140

State Libertarian Party Endorses Jan. 6: ‘Politicians Should Fear For Their Safety on a Daily Basis’ (www.mediaite.com)

submitted 1 year ago by HLMenckenFan@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

28 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 30 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] fubo@lemmy.world 65 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I used to be a member of the Libertarian Party, over 20 years ago. When I joined, they asked me to sign a statement rejecting the use of political violence.

Checking on the national LP's current sign-up page, they still ask new members to check a box that says:

I certify that I oppose the initiation of force to achieve political or social goals.

Since the New Hampshire LP has apparently rejected this principle and instead embraced the initiation of force against current officeholders, we should expect that the national LP disaffiliates the NH LP, right?

Right?

[-] SheeEttin@lemmy.world 31 points 1 year ago

Fuck I was hoping this wasn't the NH Libertarians.

They're completely nuts. These are the same people that were running a Bitcoin trading scam and claiming they were a church. Also Ian "it's fine if I'm dating a 14-year-old" Freeman.

Like, take all the the terrible Libertarian stereotypes, and that's them.

[-] SupraMario@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

NH LP needs to be kicked out, their just a bunch of alt right idiots posing as libertarians. It's really fucked up.

[-] TransplantedSconie@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

Ian should be happy! When he gets out in 2032, she will be 24, and he won't be breaking the law!

[-] ShakeThatYam@lemmy.world 46 points 1 year ago

Didn't even need to click to know it was NH. They recently tweeted out the 14 words only changing "white" to "Libertarian." NH Libertarian party are unabashedly Nazis.

[-] BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

From the group that started the movement to reintegrate bears into society.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 30 points 1 year ago

Don't the New Hampshire libertarians have a bear problem they should be concerning themselves with?

[-] SheeEttin@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago

Yes and no. That was the free staters, a different Libertarian group (but still affiliated, I think).

And as far as I know, that's over with now.

[-] Deceptichum@kbin.social 10 points 1 year ago

The bears won.

[-] Pratai@lemmy.ca 22 points 1 year ago

Definition:

Modern Libertarian: a conservative that’s too cowardly to commit to the bit.

[-] theodewere@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago

they're not stupid enough or what? i don't understand how it works..

[-] Pratai@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 year ago

They’re too afraid of the label. So they hide behind a less offensive one. It’s like how a lot of racists like to be called “rednecks” instead.

[-] Hazdaz@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago

Gotta love a party that hates the same government that they want to run.

That's like going to a restaurant and having a chef who hates to cook. Or bringing your pet to a vet who hates animals. Do you really think they'll do a good job?

[-] neptune@dmv.social 16 points 1 year ago

I mean not that shocking

Many conservatives I know have been saying Congress etc should fear for their lives from "real Americans". Trump personified the darkest corners of conservative thought and gave them legitimacy.

[-] AfricanExpansionist@lemmy.ml 12 points 1 year ago

Dammit, they're right

I'm all for citizens occupying government buildings for their cause. It's our property. Yes these people are insane but it's the principle of free assembly and speech. I also support the right of the Black Panthers to occupy the California state house.

I'm not for government officials overturning a legitimate election

[-] kofe@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago

That's what elected officials are meant to be doing already, anyway. They're only there through our votes. Elections need to be modernized, imo, to at least guarantee every qualified citizen a mail-in ballot.

I'd be down to occupy some local, state or national land for that message, but organizing also takes a fuckton of resources. Women's rights, LGBTQ+ rights, men's rights, whatever - everyone should feel unified by the right to vote. Who gives a damn what anyone votes for; it's none of my business. But when local elections get less than 15% turnout, states <50, and presidential maybe 65, I'm just enraged that the people left out are the most needing to be heard.

[-] AfricanExpansionist@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Democracy isn't only elections. It's organizing. It's hard work. It's punching nazis in the face. It's standing up for marginalized people and groups.

But our system is set up to make that process difficult or impossible. It is set up to make us vote and then forget it for four years, until we can vote for another turd sandwich or giant douche from the same two parties that caused our problems in the first place.

If people show up in large numbers, shit gets done. If they threaten to harm government officials or destroy the tools of capital, shit gets done. Why do you think the CPC immediately prevents any spontaneous public gatherings and limits wechat groups to 500 people? Why do you think Korea could unseat a president?

[-] Pohl@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

If you only vote every four years you are not participating in our system.

There is an election every year. There are party primaries that are critical if you have strong political views.

Participate! People should be showing up in large numbers on the second Tuesday in November if they want to get shit done.

[-] Pohl@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

To make sure that people don’t get hurt in mob scenes and to keep the level of chaos down I have an idea. Every two years we can. All get together and decide on a few people to go and occupy the halls of government for the next couple years. We can send them to act as our representatives.

[-] what@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Yes but what if the people choose a terrible representative. We need a system that limits their options to people we choose. Ideally they only get two options we vetted.

But I'm afraid that won't even be enough, we should come up with a system where the people aren't directly voting on those representatives but other people will then go and vote on behalf of the people. That way we can divide things so even if the people vote with a majority we can still claim they didn't get enough electoral votes to win. Since these are next level voters we can call them something like a college of electors. We should also make sure these electors are not distributed equally among the population.

I'm afraid that still wouldn't be enough for the ruling class to maintain power. Maybe we should also divide their votes into arbitrary lines. We can call them districts. They won't correspond to any other districts and we can arbitrarily change districts when it's in our favor.

Even with all that I think we will have to occasionally come up with more measures. Maybe we can jail people for minor crimes more than every other nation in the world and take away their voting rights after they've been jailed. We can target specific groups and make new laws that allow us to remove from the system those whose votes would be unfavorable.

Perhaps then and only then will we be a beacon of freedom and hope to all those who wish to be a nation ruled by the people.

[-] TeenieBopper@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

I'm not advocating violence, I'm just saying politicians have gotten a lot more brazen with their corruption and hypocrisy since we stopped using guillotines.

[-] someguy3@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

What was it, "We're all domestic terrorists"?

[-] Chickenstalker@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Why is there even a lolbertarian "party"? It's like Muslims having a Pork & Bacon BBQ joint.

[-] DAVENP0RT@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Just watch that narrative spin around the moment one of them gets elected.

[-] fox2263@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Are these the libs that get owned? Or is it the other libs?

[-] Pagliacci@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 year ago

There's a significant difference between the people rising against their government and the people rising against some of the government on behalf of the rest of the government.

That's what happened on Jan 6th. Those people were launching an assault to support their preferred representatives, they were very much pro-government. Nothing libertarian about it.

this post was submitted on 03 Aug 2023

140 points (96.7% liked)

politics

19159 readers

4548 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News