What Are the Options for Trump Voters Who Don't Feel Listened to by the Democratic Party?

[Valjean]

For being progressive, I'll take the "libertarian dominated
branches" over typical Democrats any day.

How David Koch’s 1980 Fantasy Became America’s Current Reality

Even by contemporary standards, the 1980 Libertarian Party platform was extreme. It called for the abolition of a wide swath of federal agencies, including the Food and Drug Administration, the Department of Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Federal Aviation Administration, the Bureau of Land Management, the Federal Election Commission, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, the Federal Trade Commission, and “all government agencies concerned with transportation.” It railed against campaign finance and consumer protection laws, the Occupational Safety and Health Act, any regulations of the firearm industry (including tear gas), and government intervention in labor negotiations. And the platform demanded the repeal of all taxation, and sought amnesty for those convicted of tax “resistance.”

Koch and his libertarian allies moreover advocated for the repeal of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and other social programs. They wanted to abolish federally mandated speed limits. They opposed occupational licensure, antitrust laws, labor laws protecting women and children, and “all controls on wages, prices, rents, profits, production, and interest rates.” And in true libertarian fashion, the platform urged the privatization of all schools (with an end to compulsory education laws), the railroad system, public roads and the national highway system, inland waterways, water distribution systems, public lands, and dam sites.

This is the libertarian branch agenda.

 

[fantome profane]

For being progressive, I'll take the "libertarian dominated
branches" over typical Democrats any day.

I think a strict libertarian approach would be very good for human rights.

Until all the humans died from toxic chemicals in the air and water.

 

[Brickjectivity]

The constitution, believe it or not, is not holy writ. Yes, sometimes reforms fail, but is that any reason not to attempt them? If they fail, try something else, or tweak them, but don't do nothing. Don't fear change.

No its not holy write but must be kept updated to reflect whatever keeps the union together -- that which constitutes the more perfect union should be reflected in the written constitution and amendments. Should be, but even it if isn't we should still operate like it is. It should be kept up to date however. When things work really well or we know that they will that is a good time to update the written constitution. There is the writing and there is what actually makes the union function. They are not ever going to be identical; but the constitution should be a guide and should be kept somewhat up to date by Congress not by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court cannot both interpret and modify the Constitution.

Again, the constitution was not inscribed by the finger of God.

And when, as you say, 'Right leaning' people oppose 'Left leaning' people; then the
question of constitutionality arises. That which unifies us ought to be the supreme law of the land above all other laws. Everything else must be considered a lower law. When the law is dividing people its not constitutional, because its not consti-tuting.

 

[tytlyf]

For some reason, we are almost stuck with two parties. I don't know why we can't be like Europe with many different parties. They have people to actually like voting for, we just have the lesser of two evils. That sucks!

Parties used to change all the time 1-200 years ago. More parties, more choices, more opinions. Always evolving.
Then the capitalists wanted corporations to get involved in politics. That's when money became a factor in determining winners and losers.
Ever since the dark money/anonymous "corporations are people" crowd landed in our government, things have gone downhill for America and the American worker.
The big 2 parties today are based on who has the most money. Get money out of politics and you'll see different options popping up. Until then, they'll never be able to compete due to lack of money.

If you want money out of politics, go after the party responsible. Republicans.

 

[Revoltingest]

How David Koch’s 1980 Fantasy Became America’s Current Reality


This is the libertarian branch agenda.

Without reading all that, I still prefer our agenda.
You guys were anti-gay rights, anti-civil rights,
pro-economic over-regulation, pro-war, & turned
a blind eye to sins within one's party.
Now the liberals run a presidential candidate who
did more to incarcerate people, especially blacks,
than any other in history. Oh, & he's pro-war.

I'm a progressive....not a liberal.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think a strict libertarian approach would be very good for human rights.

Until all the humans died from toxic chemicals in the air and water.

Who said I'm strict?
Or that you understand what libertarianism is all about?
When applying the dictum, "one's right to swing one's
arms ends where one's neighbor's nose begins",
prevention of poisoning common elements is logical.

Criminy...when liberals describe libertarians, it's like
when Elmer Gantry types describe us heathens...just
a tad demonizificationing.
I think you missed bickering with me while I was away.

 

[Sand Dancer]

We aren't stuck with 2 parties people are just stubborn. Both parties keep saying if you vote 3rd party your throwing away your vote but that not true. If only 9% of the population votes 3rd party, Federal monies, election status for state and federal and more will all go to the popular 3rd parties. In some cases just a 3% vote will give the independent parties more access to the elections.

Yeah, but I meant the current mindset limits us. I hope this will change. We need to change things to get more recognition for third parties.

 

[Sand Dancer]

For being progressive, I'll take the "libertarian dominated
branches" over typical Democrats any day.

Libertarianism is not practical. It looks good on paper. Having everything privatized works for very few people. That would wreak havoc on the middle and lower classes, as well as folks who sick and otherwise marginalized. Private agencies don't have to work with everyone, can discriminate, and with profit as a motive, would not be good for essential services. It would cause lowest cost to be primary, which is not good. You can't run government like a business because the motives are completely opposite.

