Post Archive

Region: Libertatem

History

As far as I'm concerned, from a position of legality, the easiest say to fill the government is for citizens to start announcing for the senate and if we have three, we have a Senate

Eastern Galty Craultond wrote:Hi people i just came to this region three days ago

what am i supposed to do here?

Welcome to Libertatem. I mainly just chat. If you wish to get involved, I would recommend going thru all the Factbook entries the top of the Libertatem page (all the links) to get a feel of the region. Telegram the listed Delegates, President etc., listed above. Retired Military General of Republic of Minerva is the new president.

Do not be shy. Libertarians can be a quiet and private lot. Quiet and private does not necessarily mean unfriendly or rejecting. Keep asking until you get your questions answered. External vociferance is the price of Libertatem.

Condealism, Hyderbourg

Did I win the dog catcher job?

Republic Of Minerva

Narland wrote:Libertarians can be a quiet and private lot.

Libertarians may be quiet, but apparently when we speak we only use the biggest possible synonyms, like vociferance.

Condealism, Hyderbourg

do any of you guys know wwe?

Eastern Galty Craultond wrote:do any of you guys know wwe?

No. For some reason, I have never heard of World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. or the associated promotion of professional wrestling.

Miencraft, Rateria, The United States Of Patriots

The Ambassador To The Clfr wrote:Did I win the dog catcher job?

Yes. I'm the dog catcher catcher. Com e're!

New Jaslandia, Rateria

In seriousness. I'll do the Senate thing or whatever if need be.

Rateria, Condealism, Hyderbourg

Condealism wrote:No. For some reason, I have never heard of World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. or the associated promotion of professional wrestling.

Senate?

Muh Roads wrote:In seriousness. I'll do the Senate thing or whatever if need be.

Senate?

Miencraft wrote:Libertarians may be quiet, but apparently when we speak we only use the biggest possible synonyms, like vociferance.

Senate?

...*sigh*

I, Condealism, hereby announce my candidacy for Senate Seat Three, of which my CTE'd puppet is the incumbent.

Humpheria

TENTATIVE CABINET:

Attorney General: Hyderbourg

Chancellor of the Interior: United States of Patriots

Secretary of State: Rateria

Chancellor of War: Still Open

Miencraft, New Jaslandia, Rateria, Condealism, Hyderbourg, The United States Of Patriots

I'm apart of the WA now (even though I don't want to be)

Let's fight for national sovereignty! More endos mean more power.

Rateria, Condealism, The United States Of Patriots, Velina And Malve

Republic Of Minerva wrote:I'm apart of the WA now (even though I don't want to be)

Let's fight for national sovereignty! More endos mean more power.

Alright.

https://www.nationstates.net/region=libertatem/page=display_region_rmb?postid=13539185#p13539185

Hyderbourg

mhomen for War Chancellor

Pevvania, Muh Roads

Humpheria wrote:Senate?

I'm retired.

Condealism wrote:mhomen for War Chancellor

"Who the hell are you"

"Them's fightin' words"

Rateria, Condealism, Hyderbourg, The United States Of Patriots

Condealism wrote:I'll run, but only so that there will at least be a mere semblance of competition.

But we know what happened last time...

Okay, tell you guys what. My platform is this: I will enslave you all if I win. Vote for me if you hate freedom.

Best policy ever.

Miencraft, New Jaslandia, Rateria, Condealism, Hyderbourg

oh sht what's happening

I need someone with some raiding experience, even if a little bit, to be the Chancellor of War. Telegram me.

The Aradites wrote:oh sht what's happening

I was overthrown in a clearly illegal election, and this weirdo Minerva showed up to take my place.

Oh, wait, no, I retired, that's what happened.

New Jaslandia, Republic Of Minerva, Condealism, The United States Of Patriots

Cabinet Recommendations:

Attorney General: Muh Roads (Minimal assistance from yours truly)

Chancellor of the Interior: Muh Roads

Secretary of State: Muh Roads

Chancellor of War: Muh Roads

New Jaslandia, Muh Roads, Rateria

So I looked back through the RMB and found the exact post that caused CI to magically become President instead of me.

I called us the War.

Strange times, that was, but I still think it was accurate given the circumstances.

Miencraft wrote:So I looked back through the RMB and found the exact post that caused CI to magically become President instead of me.

