Romney was Better than Obama

[Symmetry]

Reason's editorial staff have released who they will be voting for on Tuesday -

Gary Johnson - 17
Refuse to Vote - 9
Won't Disclose - 1
Mitt Romney - 0
Barack Obama - 0
Jill Stein - 0
Virgil Goode - 0
Rocky Anderson - 0

http://reason.com/archives/2012/10/24/w ... singlepage

This should be required reading for CCers engaged in the US political discussion.

Crazy libertarian website votes libertarian, what a shock.

You're quite the Repocrat these days Symm. It's sad that you have to cling to establishment politics. Perhaps if you could think outside the box a little...

Hah- libertarian magazine all declaring that they'll voter for the libertarian party their boss wrote a book about. or telling their boss they won't vote. Some real free thinkers there.

Yeah, weird. I wonder who Glenn Beck and Rachel Maddow will vote for.

Hopefully not who their boss orders them to vote for while he publishes a report about how they're all in solidarity with him.

[thegreekdog]

Hopefully not who their boss orders them to vote for while he publishes a report about how they're all in solidarity with him.

I must have missed that.

[BigBallinStalin]

TGD, why are people like Symmetry and PhatScotty such strong supporters of the Repocrats?

Is it faith?
Is it the lack of understanding of how US politics actually works--thus leading them to unreal expectations about the Repocrats?
What do you think?

[Symmetry]

Hopefully not who their boss orders them to vote for while he publishes a report about how they're all in solidarity with him.

I must have missed that.

You seriously believe that Reason isn't a party political mouthpiece?

[thegreekdog]

Hopefully not who their boss orders them to vote for while he publishes a report about how they're all in solidarity with him.

I must have missed that.

You seriously believe that Reason isn't a party political mouthpiece?

You seriously believe that [insert mainstream or conservative media outlet] isn't a political party mouthpiece?

I guess the question is, why should I care?

[saxitoxin]

Reason's editorial staff have released who they will be voting for on Tuesday -

Gary Johnson - 17
Refuse to Vote - 9
Won't Disclose - 1
Mitt Romney - 0
Barack Obama - 0
Jill Stein - 0
Virgil Goode - 0
Rocky Anderson - 0

http://reason.com/archives/2012/10/24/w ... singlepage

This should be required reading for CCers engaged in the US political discussion.

Crazy libertarian website votes libertarian, what a shock.

You're quite the Repocrat these days Symm. It's sad that you have to cling to establishment politics. Perhaps if you could think outside the box a little...

Hah- libertarian magazine all declaring that they'll voter for the libertarian party their boss wrote a book about. or telling their boss they won't vote. Some real free thinkers there.

2008 Reason staff votes (http://reason.com/archives/2008/10/29/w ... -your-vote):

Obama (Democrat): 12
Barr (Libertarian) 11
Refuse to Vote: 6
McCain (Republican): 4
Did Not Disclose: 3
Nader (unaffiliated): 1
McKinney (Green): 0
Baldwin (Constitution): 0

Symmetry, among the many things I don't think you understand is that libertarianism and the Libertarian Party are two separate things. Symmetry, if I said "my son's name is Tom" that doesn't mean the star at the center of our solar system is named Tom and I own it. Language is fascinating, you should sit down and learn one sometime.

[Symmetry]

Reason's editorial staff have released who they will be voting for on Tuesday -

Gary Johnson - 17
Refuse to Vote - 9
Won't Disclose - 1
Mitt Romney - 0
Barack Obama - 0
Jill Stein - 0
Virgil Goode - 0
Rocky Anderson - 0

http://reason.com/archives/2012/10/24/w ... singlepage

This should be required reading for CCers engaged in the US political discussion.

Crazy libertarian website votes libertarian, what a shock.

You're quite the Repocrat these days Symm. It's sad that you have to cling to establishment politics. Perhaps if you could think outside the box a little...

Hah- libertarian magazine all declaring that they'll voter for the libertarian party their boss wrote a book about. or telling their boss they won't vote. Some real free thinkers there.

