I am registered a republican but I am more of a libertarian. I believe their platforms except for illegal immigration, I do not believe we should have open borders. But everything else in their platform I believe.

I do vote republican most of the time though because I want my vote to count. However this next presidential election if the republicans do what they seem to do every election and put the next in line or the best moderate I will not vote for them. I will not vote for Bush, Christie, or Graham. I will vote for the libertarian candidate.
jencpa jencpa
31-35, F
5 Responses Jul 24, 2015

I'm very similar in outlook. I cannot stand the current stable of traditional republican candidates. Immigration is wrecking the country and the party doesn't care that they are ignoring their voters concerns about it.

Libertarianism doesn't work in a diverse and divided country. John Derbyshire coined the phrase "Libertarianism in One Country," adapting a line from the Bolsheviks. I think you can have maximum freedom in a country with shared values.

I think the entire libertarian platform can be implemented today and work. However I think showing the hypocrisy of both parties can be a start. I lived in a fairly liberal city for years. Before I moved they voted to ban stores for using plastic bags. I now live in a city run totally by conservative republicans. In this town there is no bars and just until recently they banned any restaurant from selling alcohol. One city liberal that wanted to control what kind of bags businesses hand out and even if they can and the other side trying to prohibit what people can put in their body and what businesses can sell. We need a party that believes people can make decisions for ourselves and be responsible for the decisions we make.

I'm voting for Bernie. He's the only candidate who has words that match up to his actions. He's a little too liberal but I don't feel like he'll follow the same pattern - IE, three years of pooping one year of scooping. He also usually votes against gun control, a very non-liberal thing to do.

I don't like Sanders but I do agree that of everyone in the race republicans included he is the most honest. What he says and what he does are pretty consistent.

I feel very much like you. I consider myself a libertarian-conservative. That can make it difficult in the Republican Party where every candidate either is very conservative, and too moderate/liberal and very few libertarians. At the moment, I am leaning towards a Rubio for president and Kassich for VP, but that could change.

I like Bush well enough but do not believe he is electable in the general election. Cruz is too conservative and too religiously motivated on social issues, which violates my libertarian philosophy. I would not vote for Christie as he is too liberal and I would have a very hard time with Graham as he has stabbed the party in the back too many times in the name of bipartisanship.

I am not sure about Walker or Jindal yet. I think Huckaby is too much a Christian conservative even though I like the man a great deal otherwise. I just do not believe that the Federal Government should have ANY influence or control over our personal lives.

I agree a lot with you. I think Hucklebee, Santorum, and Cruz are too socially conservative for me. I really like Rand Paul. I loved Ron Paul. I supported him in both of his runs (republican runs). After Rand I'm not sure who I like. Most I could muster up support for just because I dont want Hillary in but not all of them.

I am not as isolationist as Paul and believe that not only need to stop cuts to the military but restore funds already cut over last several years. I believe in a strong, even aggressive foreign policy and Paul wants a more isolationist approach. I have found that historically, as much as we may want, isolationism does not lead to peace, it simply abrogates power and cedes it to someone else like Russia or China.

I don't prefer those candidates either.
Hopefully the Republicans will have a strong candidate because the Democrats will only have a rich powerful and dishonest candidate.

"Democrats will only have a rich, powerful and dishonest candidate." Please name a republican candidate that did not pander to corporate interests. Democrats only have venally rich candidates? What candidate hasn't been backed back millions of dollars of corporate funds has made it to the mainstream news (billion-dollar corporations in themselves) in the last few decades? Lol

They're all crooks, but I'm not interested in Hillary and nobody has a chance against her to get on the Democratic ticket.

My point was simply that nothing truly changed economically, nor does it really change with foreign policy. Economically, we live in a totalitarian system controlled by corporations, which is truly and literally unequal, in the most unprecedented way in all of history. Not once has there been such disparity in all of the world, and your vote will not change that, as all of the members are not going to change the increasing inequality in America. You might see another war that "defends our freedom", though, since the "war on terror" (terror being a subjective state of mind) is going strong!


Ball girl was of course referring to Hillary Clinton who we know is rich and dishonest.

Several of the Republican candidates are not wealthy in their own right. No candidate can get elected to the presidency without taking corporate, PAC, Big Labor, or some combination of those funding the campaign.

A president's goal is to be rich and dishonest, as shown by the last 6 decades.

Yes, I've "heard" of jimmy carter, and his war crimes: East Timor, slaughtering 1/3rd or 1/4th of the population with 90% US troops, backing Somoza, etc. What did he do for the population economically? Not much.

By at least the last 6 decades*. Referring to whom of which is irrelevant: Their goals are invariably the same, especially the candidates vaunted and championed by mainstream news: the ones, of which one, will invariably win.

You refuted me effectively? Clearly every president in the last 6 decades would be executed if they were prosecuted by the same standard as the Nuremberg trials. You never "refuted me effectively." Every president you named committed atrocious war crimes and heinous acts against international law. What were their goals? The same in terms of every president, catering to the powerful of the economy, especially the reaganites, and ascending America's international hegemony. It's the same for all presidents. It's not "ridiculous" at all if viewed from a lens of their foreign policy, including CIA acts and blunders, and their economic inputs--if any, although they rarely even effect the economy: corporations and the elites thereof obviously control in oligopolistic way. Don't your your nonsense of "good presidents and bad presidents." Go do some research

Don't tout* your nonsense*

In an oligopolistic way*

8 More Responses

I am with you.