this post was submitted on 14 Aug 2024

-44 points (16.7% liked)

politics

19104 readers

2541 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

-44

Libertarian presidential nominee says major parties treat voters like dupes (www.radioiowa.com)

submitted 3 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

54 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 10 points 3 months ago

Just a reminder that a cornerstone of American libertarianism is the privatization of waterways.

Libertarianism is nestles wet dream.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

"The Libertarian Party’s platform calls for significantly reducing the scope of the federal government by getting rid of regulations and cutting spending."

I'm open... which regulations? Which spending?

How do Libertarians do again?

2020:
Joe Biden 81,283,501 - 51.31% 306 EC votes.
Donald Trump 74,223,975 - 46.85% 232 EC votes.
Jo Jorgensen - Libertarian - 1,865,535 - 1.18% 0 Howie Hawkins - Green - 407,068 - 0.26% 0

2016:
Donald Trump 62,984,828 - 46.09% - 304 EC votes.
Hillary Clinton 65,853,514 - 48.18% - 227 EC votes
Gary Johnson - Libertarian - 4,489,341 - 3.28% - 0
Jill Stein - Green - 1,457,218 - 1.07% - 0

2012:
Barack Obama - 65,915,795 - 51.06% - 332
Mitt Romney - 60,933,504 - 47.20% - 206
Gary Johnson - Libertarian - 1,275,971 - 0.99% - 0
Jill Stein - Green - 469,627 - 0.36% - 0

2008:
Barack Obama - 69,498,516 - 52.93% - 365
John McCain - 59,948,323 - 45.65% - 173
Ralph Nader - Independent - 739,034 - 0.56% - 0
Bob Barr - Libertarian - 523,715 - 0.40% - 0
Chuck Baldwin - Constitution - 199,750 - 0.15% - 0
Cynthia McKinney - Green - 161,797 - 0.12% - 0

2004:
George W. Bush - 62,040,610 - 50.73% - 286
John Kerry - 59,028,444 - 48.27% - 251
John Edwards - 5 - 0.00% - 1
Ralph Nader - Independent - 465,650 - 0.38% - 0
Michael Badnarik - Libertarian - 397,265 - 0.32% - 0
Michael Peroutka - Constitution - 143,630 - 0.12% - 0
David Cobb - Green - 119,859 - 0.10% - 0

2000:
George W. Bush - 50,456,002 - 47.86% - 271
Al Gore - 50,999,897 - 48.38% - 266
Ralph Nader - Green - 2,882,955 - 2.74% -
0
Pat Buchanan - Reform - 448,895 - 0.43% - 0
Harry Browne - Libertarian - 384,431 - 0.36% - 0

Edit Yes, you read that right. In 2004, one faithless elector cast an electoral college ballot for John Edwards. It's commonly believed this was an error, but it counted anyway. Meaning a mistaken EC vote has counted more than all Libertarian and Green candidates combined in the past 1/4 century.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 3 months ago (3 children)

I recommend you all tag this person so you can see just how much they spam in an attempt to dillute the vote

[+] [email protected] -16 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I recommend you all tag this person so you can see just how much they spam in an attempt to dillute the vote

I don't spam at all.

And I didn't write the article. And also, do you realize with party Libertarian votes would take away from? Think about that.

And again, I didn't write the article. So if you are mad that things like this make the news, feel free to write the publishers of the news articles. This community is for posting of political news articles.

And this is a political news article. If it breaks the rules of the community, then the mods would remove it.

Posting political news articles to a Lemmy political news community is NOT spam. Please stay civil in your comments rather than throwing out baseless accusations.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 months ago (1 children)

In the last 24 hours you have made 34 posts. You absolutely are spamming.

[+] [email protected] -11 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Is there a rule against how many posts I've made? And most of the posts are IN ONE CONVERSATION IN ONE THREAD, that has had me and the poster just instantly replying back and forth to each other.

And I also posted several articles to the c/science sub. Some articles to the Green party sub. Some here, and some to a Socialist sub. Both subs of which I created and moderate.

What part of that is "spamming" to you?