2008 Reason staff votes (http://reason.com/archives/2008/10/29/w ... -your-vote):

Obama (Democrat): 12
Barr (Libertarian) 11
Refuse to Vote: 6
McCain (Republican): 4
Did Not Disclose: 3
Nader (unaffiliated): 1
McKinney (Green): 0
Baldwin (Constitution): 0

Symmetry, among the many things I don't think you understand is that libertarianism and the Libertarian Party are two separate things. Symmetry, if I said "my son's name is Tom" that doesn't mean the star at the center of our solar system is named Tom and I own it. Language is fascinating, you should sit down and learn one sometime.

That change seems to coincide with the tenure of the new editor.

The Declaration of Independents: How Libertarian Politics Can Fix What's Wrong with America is a non-fiction book by American political writers Matt Welch and Nick Gillespie. Welch is the current editor-in-chief of Reason Magazine, a position Gillespie also held from 2000 to 2008. The authors discuss the nature and influence of libertarianism.[1] It was published on June 28, 2011 by PublicAffairs,[2] an imprint of the Perseus Books Group.
The title is a homophonic pun; referring to both the U.S. Declaration of Independence.[3] and Independent voters.

Are you saying that you think there was a change in corporate culture after 2008?

[Symmetry]

Hopefully not who their boss orders them to vote for while he publishes a report about how they're all in solidarity with him.

I must have missed that.

You seriously believe that Reason isn't a party political mouthpiece?

You seriously believe that [insert mainstream or conservative media outlet] isn't a political party mouthpiece?

I guess the question is, why should I care?

If you're saying that you trust a source on it's endorsement of a candidate, you should care if it's the propaganda wing of said party. I share your general skepticism, but this is pretty open and shut.

[saxitoxin]

That change seems to coincide with the tenure of the new editor.

The Declaration of Independents: How Libertarian Politics Can Fix What's Wrong with America is a non-fiction book by American political writers Matt Welch and Nick Gillespie. Welch is the current editor-in-chief of Reason Magazine, a position Gillespie also held from 2000 to 2008. The authors discuss the nature and influence of libertarianism.[1] It was published on June 28, 2011 by PublicAffairs,[2] an imprint of the Perseus Books Group.
The title is a homophonic pun; referring to both the U.S. Declaration of Independence.[3] and Independent voters.

Are you saying that you think there was a change in corporate culture after 2008?

The co-authors of the book you've cited are Nick Gillsepie and Matt Welch (highlights added by me). Gilespie was the editor-in-chief of Reason in 2008. Welch is Editor-in-Chief today.

If you're going to jump into the deep end of the pool, perhaps consider slapping on some water wings next time?

you're dismissed now

[Symmetry]

That change seems to coincide with the tenure of the new editor.

The Declaration of Independents: How Libertarian Politics Can Fix What's Wrong with America is a non-fiction book by American political writers Matt Welch and Nick Gillespie. Welch is the current editor-in-chief of Reason Magazine, a position Gillespie also held from 2000 to 2008. The authors discuss the nature and influence of libertarianism.[1] It was published on June 28, 2011 by PublicAffairs,[2] an imprint of the Perseus Books Group.
The title is a homophonic pun; referring to both the U.S. Declaration of Independence.[3] and Independent voters.

Are you saying that you think there was a change in corporate culture after 2008?

The co-authors of the book you've cited are Nick Gillsepie and Matt Welch (highlights added by me). Gilespie was the editor-in-chief of Reason in 2008. Welch is Editor-in-Chief today.

If you're going to jump into the deep end of the pool, perhaps consider slapping on some water wings next time?

you're dismissed now

I realise you deleted my post, but like I said, your post on how it was in 2008 seems to indicate that the new boss had a different regime post 2008.

That's a helluva change- nobody stepping out of line in 2012 compared to what you posted as how folks thought in 2008 under the previous capo.

You don't really think that none of them would vote Obama or Romney? They look like they're afraid in the 2012 poll compared to that 2008 poll.

