In response to various issues such as the statement of the Colorado LP that they will not put the Oliver-Ter Maat ticket on the ballot for President this year, Angela McArdle has announced the formation of a reconciliation committee to deal with the issue. Her announcement reads:
Hello LNC,
It’s come to my attention (and to the attention of some of you) that we have state affiliates who are very upset with the Chase/Ter Maat ticket and are threatening not to put them on the ballot. We need to work this out. I’m appointing a committee to resolve this situation – the Reconciliation Committee.
Your goal is to communicate with the state affiliates who are aggrieved, find out their specific grievances, and communicate with the Oliver campaign to see if we can get those grievances resolved. This is a much better route than disaffiliations, lawsuits, threats, removal, etc.
Let’s please try to get it all resolved before the end of this month – June 30th, or before the deadline of any Secretary of State paperwork – whichever date is SOONEST.
Appointed to the committee:
Pat Ford
Caryn Ann Harlos
Kathy Yeniscavich
Andrew Watkins
Angela McArdle
Please use division of labor on your calls. Please share information. Please deliberate together, but do not bog each other down in endless meetings. Please try to de-escalate things. Please use discretion and meet confidentially. Please share a report to the general membership by the end of the month that includes end results or a brief summary of actions, so our members can feel confident that we worked diligently to resolve this and get our candidate on the ballot.
Thank you!
Everyone else, I’m sure the rumor mill will churn, but please take this as a sign of the LNC’s good faith and please be patient with us as we work through this kink. We will support our candidates.
Angela McArdle
Chair, Libertarian National Committee
For a complete list of known Presidential candidates, see https://politics1.com/p2024.htm
There are, it appears, several hundred of them. If you want to list them in some order, you get to choose where to quit listing, knowing that there are many more to go. Or you get tired of typing, knowing that the remainder will feel ignored.
Atbaft, I’m sorry, but no, I have no way of knowing without looking it up who the Secretary of the Interior or Colorado Attorney General are right at this very moment, much less 20 and 30 years ago, respectively. I have no reason to not trust either your honesty or memory on the question, which I don’t find interesting enough to research even if you hadn’t already told me the answer.
Luckily, if I did want to look it up, at any hour of day or night, I can do so very easily. In 1981, when you had your post election analysis with Mr. Nolan, I’d have had to get on my bicycle and go to the local library after school to find out, and there were chores, homework, children’s games, etc, so that wouldn’t have happened. Had I been an adult, or had parents more likely to give me permission than a whipping for asking, I could have also made a series of information and long distance telephone calls to ascertain such information.
I mention this because the world has, as I’m sure you must have noticed, changed a great deal in the interim, in many unpredictable ways. Currently, it’s possible but not likely that I’ll live 50 more years. Those odds could change by a lot, in either direction, within that time period. It’s even possible, and I don’t know how likely or how soon, that developments in life extension might make it to where you might live another 50 years as well, and make that something to look forward to rather than dread.
If you search your memory, how right or wrong were you in guessing how the world would change, and how soon, over the course of the past 50 years? When I think about the next 50, I humbly acknowledge I have no idea.
I’ll stand by my previously stated position that there isn’t, and shouldn’t be, a central plan for freedom. Central planning is not as smart as the marketplace, and I believe this holds true in the marketplaces for ideas and political action.
Likewise, having no time machine, I don’t know what things would be like in your alternate timeline where politically active libertarians who spent time on L.P. organising over the past half century had been active in the GOP instead. There are, of course, many alternatives to both, both in and outside the realm of elections and government. Perhaps you are correct, and perhaps not.
I also have no way to know, even if we did somehow know the answer, what’s likely to work best in the next 50 years. As I’ve said elsewhere, I think the least unlikely answer is to work as much as possible through means other than political parties or internal party caucuses per se.
Jim writes “The only thing holding libertarians to the Republican party was tax policy. That ended when Trump launched his tariff war. With the Democrats at least we have a degree of shared positions on social policy.”
I don’t see it that way. There are numerous aspects of taxation, inflation, regulation, spending, etc, where Democrats are still for more big government than current Republican leadership. Democrats don’t necessarily eschew tariff wars, either.
On social policy, there’s wide disagreement among libertarians. Some fully support abortion, while others are as antiabortion as any Republican. Some want uncontrolled immigration in unlimited numbers, while others see that as a danger to national security, law and order, taxpayers wallets, etc. We can go down the line of currently contentious social issues, and find a lot of disagreements among libertarians.