In fact, go on, and cut and past the "34 posts" I have made right here to this thread. Let's let everyone see what I'm posting. They could always just check my profile and history as well, but hey, I'm cool with you cutting/pasting my comments here for all to see.

Which parts are "spamming"?

[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I said posts, not comments. You've made 34 posts in the last 24 hours. Lemmy has maybe 50 new posts every 6 hours. The bottom half of my feed is you and Jimmy Dore posting MLM tier hack bullshit.

You are free to do as you please, but you absolutely are spamming. Maybe if you slowed your roll a little it might come across as less desperate and pathetic?

Then again, given how defensive your response to my last comment was, I doubt you are capable of modifying your behaviour, even if it would help you in the long run.

[+] [email protected] -10 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

You are free to do as you please, but you absolutely are spamming.

Posting different NEWS articles about different subjects to different subs is NOT spamming.

You realize they are news articles written by news orgs and posted to news subs, right?

From latest findings in Neanderthal remains, to space news, to quantum physics, to a college starting a new lab, to candidates being on the ballet for the upcoming election. Nothing for sale. No links for sale. Not selling anything. Not implying selling anything. Nothing that gets any kickback for anything.

They are from physics, science, and political news sites.

How in ANY use of the word "spamming" does that count as spam.

Now is really seems you are upset that I post a lot of articles. That's NOT against the rules.

In fact, it's recommended so that we can strengthen our subs with diverse, intellectual posts. Lemmy WANTS us to post more content.

If you are mad about that, then maybe Lemmy isn't a great place for you?

Maybe if you slowed your roll a little it might come across as less desperate and pathetic?

What makes me posting news and science articles "desperate and pathetic"? This is a social forum and the sites I am posting to are sites that request news articles.

I didn't write the news articles, friend. I just am posting them for people to read or ignore.

Then again, given how defensive your response to my last comment was, I doubt you are capable of modifying your behavior, even if it would help you in the long run.

I wasn't defensive. You said I was spamming, and I countered how I wasn't spamming.

Again, POST THE LINKS, so everyone can see what you seem to think is "spamming."

And you know, you can always just not read them, right?

And how would not posting news articles that I find interesting, "help" me "in the long run"?

You realize this community is based on user-posted content. Right?

If any of the subs I posted to, thought the articles were against the rules, they would remove them.

If you have a complaint about what and when a news article can be posted to a sub, then may I suggest you bring that up to the moderation team of that sub?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Jesus look at the wall of cope you just posted. This is not healthy.

Spam is a question of volume, not intent. You are spamming. No amount of bargaining with me will change what you are doing.

If you want people to listen to you, don't treat the post button like a sluice gate you can open at will to shower us all with your poorly considered facebook moms group level boomer faux activist fecal matter masquerading as a political position.

Edit: and the wall of text wasn't enough. You had to reply TO YOUR OWN COMMENT to get in one final zinger. How do you not see how embarrassing this behaviour is?

[+] [email protected] -10 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Jesus look at the wall of cope you just posted.

Explaingin to you how your saying that I am "spamming" is a "wall of cope"?!

Spam is a question of volume, not intent.

Oh, ok, so it is a volume thing for you. So can't you just not read them? I'm unsure what you are upset about. Don't you just skip articles that you aren't interested in?

No amount of bargaining with me will change what you are doing.

Nor will it change what I am doing. I will continue to post subs and help this fediverse the best I know how to.

If you want people to listen to you,

What makes you think that is a concern of mine. I 100 percent respect your right to not read any posts I put on. In fact, I wouldn't expect you to read anything you don't want to.

And again, feel free to post all the links of this "spam" that I have been posting.

to shower us all with your poorly considered facebook moms group level boomer faux activist fecal matter masquerading as a political position.

Reported for uncivilty.

One of the rules of this sub is to be respectful and civil in our discussions here. If you disagree with me, that is fine. But when you get personal and call names, that is disrespectful.

If you can remain civil, then I would have to kindly ask you to not engage in debate with me. Thank you.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

That's just it. Here's the rule you're trying to report him on.

It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.