[saxitoxin]

this is pretty open and shut.

you kind of fell flat on your face in this thread; so digging in is probably not a good strategy, an ordered withdrawal may be better advised

To Recap -

Sym: Reason is a crazy libertarian website!
Correction: Reason is a 50 year-old print magazine named the 21st best magazine in America by the Chicago Tribune

Sym: Reason would naturally only endorse the Libertarian candidate!
Correction: In 2008 the plurality of their staff endorsed Barack Obama, the Democrat candidate.

Sym: Well, well ... any difference in 2008 was because of a change in editors. Their 2012 editor wrote a pro-Libertarian book - there was a radical editorial shift!
Correction: Their 2008 editor wrote the same book (they were co-authors).

Sym: I DON'T CARE. Reason is the mouthpiece of the Libertarian Party!
Correction: Reason pushes an overtly libertarian viewpoint like New Republic pushes an overtly center-left viewpoint. New Republic is not owned by the Democrat Party, Reason is not owned by the Libertarian Party.

If you want to join in discussions about USA politics, I think you need to spend some time educating yourself about the major players in the principal commentary journals, don't you agree? I'm sure you do. You've made yourself look a little silly in this thread by very basic factual errors and wild attempts to cover them up by making even bigger factual errors.

[Phatscotty]

Reason's editorial staff have released who they will be voting for on Tuesday -

Gary Johnson - 17
Refuse to Vote - 9
Won't Disclose - 1
Mitt Romney - 0
Barack Obama - 0
Jill Stein - 0
Virgil Goode - 0
Rocky Anderson - 0

http://reason.com/archives/2012/10/24/w ... singlepage

This should be required reading for CCers engaged in the US political discussion.

Crazy libertarian website votes libertarian, what a shock.

You're quite the Repocrat these days Symm. It's sad that you have to cling to establishment politics. Perhaps if you could think outside the box a little...

Hah- libertarian magazine all declaring that they'll voter for the libertarian party their boss wrote a book about. or telling their boss they won't vote. Some real free thinkers there.

Yeah, weird. I wonder who Glenn Beck and Rachel Maddow will vote for.

[Symmetry]

That change seems to coincide with the tenure of the new editor.

The Declaration of Independents: How Libertarian Politics Can Fix What's Wrong with America is a non-fiction book by American political writers Matt Welch and Nick Gillespie. Welch is the current editor-in-chief of Reason Magazine, a position Gillespie also held from 2000 to 2008. The authors discuss the nature and influence of libertarianism.[1] It was published on June 28, 2011 by PublicAffairs,[2] an imprint of the Perseus Books Group.
The title is a homophonic pun; referring to both the U.S. Declaration of Independence.[3] and Independent voters.

Are you saying that you think there was a change in corporate culture after 2008?

The co-authors of the book you've cited are Nick Gillsepie and Matt Welch (highlights added by me). Gilespie was the editor-in-chief of Reason in 2008. Welch is Editor-in-Chief today.

If you're going to jump into the deep end of the pool, perhaps consider slapping on some water wings next time?

you're dismissed now

I realise you deleted my post, but like I said, your post on how it was in 2008 seems to indicate that the new boss had a different regime post 2008.

That's a helluva change- nobody stepping out of line in 2012 compared to what you posted as how folks thought in 2008 under the previous capo.

You don't really think that none of them would vote Obama or Romney? They look like they're afraid in the 2012 poll compared to that 2008 poll.

Bump

[Dukasaur]

this is pretty open and shut.

you kind of fell flat on your face in this thread; so digging in is probably not a good strategy, an ordered withdrawal may be better advised

To Recap -

Sym: Reason is a crazy libertarian website!
Correction: Reason is a 50 year-old print magazine named the 21st best magazine in America by the Chicago Tribune

Sym: Reason would naturally only endorse the Libertarian candidate!
Correction: In 2008 the plurality of their staff endorsed Barack Obama, the Democrat candidate.