I called us the War.

Strange times, that was, but I still think it was accurate given the circumstances.

Maybe we were, then. I still believe we can be something more, though.

Condealism wrote:Maybe we were, then. I still believe we can be something more, though.

Also apparently I retired from regional politics shortly after you won.

That clearly didn't last long, did it?

Still, kinda funny how things work around here. I love this place.

Condealism

Miencraft wrote:Still, kinda funny how things work around here. I love this place.

No kidding. The love-hate relationship works on so many levels.

Retirement really makes me realize that my nation is even older than the Gipper.

And if I remember correctly, him and Don Imus invented the wheel together, so Miencraft's pretty old.

New Jaslandia

The cabinet is now official:

Attorney General: Hyderbourg

Chancellor of the Interior: United States of Patriots

Secretary of State: Rateria

Chancellor of War: Condealism

And so as I say, let it be done

New Jaslandia, Condealism, Hyderbourg, The United States Of Patriots

I rescind my candidacy for Senate.

I am also the sitting Solicitor General, so that position should probably be given to someone else for obvious reasons.

New Jaslandia, Condealism

Anyone remember this? https://nationstatesplusplus.net/newspaper?id=582

'Cuz it's the meme of the mhomen

The meme of the mhomen

The meme of the mhomen

Shown in your eyes

Post self-deleted by Rateria.

As you all know, I have been appointed Secretary of State. I will be honest, and say that I have very little foreign policy experience. I would appreciate if my fellow Libertatemites, especially those with said experience, would give me advice on how to be the best I can.

Thank you.

Miencraft, New Jaslandia, Condealism

Ah, a desire for knowledge and wisdom. I can respect that.

Repeal "Liberate Eternal Scholars"

Vote for

Condealism

Rateria wrote:As you all know, I have been appointed Secretary of State. I will be honest, and say that I have very little foreign policy experience. I would appreciate if my fellow Libertatemites, especially those with said experience, would give me advice on how to be the best I can.

Thank you.

Condealism can help you with that if necessary. I expect both departments to work closely together anyway.

New Jaslandia, Rateria, Condealism

Republican Presidents, ranked from best to worst. I've made this weighing both their achievements in office and their effectiveness at promoting liberty.

1. Ronald Reagan: like Coolidge and Harding, Reagan returned the US to free markets, except his economic policy has had a far more lasting and positive impact. Promoted free trade, had a strong and pragmatic foreign policy, and defeated Communism. America's greatest president, in my opinion.

2. Calvin Coolidge: devoted to the Constitution throughout his political career, Coolidge slashed government spending, taxation and regulations more than any other President in the 20th Century, retiring a third of the national debt and ushering in a long economic boom throughout the 1920s. Additionally, he pursued peace abroad and favoured rights for women and blacks.

3. Abraham Lincoln: Abe was by no means a libertarian, pushing broadly authoritarian wartime measures that were extremely unconstitutional. Lincoln introduced the first income tax and raised tariffs. But the fact that by winning the Civil War he was able to secure some freedom for blacks means his presidency was overall very positive for liberty.

4. Ulysses S. Grant: an underrated Republican president, in hindsight he'd be called a classical liberal. Despite his administration being crippled by scandals and the Depression of 1873, there is much to like about his presidency. Under Grant, the national debt was reduced, tariffs lowered and the income tax repealed as the US moved further towards industrialisation. He was a big supporter of Reconstruction and helped pass the 15th Amendment (right of blacks to vote) and the Ku Klux Klan Act. Returning to the gold standard also helped to stabilise the US economy during the depression in his second term. It's just a shame his actions to enforce Reconstruction weren't more lasting.

5. William McKinley: a decent president who protected the gold standard and led the US to victory in the Spanish-American War, establishing America is a world power. He was, however, a protectionist.

6. Dwight D. Eisenhower: overall a mediocre President who has been given much undeserved praise by both liberals and libertarians. Instead of using Republican control of Congress to repeal the disastrous New Deal, Eisenhower cemented its place in American economic policy. He refused to cut taxes in order to balance the budget, yet this was only done 3 times in his presidency. He deserves credit for the interstate highways, NASA and ending the Korean War, but his attempts at rolling back Communism were a failure. He was also the primary orchestrator, in my view, of what became the Vietnam War.