I think that this rule has problems (there ARE paid actors/bots on here and we should be allowed to call them out as such, Mods), but in this case, karobeccary is adhering to the letter of the rule. They're not called you 'boomer faux activist fecal matter masquerading as' anything. They've not even called you an idiot. They've just said that your ideas are poorly considered and don't rise above what they consider facebook mom's group level boomer faux activist fecal matter masquerading as a political position. You're finding offence in that position, but you really don't have room to complain. The opinion is valid. The original article is amplifying Libertarian bullshit that's designed to peel off voters away from mainstream parties towards minor parties who have ZERO chance in hell of being elected but a distinct and very valid chance of ensuring that voters get the major party candidate most opposed to their personal objectives voted in. And while I support that stupid happening to Team Red because that lowers the chance of a fascist dickhead mangling the Oath of Office in 2025 and the chance of the enactment of Project 2025, I don't support pitching that same stupid idea to our side. Obviously, karobeccary thinks the same way and is calling your article out, posting that you're going crazy overboard with it, and shoving it down our throats, despite the downvotes you're getting making it clear we don't want it.

PS: Hiding behind community rules and attacking people that disagree with you isn't a good look.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Sorry I don't have time to read all that. Shoot me a DM when you get it published as a 30 hour AudioBook read by Stephen Fry. I'll listen to it in the car on my way to work.

Fuckin sealion, lmao.

[+] [email protected] -8 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Sorry I don’t have time to read all that.

Yeah, well 30 seconds of reading is...well 30 seconds. So I guess, ok?

Fuckin sealion, lmao.

I don't know what that means.

Please keep our discussion on topic for the article I have posted and please adhere to the civility rule. Thank you.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

How about you Google it then instead of mewling? It means when you hear something you don't like you badger people until they get bored of you, and then count their exasperation at your dull repetitive bitching as a win for you somehow.

I'm just here to tell you the truth - your poor self control is actively hurting the positions you are trying to promote. You are shit at what you are trying to do. Your attitude and behaviour, not your political positions, are undermining everything you say, and they make you look like a fuckin boring whiner to boot.

By all means run to teacher and tell them I'm a meany head. I'm just letting you know how much of a tit you look, and no civility rule or mod interaction is gonna change that fact 😉

[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 months ago

Because what we all need is our food and water to be even more poisonous. To burn to death cuz we couldn't afford our subscription to firefighters service this month. Or to die of sepsis because of no medical regs at the hospital.

Right-Libertarians aren't serious people. At least not any more serious than a 14 year old ancap.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Hillary didn't and it cost her the election. Any reasonable, well-informed person should have voted against Trump, and she acted as if that applied to most voters.

If voters were well informed, the GOP wouldn't exist. The two parties would be progressives and liberals. Treating voters as a rational group is, in itself, irrational.

[+] [email protected] -18 points 3 months ago (1 children)

This Lemmy community explores and respects diverse viewpoints. I wouldn't advocate that the GOP shouldn't exist. Just as I wouldn't advocate that the DNC shouldn't exist.

And I believe 3rd parties are good for a healthy society.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The counterpoint to progressive action is moderation. The GOP do not represent useful ideas to a happy populous. They rely on lies and a skewed perception of reality. I don't respect a party whose core values are harming others, and I live in a red state so I live through that every day.

I accept and respect various diverse viewpoints on how to best serve the country, including actual libertarian values. I would be more than happy if Joe Manchin was a typical opposing argument to progressive ideals.

[+] [email protected] -16 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The GOP do not represent useful ideas to a happy populous.

In YOUR opinion (and mine!). Almost half of the country disagrees with you though.

I respect people's right to vote for any one they want to vote for, even if it's a Republican.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Well yeah, I don't disagree with the legal right to vote for a candidate that wants to hurt people.

I still think the GOP only exists due to ignorance. And I won't respect their values.

[+] [email protected] -16 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Well yeah, I don’t disagree with the legal right to vote for a candidate that wants to hurt people.

That's YOUR opinion. Many others don't agree with you. That's what I am saying.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I'm confused. You're saying that some people don't believe in the right to vote for their candidate?

Obviously Trump is an exception because of the 14th amendment. But in general...

load more comments