Sym: Well, well ... any difference in 2008 was because of a change in editors. Their 2012 editor wrote a pro-Libertarian book - there was a radical editorial shift!
Correction: Their 2008 editor wrote the same book (they were co-authors).

Sym: I DON'T CARE. Reason is the mouthpiece of the Libertarian Party!
Correction: Reason pushes an overtly libertarian viewpoint like New Republic pushes an overtly center-left viewpoint. New Republic is not owned by the Democrat Party, Reason is not owned by the Libertarian Party.

If you want to join in discussions about USA politics, I think you need to spend some time educating yourself about the major players in the principal commentary journals, don't you agree? I'm sure you do. You've made yourself look a little silly in this thread by very basic factual errors and wild attempts to cover them up by making even bigger factual errors.

better bump.

[saxitoxin]

That change seems to coincide with the tenure of the new editor.

The Declaration of Independents: How Libertarian Politics Can Fix What's Wrong with America is a non-fiction book by American political writers Matt Welch and Nick Gillespie. Welch is the current editor-in-chief of Reason Magazine, a position Gillespie also held from 2000 to 2008. The authors discuss the nature and influence of libertarianism.[1] It was published on June 28, 2011 by PublicAffairs,[2] an imprint of the Perseus Books Group.
The title is a homophonic pun; referring to both the U.S. Declaration of Independence.[3] and Independent voters.

Are you saying that you think there was a change in corporate culture after 2008?

The co-authors of the book you've cited are Nick Gillsepie and Matt Welch (highlights added by me). Gilespie was the editor-in-chief of Reason in 2008. Welch is Editor-in-Chief today.

If you're going to jump into the deep end of the pool, perhaps consider slapping on some water wings next time?

you're dismissed now

I realise you deleted my post, but like I said, your post on how it was in 2008 seems to indicate that the new boss had a different regime post 2008.

That's a helluva change- nobody stepping out of line in 2012 compared to what you posted as how folks thought in 2008 under the previous capo.

You don't really think that none of them would vote Obama or Romney? They look like they're afraid in the 2012 poll compared to that 2008 poll.

Bump

Did you read what I said about making yourself look silly? You've had five of your ships sank with just very, very basic factual errors ... do you really want to lose your last minesweeper on this conspiracy theory that you've created - "That's a helluva change- nobody stepping out of line in 2012 compared to what you posted as how folks thought in 2008 under the previous capo."?

Conspiracy theories are based on allegations of a wild, wide-ranging secret plot that can neither be proven or disproved because they're based on information the theorist says is unavailable for public confirmation. So there's no point for me to reply. If you've had to resort to creating a conspiracy theory to save face, I think I'm satisfied with how this sub-discussion has wrapped-up. Thank you, Symmetry.

(btw, I didn't delete your post - the message board imposes a six quote limit ... it's still up there, there's no plot trying to "get" you)

[Symmetry]

Meh- I stand by what I said, and it stands up regardless. If you don't want to respond, fair enough.

[saxitoxin]

Meh- I stand by what I said, and it stands up regardless. If you don't want to respond, fair enough.

Correction - I cannot respond. Conspiracy theories can be neither proved nor disproved.

You've said endorsements made by 27 of the Reason staff prove their current editor is secretly operating under the control of the Libertarian Party and handing down endorsement orders (previously you said it was because he wrote a book - but you then abandoned that position when it was pointed out the 2008 editor was the co-author of the same book).

That is neither evidence, nor inference. Because it's not proved by an objective standard, it cannot be disproved, so there is no point for me to reply. It is a conspiracy theory, no different than PhatScotty saying that because Barack Obama took a class from a Marxist professor in college he's a Marxist. But I entertain PhatScotty because he actually believes his conspiracy theory. There's no point in entertaining you as you're just firing chaff in the air to cover a disorderly retreat back into the circumcision thread.

[Symmetry]

Meh- I stand by what I said, and it stands up regardless. If you don't want to respond, fair enough.

Correction - I cannot respond. Conspiracy theories can be neither proved nor disproved.