7. George H. W. Bush: has almost no credentials for shrinking government in any way, but had a restrained and successful foreign policy that helped navigate the US through the international post-communist world.

8. Theodore Roosevelt: way too eager to use the power of the federal government, particularly in promoting his horrid 'progressive' agenda. That being said, he supported the gold standard and lower tariffs, and helped create the current National Park system.

9-12. Rutherford B. Hayes, James Garfield, Chester Arthur, Benjamin Harrison: footnotes of the post-Reconstruction era that did almost nothing to aid African-Americans, many of whom were protectionist.

13. Gerald Ford: another failure who didn't even believe in limited government. He acquiesced to the Democrats' demands to increase spending in a recession, and instead of cutting taxes he handed out some measly tax credits and kept the loose money from the Fed flowing. Weak.

14. Richard Nixon: a Democrat in disguise, Nixon killed the gold standard, created the EPA, attempted to establish a public healthcare system, increased spending and ran massive deficits, privately supported gun control, and of course a man who had no qualms with using the government to punish his enemies. His foreign policy of detente was a complete failure. Helped cause the stagflation of the 1970s.

15. George W. Bush: despite cutting taxes slightly, Bush doubled the size of government and was more than happy to help the Fed pump easy credit and relaxed lending policies into the housing market, which eventually tanked, bringing the world economy down with it. He was an enthusiastic supporter of the regulatory state, expanded the federal government's role in education, created the modern surveillance state and launched two unsuccessful wars that have ravaged the Middle East and US foreign policy. A terrible, big government president. However, he did support free trade and immigration reform.

Narland, Republic Of Minerva, Humpheria, Condealism

Republic Of Minerva wrote:Repeal "Liberate Eternal Scholars"

Vote for

Dictator alert!

Republic Of Minerva

Hyderbourg wrote:Cabinet Recommendations:

Attorney General: Muh Roads (Minimal assistance from yours truly)

Chancellor of the Interior: Muh Roads

Secretary of State: Muh Roads

Chancellor of War: Muh Roads

You're a genius.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-has-chosen-retired-marine-gen-james-mattis-for-secretary-of-defense/ar-AAl18p1?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartanntp

rip the idea that trump would decrease us involvement oversea

New Jaslandia

I would like to extend my congratulations to the new Cabinet of Libertatem, including my successor as Attorney-General, Hyderbourg. I believe Hyberbourg will be a qualified and able AG, and I am glad to hand my office to him. Good luck to Libertatem and its Cabinet!

Republic Of Minerva wrote:http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-has-chosen-retired-marine-gen-james-mattis-for-secretary-of-defense/ar-AAl18p1?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartanntp

rip the idea that trump would decrease us involvement oversea

Considering Trump talked about "bombing the sh*t" out of ISIS, I never really had an expectation of him decreasing U.S. interventionism. Granted, Hillary Clinton was also pretty interventionist, so the U.S. got stuck with two interventionist candidates this year.

Kumquat Cove, Rateria, Condealism, Hyderbourg

Pevvania wrote:-snip-

An altogether thorough and accurate ranking system, though you forgot Taft, Harding, and Hoover. (Not that I'm particularly fond of any of them.)

Personally, I'd have bumped Coolidge up to first place for restoring the people's faith in the office of president and not succumbing to corruption as did Harding and would Hoover. Reagan was a great president, but many of the issues you have with the Bush administration - plus the War on Drugs - began on his watch.

Pevvania, New Jaslandia, Kumquat Cove, Rateria, The United States Of Patriots

Pevvania wrote:

9-12. Rutherford B. Hayes, James Garfield, Chester Arthur, Benjamin Harrison: footnotes of the post-Reconstruction era that did almost nothing to aid African-Americans, many of whom were protectionist.

While those presidents were considerably weaker than today's presidents, I wouldn't dismiss them entirely.

Hayes had favorable attitudes toward race and equal treatment, and he kept his promise to serve only one term (a promise which would be inconceivable for a modern president to even make in the first place, let alone uphold); you might also like that Hayes favored the gold standard, and vetoed the Bland-Allison Act which would increase silver circulation (although the bill ultimately passed despite Hayes' veto).

Though Garfield was assassinated less than a year into his term, even in that time, he took action against the corrupt civil service/patronage system, and his death inspired further reform.

