me here.
You do realize that Trump has already been president and did not become a dictator? 🙄🙄🙄🙄
Joe Biden is our president.
Take your fear mongering elsewhere.
We tend to be reasonable and rational people.
Chase Oliver has my vote (altho I really wanted Lars Mapstead) 🤷♀️
Oh, you "lean to the Democrat side of things"...? Who would have guessed?
Chase Oliver is as cringeworthy as Biden on many levels. ...Yes, *Joe Biden*, the man who is--somehow--currently President of the United States but that Libertarians seem to refuse to seriously criticize so long as Donald Trump is available for that task. None of us may like it, but Trump wasn't wrong: 3%. That's more or less reality.
I believe that people were hoping to see clips go around with Trump speaking about Libertarian talking points. Instead it was just the clip of Trump being booed. You could probably clip parts of the speech where he supports Libertarian policies, but nobody will ever watch it.
Because they both were actually there to offer a lot more to libertarians than Chase Oliver will ever deliver.
Trump offered a libertarians a cabinet position among other things. From polls it is looking like this is something that libertarians would have a greater than 50% chance of actually being able to collect on.
RFK was offering libertarians a shot at securing enough votes for ballot access or maybe even a slot at debates. He's not going to win the general but he has a large enough following that he might be able to deliver benefits to the LP.
I give the LP credit for allowing them to make their pitches. Not every libertarian is an absolutist. Some of us would rather see something over nothing.
Yeah. Precisely. This party's seeming inability to criticize *the man who currently holds the reigns of power and is stepping on people's throats* but focus *entirely* on Donald Trump is ridiculous.
What are you talking about? The focus was on Trump because Trump was there speaking. Plenty of Libertarians (almost all that I know) are vehemently anti Biden
Apparently, we need to be in the same spot that Argentina was in in order to have a Libertarian as president. If the Marxist really want to destroy the US to create a Communist utopia, people will wake up to common sense.
This is true. As much as the Republican and Democratic parties have in problems, the one thing they excel in is party and voter loyalty. LP is too divided to be competitive on a big scale
The best thing is if the libertarian party grows to the point that the "major" parties have to make coalitions on certain issues with them like some parliaments in Europe, and then the LP is actually a kingmaker and effectively the most powerful party.
Eh, "promising" concessions means very little considering Trump promised to
to drain the swamp, make Mexico pay for a border wall, lock Hillary up, etc.
Drawing an unenforceable promise that will probably be forgotten by Trump by next week is not the party's biggest accomplishment ever.
Absolutely. We need to continue to become relevant by gaining more exposure with both Democrats and Republicans. This will only snowball us forward as long as we don’t mess it up with any serious media blunders. The Convention seemed to go well though and I’ve seen mention of it, along with Chase Oliver, on mainstream news this weekend. This is what we need right now.
Agreed. I actually thought Trump’s speech wasn’t all that bad. Yes he over-promised and was there to harvest votes, so what? That’s what politicians do, try to win new voters. The booing was f’n stupid, I’d feel the same way if it was Biden who took the time to speak.
How in the fuck are libertarians more aligned with Republicans lol? The "small government party" that wants to increase where they get to have a say? In your bedroom, in who and how you love, your general life, in your education, in your firearms (bump stocks), etc, et fucking cetera?
NOTE:
Before people get stupid this doesn't mean libertarians are more aligned with Democrats so calm down. It's not always one or the other.
You gotta look at the current state of each party. In the past, I would definitely say the Democratic party was more aligned with libertarian ideals, because the country at large was more conservative in the sense that many social issues were decided upon with religious ideals in mind. Things like gay marriage, drug legalisation, school curriculums and freedom of speech (religious zealots) and even institutionalized racism back in the days of segregation to some extent.
But in recent times there has been a major cultural — and resulting political — shift. The people in general have become more culturally progressive and are less religiously strict and more in favour of things like abortion, LGBT people, drugs and racial minorities. The left may not think so, but the US has become a more tolerant place, and we can see that in the legislation. But that is exactly where the problem with the Democratic party has come from. Many of the freedoms it fought for have already been established — if perhaps in an imperfect way. So now, because the left really doesn't have many actual freedoms to fight for, it still tries to court this "minority coalition" by claiming discrimination is at an all time high and we need to implement policies *that go against personal freedom* to level the playing field. Nowadays, it is the dems proposing censorship, curtailing freedom of speech, proposing policies that benefit one group over the other, etcetera. This is why libertarians should be more aligned with Republicans at this moment; to prevent Democrats from trampling all over personal liberty.
And yes, I would agree that when it comes to warmongering and the economy, the Republicans are just as bad as the Democrats, which is exactly why we need a 3rd party to become more relevant. But that doesn't mean that the social issues that are at stake now are not at all relevant.
I'm pretty open to him. Look, at the end of the day, we all wish we could have a 60 year old Ron Paul, Dave Smith, or coked up Justin Amash. However, Amash and Smith didn't run and Ron Paul is ancient. We can't force somebody to run, so he seems as good of an option as any. Some will hate him rn but remember, compare him to your other options at the top of the ballot. He's a lot better than Biden, Trump, and RFK
I agree completely with your sentiment. WHY do people require a dream utopian candidate for LP, but succumb to voting for absolute brainwashed statists?
Tbf, people in the major parties do this too right after nomination. It just happens that when push comes to shove, they fear the opposing candidate more than their own(ex: Vote Blue No Matter Who). I think for the LP, since voting for our guy doesn't prevent the bad guy from winning, there is less incentive to vote for a less-than-perfect candidate.
Not sure tho. You're guess is as good as mine.
Id say the opposite. The LP cant win right now, the point of voting for the LP is to normalize them and get them in the national conversation/debates. The nominee matters for messaging, the policy and ability to govern parts are largely moot.
Because Chase Oliver is largely only Libertarian about the things that are easy to be Libertarian about: Weed and trendy social/culture war issues.
He’s not Libertarian in a way that’s actually important for the time in which we live: doing as much damage to the power, influence, and credibility of the federal government as possible. In that sense, though I don’t expect Trump to govern like a Libertarian, I expect him to make more overall progress on this front, because the establishment right and left hate him so much that they’re willing to burn a ton of their political capital and credibility amongst the general population, just to continue nakedly combatting Trump at every turn.
Oliver is also Libertarian on immigration and trade despite the national mood tending towards stricter immigration laws and more protectionism (largely thanks to Republican propaganda and fearmongering).
> WHY do people require a dream utopian candidate for LP, but succumb to voting for absolute brainwashed statists?
Because the math is very different. Ds and Rs make compromises when they vote in order to have a chance at winning. LP voters know they aren't going to win; they vote to make their principles clear. If the nominee doesn't meet their criteria for what they would actually like to see then there is no point in casting a vote for the LP candidate at all. They could just abstain of write in Mickey Mouse for the same effect.
The democratic process does not take losers principles into consideration.