One issue where libertarians tend to be fairly unanimous is strong support for 2nd Amendment rights. Republicans tend to be marginally closer on that issue.
On foreign policy, Republicans and libertarians both currently tend to be for less in the way of entangling alliances than Democrats are.
I find very little support for the notion that Jim speaks for all of any kind of consensus of libertarians with that statement.
Yes, some libertarians disagree with the libertarian position on this or that issue. Being a “libertarian” is not the same thing as being correct, or even smart.
I’m sure this won’t be approved, since none of my comments here are any more, but I’m not convinced there is any such thing as a libertarian position on any issue. The best synonymous term for libertarian is apparently “self assured contrarian.”
The conversation in subthreads has reached the point where replies are no longer allowed. Hopefully, they will be allowed as a new subthread here.
Walter Ziobro: you’re way overestimating in the other other direction. As I mentioned, the actual exit polling was done. We don’t have to guess. Johnson did not get Trump elected. He was a minor factor in that, and Jorgensen even far more minor in 2020.
The second choice of Johnson voters was not voting at all for an actual majority of them. Among the ones who said they would have still voted, Trump was second choice more often than Clinton, but not by much.
Based on what Johnson voters themselves told exit pollsters at numerous voting places in the states that made the difference in the election, we can calculate that the net effect on the outcome between Trump and Clinton of Johnson being on the ballot was one tenth of Johnson’s vote total. That was not nearly enough to change the outcome in a single state.
Results for Jorgensen were iirc similar in the breakdown, but she got one third as many votes, and thus was an even more insignificant factor in the outcome.
Oliver, or any of the people he beat for the nomination had they won it instead, appear to be headed for way less votes than Jorgensen. Maybe a third or a quarter as many. It could be even less than that, particularly given ballot access questions and the distinct possibility of LNC rescinding the nomination. Regardless, libertarians are even far less likely to be a deciding factor in the presidential outcome in a single state this year than in 2020, when they didn’t come nearly as close to being a deciding factor in a single state as in 2016, when they still didn’t come particularly close to changing the outcome in even one state, much less nationally.
To see how close they did come, divide Johnson or Jorgensen vote totals by ten before applying to the outcome. This is not a guess. It’s exit poll data, which has always been much more reliable than any other kind of poll data.
I explained this earlier, whereupon Walter yelled me that I didn’t understand, although I understood the point just fine, disagreed, and gave reasons for disagreement.
The current internal squabbles in the LP means that it is very likely that Chace’s ballot access and actual votes will be lower than they have been for the party in quite a while, and likely to have little impact on the outcome this year.
But, that doesn’t mean that third parties don’t have a future. Both major parties have defined themselves so narrowly, that a significant portion of the electorate is disengaged from both of them and indifferent to the outcome. Kennedy will be the big beneficiary of this, and could have an impact, particularly in the swing states. Third parties will continue to emerge beyond this election.
My reply intended for this appears to be waiting moderation in the wrong subthread:
Methods of political organization which are not called political parties or party caucuses, don’t have ballot lines, and can function across political party lines will continue to become more and more important, as opposed to political parties and political party internal caucuses.
But what do those folks do who dislike either major party, when it is time to vote?
Split their votes, run as/vote for independents, mount insurgent campaigns within both major political parties, stage hostile takeovers thereof, or not vote and instead spend the time on means of influencing the political system more likely to succeed than casting an individual vote, which is extremely unlikely to alter the outcome, according to personal taste.
One argument Angela can use is that we have a new opportunity to challenge oppressive ballot access laws that relate to presidential elections. That new opportunity is the US Supreme Court decision Trump v Anderson, which says that the relationship between the president and the people is so important, the Constitution implicitly forbids a presidential election that is a “patchwork”, with candidates on the ballot in some states but not all of them. We can use that to attack states like New York and Illinois. But if we self-sabotage our own ballot access, we can hardly make that argument in court.
You should be careful with that argument, as it could well backfire on you in the form of many states making presidential, and in some cases collaterally other, ballot access significantly more difficult if you ultimately prevail on that in the courts. If you don’t think that would be a plausible result, why not?
On the bright side, I spotted a Presidential poll that included Chase Oliver. It was a bit odd in that it skipped Kennedy. It included Stein. It did not include West or the Constitution Party candidate, so it was a four-way poll.
Let’s try this piecemeal. Which poll was this?
If I see a current one, I will let you know. The RealClearPolitics list has it.