Arthur went from being a product of the corrupt patronage system, to the patronage system's destroyer, supporting civil service reform that gave offices according to merit instead of political favors.

Harrison I'll concede wasn't that great, especially from a libertarian perspective: he supported the Sherman Antitrust Act, he favored high tariffs and protectionism, and federal spending reached one billion dollars for the first time. On the plus side, he supported rights for African-Americans, although that unfortunately didn't go anywhere.

Condealism wrote:An altogether thorough and accurate ranking system, though you forgot Taft, Harding, and Hoover. (Not that I'm particularly fond of any of them.)

Personally, I'd have bumped Coolidge up to first place for restoring the people's faith in the office of president and not succumbing to corruption as did Harding and would Hoover. Reagan was a great president, but many of the issues you have with the Bush administration - plus the War on Drugs - began on his watch.

I personally think Coolidge was a pretty good president in the sense that he brought stability and prosperity after the corruption of Harding, but some people do criticize Coolidge for failing to predict the Great Depression.

Rateria, Condealism

Why would a president need to predict the Great Depression? Coolidge wasn't in control of the Federal Reserve.

Miencraft, Pevvania, New Jaslandia, Condealism, The United States Of Patriots

Pevvania wrote:Republican Presidents, ranked from best to worst. *snip*.

As much as I like Reagan, Calvin Coolidge is my favorite president by far

Condealism

New Jaslandia wrote:While those presidents were considerably weaker than today's presidents, I wouldn't dismiss them entirely.

Hayes had favorable attitudes toward race and equal treatment, and he kept his promise to serve only one term (a promise which would be inconceivable for a modern president to even make in the first place, let alone uphold); you might also like that Hayes favored the gold standard, and vetoed the Bland-Allison Act which would increase silver circulation (although the bill ultimately passed despite Hayes' veto).

Though Garfield was assassinated less than a year into his term, even in that time, he took action against the corrupt civil service/patronage system, and his death inspired further reform.

Arthur went from being a product of the corrupt patronage system, to the patronage system's destroyer, supporting civil service reform that gave offices according to merit instead of political favors.

Harrison I'll concede wasn't that great, especially from a libertarian perspective: he supported the Sherman Antitrust Act, he favored high tariffs and protectionism, and federal spending reached one billion dollars for the first time. On the plus side, he supported rights for African-Americans, although that unfortunately didn't go anywhere.

I personally think Coolidge was a pretty good president in the sense that he brought stability and prosperity after the corruption of Harding, but some people do criticize Coolidge for failing to predict the Great Depression.

Good points, I agree. I shouldn't have glossed over those.

I think neither Coolidge nor Harding have much responsibility for the Great Depression. The McFadden Act of 1927 outlawed interstate banking, severely weakening the entire banking system and leaving it vulnerable to the next crash. If a bank that had branches in other states failed in a particular place, the company, and by extension the whole system, could have absorbed or contained the shock because it could rely on branches in other states. But what happened was that the first bank failures in 1929 triggered a wave of crashes that could not be stopped, because they were essentially self-contained systems that nevertheless had their fates intertwined with those across the rest of the country. Coolidge should have vetoed this act, yes, but I suppose he didn't have the benefit of hindsight.

Secondly, Federal Reserve policy under Hoover is much to blame for turning what could have been a sharp, quick recession into a long lasting depression. Simply put, monetary policy was way too tight in the 1929-1933 period, because Fed governors followed the false assumption that they should only increase the money supply when production increases, which of course could not occur because interest rates were too high for people to borrow. Deflation was allowed to continue for far too long. Additionally, Hoover made the situation even worse. No, not because of the leftist myth that he "did nothing", but because he did too much, tripling tax rates and diverting private sector resources to government boondoggles that would form the basis of the Raw Deal under FDR.

Miencraft, New Jaslandia, Rateria, Condealism

Condealism wrote:An altogether thorough and accurate ranking system, though you forgot Taft, Harding, and Hoover. (Not that I'm particularly fond of any of them.)

Personally, I'd have bumped Coolidge up to first place for restoring the people's faith in the office of president and not succumbing to corruption as did Harding and would Hoover. Reagan was a great president, but many of the issues you have with the Bush administration - plus the War on Drugs - began on his watch.

