Progressives, part 3...

posted by like_that

I am still waiting to see a legitimate reason to bring John Dean in, when they could easily make Mueller testify.    I would love for Mueller to be asked why he cut off the voicemail from Flynn's attorney in his report and why he left out the fact that the key person "with russian ties" also happened to be a key state department intel source for years.   Seems like some important information to be leaving out, but what do I know. 

The Mueller Report was more or less a political hit job.  They didn't have Trump on a crime, and weren't going to manufacture one....so they used language and a slanted fact pattern to lay out a case for impeachment (where there's the standard/burden of proof is basically whatever Congress says it was).

I think the reason Mueller didn't reach a conclusion, and is declining to testify citing the report as his testimony, is that doing either would end the case for impeachment.  Saying "if we were clearly confident there was no crime, we would say so..." is effectively a declination because you don't have a case beyond a reasonable doubt.  The only reason he did that is he didn't want to kill the last option Dems have for removing Trump.

posted by like_that

I am still waiting to see a legitimate reason to bring John Dean in, when they could easily make Mueller testify.  

It's all staged political theater.  Between the media, the House and the campaign trail they're all giving breathless hot takes loaded with hyperbole trying to move public opinion toward impeachment.

The problem Dems have is their rabid base - whom they convinced Trump colluded with Russia - is demanding impeachment.  But like 60% of the country is saying move on.  I have a feeling that 60% number is going to tick up once the "investigations of the investigators" are all finished.

I think most people, who made any objective effort at all, were highly skeptical of the whole story from the beginning.  All I can assume is that the Dems and their media must have assumed that even if Russia was nothing, the special prosecutor was certainly going to find some other incriminating dirt on Trump (kind of believed that, myself).  So the "scandal" is starting to boomerang back on them, and they're making a full court press to defend themselves.  That's how you end-up calling John Dean as an expert witness, who begins his testimony by pointing out he's not a witness.

Dems slobbering over a poll that has Biden winning against Trump.......LOLOLOLOLOLOL.  

posted by Spock

Dems slobbering over a poll that has Biden winning against Trump.......LOLOLOLOLOLOL.  

I'll agree that poll is probably not close to accurate, but do you really think Trump hasn't lost support in key states?  ASSUMING he still carries FL and OH, I think he needs 1 of the 3 between WI, MI and PA....and his margin was very thin in those states.

That said, Gary Johnson had a significant number of votes in those states, as well.  I assume a Libertarian candidate will run in 2020, but if not (or lesser known than Gary Johnson), that will help trump.  If Daddy Starbucks runs as an independent, that will help Trump.

I can't foresee a Libertarian with more name-recognition than Gary Johnson getting the nomination this time, unless a celebrity comes out of nowhere and wins the nomination.

posted by justincredible

I can't foresee a Libertarian with more name-recognition than Gary Johnson getting the nomination this time, unless a celebrity comes out of nowhere and wins the nomination.

Jillette 2020?  That might do it.

posted by justincredible

I can't foresee a Libertarian with more name-recognition than Gary Johnson getting the nomination this time, unless a celebrity comes out of nowhere and wins the nomination.

Unless they go bat-shit and nominate McAfee....heck, he'd probably take a sizable chunk of Trump's base.

posted by gut

Unless they go bat-shit and nominate McAfee....heck, he'd probably take a sizable chunk of Trump's base.

Agreed.  Trump played reasonably well to the conspiracy theorists, but those are McAfee's people.

posted by O-Trap

Agreed.  Trump played reasonably well to the conspiracy theorists, but those are McAfee's people.

McAfee rips off his shirt doing a debate and Trump might confuse him with Putin.

I can't imagine they would go the McAfee route. I really like Larry Sharpe, but he has less than no name recognition and wouldn't move the needle on the national stage without getting into the debates (which isn't happening, obviously). I just don't see much from the Libertarian party in 2020 (or ever, per usual).

posted by justincredible

I can't imagine they would go the McAfee route.