I found these on RCP that have Chase:
National poll: https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/president/general/2024/trump-vs-biden-vs-kennedy-vs-west-vs-stein-vs-oliver
PA: https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/president/general/2024/pennsylvania/trump-vs-biden-vs-stein-vs-oliver
IA: https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/president/general/2024/iowa/trump-vs-biden-vs-kennedy-vs-oliver
TX: https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/president/general/2024/texas/trump-vs-biden-vs-kennedy-vs-stein-vs-oliver
Anyway, given that the split between Democrats and Republicans is so even over the country as a whole right now, it seems to me that it is the BEST time for a third party to have an impact, especially, if like the Libertarian Party, it has issues that cross party lines. In such a situation, a third party doesn’t even have to win any offices. All it takes in the current situation is a few votes to turn the election one way or another. Then both major parties have to have some appeal to the third party to win the election. That this is clearly happening is the fact that BOTH Trump and Kennedy accepted the invitation to speak to the Libertarians.
Further, even if there is a chance that one major party or another is moving in a libertarian direction, is no reason NOT to run Libertarian candidates. The presence of those Libertarian candidates keeps the pressure on the major party candidates. The strategy of the Libertarian Party (or ANY serious third party under plurality voting) should be: “If you really want our votes, you will have to win them from us ONE VOTE AT A TIME. NO cross endorsements.”
I could have sworn I addressed this, but maybe I’m wrong or my reply wasn’t accepted. The split isn’t as even as you think; this is a very different election from the last two for POTUS. I won’t elaborate for now, as excessive detail on that may have been why my reply, if there was one, wasn’t accepted.
I think Trump greatly miscalculated in wanting to address the LP convention. Details if anyone wants to ask why I believe this.
I’m not sure why Kennedy bothered, either. He had previously already clarified he would not seek their nomination, and it was clear at least as of when he picked Shanahan that he wouldn’t get it. Why he bothered to seek it at the very last minute after all, with an extremely weak effort, is unclear. Luckily for him, the only thing media cared about was the Trump speech, so only an infinitesimal number of people noticed that he had, and it wasn’t the major embarrassment to him that seriously but unsuccessfully seeking their nomination could well have been.
In your own reply, you reveal that you don’t understand why either Trump or Kennedy bothered to address the Libertarians. They did it for the very reason that I stated: THEY NEED THOSE VOTES, AND THEY KNOW IT.
MAKE THEM BEG FOR THEM. DON’T JUST GIVE THEM AWAY.
You don’t need to tell. I heard you just fine. I disagree with you. I believe they miscalculated. Trump, for example, seemed to think the LP nominee typically gets 3% for POTUS. One tenth of that seems much more plausible this year, and is more the historical average going back decades.
It’s typical for people who are not minor party nerds like us to presume libertarian votes typically come from people who would otherwise vote Republican. Actual surveys of l.p. Voters second choices don’t show that. When Johnson did get 3%, the most popular second choice of his voters was to not vote. Of the rest, Clinton was not far behind Trump. That made Johnson’s net impact only about a tenth of his vote count.
When you overestimate by the Lp vote by an order of magnitude, and its net impact by another order of magnitude, you get Trump’s miscalculated basis for attending.
Additionally, most LP voters were not at the LP national convention. Only perhaps a thousand or slightly less. Maybe a few thousand more listened or watched, but many were not l.p. Supporters – In fact, YouTube had many comments that they were there to see Trump or Kennedy..
Trump talked to a few hundred people, and many of them booed him. Many of the others were already going to vote for him. He has ubiquitous media platform access. He didn’t need to go there in order to address libertarians, which he didn’t need to do at all nearly as much as he estimated.
“It’s typical for people who are not minor party nerds like us to presume libertarian votes typically come from people who would otherwise vote Republican. Actual surveys of l.p. Voters second choices don’t show that”
With THAT statement, I totally agree. I recall an early voter survey back in the 1980’s made by the LP leaders that indicated that LP candidates were actually drawing slightly more votes from Democrats than Republicans.
While I cannot prove it, IMO, Johnson drew more votes from Clinton in 2016, thereby enabling the election of Trump. It is no small matter that the D’s lost MI, PA, and WI in 2016 with fewer votes than were cast for Johnson, which were all a great deal more votes than Stein got in those states. Yet the D’s only blamed Stein for the loss.