Taft was below average, promoted free trade but was fairly incompetent and lacked any vision. I like Harding, he made the tough choices necessary to get America back on its feet. Hoover was truly awful, and had I remembered to rank him I would've placed him at second worst, actually, for being the illegitimate father of the New Deal.

Yeah, the War on Drugs and 80s-era deficits sucked.

Miencraft, Rateria, Condealism

Unrelated, Pev, you ever gonna get your usual flag back or are you gonna stick with the default for the rest of time?

Miencraft wrote:Unrelated, Pev, you ever gonna get your usual flag back or are you gonna stick with the default for the rest of time?

Thanks for reminding me. It's great to be back.

Humpheria, Rateria, Condealism

Does anybody else think that the Johnson-Weld Libertarian ticket was a total disaster?

Humpheria

Pevvania wrote:Does anybody else think that the Johnson-Weld Libertarian ticket was a total disaster?

It had promise - two former state governors, representing an option that wasn't Trump or Clinton...

...granted, it probably would have worked out better if they'd kept their traps shut after having announced their candidacy.

Pevvania

Pevvania wrote:Does anybody else think that the Johnson-Weld Libertarian ticket was a total disaster?

We've had worse *cough Barr-Root cough*

Besides, we want Gary Johnson and co to be totally incompetent. Why would you want a competent politician?

Condealism wrote:It had promise - two former state governors, representing an option that wasn't Trump or Clinton...

...granted, it probably would have worked out better if they'd kept their traps shut after having announced their candidacy.

Exactly. I was so hopeful for such a long time, and I felt that marketing themselves as a centrist, sensible alternative was a good idea. But they presented no real philosophy to the electorate, marketing libertarianism as 'fiscal conservatism and social liberalism' (which it really isn't), meaning that libertarianism as a set of ideas never really stuck in the minds of voters. What could have been an amazing opportunity to advance the freedom movement ended up being a gimmick. Talk of abolishing the federal minimum wage, legalising drugs and cutting taxes across the board was hushed in favour of the message "Trump and Hillary suck, so you should vote for us". And of course on top of all this, Johnson is a cuck and Weld is a snake who had no loyalty to libertarianism anyway. And I don't even think the 'Aleppo' gaffe was even that much of a big deal. It was just his consistent weirdness that was so off-putting. Putting Austin Petersen's gun in the trash, talking to an interviewer with his tongue out, going SJW at a conservative journalist over use of the term 'illegal immigrant'. Weld just wanted to be politically relevant again, and did a nice job of killing his own campaign by all but endorsing Hillary Clinton 5 days before the election.

Such a golden opportunity squandered by two incompetents. Johnson and Weld were the cuck candidates.

Miencraft, Kumquat Cove

Republic Of Minerva wrote:We've had worse *cough Barr-Root cough*

Besides, we want Gary Johnson and co to be totally incompetent. Why would you want a competent politician?

But Barr didn't have the opportunity to make a difference, to at least hit 5 friggin' percent, that Gary Cuckson had. And somehow he blew it.

We're calling people cucks now? Cucktastic.

Pevvania, Republic Of Minerva, Rateria

Conservative Idealism wrote:We're calling people cucks now? Cucktastic.

Hey, I'm the only me who's supposed to be posting here, me.

Rateria

Pevvania wrote:But Barr didn't have the opportunity to make a difference, to at least hit 5 friggin' percent, that Gary Cuckson had. And somehow he blew it.

What makes you think that Johnson would of gotten any more higher than what he did?

Perhaps if he changed a bit of policy a bit, he could of preformed well in Utah, but that wouldn't of net him a much higher vote percentage.

The Gary Johnson flub happened around the same time that the Liberal Media started seeing third parties as a threat and sent out a special taskforce to correct the problem. On the other hand, there is evidence that Aleppogate exposed him to a lot more people than without it, e.g. no thing as bad media. If anything, we should critique him for being too placid and not controversial enough, like Jill Stein, who still managed to net a million votes (somehow).

Miencraft, Kumquat Cove, Rateria, Condealism, The United States Of Patriots

Pevvania wrote:Does anybody else think that the Johnson-Weld Libertarian ticket was a total disaster?