You've said endorsements made by 27 of the Reason staff prove their current editor is secretly operating under the control of the Libertarian Party and handing down endorsement orders (previously you said it was because he wrote a book - but you then abandoned that position when it was pointed out the 2008 editor was the co-author of the same book).

That is neither evidence, nor inference. Because it's not proved by any objective standard, it cannot be disproved, so there is no point for me to reply. It is a conspiracy theory, no different than PhatScotty saying that because Barack Obama took a class from a Marxist professor in college he's a Marxist. But I entertain PhatScotty because he actually believes his conspiracy theory. There's no point in entertaining you as you're just firing chaff in the air to cover your disordered retreat back into the circumcision thread.

Actually, I pointed out that the information about the 2008 poll was inconsistent with the 2012. You ignored that, and my point that it coincided with a change in hierarchy.

[nietzsche]

I heard today in the radio that the G20 was worried about the US deficit, and they mentioned that due the lack of agreement between democrats and republicans the supreme court could decide in an emergency plan? How can this news from the G-20 can impact the election?

I ask it here because I don't know much about it, don't want to start a thread without much facts.

This news will hardly affect the election because Americans in general are already aware of the US deficit problem.

That's interesting speculation about the Supreme Court... could you divulge more details about that?

My bad, the supreme court thing that I heard was about the election, I just found the blog transcript of it. Here is the written blog of the guy:

http://eleconomista.com.mx/columnas/col ... precipicio

He mentions that if democrats and republicans don't come to an agreement to make an adjustment in the economic policy by the end of the year there's an automatic plan in place that would both increase taxes and decrease spending and he thinks that this plan would push the US and the world further into recession.

[saxitoxin]

Meh- I stand by what I said, and it stands up regardless. If you don't want to respond, fair enough.

Correction - I cannot respond. Conspiracy theories can be neither proved nor disproved.

You've said endorsements made by 27 of the Reason staff prove their current editor is secretly operating under the control of the Libertarian Party and handing down endorsement orders (previously you said it was because he wrote a book - but you then abandoned that position when it was pointed out the 2008 editor was the co-author of the same book).

That is neither evidence, nor inference. Because it's not proved by any objective standard, it cannot be disproved, so there is no point for me to reply. It is a conspiracy theory, no different than PhatScotty saying that because Barack Obama took a class from a Marxist professor in college he's a Marxist. But I entertain PhatScotty because he actually believes his conspiracy theory. There's no point in entertaining you as you're just firing chaff in the air to cover your disordered retreat back into the circumcision thread.

Actually, I pointed out that the information about the 2008 poll was inconsistent with the 2012. You ignored that, and my point that it coincided with a change in hierarchy.

First, I was the one who pointed that out to deconstruct your theory that Reason pushes a pro-LP line.

You responded to that by firing off a new theory - that the new editor represented a change in editorial agenda-setting because he wrote a book you found on Google and you thought the liner notes of the book sounded suspicious.

I pointed out that 2008 editor was the co-author of the same book.

You responded to that by firing off yet another - and even wilder - theory. In your latest theory, you believe that the fact that the opinion of Reason's staff changed proves the new Editor-in-Chief (who was formerly the Managing Editor) has secretly been bribed/threatened/extorted/something by the Libertarian Party. To be absolutely clear, these are not claims anyone on the Left, Right or beyond have ever made. You are literally the first person to make them. This doesn't show you're an innovator, it shows you're in over your head, don't know what you're talking about and aren't very well informed.

In between all that you've just dropped and moved on when confronted with a number of very, very, very, basic factual errors and your apparent initial thought that Reason was some random blog, as opposed to one of the Big 10 American political journals.

[Symmetry]

Meh- I stand by what I said, and it stands up regardless. If you don't want to respond, fair enough.

Correction - I cannot respond. Conspiracy theories can be neither proved nor disproved.

You've said endorsements made by 27 of the Reason staff prove their current editor is secretly operating under the control of the Libertarian Party and handing down endorsement orders (previously you said it was because he wrote a book - but you then abandoned that position when it was pointed out the 2008 editor was the co-author of the same book).