In fact, I am also of the opinion that Jorgensen view more votes from younger, more liberal, D-leaning votes than from R’s Much of her campaign was directed at that constituency. I think that Trump would have lost AZ, GA, WI, and PA by EVEN MORE votes, if Jorgensen were not running.
And, if I may say so, I think that if Chase is given a chance to get on enough ballots, and get some visibility for his campaign, he will draw more votes from D’s than from R’s, give the issue emphasis that he has used.
If the Libertarian National Committee were to de-certify the nominations of Oliver and Ter Maat, could the Libertarian national delegates that supported them hold a rump national convention, re-certify their nominations, and choose a new, competing national committee, possibly of a new party?
I think some similar things happened in past years when dissenting delegates at national conventions held rival conventions and made competing nominations. I think that the Progressive party did this in 1912 (by dissident Republicans) and 1948 (by dissident Democrats)..
They could, but it would have no force and effect.
But that’s not happening, either. Nobody is going to toss $50-100k around to do that.
Virtual conventions might reduce the cost.
No. It’s a power granted in the bylaws. Anyone can start a new party though. But the current National Committee is not going to do that. It was be interesting if a Court did.
Parties get ballot access in Colorado by either getting 1% in any statewide race or having over 1,000 registered voters.
Parties in Montana need and statewide candidate to get 5% of the total votes cast for the winning Governor candidate at least every other general election.
Being sick of reinventing a flat tire is insufficient reason to try to reinvent an even flatter tire. The libertarian party is past its useful shelf life, and will not be replaced by any useful libertarianesque party. Instead, what you’ll get is your movement’s equivalent of the plethora of socialist parties, or what happened to the Reform Party after 2000 and the AIP after 1976, etc.
The socialist movement is (unfortunately) thriving, as are paleoconservative and centrist movements, etc. The minor political parties that nominally represent them…aren’t. The libertarian movement has reached that same stage. Political parties are now a counterproductive tactic for that movement. Any time, money and effort spent on such going forward should be redirected into the movement’s many other tactics as quickly and thoroughly as possible to cease being counterproductive to its stated goals.
What might those other channels be, in your opinion?
They are myriad. I couldn’t possibly list them all. You can find lists of movement organizations and tactics posted in many places, looking at the range of sponsors and speakers at major movement conferences, and so on. Get in where you fit in.
But, wouldn’t that leave us with only Democratic and Republican Parties?
Yes. The three or more party (on permanent basis and winning significant offices) model has failed whereas the two party model hasn’t. Our goal as libertarians is to achieve liberty, not decide how many political parties are optimal.
However, in a fair number of states, the two party model has imploded to the one party model. Massachusetts, for example, where most state legislators run unopposed.
So, in one party state, the Libertarian Caucus should have an easier time of taking over the out of power party ( putting them far ahead of trying to make the LP a real political force in said state.)
No. The libertarian party still exists, and will probably continue to exist, regardless of my personal opinion regarding its usefulness. Perhaps in time they will prove me wrong.
Other libertarianish parties will continue to attempt to form, regardless of my opinion that those involved are wasting their money and time even more egregiously. They could also one day prove me wrong. I see that as even less likely, but the marketplace of ideas – even one as highly distorted by government as the government elections process – is smarter than I am.
As far as I know, running for office without a party remains legal in every US State, although some make it difficult to qualify for the ballot that way. In which case, you can try to change those laws, or build your personal brand to the point where you can overcome those barriers before attempting to run for office, or work on different ways for somewhat likeminded independent candidates and their supporters to help each other qualify and succeed in elections which are not formally organized as or call themselves political parties.
Many such legal mechanisms exist, and in many ways are more advantageous than the political party form – they don’t have to fight over territorial monopolies, enjoy more favorable tax laws and regulations, don’t run afoul of people’s family legacy dedication to political parties, etc. Different such groups can help mutually overlapping sets of candidates, and so on.
In my opinion, for whatever if anything it’s worth, is less the political model which assumes a given number of political parties, whatever that number may be. It’s the model of political parties as a primary method of political organization. The process of that model failing is sufficiently slow that many people have not yet noticed that it’s in the process of failing and being gradually replaced. The people who have not yet noticed this are disproportionately older than those who have, but that’s just a General rule – there are many exceptions to it throughout the age spectrum.
As partial evidence for this theory, consider how many people associate their loyalties more with, for examples, the MAGA or Progressive movements, among others,than with the R or D parties, and are willing to switch their votes, and their donations of money and or time, on case by case basis as a result, even though those moments are not themselves a formal ballot label anywhere while those two parties are ballot qualified candidate labels in every state.