My biggest concern for Libertarianism is how the Trump Administration will do. Let's just say that for the sake of argument that they mess up in monumental ways, then there will be a golden opportunity for the Democrats to associate us with the Alt-Right. Couldn't they say something like "Everyone on the Right believes in what Trump believes.", and wouldn't the public give in to it, due to the fact that most people don't do their research?

Republic Of Minerva wrote:What makes you think that Johnson would of gotten any more higher than what he did?

Perhaps if he changed a bit of policy a bit, he could of preformed well in Utah, but that wouldn't of net him a much higher vote percentage.

The Gary Johnson flub happened around the same time that the Liberal Media started seeing third parties as a threat and sent out a special taskforce to correct the problem. On the other hand, there is evidence that Aleppogate exposed him to a lot more people than without it, e.g. no thing as bad media. If anything, we should critique him for being too placid and not controversial enough, like Jill Stein, who still managed to net a million votes (somehow).

Because Johnson and Stein benefited from the fact that they had two deeply unpopular candidates running for the two parties, and for a while they were getting a healthy amount of media coverage. You're right, the liberal media tried very hard to sink the third parties, and Johnson also should have been more controversial. I bet most non-libertarians who voted for Johnson could hardly name any of his policies. The Johnson allowed the media to shape his campaign in the narrative of a protest vote. And like Clinton, Johnson made the mistake of running a campaign as a reaction to Trump rather than as a great choice for president in his own right. For a while, this seemed to work, but as it got closer to election day, and the country by and large realised that it was going to be between Trump and Clinton, Johnson's support collapsed.

What I'm saying is that Johnson ran a campaign that was essentially "we're better than the other guys", which does not work in a two-party system that has convinced everyone of the 'lesser of two evils' argument, when they should've been making libertarian policies and principles the heart of their message. In my view, Johnson was guaranteed a pretty large number of protest voters anyway. He could have expanded his base if he made a convincing case for drug legalisation, tax reform, balanced budgets, and peace.

Miencraft, Narland, New Jaslandia, Kumquat Cove, Rateria, Condealism

Pevvania wrote:But Barr didn't have the opportunity to make a difference, to at least hit 5 friggin' percent, that Gary Cuckson had. And somehow he blew it.

And thank God for it. Had he drawn that five percent we would be looking at a Hillary presidency. **shudder**

I realize im late but congratulations to [nation=short]Republic[/nation] of Minerva on becoming the new president of libertatem, may you have a prosperous term.

Pevvania wrote:Because Johnson and Stein benefited from the fact that they had two deeply unpopular candidates running for the two parties, and for a while they were getting a healthy amount of media coverage. You're right, the liberal media tried very hard to sink the third parties, and Johnson also should have been more controversial. I bet most non-libertarians who voted for Johnson could hardly name any of his policies. The Johnson allowed the media to shape his campaign in the narrative of a protest vote. And like Clinton, Johnson made the mistake of running a campaign as a reaction to Trump rather than as a great choice for president in his own right. For a while, this seemed to work, but as it got closer to election day, and the country by and large realised that it was going to be between Trump and Clinton, Johnson's support collapsed.

What I'm saying is that Johnson ran a campaign that was essentially "we're better than the other guys", which does not work in a two-party system that has convinced everyone of the 'lesser of two evils' argument, when they should've been making libertarian policies and principles the heart of their message. In my view, Johnson was guaranteed a pretty large number of protest voters anyway. He could have expanded his base if he made a convincing case for drug legalisation, tax reform, balanced budgets, and peace.

Yeah, he could have definitely done better.

I am not old enough to vote, but i for sure would have probably swayed to Gary anyway, and many other people in the population would have if he did what you just suggested.

Rateria

Republic Of Minerva wrote:Why would a president need to predict the Great Depression? Coolidge wasn't in control of the Federal Reserve.

No, but presidents still have large economic powers, and Coolidge should have foreseen early warning signs (such as the poverty of farmers due to over-production) and put into place policies to mitigate this.