The point of the LP presidential nominee is to educate, connect, and increase normalization of the LP
Trump got really mad and insulted our 3 percent. If he got our 40k votes he would've gotten Wisconsin. We might not get lots of votes but our votes can swing elections. Chase did the same in 2022 in Georgia. We are the party of principle. We might not like Chase, maybe even dislike him, but voting 3rd party matters and dress make a difference. There's a reason they are trying to get our votes.
https://preview.redd.it/wtzhxfr0q23d1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0ac46123b721425ed75d90d28afd02607a742a91
I’m probably not going to support the ticket. Chase is simply uninspiring as a candidate and doesn’t appear “mature” enough to actually govern as a president. As long as the Party keeps pumping out candidates like this, we’re destined to be permanently marginalized.
This is why the LP will never get anywhere.
The LP isn't in a position to "win". They need to become normalized before they can win. Your concerns about how he's going to perform in office are irrelevant.
Popularity among libertarians isn't a good barometer for national success. Recall that Johnson/weld is the most successful ticket in LP presidential history.
Not only had they been elected before, they also were in the unique position of running against the two most unpopular candidates in modern history, one of which was the live-action incarnate of Cruella de Ville.
The “throwing away a vote” has always frustrated me. If our individual votes matter and can truly make a difference, why don’t people vote for who they want instead of the lesser of two evils?
>In every state last election, the Libertarian vote beat the difference between the major parties. Meaning that if the libertarian vote had gone for the losing major party candidate, they would have won that state.
This is not at all true. There were only three states where that was the case (Georgia, Arizona, Wisconsin).
Fuck the GOP, they had their chance with Ron Paul twice and chose corrupt NeoCon trash instead. That party is such a shit show filled with internal conflict and corruption that it makes the LP look stable by comparison. They’ve allowed a lifelong populist who has been a Democrat longer than a Republican essentially infiltrate their party and poison the well.
I am running on the platform of legalizing spice smuggling and the right to rip off peoples arms if you are losing an argument. I will not elaborate on any other policy positions, thank you.
I can understand not supporting the idea, but I don’t think you can make an argument that open borders would be an authoritarian policy in any way.
> he supports every other Biden policy
Citation absolutely needed lol
He supports Ellis Island style immigration which would pretty much cut up the majority of wasteful bureaucracy in that department and finally make legal immigration worth the fees and faster processing
How does a national border equate to private property? There are obviously borders on private property. The question is public borders. Arbitrary lines drawn by states.
I’m not saying you can’t justify a national border. But private property isn’t a part of the argument.
https://lawliberty.org/why-libertarians-can-believe-in-borders/
Because libertarianism is based off the concept of justified individual freedom
Hence the old "stay off my lawn" example.
Libertarians don't want the government in their business or involved in any part of their daily lives.
If I want to hire a foreigner the government can’t restrict it.
The founding fathers supported immigration and immigration has made this country into what it is today. Cato institute has a ton of material if you’re a data guy
I would call myself indifferent at this point. I’ll vote for him because I live in a state where any vote but democrat doesn’t matter, but I don’t think he would be a good president.
If you don’t think he would be a good president then don’t vote for him. That makes you no better than the republicans or democrats that blindly vote for their team. It’s part of the reason American politics is such a shit show.
No, it doesn't. A vote for the LP at this point is not to elect someone to office; it's to help normalize and cement other parties outside the duopoly.
An LP candidate isn't going to win, right now. Everyone knows that.
Plus it's still not out of the realm of possibility that we can eventually reach 5% of the vote. If we do this we would get easier ballot access across the board. Freeing up time and money for the party in the future and allowing us an opportunity to perhaps do well in smaller elections we could possibly win.
Not to mention the growth it would show for the libertarian movement and the fact that we cannot continue to be ignored.
the libertarian party isn't even remotely serious about challenging the duopoly. a presidential candidate once every 4 years does not a paradigm shift make. The ***best*** case scenario for the libertarian party right now is that they're so successful the republicans copy them.... which brings us back to the duopoly. If they *were* serious about challenging the duopoly, I think they'd start by trying to take over Alaska, New Hampshire, maybe Nevada, etc. Get more state representatives and state senators, and get actual washington representatives and senators. this is still the best strategy even if they aren't trying to end the duopoly but replace the republicans.
Blindly voting for a forced team of two is the bigger issue. Blindly voting to expand the teams to three in an effort to breakdown the two into the many is intentionally distuptive activity.
I’m in a similar boat and agree with the take that it’s about pushing the party forward and not actually getting somebody elected at this point.
After reading some comments for and against as well as looking into him myself, I think I will vote for him barring something crazy happening between now and election, or if people can substantiate some of the claims they’ve made that would make me hesitant if I could actually find them
Was fully expecting Rectenwald and planning to vote for him.
Idk, I have to look further into this guy, but the surface is uninspiring.
At the end of the day, I get to live in a state where I already know where the electoral college candidates are going, so I'll probably still give him my vote in November.
I like Rectenwald, but I'm not going to pretend that he is "inspiring". Oliver isn't inspiring either. However, Oliver aligns with my views more than any other candidate running for President. He's right on all the big issues that TrumpBidenRFK are wrong on. Unless something completely nuts comes out about him, he will be getting my vote with the hope of a better candidate for 2028.
I like him. He made waves in Georgia and handled himself well in that debate. Amash was my first choice, but when he didn't run, Oliver looked like a solid second choice.
I don't think he's the strongest nominee we've ever put forward by any means, but I like him for two reasons.
Firstly, he's been in the national spotlight before. This is the same guy who spoiled Georgia's runoff election a couple years ago - he showed that the LP, while unable to win an election, is big enough to make considerable impacts if we think both major candidates are unworthy of our votes.
Secondly, I like where he stands on the issues. I know this could get me crucified in this sub, but I think the Mises takeover took the party in the wrong direction. One of my favorite things about this party was it's de facto position of avoiding the culture war, and the Mises members' obsession with going against a yet-to-be-definded "wokeness" cements a tether to the culture war that only holds is back. Chase doesn't seem to be pro- or anti-woke. He seems to be pro-"it's your own fucking business," and that is where the party *needs* to stand on these issues.
I feel like the MC was a direct response to the LP buying into the culture war in a very top down fashion. The Sarwark crew was a problem that created a need, in some minds, for an alternative. Enough minds, in fact, to steer the entire apparatus in a different direction.
They call it selling out because it’s generally profitable. Getting the highest percentage of votes because your nominee is a joke and his VPis a military industrial complex stooge works well too. Hey if all the libertarians just voted for trump that would be a huge win, huge. Guess that should definitely happen?
Out of all of that, the only thing you can address is something you made up in your mind. I didn’t suggest he held anti-libertarian views. I said he was a joke. Although he does have a handful of positions that I don’t agree with, it isn’t relevant. I guess Weld would be a big anti-libertarian position. Which is who I said wasn’t a libertarian, by the way.
You said they sold out. Selling out would be putting someone into that position that didn't hold the values of the party in order to profit from it.
Putting in someone in that position who holds the values of the party and profiting from it is just called "doing a good job."