I was joking, but the more I think about it Libertarians should seriously consider McAfee.

Why?  Because their problem right now is getting to 5%, and getting people to understand what they're about.  They've been spinning their wheels for 40 years.  McAfee can self-fund, and is a Trump-type circus show that will attract a ton of free press.

Sure, that's not the route you want the party to go.  But they're DOA until they get critical mass.  You can always reboot - what do you really have to lose seeing if McAfee can get you over that first hurdle?

posted by gut

I was joking, but the more I think about it Libertarians should seriously consider McAfee.

Why?  Because their problem right now is getting to 5%, and getting people to understand what they're about.  They've been spinning their wheels for 40 years.  McAfee can self-fund, and is a Trump-type circus show that will attract a ton of free press.

Sure, that's not the route you want the party to go.  But they're DOA until they get critical mass.  You can always reboot - what do you really have to lose seeing if McAfee can get you over that first hurdle?

If there were a way to ensure the reboot, it's a great call.

If not, though, it would just be a reminder to everyone of why the Libertarian Party shouldn't be taken seriously.

I actually liked McAfee as a candidate the most of the final 3 (He, Johnson, and Austin Peterson) but Peterson really grew on me as time went by. 

posted by Spock

Dems slobbering over a poll that has Biden winning against Trump.......LOLOLOLOLOLOL.  

Not sure why it's funny considering Biden is their best chance of winning. 

posted by gut

I'll agree that poll is probably not close to accurate, but do you really think Trump hasn't lost support in key states?  ASSUMING he still carries FL and OH, I think he needs 1 of the 3 between WI, MI and PA....and his margin was very thin in those states.

That said, Gary Johnson had a significant number of votes in those states, as well.  I assume a Libertarian candidate will run in 2020, but if not (or lesser known than Gary Johnson), that will help trump.  If Daddy Starbucks runs as an independent, that will help Trump.

Highly doubt he runs if Biden wins.   Any other of the leftist wackos and I can see him running. 

posted by justincredible

I can't foresee a Libertarian with more name-recognition than Gary Johnson getting the nomination this time, unless a celebrity comes out of nowhere and wins the nomination.

Amash?

posted by gut

I was joking, but the more I think about it Libertarians should seriously consider McAfee.

Why?  Because their problem right now is getting to 5%, and getting people to understand what they're about.  They've been spinning their wheels for 40 years.  McAfee can self-fund, and is a Trump-type circus show that will attract a ton of free press.

Sure, that's not the route you want the party to go.  But they're DOA until they get critical mass.  You can always reboot - what do you really have to lose seeing if McAfee can get you over that first hurdle?

I doubt he gets nominated based on what is going on with him currently. 
 

posted by justincredible

I can't imagine they would go the McAfee route. I really like Larry Sharpe, but he has less than no name recognition and wouldn't move the needle on the national stage without getting into the debates (which isn't happening, obviously). I just don't see much from the Libertarian party in 2020 (or ever, per usual).

The libertarian party can't get this own shit together, so it is kinda hard for them to even get a legitimate candidate. Most of the people running that party can't agree on what the party should stand for.  Most libertarians can't agree what libertarianism stands for.  We make fun of the left for eating themselves, but libertarians are just as bad.  I like Sharpe, but highly doubt he ever holds an elected position.  The best strategy for libertarians is to continue "infiltrating" the GOP imo. Peterson and Freitas both lost their primary to run for senator unfortunately, however it would be amazing for them to earn a seat at the house or senate. 

posted by gut

So Democrats reached deep into their ass yesterday to stage some political theater where John Dean (Nixon lawyer who served jail time for obstruction) gave his "expert" opinion on the Mueller Report......and no one watched it because of that helicopter crash.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmrSmMiPBls&feature=youtu.be

Gohmert nailing it …

The last two minutes is an excellent summary of what has occurred.

posted by like_that

The libertarian party can't get this own shit together, so it is kinda hard for them to even get a legitimate candidate. Most of the people running that party can't agree on what the party should stand for.  Most libertarians can't agree what libertarianism stands for.  We make fun of the left for eating themselves, but libertarians are just as bad.  I like Sharpe, but highly doubt he ever holds an elected position.  The best strategy for libertarians is to continue "infiltrating" the GOP imo. Peterson and Freitas both lost their primary to run for senator unfortunately, however it would be amazing for them to earn a seat at the house or senate. 