Progressive exists as a party label in Vermont and maybe some other states, but that’s not what I mean by progressive movement. I don’t know of any state with a MAGA ballot label. However, I do know lots and lots of people who were non voters, minor party voters, or Democrats before MAGA gained sufficient hold in the GOP, and would be again if the former leadership were to take that party back over.
As for the two biggest parties, even if they succeed in monopolizing party ballot labeling in all states, which I don’t see as either likely or desirable, there most likely wouldn’t be sufficient party discipline or control of information flow to preclude libertarians from running as candidates and organizing in various states in various ways on their behalf in one or both of those parties and across party lines. If that level of party discipline and political idea/organization monopoly does occur, you might consider alternatives outside of electoral politics to advance your ideas. There are many of those as well, as I’m sure you already know.
Think outside the party box would have been a much quicker way to say all that, but I’d rather leave the rest to provide added context if allowed, since I foolishly took the time to write it, and someone could even conceivably read the whole thing and even gain additional insight from it, however unlikely that is.
Maybe Piglet Farmer could comment on a formal Libertarian Caucus within the GOP? That might satisfy those libertarians who enjoy and/or respond well to political activism.
As far as I know it already exists. Did it die or something?
Different forms of political action will suit different libertarians. That’s one for some of them. Single issue and multi issue lobbying groups, pacs , individual candidate campaigns, and many others also exist. Like I said, get in where you fit in.
Do you require a central authority to steer the political activity of everyone who calls themselves libertarians? I think competition among multiple different forms thereof, as chosen or sorted out by the “market” for such, would be more fitting and effective for the broadly stated goals of your movement. Even if I’m wrong, I’m neither inclined nor qualified to be or choose that authority.
Whether I’m a libertarian or not depends on who you ask, and I don’t particularly care. I’m not obsessed with defining, much less fighting over, such political labels. In my experience many people who call themselves libertarians are, well past the point of being highly detrimental to their supposed goals, which just makes me far less interested in associating with them or especially declaring myself to be one. They’ll nitpick each other about who is or isn’t a true libertarian even in line for welcome showers at the freedom workers work camp.
I’m libertarian leaning enough to generally prefer market competition to central planning even in the market for the money, time, talents and any other freely offered resources of those who call themselves libertarians. If you want to call yourselves libertarians, but prefer to centrally plan your way to freedom, good luck. I think you’re foolish or dishonest in that approach, but I’m often wrong, this could possibly be one of the things I’m wrong about. If I am, your centrally planned freedom workers committee will eventually win its cold war with the less centrally organized competition.
Hopefully without using a great deal of extorted funds, conscripted foot soldiers, premature deaths, physical and psychological injuries, collateral damage, property destruction etc in the process. You have to break some eggs to make an omelette, but it’s nice to be efficient and not waste a lot of eggs in the process when possible.
One of the great advantages of not centrally planning your way to freedom is that you don’t have to continuously seek consensus, especially among people self selected to include a maximum number of contrarians and perfectionists. You can just try different things and see what works best and or works best for you. I’ll skip trying to achieve consensus by the assembled committee or trying to hold any kind of vote on the question. Dealing with piglets is bad enough in meatspace, as it were. Just a freely offered opinion for those of you who say you’re inclined towards more freedom and less central authority.
I consider myself one of those, but call me whatever you want. Call me piglet, in English if you prefer. Just don’t feed me hog slop, pen me up, or slaughter me. If you want me to do it to you, maybe I’ll figure out whether there’s an economically viable way to put you in some hog pens once you succeed in making that legal. I’m statist enough to not wish to be in a pen for breaking government laws myself, even if I didn’t violate consent. If you want me to suggest how you can best do it to each other, ask someone else.
I hope I was clear enough and didn’t break any rules in my use of puns and metaphors. If anything inadvertently crossed the lines, please remove it and post whatever remains.
I left the Republican party on purpose. They got bad after 9/11 and have only gotten worse under MAGA. Zero desire to go back. Frankly, without either the libertarians or Democrats moving, the libertarians have become closer to the Democrats than they are to the Republicans, just because the Republicans have gone so far off the deep end. We might disagree with Democrats on policy, but at least they can still see reality. Reality to Republicans has become whatever Trump says it is.