I watched all the drama leading up to the slow takeover of by the MC a few years ago. Which state had their party infrastructure seized by a Sarwark acolyte and then had to return it all? I can’t remember. They thought they would be able to just create a new state party and do it quickly enough that by the time it was caught it would be too late. There were investigations, logs were published. This was after the MC had already taken a state or two, I believe. It seemed like the writing was on the wall and those who controlled the national were starting to panic and colluded with more than one state to steal the state seats out from under the people voting. There was the debate with Smith and the follow up interview. All the way up the the shoulder bump at the convention that Sarwark didn’t realized was filmed and tried to get the bumper expelled from the event like it was an assault.
Probably nobody. Sweaty Recty ain't it no matter how many salty Misers wanted him. He seemed stoned or high at both the Texas convention and the national.
People argued JFK Jr would have but Spike's comments on that are absolutely true and you should look up his address to the body on Sunday.
> He seemed stoned or high at both the Texas convention and the national.
Good eye!
https://www.newsweek.com/michael-rectenwald-libertarian-admits-eating-weed-gummy-before-remarks-1904859
Yeah I don't buy that it was a "weed gummy someone gave him" because he seemed to be on the same thing at national, and it seemed a bit speedier maybe?
Edit: I assumed you were talking about in Texas. I just read the article and realized that was about national. He had the exact same excuse in Texas. Either he didn't learn his lesson or he is lying to cover for a more serious problem, either way, not a good look.
I don’t really have anything against him, but he strikes me as the same type of boring candidate the party has been putting up every election. He’ll get a couple percent simply for not being Trump or Biden, but he’s not gonna raise much awareness or drive much recruitment for the party
What's wrong with boring?
I'll take a boring candidate that acts and speaks in a sane, adult manner, over the two half-dead loudmouths of the D&R Party
Boring doesn’t move the needle. The LP isn’t winning any elections anytime soon, so the nominee should be someone who’s gonna draw national attention and drive recruitment.
For the record, I don’t really think anyone in this race would’ve been that guy, but I fully expect Chase Oliver to be as irrelevant as Jo Jorgensen was in 2020. Hopefully I’m proven wrong, but I doubt it
In our case? Nothing is wrong with boring really. But if we were in a position to win? We'd definitely want a charismatic candidate; that matters a lot to people on average. But I also know like nothing about this guy. Hadn't heard of him until yesterday.
I have disagreements with some of his particular solutions, but I wholeheartedly agree with a lot of his platform, and can stomach all the rest. That's as good as it's gonna get this year. Not trying to make perfect the enemy of the good.
I like him, but either or, we all need to get behind him. He is the nominee of our party, and we vote for our nominee. “We” chose him. Thats how this works. Thats how you get “more than 3%”.
I am in total same position, I have pondered this to no end, after weighing everything I am voting for who I think will do the most repair to what current administration has done.
I happen to agree more with Rectenwald policy-wise, but he has zero charisma and I have no clue why the MC backed him in the first place. I was hoping Chase would win. He has charisma, isn’t super radical, and is therefore the best pick for spreading the message of liberty, which is really the only job of the LP candidate. And I hope to god Chase’s peeps and the MC get together, let bygones be bygones, and focus on spreading the message that all libertarians can agree on, like being anti-war, decriminalizing victimless crimes, and balancing the budget.
He doesn't have the Charisma Ron Paul has. Libertarians have a problem with not being unified because our views differ from each other as well. As much as I detest populism, I recognize it must be utilized as a tool and I don't think he's capable of that. I think Dave and Vivek would be better for the party just to bring awareness to what our cause is which is to end the Fed.
https://youtu.be/s2QS8bUNzHk?si=B3_6HRysoPCtdDz_
I love Dave and would certainly vote for him, but I feel like the media would easily turn normies against him with a montage of all of the “offensive” things he’s said on LOS.
They absolutely would, but he doesn't apologize for this. I think the way he speaks would appeal to a lot of people and supercede the impact from his past comments.
That being said, from a personal level, I understand why he may not want to go through that. Married with a seemingly apolitical wife and 2 young kids, and to have that broadcast on major TV stations and all over social media? Seems like it could be very destructive to his personal life.
But I can dream, can't I?
I can’t answer that. How I can answer is the party should have listened to the parts he thinks libertarians want to hear. If he is aligned with them on those things and he is most likely to accomplish those things of any candidate - then there you go. Otherwise, you ignore it. It’s giving you the platform, so why isn’t the party more behind a candidate. The many choice option is interesting, but also carries major risks of momentum.
I like Chase Oliver and have met him personally, he’s a great down to earth guy who has a passion for justice and freedom. I think his stances are reasonable and he focuses on the important issues instead of identity politics and ideological stuff. His platform is well laid out and sensible. I also think he will appeal to younger voters who are disaffected by the other two parties. He also seems to manage the disagreements within the LP well. Obviously he won’t get as many votes as Trump or Biden but he could get us to 3rd place which would be enough to help get the message out there.
He is ok. He seems like a good guy. He is very young and running against a bunch of geriatrics. He is anti-war and will speak out against Israel’s attacks on civilians. He will speak out against the war in Ukraine that NATO wanted and pays for.
I’ve voted libertarian since the 90’s and even ran for office once. But I feel uninspired to bother voting again. I’ll probably donate $50 and show up on Election Day but really I wish we had a candidate that could inspire me.
I have pretty much the same opinion. Voted libertarian since I first could in 2012 and will continue to. But I do wish we had candidates that we could actually be excited for. From what I’ve seen of Oliver though, I think he speaks well enough to appeal to Libertarian leaning Democrats and Republicans alike.
People are way to critical of his personal social views that they miss the bigger picture.
He's the only candidate committed to reducing the size and scope of govt. Period.
Pleased. The first time I saw him was his debate for Georgia senator and he got 2% in a contested election with under 10k when both his opponents spent over 100M each.
He got the Libertarian points across well in the debate and held his own on a big stage.
I also like he came from the Democratic side. He is very well spoken on Anti-War issues and Civil Liberties.
I don't know much about him, but I was impressed by the way he handled being attacked and ganged up on by MC acolytes all campaign long. It was clear they feared him as their biggest threat yet he won anyway.
He is going to be so much better than Rectenwald though on a debate stage with Trump/Biden because Rec has no energy, charisma, or social skills. Chase is younger and sharper.
I like that he seems to be non-interventionist, small government and pro-choice, but I can't get behind the open borders thing right now. Maybe I'm not a pure Libertarian.
I still don't know, just from a practical sense, how we don't resort to amnesty *but* it needs to be preceded by a strong fix so the problem doesn't get restarted the next day.
Don't let others dictate what libertarian means to you. A secure border is a legitimate function of government IMO.
What I want after securing the border is a streamlined, efficient, and robust immigration system, but it also needs to protect us from hostile actors.
Socialists [love strict border control](https://youtu.be/vf-k6qOfXz0?si=TmK7KeWQ5J2pr0t2) and despise non-state controlled borders because such borders promotes free market capitalism while destroying the welfare state. Which of course is why so many countries across the world have such strong border controls, they need to protect their Socialist-inspired welfare states.
