Posted by Jim Duensing in numerous facebook groups today. Duensing was the presidential nominee of the Boston Tea Party before they disbanded in 2012, and is a current committee member and former state chair of the Libertarian Party of Nevada. He has run for office several times as a Libertarian and has served as chair of the Libertarian State Leadership Alliance.
Hillary is just what we need to bring about the change that we all hoped for during the 08 and 12 Ron Paul campaigns. She is the candidate best able to defeat Jeb Bush and her unique brand of leadership might just drive this country all he way back to 1775. Don’t Say “What Difference Does It Make” Say #READY Ready to save our country. Ready to defeat another Bush. Ready to bring this country the change it needs. #READY Get involved and let’s organize our precincts. We won in 2012 and had it stolen from us. The NWO won’t steal it from Hillary. With our help she really could win. #READY2WIN2016
https://www.facebook.com/RONPAULsupportersREADY4HILLARYCLINTONin2016
Add a number of -ers on the end of each of those that stretches out of sight and you start to get the picture.
Lots of Republicans believe they are doing good as well. “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.”
Given that, from a libertarian perspective, the two major parties are virtually identical (with almost complete agreement on about half the issues, and only minor differences on about 90% of the rest), it seems like a waste of time to argue about which is worse. It’s like arguing whether Stalin or Hitler was slightly worse. Both parties are absolutely terrible.
However, I do think the Democrats are more dangerous, especially in the long-term, since they do a much better job of brainwashing young people. The Republicans, and most of the things they stand for, appear to be on the verge of extinction.
Jill, Democrats can be just as mean. Go confront a government employee union member sometime.
My perception is that Republicans are just meaner people. Most Democrats I know really believe they’re trying to make the world better and more fair for everyone. They just don’t seem to grasp that “fairness” can’t be dibbied up up ghovernment, and that many of their broad pregrams can’t work. Republicans really only care about those who believe as they do.
I still won’t vote for Hillary.
The Democrats have done plenty to attack ballot access in this country, not just against candidates, but also against initiative, referendum, and recall petitions (of course Republicans have done the same thing). Democrats have run blocking campaigns against pro-liberty petitions (as have Republicans, but many blocking campaigns are run by unions which Democrats usually control). Look at what the way the Democrats treated Ralph Nader during his Presidential runs.
Just because the most recent round of ballot access attacks against the LP have come from Republicans, it does not mean that the Democrat are our friends.
Jed and Matt are wrong here. The Democrats are every bit as bad as the Republicans. It is a total waste of time for Libertarians to get caught up in the Democrat vs. Republican con game.
I tend to agree with Zig. I think Dems often have their heart in the right place. So, they’re operating from a place of hate a bit less often than Reps. Plus, they haven’t pissed me off as much lately, as its the the Rs doing most of the direct, ballot access related, attacking of the LP.
But, yeah, they’re both totally useless.
I would rate the GOP as slightly more evil than the Dems. Doesn’t mean I’m gonna vote Dem & certainly not going to vote for Hilldawg.
I agree with Stewart Flood here. The Democratic Party and the Republican Party are equal evils.
Using dumber implies that one is worse than the other. I used to believe that, but I don’t anymore.
Tweedledumb and Tweedledumber.
”
Mark Axinn
April 3, 2015 at 9:07 pm
>’the evil of two lessers’
NF–Brilliant line, which of course I will have to steal right away.
Since I was elected a State Chair in 2010, I have often used “Tweedledee and Tweedledum” to differentiate Democrats from Republicans, which I freely give you in return”
Harry Browne used the Tweedledee vs. Tweedledum line for Democrats vs. Republicans years ago. I don’t know if anyone used it before him, but I would not be surprised if he is not the one who originated it.
“Jill Pyeatt
April 3, 2015 at 8:14 pm
We have quite a bit of time until we know who the Democratic, Republican, and Libertarian candidates will be. It may very well be that the Powers That Be know who they are, and who will ultimately win, but then maybe not. The ONLY time I would ever vote for Hillary would be if Dick Cheney was her opposing candidate, and there was some chance in Hell that he’d win.”
I would not vote for Hillary even under that circumstance (not that I’d vote for Dick Cheney either, because I would not).
>”the evil of two lessers”
NF–Brilliant line, which of course I will have to steal right away.
Since I was elected a State Chair in 2010, I have often used “Tweedledee and Tweedledum” to differentiate Democrats from Republicans, which I freely give you in return.
We have quite a bit of time until we know who the Democratic, Republican, and Libertarian candidates will be. It may very well be that the Powers That Be know who they are, and who will ultimately win, but then maybe not. The ONLY time I would ever vote for Hillary would be if Dick Cheney was her opposing candidate, and there was some chance in Hell that he’d win.
Is this idea getting any positive attention at all, Jim?
Is this a James Ogles thing? The reason I ask that is that, to my horror, I was notified on FB that he’d added me to a Hillary 2016 page. It didn’t see if to remove my name for a few hours, and I shudder to think that someone would have seen my name in that group. Ogles was blocked at that point, of course.
This makes no sense at all to me.
There is no lessor of two evils between Hillary and Jeb. They are equal evils.
I would rather show up at the polls intoxicated and vote for the Prohibition ticket than vote for Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush. Voting for the evil of two lessers is still just awful. I see no logic in this proposal.
As disconcerting as a Hillary presidency (and what it implies about the vitality of democracy in America) would be, a Jeb Bush or Ted Cruz presidency sounds positively terrifying. The establishment sure knows how to double-down on the ‘evil’ part of ‘lesser-evil’.