I don't disagree. You mentioned Amash above, but he's actually doing something as a Republican. I just wish the GOP went the way of Paul instead of Trump.

posted by like_that

The libertarian party can't get this own shit together, so it is kinda hard for them to even get a legitimate candidate. Most of the people running that party can't agree on what the party should stand for.  Most libertarians can't agree what libertarianism stands for.  We make fun of the left for eating themselves, but libertarians are just as bad.  I like Sharpe, but highly doubt he ever holds an elected position.  The best strategy for libertarians is to continue "infiltrating" the GOP imo. Peterson and Freitas both lost their primary to run for senator unfortunately, however it would be amazing for them to earn a seat at the house or senate. 

The Libertarian Party is, indeed, something of a mess.  It has even become a joke among a fair number of "small L" libertarians.

In a general sense, though, most libertarians can agree on the basics.  Small, limited government with taxation being viewed as theft is pretty homogeneous.  Now, certainly if you get into some of the policies on an individual basis, you'll get some disagreement.  In my experience, libertarians are pretty divided over abortion and the rights of non-individual institutions with regard to campaign finance (businesses, organizations, non-profits, etc).

Now, of course, I don't mind if the libertarian movement infiltrates either of the two major parties, since I don't really care about affiliations ... sort of a Shakespearean "rose by any other name" position on them ... so maybe that's the best option.  I'm not sure at this point, but I wouldn't insist that it categorically is, because I think that's the sort of thing that can too easily get hijacked in its infancy.

For example, look at the Tea Party movement.  Started out as a bipartisan movement on reckless government spending.  The point of it, even, was to shed the other policies and focus strictly on the government's fiscal policy.  it wasn't supposed to be about gay marriage, abortion, drug laws, gun laws, standing for the pledge or the flag, religion, etc.

The problem is that it quickly got hijacked and turned into an almost-extreme version of modern-day Republicanism.  It's ANYTHING but bipartisan, and its actual goal of fiscal sanity has been completely lost.

Maybe it's possible for the libertarian movement to accomplish its goals better by infiltrating a current party, but I honestly think you'd need to see something within the party that migrated toward libertarianism at the same time.  Something like a irreligious Goldwater-esque movement or a Constitution-adherent Paul-esque movement within the Republican Party mixed with libertarian infiltration at the same time.  Otherwise, it wouldn't surprise me to see contemporary Republicans trying to hijack what libertarianism even means.

posted by justincredible

I don't disagree. You mentioned Amash above, but he's actually doing something as a Republican. I just wish the GOP went the way of Paul instead of Trump.

I feel like the Democrat party moving left, caused part of the GOP to move further right (a.k.a Tea Party).  Which has now caused the bat-shit among the Dems to move even further left.

So it looks like both parties may be on the brink of fracturing - I don't see the rubber band snapping back but breaking.  It wouldn't be surprising, as almost every other Democracy has multiple parties (definitely more liberal than the Dems, maybe even a party to the right of the Repubs).  Question is whether moderates from both parties form a 3rd party, or if we end-up with 4 parties.  That might create the opportunity for Libertarians to become relevant.

https://pjmedia.com/parenting/church-hosts-summer-camp-to-train-grade-school-kids-to-be-antifa-activists/

" In any event, you can't tell me that we're not in a war for the soul of our culture. The Marxist revolutionaries are now reaching into our elementary schools to recruit ever younger comrades for the front lines. "

Better hang on to your guns.