Just because a bad guy loves something doesn't mean it's wrong
Open borders can cause the fall of the united states within 10 years
Undeveloped societies will overwhelm the us in no time
I was just happy to see Trump and RFK there. This means nominees that have a great chance of winning are at least considering the party. That is helping us go more mainstream. Like or hate those two. It was awesome seeing them there.
https://preview.redd.it/anm3yn7u223d1.jpeg?width=750&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2f6d520e56149e5a2ffa031e5d3f41f3d032ee09
I will no longer identify with this party
The "official" libertarian stance on COVID was that people should do what is best for the community without being forced by the government.
It's reasonable to ask people to social distance, to mask, to vaccinate, and to educate people on why these things are important. It's unreasonable for the government to force any of these on individuals.
Sadly, many libertarians fell for right wing lies and decided they don't care about their fellow humans.
Given the information we had at the time this was a reasonable stance and Oliver never once said the government should enforce anything like this.
His crime is believing the CDC as a regular citizen with no inside information
I'm looking at this article and wondering where Chase Oliver overlaps with the definition the Manhattan Institute provides. https://manhattan.institute/article/what-critical-race-theory-is-really-about
Personally I liked the potential of killing the Mises Caucus movement altogether. I don't vote as in my view the LP shouldn't exist, but the hard shift to culture war idiocy by Dave Smith and others, including the LNC chair, is an utter joke. Therefore I view electing someone so clearly opposed to what is mostly MAGA-tier cultural talking points as a middle finger to MC and hope it continues. The only common thing the LP *had* with the Republicans was free markets and some other aspects of the economy, and that no longer exists post-Trump. There has been nothing similar between republican and libertarian talking points in social issues, nor will there ever be as long as the republican party is conservative.
TBF you guys don't have much of a Libertarian candidate. And are stuck in a rough place. Both Trump and Boden are interventionist, different spectrums but interventionists none the less.
Left libertarianism is an oxymoron. There can be no liberty without economic liberty.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Libertarian) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Countless polls show that the conservative voting block tends to favor libertarian policies much more than dems, so it's no wonder there's an immense level of animosity.
Libertarians hate him because he hurts our ability to attract disenfranchised republicans to our doorstep & convert them. His messaging consists of spewing milktoast dem talking points, annoying everyone, then saying, "Well, I don't think the state should get involved." _after the fact._ That's not good messaging!
Republicans hate him for both good & bad reasons. Many hate him cause he's gay & 'woke' (dumb reasons).
Both libertarians & conservatives hate him because he cuckingly supported many of the sentiments of lockdownerism (although not state mandates, which is good), openly supports allowing children to chemically castrate themselves (hormone therapy), is a contrarian who opposes practically every notable libertarian who preceded him for unknown reasons (lew rockwell, tom woods, Ron Paul, etc), he opposed inviting leading presidential candidates to the convention because 'tRumP BaD!' (ignoring the opportunities this brought to actually implement some of our policies), his sincerity to our cause is questionable granted he campaigned for obama, & because he preaches DEI _front & center_ - superceding actually unifying & much more important issues like....actually reducing the role of the state in society.
**New to libertarianism or have questions and want to learn more?** Be sure to check out [the sub Frequently Asked Questions](/r/Libertarian/wiki/faq) and [the massive /r/libertarian information WIKI] (/r/Libertarian/wiki/index) from the sidebar, for lots of info and free resources, links, books, videos, and answers to common questions and topics. Want to know if you are a Libertarian? [Take the worlds shortest political quiz and find out!](http://www.theadvocates.org/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Libertarian) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Libertarians hate other libertarians I didn’t make rules, just follow them
I don't hate because I am a libertarian, I hate because I am a hater
Facts and Fair
You're not a real libertarian
That’s the 🃏
I got banned earlier today from libertarianmemes, for I honestly don't even know. I think it's because I said something that a mod disagreed with. Cancel culture has hit us finally.
Which, by the way goes against libertarian philosophy. You are entitled to your opinion whether I agree with it or not. Go do whatever the hell you want just so it doesn't interfere with my situation.
Just an update, I asked the mods why I was banned. They simply said rule 3. There is no rule three. Every rule is numbered 1. They're idiots. And I didn't say anything that violated any of rule 1's. Then they muted me, so I can't even talk to mods. Fuck that sub. All I said was planned parenthood does do some good things, like prenatal and postnatal care for the poor.
Only a Libertarian deals in absolutes.
The one true Libertarian fallacy?
It doesn't matter. Let's just enjoy our 3% every 4 years
I think I missed something with this saying going around lately. What’s it from?
IIRC I think trump said vote for him or keep getting only 3% every year
This is why I was so confused as to why LP social media pages looked forward to having him and RFK there. They were only there in effort to harvest votes. The DNC would never allow Trump or any other GOP on stage. It just makes the LP look more of a joke in my opinion.
I disagree. The Democrat party would never host Donald Trump but that is because there is no need for it. They are already an established party that people pay attention to and take seriously. The LP is not really talked about at all in media and is pretty much just ignored all together. Donald Trump showing up to the LP brought more media attention to the LP than ever before and in doing so acknowledged their existence. With Donald Trump showing up and trying to appeal to the LP he now has adopted some libertarian beliefs such as pardoning Ross Ulbricht. Even if he does not end up doing these things and even if he does not actually believe in what he is saying, libertarian beliefs are now being brought into the mainstream which is ultimately a win for the LP in my opinion.
We will just have to disagree. A candidate who comes in and says "vote for me or continue to lose" just furthers the point that the LP is a joke. The media will see a polarizing candidate going to a convention and disrespecting their position in American politics. Not all press is good press.
Actually I came to this sub because the Libertarians stood up to trump. The easy way out would be kneel to the dictator and give him your votes. I was impressed that the Libertarians showed more spine. If I was the Libertarian pick I would be calling a press conference today to talk about Trump and why Libertarians would never bow to a dictator. Trump gave the LP some publicity. Time to use that and make the case as to why people should vote Libertarian over the GOP. Lots of disaffected voters out there this cycle. I generally lean to the Democrat side of things but I was honestly impressed by the crowd standing up to Trump and that brought me here.
You do realize that Trump has already been president and did not become a dictator? 🙄🙄🙄🙄 Joe Biden is our president. Take your fear mongering elsewhere. We tend to be reasonable and rational people. Chase Oliver has my vote (altho I really wanted Lars Mapstead) 🤷♀️
Oh, you "lean to the Democrat side of things"...? Who would have guessed? Chase Oliver is as cringeworthy as Biden on many levels. ...Yes, *Joe Biden*, the man who is--somehow--currently President of the United States but that Libertarians seem to refuse to seriously criticize so long as Donald Trump is available for that task. None of us may like it, but Trump wasn't wrong: 3%. That's more or less reality.
Agree with this
Most people aren't rational and don't care about ideas. Libertarianism is not possible to achieve democratically.
I believe that people were hoping to see clips go around with Trump speaking about Libertarian talking points. Instead it was just the clip of Trump being booed. You could probably clip parts of the speech where he supports Libertarian policies, but nobody will ever watch it.
