On August 22, the Ohio Secretary of State determined that the petition to recognize the Libertarian Party has enough valid signatures. As a new party, it does not have its own primary, but essentially nominates by convention or other party meeting, although each nominee needs a tiny petition.
That’s a shame.
Imagine being triggered by democracy 💀
Progressive Leftist = Robert K St0ck.
i feel like ballot access requirements should be way lower. but the two party system wont allow it
Libertarians need to vote TRUMP and not child abuse supporter Oliver.
i wouldnt say that supporting letting children do their own thing (personal choice is kinda the whole libertarian thing) is child abuse but alright..
also, calling trump a libertarian is less close to true than calling him a communist
Congratulations to the Libertarian Party of Ohio!
Libertarians need to vote for Terry.
I would say Shiva is also permissible, if it weren’t for his bizarre antisemitism.
Taylor Marshall seems to have quietly dropped his aspirations for this year, sadly.
Joseph Foreman wants to legalize drugs and can’t be trusted regarding “slavery reparations”.
Michael Wood errs in the opposite direction and wants to restrict liquor and tobacco sales.
Blake Huber chose creepy clown Andrea Denault as his running mate.
Richard Duncan used to be open to privacy violations in the name of security against terrorism.
Chris Garrity doesn’t have any actual program and hasn’t committed to any policies, so cannot be relied on.
Mattie Preston and Robby Wells I don’t have enough of a sense of to form an opinion on.
And every other candidate is far, far more totalitarian.
Even Kennedy is less unlibertarian than Trump and Oliver.
But Terry is the clear libertarian choice.
Shiva is, of course, also completely ineligible, if the constitution is something you care about.
Speaking of which, Mattie Preston claims to be a pastor, which in Christianity is, of course, completely impossible for a woman.
And Robby Wells has made some vague noises about climate and environment, which without elaboration mean he also cannot be trusted.
So yeah, “If you don’t vote for Terry, you ain’t libertarian” 😛
Ah yes, libertarians are famously anti-abortion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamaica
WIKI – HISTORY – SPAIN – BRITS
COMMIE PROF DADA HARRIS FROM JAMAICA
some dude is known troll Robert K St0ck evading his ban.
@Some dude
Not just famously, but also necessarily. You can’t pretend to be a libertarian but not oppose NAP-violations against innocent babies.
Nuna, do you believe in the existence of souls? And if so, when does a newly-created human receive its soul?
Yes, I do. And I believe at the moment of conception.
For what it’s worth, scientists have discovered that a visible spark occurs at the moment of conception.
I would never vote for a candidate who supports child abuse and men in women’s sports. Chase Oliver supports both. He is pure evil and a predator.
A newly-fertilized human egg hasn’t yet decided how many people it will become. Generally only one person emerges, but it takes three days to settle that for sure, and it might decide to be twins or even triplets or more. So that tells me the soul doesn’t join the newly-fertilized egg that soon.
In the book “Crossover Experience, Life After Death, 100 Exceptional Near Death Experiences” there is an account of a dying person having a near-death experience and seeming to enter the body of a baby about to be born. Then the dying person was saved and came back into the original (older person) life. The dying person had been aware of the identity of the pregnant woman, and later learned that the baby was stillborn.
HOW ABOUT SOULLESS LIVING DEAD MONSTERS LIKE HARRIS AND TRUMP
— CONCEIVED BY THE DEVIL — LKE LENIN / STALIN / HITLER / MAO ???
I don’t like the term “decide”, because it seems to imply the child has agency or choice in the matter. Which is the same argument that is used to say the child is choosing to trespass in the mothers body and is therefore the one violating the NAP. That is clearly nonsense, because the child does not have agency and its circumstances are exclusively the result and the responsibility of the parents.
Identical twin, triplets, etc. come from an embryo splitting. But until that split occurs it is a single human being. That is also why identical twins look so similar: they share the same genetic make up; the only differences come from possible genetic mutations that occur after the split.
But so before the split, it is only one person with one soul. When the split occurs, God supplies another soul for one of the two clumps of cells which has become a new person (even if they are stillborn, even if it is a Siamese twin, etc.).
The moment one unborn person splits into two or more people, more souls are created/supplied/received, as necessary.
Libertarians oppose legalizing drugs? Now that’s a new one. Nuna has one extremely idiosyncratic notion of what is or is not libertarian. Which, naturally, has a high degree of correlation with emphatic certainty.
It’s not nearly as cut and dry as that.
No libertarian would wish to see any restrictions on the sale, possession or consumption of alcohol or tobacco, despite their addictiveness and adverse health effects – at most some purity requirements.
Most libertarians would not wish to see marijuana become available without prescription or used in an uncontrolled environment.
But regarding opioids, libertarians are split on whether they should be freely available, and whether all or only some.
They are all potentially addictive – and liberty obviously also includes freedom from grips of addiction and vice – so then what’s the difference?
Well, alcohol is only dangerous when consumed excessively, either in the short or long term, or consumed at a young age, or contaminated with non-drinking alcohols. It is quite easy to drink responsibly.
Tobacco always carries increased risk of cancer, even when consumed very sparingly and not inhaled. But cancer is omnipresent and carcinogens not fully understood: if you don’t die of anything at a young age, you are practically guaranteed to end up with one form of cancer or another.
Marijuana when consumed over a long period of time, always carries the risk of mental health problems, including panic attacks, anxiety disorders, paranoia, psychosis, schizophrenia and anger management issues, even when consumed sparingly. These issues are far harder to manage than cancer and far more dangerous to others.
Opioids are far more addictive than any of the above. But outside of the very real and serious dangers of becoming dependent on them or of overdosing, i.e. when consumed responsibly, opioids aren’t that much worse for your health than alcohol, are less bad for you than marijuana, are less bad for you in the long term than tobacco and hardly any worse in the short term. And they don’t carry any significant risk to those around you.
“Most libertarians would not wish to see marijuana become available without prescription or used in an uncontrolled environment.
But regarding opioids, libertarians are split on whether they should be freely available, and whether all or only some.”
I’ve never come across one who is not for legalizing all drugs completely.