 

[Revoltingest]

Libertarianism is not practical. It looks good on paper. Having everything privatized works for very few people. That would wreak havoc on the middle and lower classes, as well as folks who sick and otherwise marginalized. Private agencies don't have to work with everyone, can discriminate, and with profit as a motive, would not be good for essential services. It would cause lowest cost to be primary, which is not good. You can't run government like a business because the motives are completely opposite.

It seems that your view of libertarianism doesn't match mine.
You see an extreme version. I see practical application to
Ameristanian society & governance.
Free speech, social liberty, gay marriage, environmental
protection, lower taxes, less regulation, & much much
less war. Those are a tough sell to Dems & Pubs.

 

[Valjean]

I think a strict libertarian approach would be very good for human rights.

Until all the humans died from toxic chemicals in the air and water.

Or starvation from undependable food sources, or disease or injury, or in raids by marauding gangs.
Hominins aren't designed to live as solitary individuals. We've been social apes for millions of years.
Perfect liberty vs security and prosperity:

"Whatsoever therefore is consequent to a time of Warre, where every man is Enemy to every man; the same is consequent to the time, wherein men live without other security, than what their own strength, and their own invention shall furnish them withall. In such condition, there is no place for Industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain; and consequently no Culture of the Earth; no Navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by Sea; no commodious Building; no Instruments of moving, and removing such things as require much force; no Knowledge of the face of the Earth; no account of Time; no Arts; no Letters; no Society; and which is worst of all, continuall feare, and danger of violent death; And the life of man, solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short."

-- Thomas Hobbs. Leviathan.

 

[Valjean]

No its not holy write but must be kept updated to reflect whatever keeps the union together -- that which constitutes the more perfect union should be reflected in the written constitution and amendments.

But how do you reconcile "union" and libertarianism? A union implies a society.

Should be, but even it if isn't we should still operate like it is. It should be kept up to date however. When things work really well or we know that they will that is a good time to update the written constitution. There is the writing and there is what actually makes the union function. They are not ever going to be identical; but the constitution should be a guide and should be kept somewhat up to date by Congress not by the Supreme Court.

No argument here.

The Supreme Court cannot both interpret and modify the Constitution.

And yet they do. Politicians in robes?

And when, as you say, 'Right leaning' people oppose 'Left leaning' people; then the
question of constitutionality arises. That which unifies us ought to be the supreme law of the land above all other laws. Everything else must be considered a lower law. When the law is dividing people its not constitutional, because its not consti-tuting.

What unifies us is society, ie: socialism. Socialists all pull together and have each others' backs. Libertarians --- not so much.[/QUOTE]

 

[Valjean]

Without reading all that, I still prefer our agenda.
You guys were anti-gay rights, anti-civil rights,
pro-economic over-regulation, pro-war, & turned
a blind eye to sins within one's party.
Now the liberals run a presidential candidate who
did more to incarcerate people, especially blacks,
than any other in history. Oh, & he's pro-war.

I'm a progressive....not a liberal.

I'm a progressive as well, and have opposed that list since my teens. Alas, though the Democrats are no longer progressive, they are at least less regressive than their rivals, and today's real progressives, the Greens, are effectively kept out of the contest by the big two.

As you don't seem inclined to do much reading on history or economics, what are you basing your agenda preference on?

 

[Valjean]

Criminy...when liberals describe libertarians, it's like
when Elmer Gantry types describe us heathens...just
a tad demonizificationing.
I think you missed bickering with me while I was away.

But we like bickering with you. There aren't that many thoughtful or reasonable people here to spar with.

 

[Brickjectivity]

But how do you reconcile "union" and libertarianism? A union implies a society. No argument here. And yet they do. Politicians in robes?
What unifies us is society, ie: socialism. Socialists all pull together and have each others' backs. Libertarians --- not so much.

Are you thinking I'm pushing for the Libertarian Party?

Yes we do have occasionally something called 'Activist judges'. They try to legislate through the courts. That is very controversial and is not supposed to happen.

 

[Revoltingest]

As you don't seem inclined to do much reading on history or economics.....

More than the average racoon.

 

[Revoltingest]

But we like bickering with you. There aren't that many thoughtful or reasonable people here to spar with.

Some of you are more interesting than others.
(And no, I'm not coming on to you.)

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

There aren't any, really. Not if you actually want to vote for a party that will win.

 

[Sand Dancer]

It seems that your view of libertarianism doesn't match mine.
You see an extreme version. I see practical application to
Ameristanian society & governance.
Free speech, social liberty, gay marriage, environmental
protection, lower taxes, less regulation, & much much
less war. Those are a tough sell to Dems & Pubs.

Those are awesome outcomes, but the process doesn't seem that cut and dry. My husband is a Libertarian and even he wonders if it can work. Maybe we will get a chance to see in the future.

 

[Revoltingest]

Those are awesome outcomes, but the process doesn't seem that cut and dry. My husband is a Libertarian and even he wonders if it can work. Maybe we will get a chance to see in the future.

Consider libertarianism as not a thing that either
is or isn't....but as a factor influencing government,
which is generally a compromise among competing
interests. We couldn't possibly ever take over.

People would do well to stop thinking of all or nothing
political philosophies.

 

[Tambourine]

Have all these disappointed Republicans considered just not voting, or is the specter of an old white guy from the other party getting the Presidency for the next four years so absolutely terrifying to them that they will not even consider that?