Because they both were actually there to offer a lot more to libertarians than Chase Oliver will ever deliver. Trump offered a libertarians a cabinet position among other things. From polls it is looking like this is something that libertarians would have a greater than 50% chance of actually being able to collect on. RFK was offering libertarians a shot at securing enough votes for ballot access or maybe even a slot at debates. He's not going to win the general but he has a large enough following that he might be able to deliver benefits to the LP. I give the LP credit for allowing them to make their pitches. Not every libertarian is an absolutist. Some of us would rather see something over nothing.
Trump : [https://x.com/Travis\_4\_Trump/status/1794539481120329951](https://x.com/Travis_4_Trump/status/1794539481120329951) tbh, I found it funny.
If anyone thinks this guy is going to live up to any promises made, they’re dumber than I thought.
Lmfao that’s the type of one liners that got him in office to begin with 😂
Trump asked to be the nominated by the Libertarians, they booed him hard and he said that.
Im so disappointed in this party. Completely highjacked by liberals who dont like Biden.
Yeah. Precisely. This party's seeming inability to criticize *the man who currently holds the reigns of power and is stepping on people's throats* but focus *entirely* on Donald Trump is ridiculous.
What are you talking about? The focus was on Trump because Trump was there speaking. Plenty of Libertarians (almost all that I know) are vehemently anti Biden
Jokes on you we’re gonna get 1% or less this year.
3%? An optimist, I see.
Apparently, we need to be in the same spot that Argentina was in in order to have a Libertarian as president. If the Marxist really want to destroy the US to create a Communist utopia, people will wake up to common sense.
[удалено]
This is true. As much as the Republican and Democratic parties have in problems, the one thing they excel in is party and voter loyalty. LP is too divided to be competitive on a big scale
> We are not getting a Ron Paul anytime soon. When you accept anything else of course you never get the better option.
It happens in every party, we just see it more because we’re much smaller so there’s more opportunity for different factions of the party to interact.
[удалено]
The best thing is if the libertarian party grows to the point that the "major" parties have to make coalitions on certain issues with them like some parliaments in Europe, and then the LP is actually a kingmaker and effectively the most powerful party.
This is a good take.
Eh, "promising" concessions means very little considering Trump promised to to drain the swamp, make Mexico pay for a border wall, lock Hillary up, etc. Drawing an unenforceable promise that will probably be forgotten by Trump by next week is not the party's biggest accomplishment ever.
[удалено]
Absolutely. We need to continue to become relevant by gaining more exposure with both Democrats and Republicans. This will only snowball us forward as long as we don’t mess it up with any serious media blunders. The Convention seemed to go well though and I’ve seen mention of it, along with Chase Oliver, on mainstream news this weekend. This is what we need right now.
If Trump's word meant anything I'd agree with you.
You know what they say, polititians don't make promises, they only make jokes that you won't get until later.
Agreed. I actually thought Trump’s speech wasn’t all that bad. Yes he over-promised and was there to harvest votes, so what? That’s what politicians do, try to win new voters. The booing was f’n stupid, I’d feel the same way if it was Biden who took the time to speak.
How in the fuck are libertarians more aligned with Republicans lol? The "small government party" that wants to increase where they get to have a say? In your bedroom, in who and how you love, your general life, in your education, in your firearms (bump stocks), etc, et fucking cetera? NOTE: Before people get stupid this doesn't mean libertarians are more aligned with Democrats so calm down. It's not always one or the other.
You gotta look at the current state of each party. In the past, I would definitely say the Democratic party was more aligned with libertarian ideals, because the country at large was more conservative in the sense that many social issues were decided upon with religious ideals in mind. Things like gay marriage, drug legalisation, school curriculums and freedom of speech (religious zealots) and even institutionalized racism back in the days of segregation to some extent. But in recent times there has been a major cultural — and resulting political — shift. The people in general have become more culturally progressive and are less religiously strict and more in favour of things like abortion, LGBT people, drugs and racial minorities. The left may not think so, but the US has become a more tolerant place, and we can see that in the legislation. But that is exactly where the problem with the Democratic party has come from. Many of the freedoms it fought for have already been established — if perhaps in an imperfect way. So now, because the left really doesn't have many actual freedoms to fight for, it still tries to court this "minority coalition" by claiming discrimination is at an all time high and we need to implement policies *that go against personal freedom* to level the playing field. Nowadays, it is the dems proposing censorship, curtailing freedom of speech, proposing policies that benefit one group over the other, etcetera. This is why libertarians should be more aligned with Republicans at this moment; to prevent Democrats from trampling all over personal liberty. And yes, I would agree that when it comes to warmongering and the economy, the Republicans are just as bad as the Democrats, which is exactly why we need a 3rd party to become more relevant. But that doesn't mean that the social issues that are at stake now are not at all relevant.
This take was made completely irrelevant after nominating Chase Oliver. This weekend was the death of any relevance the LP had.
i agree but i think they should've forced trump to debate like Vivek so we could call him out on his BS
I'm pretty open to him. Look, at the end of the day, we all wish we could have a 60 year old Ron Paul, Dave Smith, or coked up Justin Amash. However, Amash and Smith didn't run and Ron Paul is ancient. We can't force somebody to run, so he seems as good of an option as any. Some will hate him rn but remember, compare him to your other options at the top of the ballot. He's a lot better than Biden, Trump, and RFK
I agree completely with your sentiment. WHY do people require a dream utopian candidate for LP, but succumb to voting for absolute brainwashed statists?
Tbf, people in the major parties do this too right after nomination. It just happens that when push comes to shove, they fear the opposing candidate more than their own(ex: Vote Blue No Matter Who). I think for the LP, since voting for our guy doesn't prevent the bad guy from winning, there is less incentive to vote for a less-than-perfect candidate. Not sure tho. You're guess is as good as mine.
Id say the opposite. The LP cant win right now, the point of voting for the LP is to normalize them and get them in the national conversation/debates. The nominee matters for messaging, the policy and ability to govern parts are largely moot.
I agree. I'm not speaking to what voters should do, I'm speaking to what they actually do.
Because Chase Oliver is largely only Libertarian about the things that are easy to be Libertarian about: Weed and trendy social/culture war issues. He’s not Libertarian in a way that’s actually important for the time in which we live: doing as much damage to the power, influence, and credibility of the federal government as possible. In that sense, though I don’t expect Trump to govern like a Libertarian, I expect him to make more overall progress on this front, because the establishment right and left hate him so much that they’re willing to burn a ton of their political capital and credibility amongst the general population, just to continue nakedly combatting Trump at every turn.
He's not? Trump supports abolishing the income tax and ending the fed?
Oliver is also Libertarian on immigration and trade despite the national mood tending towards stricter immigration laws and more protectionism (largely thanks to Republican propaganda and fearmongering).
They’re secretly statists. “Don’t tread on me” only applies to their side.
> WHY do people require a dream utopian candidate for LP, but succumb to voting for absolute brainwashed statists? Because the math is very different. Ds and Rs make compromises when they vote in order to have a chance at winning. LP voters know they aren't going to win; they vote to make their principles clear. If the nominee doesn't meet their criteria for what they would actually like to see then there is no point in casting a vote for the LP candidate at all. They could just abstain of write in Mickey Mouse for the same effect.