Pevvania wrote:Exactly. I was so hopeful for such a long time, and I felt that marketing themselves as a centrist, sensible alternative was a good idea. But they presented no real philosophy to the electorate, marketing libertarianism as 'fiscal conservatism and social liberalism' (which it really isn't), meaning that libertarianism as a set of ideas never really stuck in the minds of voters. What could have been an amazing opportunity to advance the freedom movement ended up being a gimmick. Talk of abolishing the federal minimum wage, legalising drugs and cutting taxes across the board was hushed in favour of the message "Trump and Hillary suck, so you should vote for us". And of course on top of all this, Johnson is a cuck and Weld is a snake who had no loyalty to libertarianism anyway. And I don't even think the 'Aleppo' gaffe was even that much of a big deal. It was just his consistent weirdness that was so off-putting. Putting Austin Petersen's gun in the trash, talking to an interviewer with his tongue out, going SJW at a conservative journalist over use of the term 'illegal immigrant'. Weld just wanted to be politically relevant again, and did a nice job of killing his own campaign by all but endorsing Hillary Clinton 5 days before the election.

Such a golden opportunity squandered by two incompetents. Johnson and Weld were the cuck candidates.

Putting aside the use of the word 'cuck' (which I really don't like using outside its literal meaning), I think it boils down to a difference in campaign strategy; Johnson's campaign strategy obviously differs from that of yourself and a lot of other long-time libertarians, but it could have worked had Johnson not suffered blunder after blunder. While the simplest form of libertarianism as 'fiscal conservatism and social liberalism' may not be entirely correct, it's what a lot of people can relate to and agree with. If Johnson and Weld went full-libertarian, I think they would lose a lot of people who wold have difficulty getting behind stuff like abolishing the minimum wage and cutting popular programs like Social Security and Medicare. Yes, I can see your point about reducing libertarianism to a 'gimmick', for the time being, I'm not sure how far hardcore libertarianism would go among the average voters, especially when it comes to government spending, so the 'gimmick' approach may have been necessary as a political necessity.

And, as I stated before, I think the Johnson approach could have worked if they stuck to that angle, and when confronted with things like Aleppo and the 'name a foreign leader' debate, either deflected or got informed on that kind of stuff ahead of time. With time, these incidents compounded together, and when you add in the tendency for third-party voters and undecided voters to eventually go to a major party candidate (which still happened, just later than usual), I agree this year was wasted potential for libertarians, though for slightly different reasons than you suggest.

Republic Of Minerva wrote:What makes you think that Johnson would of gotten any more higher than what he did?

Perhaps if he changed a bit of policy a bit, he could of preformed well in Utah, but that wouldn't of net him a much higher vote percentage.

The Gary Johnson flub happened around the same time that the Liberal Media started seeing third parties as a threat and sent out a special taskforce to correct the problem. On the other hand, there is evidence that Aleppogate exposed him to a lot more people than without it, e.g. no thing as bad media. If anything, we should critique him for being too placid and not controversial enough, like Jill Stein, who still managed to net a million votes (somehow).

Well, I personally don't think Johnson was particularly strong in Utah; maybe he could have done slightly better in Utah compared to other states, but I think Evan McMullin took most of the third-party thunder away from Johnson in Utah, especially since McMullin was a Mormon and specifically branded himself as a conservative alternative to Trump. Had Gary Johnson been a Mormon, it could have been a different story.

Condealism

Post self-deleted by Rateria.

Please give me your honest opinions on my new flag. I personally wish that I did better, but for a beginner, I didn't do to poorly. I also edited some details on my nation's page.

[nation=short]New Jaslandia[/nation], I'm not necessarily suggesting that Johnson should have gone full minarchist. I'm just saying that he, like Clinton, couldn't communicate any real vision for what the country would look like under his leadership. Nobody really saw him as anything more than a protest vote. When I was working in Cali this summer, everyone seemed to view Johnson as the 'hipster' choice for President, and for good reason. It all comes down to the way you brand yourself and your ideas.

And I think therein lied the brilliance of the Trump campaign. From almost the very start, Trump made his vision for the country loud and clear: restore the nation to greatness. He was loud and controversial enough to attract plenty of media coverage to himself and his policies, which were easy to grasp. Hillary made the fatal mistake of playing by Trump's rules, creating a forgettable campaign slogan that was a reaction to her opponent, and attacked him at every chance she could. I read in The Week that 76% of her ads running in the weeks before the election were attacking Trump's character. She seemed to be on a mission to convince everyone that Donald is a really bad guy. This was so futile because almost everyone had made up their minds on Trump's personality long before the home stretch. What I think people cared about, in the end, was policy. Trump had a clear plan to get America back on track, love him or hate him, but to many, Hillary's main argument was 'don't vote for him', and was poor at articulating her vision for the country.