Jim, I have an opposite perspective. Hopefully it will be allowed here, since yours was. I think Republicans have become much better under MAGA, while still having a long, long way to go. I don’t see how you can seriously believe either libertarians or democrats have not moved. I see the Democrats as the ones who have gone off the deep end, and keep going further and further off the deep end. I don’t believe they see reality. If they do, they intentionally distort it constantly beyond the point of recognition. Not one Republican or Trump supporter I know believes everything Trump says. Many had to hold their nose to vote for him last time, or ended up not voting, for example due to him bragging about Operation Warp Speed, among many other reasons.
The idea that libertarians are closer to Democrats than Republicans, or that libertarians are moving in the direction of democrats or vice versa, seems quite obviously disproved by your recently concluded national convention, the nonpresedential one immediately prior, and actions of many of your state parties and national party since at least that time, including ongoing this month. While this may be true of some of your party members, you being one, I don’t see anything approaching a consensus of libertarians for that – if anything, the opposite is closer to the truth, although clearly there’s nothing close to a consensus among you either way.
I think reality is closer to what Trump tends to say than to what Democrats want people to believe, but not because it’s very close to what Trump says. It’s more like he’s the sloppy drunk at a bar barely hitting the dartboard when he hits it at all, while they are aiming consistently and competently in the exact opposite direction of the dartboard for so long that many people, including apparently you, think its mirror image is the real thing.
That’s not to urge you to return to the Republicans. I already gave ATBAFT my thoughts on alternatives to that. Off hand, I.don’t know how well the RLC is doing currently, or whether ATBAFT considers the Republican Freedom Caucus or even the Republican Liberty Caucus to be libertarian.
Porcus, I really don’t know if either of those Republican caucuses are “libertarian.” Maybe it would it be obvious if , say, the thousands of libertarian political activists over the 50 years had joined the GOP instead of the LP??
I recall a conversation with David Nolan in 1981, and, while he was optimistically pumped up over the Ed Clark results, he still lamented that some Libertarians were abandoning the Party because they liked Reagan. He mentioned that a prominent Colorado Libertarian, Gale Norton, had defected and that was sad because Norton was apparently on a short list of potential LNC Executive Directors. Norton, as you may know, went on to success in the GOP – Colorado Attorney Gen. from 1990 to 1999, and Bush’s Secretary of the Interior from 2001 to 2006. Also, we can readily see how different Ron Paul’s influence was
as a Republican candidate and not the LP nominee.
Hindsight isn’t wisdom, but one wonders how the major parties would have been (or would be now) different if those talented libertarian thousands who pursued a third party had organized within the GOP and Democrats.
Fifty years of wheel spinning and lost time and money?
Can’t really say, but those libertarians who may be around for the next fifty years need to figure out the best strategy.
Porcus – The only thing holding libertarians to the Republican party was tax policy. That ended when Trump launched his tariff war. With the Democrats at least we have a degree of shared positions on social policy.
As mentioned on FB – This is a committee of failure. If they really wanted to resolve the affiliate issues they would have appointed Bill Redpath. Bill would explain that not placing Oliver on the ballot would likely result in losing ballot access – thus the only correct action national could take is disaffiliation. I think those states then would realize not putting Chase on the ballot is not an option. But with these folks, there will be zero repercussions – go vote for Orange Man.
So if you’re sick of this shit – then please join me at LiberalPartyUSA.org
I agree. Though I am not thrilled by Chase Oliver9he wants too much to placeate the idolatrous savages that support Trump) nonetheless go with the civilized and Libertarian States who will put Chase on the ballot and the Liberal Party should set up new affiliates in the states polluted by Mises MAGA. When Trump was booed and flipped off at the LP National Convention the Mises gang had to figure out how(even if they are the LNC majority) how to control their enemy(real Libertarians) and spread disinformation. I surmise they got that from the horses(orange man) mouth-er that is the wrong side. I urge real Libertarians to join and link up with the Liberal Party. This from a founding membe of the Libertarian Party.
No, it’s not a “committee of failure.” It’s a “committee of opportunity to wring hands before ‘reluctantly, due to demand we manufactured ourselves’ recommending that the LNC rescind the presidential nomination.”
McArdle publicly acknowledged the Libertarian Party of Florida’s resolution calling on the LNC to “investigate” the nomination within minutes of its passage … even though it wasn’t even added to the LPF executive committee meeting agenda until the last second and was only passed by adding four Mises-affiliated members to the executive committee in that same meeting. In other words, she knew, and approved of (if she didn’t actually solicit) what was being done in advance.