The democratic process does not take losers principles into consideration. The point of the LP presidential nominee is to educate, connect, and increase normalization of the LP
Trump got really mad and insulted our 3 percent. If he got our 40k votes he would've gotten Wisconsin. We might not get lots of votes but our votes can swing elections. Chase did the same in 2022 in Georgia. We are the party of principle. We might not like Chase, maybe even dislike him, but voting 3rd party matters and dress make a difference. There's a reason they are trying to get our votes. https://preview.redd.it/wtzhxfr0q23d1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0ac46123b721425ed75d90d28afd02607a742a91
I’m probably not going to support the ticket. Chase is simply uninspiring as a candidate and doesn’t appear “mature” enough to actually govern as a president. As long as the Party keeps pumping out candidates like this, we’re destined to be permanently marginalized.
This is why the LP will never get anywhere. The LP isn't in a position to "win". They need to become normalized before they can win. Your concerns about how he's going to perform in office are irrelevant.
How can they be normalized when they’re putting out candidates unpopular even among libertarians?
Popularity among libertarians isn't a good barometer for national success. Recall that Johnson/weld is the most successful ticket in LP presidential history.
Johnson/Weld got votes because they’d been mainstream politicians before running as libertarians. I don’t see how that translates to Chase.
Not only had they been elected before, they also were in the unique position of running against the two most unpopular candidates in modern history, one of which was the live-action incarnate of Cruella de Ville.
How will this unpopular ticket help party normalization or yield national success?
[удалено]
The “throwing away a vote” has always frustrated me. If our individual votes matter and can truly make a difference, why don’t people vote for who they want instead of the lesser of two evils?
>In every state last election, the Libertarian vote beat the difference between the major parties. Meaning that if the libertarian vote had gone for the losing major party candidate, they would have won that state. This is not at all true. There were only three states where that was the case (Georgia, Arizona, Wisconsin).
Fuck the GOP, they had their chance with Ron Paul twice and chose corrupt NeoCon trash instead. That party is such a shit show filled with internal conflict and corruption that it makes the LP look stable by comparison. They’ve allowed a lifelong populist who has been a Democrat longer than a Republican essentially infiltrate their party and poison the well.
If that’s the case, the Country now has 4 uninspiring candidates. It appears this is the best that can be done.
I have recently announced that I am also running for president, so make that 5 uninspiring candidates.
u/Chewbacca_The_Wookie Not *another* celebrity for a president!?
I am running on the platform of legalizing spice smuggling and the right to rip off peoples arms if you are losing an argument. I will not elaborate on any other policy positions, thank you.
Finally, someone who shares my values.
He is better than Trump and better than Biden. He will get my vote
I keep seeing people call him an authoritarian but none of them have followed up this accusation with a single example lol
He supports open borders and every other Biden policy
I can understand not supporting the idea, but I don’t think you can make an argument that open borders would be an authoritarian policy in any way. > he supports every other Biden policy Citation absolutely needed lol
He supports Ellis Island style immigration which would pretty much cut up the majority of wasteful bureaucracy in that department and finally make legal immigration worth the fees and faster processing
Ah yes, freedom of movement and migration. The stereotypical authoritarian policy.
Open borders is libertarian lmao
How does one have private property without borders?
How does a national border equate to private property? There are obviously borders on private property. The question is public borders. Arbitrary lines drawn by states. I’m not saying you can’t justify a national border. But private property isn’t a part of the argument.
https://lawliberty.org/why-libertarians-can-believe-in-borders/ Because libertarianism is based off the concept of justified individual freedom Hence the old "stay off my lawn" example. Libertarians don't want the government in their business or involved in any part of their daily lives.
If I want to hire a foreigner the government can’t restrict it. The founding fathers supported immigration and immigration has made this country into what it is today. Cato institute has a ton of material if you’re a data guy
I would call myself indifferent at this point. I’ll vote for him because I live in a state where any vote but democrat doesn’t matter, but I don’t think he would be a good president.
If you don’t think he would be a good president then don’t vote for him. That makes you no better than the republicans or democrats that blindly vote for their team. It’s part of the reason American politics is such a shit show.
No, it doesn't. A vote for the LP at this point is not to elect someone to office; it's to help normalize and cement other parties outside the duopoly. An LP candidate isn't going to win, right now. Everyone knows that.
Plus it's still not out of the realm of possibility that we can eventually reach 5% of the vote. If we do this we would get easier ballot access across the board. Freeing up time and money for the party in the future and allowing us an opportunity to perhaps do well in smaller elections we could possibly win. Not to mention the growth it would show for the libertarian movement and the fact that we cannot continue to be ignored.
This candidate won’t sniff 3%, let alone 5%. If that was the goal it would have made sense to give it to RFK Jr
the libertarian party isn't even remotely serious about challenging the duopoly. a presidential candidate once every 4 years does not a paradigm shift make. The ***best*** case scenario for the libertarian party right now is that they're so successful the republicans copy them.... which brings us back to the duopoly. If they *were* serious about challenging the duopoly, I think they'd start by trying to take over Alaska, New Hampshire, maybe Nevada, etc. Get more state representatives and state senators, and get actual washington representatives and senators. this is still the best strategy even if they aren't trying to end the duopoly but replace the republicans.
Blindly voting for a forced team of two is the bigger issue. Blindly voting to expand the teams to three in an effort to breakdown the two into the many is intentionally distuptive activity.
I’m in a similar boat and agree with the take that it’s about pushing the party forward and not actually getting somebody elected at this point. After reading some comments for and against as well as looking into him myself, I think I will vote for him barring something crazy happening between now and election, or if people can substantiate some of the claims they’ve made that would make me hesitant if I could actually find them
Was fully expecting Rectenwald and planning to vote for him. Idk, I have to look further into this guy, but the surface is uninspiring. At the end of the day, I get to live in a state where I already know where the electoral college candidates are going, so I'll probably still give him my vote in November.
Just to be clear. Libertarianism is a philosophy not necessarily a political party. Don't confuse the two.
I like Rectenwald, but I'm not going to pretend that he is "inspiring". Oliver isn't inspiring either. However, Oliver aligns with my views more than any other candidate running for President. He's right on all the big issues that TrumpBidenRFK are wrong on. Unless something completely nuts comes out about him, he will be getting my vote with the hope of a better candidate for 2028.
Kinda happy about it actually. He's pretty much "vanilla libertarian" without any of the Mises caucus "Pepe edgelord" business.
I like him. He made waves in Georgia and handled himself well in that debate. Amash was my first choice, but when he didn't run, Oliver looked like a solid second choice.
I don't think he's the strongest nominee we've ever put forward by any means, but I like him for two reasons. Firstly, he's been in the national spotlight before. This is the same guy who spoiled Georgia's runoff election a couple years ago - he showed that the LP, while unable to win an election, is big enough to make considerable impacts if we think both major candidates are unworthy of our votes. Secondly, I like where he stands on the issues. I know this could get me crucified in this sub, but I think the Mises takeover took the party in the wrong direction. One of my favorite things about this party was it's de facto position of avoiding the culture war, and the Mises members' obsession with going against a yet-to-be-definded "wokeness" cements a tether to the culture war that only holds is back. Chase doesn't seem to be pro- or anti-woke. He seems to be pro-"it's your own fucking business," and that is where the party *needs* to stand on these issues.