Condealism

Rateria wrote:Please give me your honest opinions on my new flag. I personally wish that I did better, but for a beginner, I didn't do to poorly. I also edited some details on my nation's page.

Hi Rateria. I'm not sure about the colour scheme, and the gold star and white look fairly out of place.

Rateria

Pevvania wrote:Hi Rateria. I'm not sure about the colour scheme, and the gold star and white look fairly out of place.

Thank you for your input. What do you suggest (I might try again sometime)?

Rateria wrote:Thank you for your input. What do you suggest (I might try again sometime)?

That's alright. Maybe limit the flag to three colours at most. Black and purple could be cool, as could green and black. Or you could have one colour with the star in the middle. Just play around with it.

Rateria

Pevvania wrote:That's alright. Maybe limit the flag to three colours at most. Black and purple could be cool, as could green and black. Or you could have one colour with the star in the middle. Just play around with it.

Thanks again, I will play around with the design.

It's like we're all a bunch of old guys meeting in a bar twenty years after parting ways. Hard to believe Snabagag was only 3 years ago...

Miencraft, Pevvania, Condealism

Humpheria wrote:It's like we're all a bunch of old guys meeting in a bar twenty years after parting ways. Hard to believe Snabagag was only 3 years ago...

3 years is a long time when it comes to NationStates.

Miencraft, Rateria

All I learned about Objectivism and metaphysics, I learned from Rush

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnxkfLe4G74

Also whoever controls Liberosia, respond to me

Hi everyone!

Kumquat Cove, Rateria

Post by Dont Reject Me suppressed by a moderator.

wow strong language!

please don't use obscene words in this chat, i'm sure it is unnecessary

Kumquat Cove

Post by Dont Reject Me suppressed by a moderator.

Post by Dont Reject Me suppressed by a moderator.

Post by Dont Reject Me suppressed by a moderator.

Post by Dont Reject Me suppressed by a moderator.

Republic Of Minerva wrote:Also whoever controls Liberosia, respond to me

If you want Lib proper, you're going to have a nice long wait ahead of you.

I think he means anyone who uses Liberosia and NS++. I'm only the former, not the latter, so...

Condealism wrote:I think he means anyone who uses Liberosia and NS++. I'm only the former, not the latter, so...

Does anyone even use NS++ anymore? It hasn't been updated in at least a year.

Humpheria, Condealism

If any of you want to communicate anything to the man behind Liberosia, Connor, I can pass a message on Facebook if you want.

Condealism

Okay I guess this isn't secret enough

I want to reinstall the NS++ recruiting thingy, as one of my goals is to get Libertatem back to 100 people without using puppets

Teuberland

Fellow libs and cons, what are our views on the Dakota Access Oil Pipeline?

Against. It's a giant crony capitalist project that relies on the use of eminent domain to sustain itself, and is given a blind eye by the government to pollute as much as it wants, destroying property rights.

On the other hand the vast majority of protestors are actually paid Soros shills, so don't expect me to join them right out.

Republic Of Minerva wrote:Okay I guess this isn't secret enough

I want to reinstall the NS++ recruiting thingy, as one of my goals is to get Libertatem back to 100 people without using puppets

Don't bother with NS++ anymore. It's horrendously broken and nobody's doing anything about it.

Just get some TG stamps or something.

Condealism

Something I don't get is the bad rap Ayn Rand gets, especially from some Libertarians. Some tend to forget that her promoted philosophy was just that, a philosophy. She still believed in the NAP, she didn't want her philosophy forced. Many of her contributions to the moral argument for Capitalism is immensely important.

Miencraft, Republic Of Minerva

I swear, immigration is the biggest trigger object for some people.

You can say that you want to end free healthcare and privatize education and get only half hearted agreements or disagreements, but say you want people to be able to cross an imaginary line and holy sh1t the house is on fire and you become public enemy #1

Pevvania, Condealism

hm should I change my flag?

Hyderbourg wrote:hm should I change my flag?

I personally think that the flag is just fine, but do what you please. It's your flag after all.

*sighs*

*defaults nation title to government position*

Rateria

Condealism wrote:*sighs*

*defaults nation title to government position*

booooooooo

Rateria

Assembled with Dot's Region Saver.
Written by Refuge Isle.