Regardless of which duopoly party is more evil (for me the difference is the Democrats favor the banks and the Republicans favor the MIC, so I hate the Republicans a little more I guess), we gotta be careful what we wish for. Conservatives are not wrong that a Hillary presidency could lead to entrenchment of government-secured monopolies and bureaucracies in the service of big banks/big finance, and liberals are not wrong that a Bush or Cruz presidency could lead to WW3 and. subsequently, fascist dictatorship.
Enough is enough. Hillary’s argument in 2016 will be largely the same as Obama’s in 2012–that she is less likely to start another war than her opponent. Given Obama’s track record and Clinton’s leading role in that administration, the American people ought to know better.
Thanks Paulie. Jill, come on. The election is pretty much over. Bush is going to be the nominee. We both know this is not a process where the votes are counted and a winner announced. The primaries are especially rigged. Look how much rampant vote fraud their was to keep the nomination from Paul in 12. I submit to you that there was significant vote fraud in 08 that kept Paul from being considered a front runner in the early primaries. In 12 he definitely won Iowa. In NV he won every county where the vote was verified. Huge discrepancies in Clark County (Vegas). Several states had state conventions where the Paul people were ignored or arrested. There won’t even be a populist candidate in this race. Just a bunch of wooden men trying to cozy up to the ringknockers.
Bush would not have entered the race if they did not intend to steal the thing for the grand pubas son. He will definitely get the nomination. The primaries are to try out vp picks. Bush / Walker — Bush / Madam Senator Graham etc. Walker / Graham / Huckabee would be on my exacta short list.
As for the Democrats, Hillary has all but sucked all the Democratic donors dry and shored up all the real support she needs to win the nod. If OMalley makes a good run, he might get VP, but I think they are more likely to go with Emmanuel, Bayh, or Richardson, maybe Rendell to get Pennsylania.
At any rate, once the nominations are set, then most Americans will start to pay a little attention. Then they will pick between the choices the tv offers. They will be riled up with half-truths and hate. Then they will pick. Our only way to influence that election is at that point where we can swing popular sentiment behind one or the other of those two.
Hillary would act in the same manner she has in the past and her leadership style and character would do more to drive people to our cause than anything we could do. Bush would be more efficient and affable. And, let’s not forget, the biggest terror attack in American history happened under a Bush.
The choice is clear. I am READY.
In Liberty, with Eternal Vigilance,
Jim
It does not matter which mainstream Democrat or mainstream Republican wins the nomination or the election. Libertarians should focus on promoting libertarian candidates and libertarian issues/philosophy.
OK, typo fixed…
I didn’t realize the cops had shot him in the head!
I’m not convinced that Jeb will be the GOP candidate. The Republican Party has got to know he can’t win. I really don’t think he can win.
Fine Jill. Cast your vote in a way that will cause another Bush to be elected. 8 more years. Probably another 9/11. How would you feel with that scenario???
Okay, Jim, I’ve read what you’ve said a couple of times, and now that I know you’re serious, I kind of get what you’re saying. I just think my head would explode if I voted for Hillary. I just don’t think I could do it. Sorry.
Jim Duensing said: “That said, we really need to focus on the positive change that is within our grasp. We all know we can’t elect a libertarian Presidential candidate in 2016. The most the LP could do is have an effective ambassador for the ideology of Libertarianism.”
It would also be good is the Libertarian ambassador (aka-the Libertarian Party’s candidate for President) promoted some outside of electoral politics tactics that people can use to advance the cause of freedom which do not rely on Libertarians getting elected to office, such as jury nullification of victimless “crimes,” alternative currencies (gold, silver, Bitcoin, etc…), tax resistance, home schooling, stocking up on guns & ammo (the more people who have guns, the harder it will be for the government to take them away), etc…
Go ahead and change the typo Paulie. Anytime you see me type a misspelled word missing a V or Z or X assume it was due to a faulty keyboard key caused by a certain cat who now knows it is best to stay away from my laptop. But, the damage has been done. I’ll change it on the main page as well.
That said, we really need to focus on the positive change that is within our grasp. We all know we can’t elect a libertarian Presidential candidate in 2016. The most the LP could do is have an effective ambassador for the ideology of Libertarianism. The worst it could do is repeat its mistakes of 08 and 12 with a watered down cia or cfr candidate. I think it will make the latter mistake and not the former. And so, pushing a candidate that wouldn’t even do libertarian things if they were elected and who we all know can’t win seems the height of absurdity.
But, we can – as a voting block – swing the election from one NWO candidate to another for our own reasons. A Hillary Presidency would be a better recruitment tool for our cause – I won’t say the LP because it is mired in a self-imposed failure cycle of desiring more “respectability”.from the Establishment’s media than from actual libertarians. Although the LP may have abandoned its base, the base will grow more under Hillary than under Bush. Consider the difference between the attacks on 911 under Hillary’s watch and the attacks on 911 under Bush’s watch. The 01 attack was carried out much more efficiently and resulted in a higher loss of life. The one under Hillary’s watch resulted in fewer lost lives, and a scandal that nearly engulfed Hillary because of her character and leadership style.
When faced with the choice of another Bush or another Clinton it is clear our country is doomed to suffer the fate of the Roman Empire. Once we accept that fact. Rationally we must conclude that it is better for the fires to be hotter faster so that we can rebuild more quickly with more years left in our lives. That is why I and a growing number of libertarians and Ron Paul supporters are Ready for Hillary.
Come join the effort. Be part of a winning team for at least one election cycle – while we still have elections…
https://www.facebook.com/RONPAULsupportersREADY4HILLARYCLINTONin2016
In Liberty, with Eternal Vigilance,
Jim Duensing
Dude looks, like, *totally* ready for Hillary in 2016…if he can only wait that long!
Jim wrote that part. I’ll change it if he comments here and says that’s OK, but I have tons of other things to catch up on, so I won’t go out of my way to ask.
We need some hope and change.
For example, I hope Paulie changes involed to involved.