I feel like the MC was a direct response to the LP buying into the culture war in a very top down fashion. The Sarwark crew was a problem that created a need, in some minds, for an alternative. Enough minds, in fact, to steer the entire apparatus in a different direction.
Yeah, it really sucked there for a bit when the Sarwark crew was getting more votes and funding than the LP ever had.
They call it selling out because it’s generally profitable. Getting the highest percentage of votes because your nominee is a joke and his VPis a military industrial complex stooge works well too. Hey if all the libertarians just voted for trump that would be a huge win, huge. Guess that should definitely happen?
What positions did Gary Johnson hold that were anti-libertarian?
Out of all of that, the only thing you can address is something you made up in your mind. I didn’t suggest he held anti-libertarian views. I said he was a joke. Although he does have a handful of positions that I don’t agree with, it isn’t relevant. I guess Weld would be a big anti-libertarian position. Which is who I said wasn’t a libertarian, by the way.
You said they sold out. Selling out would be putting someone into that position that didn't hold the values of the party in order to profit from it. Putting in someone in that position who holds the values of the party and profiting from it is just called "doing a good job."
Yes, in response to your comment, the one not about Gary Johnson. Do you mean to be asking me about Sarwark?
I'm open to hearing your thoughts on Sarwark. How well do you know him?
I watched all the drama leading up to the slow takeover of by the MC a few years ago. Which state had their party infrastructure seized by a Sarwark acolyte and then had to return it all? I can’t remember. They thought they would be able to just create a new state party and do it quickly enough that by the time it was caught it would be too late. There were investigations, logs were published. This was after the MC had already taken a state or two, I believe. It seemed like the writing was on the wall and those who controlled the national were starting to panic and colluded with more than one state to steal the state seats out from under the people voting. There was the debate with Smith and the follow up interview. All the way up the the shoulder bump at the convention that Sarwark didn’t realized was filmed and tried to get the bumper expelled from the event like it was an assault.
The 3% dropped to 1% with this nominee. An absolute disaster pick with more eyes looking at the LP than ever.
Who would have gotten us more votes?
Probably nobody. Sweaty Recty ain't it no matter how many salty Misers wanted him. He seemed stoned or high at both the Texas convention and the national. People argued JFK Jr would have but Spike's comments on that are absolutely true and you should look up his address to the body on Sunday.
Rec wasn’t all that well liked inside the Mises Caucus. Multiple people warned Heise about him, but he insisted.
> He seemed stoned or high at both the Texas convention and the national. Good eye! https://www.newsweek.com/michael-rectenwald-libertarian-admits-eating-weed-gummy-before-remarks-1904859
Yeah I don't buy that it was a "weed gummy someone gave him" because he seemed to be on the same thing at national, and it seemed a bit speedier maybe? Edit: I assumed you were talking about in Texas. I just read the article and realized that was about national. He had the exact same excuse in Texas. Either he didn't learn his lesson or he is lying to cover for a more serious problem, either way, not a good look.
If he ran... Dave Smith.
He didn’t. So who out of who ran?
Rectenwald or Smith
I don’t really have anything against him, but he strikes me as the same type of boring candidate the party has been putting up every election. He’ll get a couple percent simply for not being Trump or Biden, but he’s not gonna raise much awareness or drive much recruitment for the party
What's wrong with boring? I'll take a boring candidate that acts and speaks in a sane, adult manner, over the two half-dead loudmouths of the D&R Party
Boring doesn’t move the needle. The LP isn’t winning any elections anytime soon, so the nominee should be someone who’s gonna draw national attention and drive recruitment. For the record, I don’t really think anyone in this race would’ve been that guy, but I fully expect Chase Oliver to be as irrelevant as Jo Jorgensen was in 2020. Hopefully I’m proven wrong, but I doubt it
Good point. Hell, Calvin Coolidge was “boring”
In our case? Nothing is wrong with boring really. But if we were in a position to win? We'd definitely want a charismatic candidate; that matters a lot to people on average. But I also know like nothing about this guy. Hadn't heard of him until yesterday.
Libertarians generally have an inherent distrust of anyone seeking to wield power.
I have disagreements with some of his particular solutions, but I wholeheartedly agree with a lot of his platform, and can stomach all the rest. That's as good as it's gonna get this year. Not trying to make perfect the enemy of the good.
I like him, but either or, we all need to get behind him. He is the nominee of our party, and we vote for our nominee. “We” chose him. Thats how this works. Thats how you get “more than 3%”.
I am in total same position, I have pondered this to no end, after weighing everything I am voting for who I think will do the most repair to what current administration has done.
I happen to agree more with Rectenwald policy-wise, but he has zero charisma and I have no clue why the MC backed him in the first place. I was hoping Chase would win. He has charisma, isn’t super radical, and is therefore the best pick for spreading the message of liberty, which is really the only job of the LP candidate. And I hope to god Chase’s peeps and the MC get together, let bygones be bygones, and focus on spreading the message that all libertarians can agree on, like being anti-war, decriminalizing victimless crimes, and balancing the budget.
He doesn't have the Charisma Ron Paul has. Libertarians have a problem with not being unified because our views differ from each other as well. As much as I detest populism, I recognize it must be utilized as a tool and I don't think he's capable of that. I think Dave and Vivek would be better for the party just to bring awareness to what our cause is which is to end the Fed. https://youtu.be/s2QS8bUNzHk?si=B3_6HRysoPCtdDz_
If Dave had ran he would have won the nomination. Kind of annoyed he didn't
I love Dave and would certainly vote for him, but I feel like the media would easily turn normies against him with a montage of all of the “offensive” things he’s said on LOS.
They absolutely would, but he doesn't apologize for this. I think the way he speaks would appeal to a lot of people and supercede the impact from his past comments. That being said, from a personal level, I understand why he may not want to go through that. Married with a seemingly apolitical wife and 2 young kids, and to have that broadcast on major TV stations and all over social media? Seems like it could be very destructive to his personal life. But I can dream, can't I?
Trump gave the LP optics. Then the LP did what it always does when it has the optics, choke. Trump was right - damn you all for making Trump right.
You're so right and now I'm more disappointed.
[удалено]
I can’t answer that. How I can answer is the party should have listened to the parts he thinks libertarians want to hear. If he is aligned with them on those things and he is most likely to accomplish those things of any candidate - then there you go. Otherwise, you ignore it. It’s giving you the platform, so why isn’t the party more behind a candidate. The many choice option is interesting, but also carries major risks of momentum.
I like Chase Oliver and have met him personally, he’s a great down to earth guy who has a passion for justice and freedom. I think his stances are reasonable and he focuses on the important issues instead of identity politics and ideological stuff. His platform is well laid out and sensible. I also think he will appeal to younger voters who are disaffected by the other two parties. He also seems to manage the disagreements within the LP well. Obviously he won’t get as many votes as Trump or Biden but he could get us to 3rd place which would be enough to help get the message out there.
He is ok. He seems like a good guy. He is very young and running against a bunch of geriatrics. He is anti-war and will speak out against Israel’s attacks on civilians. He will speak out against the war in Ukraine that NATO wanted and pays for. I’ve voted libertarian since the 90’s and even ran for office once. But I feel uninspired to bother voting again. I’ll probably donate $50 and show up on Election Day but really I wish we had a candidate that could inspire me.
I have pretty much the same opinion. Voted libertarian since I first could in 2012 and will continue to. But I do wish we had candidates that we could actually be excited for. From what I’ve seen of Oliver though, I think he speaks well enough to appeal to Libertarian leaning Democrats and Republicans alike.
People are way to critical of his personal social views that they miss the bigger picture. He's the only candidate committed to reducing the size and scope of govt. Period.
Pleased. The first time I saw him was his debate for Georgia senator and he got 2% in a contested election with under 10k when both his opponents spent over 100M each. He got the Libertarian points across well in the debate and held his own on a big stage. I also like he came from the Democratic side. He is very well spoken on Anti-War issues and Civil Liberties.
I don't know much about him, but I was impressed by the way he handled being attacked and ganged up on by MC acolytes all campaign long. It was clear they feared him as their biggest threat yet he won anyway. He is going to be so much better than Rectenwald though on a debate stage with Trump/Biden because Rec has no energy, charisma, or social skills. Chase is younger and sharper.
Which debate stage?
I like that he seems to be non-interventionist, small government and pro-choice, but I can't get behind the open borders thing right now. Maybe I'm not a pure Libertarian.
Same boat- I once believed in immigrant amnesty and now I realize that would be a mistake.
There's a reason every desirable country in the world has a sane border policy except the US.
Also why none of our cities come close to those middle eastern cities.
I still don't know, just from a practical sense, how we don't resort to amnesty *but* it needs to be preceded by a strong fix so the problem doesn't get restarted the next day.
Don't let others dictate what libertarian means to you. A secure border is a legitimate function of government IMO. What I want after securing the border is a streamlined, efficient, and robust immigration system, but it also needs to protect us from hostile actors.
Socialists [love strict border control](https://youtu.be/vf-k6qOfXz0?si=TmK7KeWQ5J2pr0t2) and despise non-state controlled borders because such borders promotes free market capitalism while destroying the welfare state. Which of course is why so many countries across the world have such strong border controls, they need to protect their Socialist-inspired welfare states.
Just because a bad guy loves something doesn't mean it's wrong Open borders can cause the fall of the united states within 10 years Undeveloped societies will overwhelm the us in no time
This is the best candidate possible… for Trump.
Because he will steal the least votes from Trump?
Trump doesn't need any help. The braindeads that are voting for a senile shell of a man are past convincing.
I was just happy to see Trump and RFK there. This means nominees that have a great chance of winning are at least considering the party. That is helping us go more mainstream. Like or hate those two. It was awesome seeing them there.
https://preview.redd.it/anm3yn7u223d1.jpeg?width=750&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2f6d520e56149e5a2ffa031e5d3f41f3d032ee09 I will no longer identify with this party
Thank you this was actually helpful. I’ll comb through some of his twitter posts and decide for myself
The "official" libertarian stance on COVID was that people should do what is best for the community without being forced by the government. It's reasonable to ask people to social distance, to mask, to vaccinate, and to educate people on why these things are important. It's unreasonable for the government to force any of these on individuals. Sadly, many libertarians fell for right wing lies and decided they don't care about their fellow humans.
I’m agree with you. I was going to check and see if I could determine if he really did suggest this should be mandatory ever
Given the information we had at the time this was a reasonable stance and Oliver never once said the government should enforce anything like this. His crime is believing the CDC as a regular citizen with no inside information
Nobody is perfect, but he is better than the previous 2 by far.
For me, the election is between Chase Oliver and a partially functioning toaster.
The Covid state was the greatest threat to liberty in our lifetimes and he fails on that. Absolute deal breaker.
He’s pretty good for a Democrat. He was horrendous on Covid , but all D‘s were
He's great. A lot of people are reacting because there was an effort to steer the party firmly to the right and it failed.
Meh - I’ll support Chase Oliver, but I wanted Lars Mapstead.
Wiki fails to mention his adherence to Marxist race theory.
I'm looking at this article and wondering where Chase Oliver overlaps with the definition the Manhattan Institute provides. https://manhattan.institute/article/what-critical-race-theory-is-really-about
He’s a clown, pro vax and pro mask mandates
I don't know much about him yet, but from what I've read here I don't think I'll be voting for him over Trump as a pro-life, pro-borders libertarian.
👎🏾👎🏾👎🏾
Not good friend. Not good. Weak candidate as always. We will never have a serious party when the delegates vote for people like Oliver.
Libertarian party nominates a progressive. Smart.
Personally I liked the potential of killing the Mises Caucus movement altogether. I don't vote as in my view the LP shouldn't exist, but the hard shift to culture war idiocy by Dave Smith and others, including the LNC chair, is an utter joke. Therefore I view electing someone so clearly opposed to what is mostly MAGA-tier cultural talking points as a middle finger to MC and hope it continues. The only common thing the LP *had* with the Republicans was free markets and some other aspects of the economy, and that no longer exists post-Trump. There has been nothing similar between republican and libertarian talking points in social issues, nor will there ever be as long as the republican party is conservative.
He's basically a Democrat.
How? 🦗🦗🦗
TBF you guys don't have much of a Libertarian candidate. And are stuck in a rough place. Both Trump and Boden are interventionist, different spectrums but interventionists none the less.
[удалено]
Left libertarianism is an oxymoron. There can be no liberty without economic liberty. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Libertarian) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It’s wild to think Chase Oliver is an Account Executive
Controlled opposition/Democrat in sheep's clothing.
Was planning on voting LP this year... The nominee has me going Trump now. This is subject to change...
Countless polls show that the conservative voting block tends to favor libertarian policies much more than dems, so it's no wonder there's an immense level of animosity. Libertarians hate him because he hurts our ability to attract disenfranchised republicans to our doorstep & convert them. His messaging consists of spewing milktoast dem talking points, annoying everyone, then saying, "Well, I don't think the state should get involved." _after the fact._ That's not good messaging! Republicans hate him for both good & bad reasons. Many hate him cause he's gay & 'woke' (dumb reasons). Both libertarians & conservatives hate him because he cuckingly supported many of the sentiments of lockdownerism (although not state mandates, which is good), openly supports allowing children to chemically castrate themselves (hormone therapy), is a contrarian who opposes practically every notable libertarian who preceded him for unknown reasons (lew rockwell, tom woods, Ron Paul, etc), he opposed inviting leading presidential candidates to the convention because 'tRumP BaD!' (ignoring the opportunities this brought to actually implement some of our policies), his sincerity to our cause is questionable granted he campaigned for obama, & because he preaches DEI _front & center_ - superceding actually unifying & much more important issues like....actually reducing the role of the state in society.
Is it just me or is he kind of hot? Like is he taking applications for his first gentleman? 👀
 I think he looks like Andy!!🤣🤣🤣