That is neither evidence, nor inference. Because it's not proved by any objective standard, it cannot be disproved, so there is no point for me to reply. It is a conspiracy theory, no different than PhatScotty saying that because Barack Obama took a class from a Marxist professor in college he's a Marxist. But I entertain PhatScotty because he actually believes his conspiracy theory. There's no point in entertaining you as you're just firing chaff in the air to cover your disordered retreat back into the circumcision thread.

Actually, I pointed out that the information about the 2008 poll was inconsistent with the 2012. You ignored that, and my point that it coincided with a change in hierarchy.

First, I was the one who pointed that out to deconstruct your theory that Reason pushes a pro-LP line.

You responded to that by firing off a new theory - that the new editor represented a change in editorial agenda-setting because he wrote a book you found on Google and you thought the liner notes of the book sounded suspicious.

I pointed out that 2008 editor was the co-author of the same book.

You responded to that by firing off yet another - and even wilder - theory. In your latest theory, you believe that the fact that the opinion of Reason's staff changed proves the new Editor-in-Chief (who was formerly the Managing Editor) has secretly been bribed/threatened/extorted/something by the Libertarian Party. To be absolutely clear, these are not claims anyone on the Left, Right or beyond have ever made. You are literally the first person to make them. This doesn't show you're an innovator, it shows you're in over your head, don't know what you're talking about and aren't very well informed.

In between all that you've just dropped and moved on when confronted with a number of very, very, very, basic factual errors and your apparent initial thought that Reason was some random blog, as opposed to one of the Big 10 American political journals.

And as you indicated- the change in regime vis-a-vis polling is pretty shocking, and indicates that staff opinions changed radically post 2008.

I took the facts you gave me and changed my stance. I appreciate that it hardened my opinion- but that's what the facts you gave me said. After 2008 nobody steps out of line on the Libertarian Party front. Coinciding with the new editor taking charge.

[BigBallinStalin]

I heard today in the radio that the G20 was worried about the US deficit, and they mentioned that due the lack of agreement between democrats and republicans the supreme court could decide in an emergency plan? How can this news from the G-20 can impact the election?

I ask it here because I don't know much about it, don't want to start a thread without much facts.

This news will hardly affect the election because Americans in general are already aware of the US deficit problem.

That's interesting speculation about the Supreme Court... could you divulge more details about that?

My bad, the supreme court thing that I heard was about the election, I just found the blog transcript of it. Here is the written blog of the guy:

http://eleconomista.com.mx/columnas/col ... precipicio

He mentions that if democrats and republicans don't come to an agreement to make an adjustment in the economic policy by the end of the year there's an automatic plan in place that would both increase taxes and decrease spending and he thinks that this plan would push the US and the world further into recession.

Yeah, he's talking about "the fiscal cliff."

Basically,

(1) taxes will increase

(2) budget expenditures will immediately take place

Therefore, decreased output is expected (people will make less stuff).

[saxitoxin]

Symmetry, since you don't know very much about this, I'll do you a favor and explain it to you.

The Libertarian Party is a joke. Their average state convention consists of 30 high school dropouts in a Holiday Inn conference room making speeches at each other for a day and eating boxed lunches. They're a book club that, every four years, painfully forms into some semblance of a political party.

Separate from the LP are a number of libertarian (lowercase "L") institutions that predate the 197? founding of the LP by years to decades and have nothing to do with it. These include the CATO Institute, Reason Magazine, etc. The annual budget of the CATO Institute is $25 million. By comparison, Gary Johnson will spend $3 million on his presidential campaign this year. The former represent the intellectual mainstream of libertarian thought in the U.S., not the Libertarian Party. There is no connection between Reason and LP. I'm not going to try to prove it to you anymore than I'd try to prove Santa Claus didn't exist to a 5-year old. These are just basic facts.

If you want to continue peddling your conspiracy theories, fine. Just realize that the Libertarian Party couldn't conspire to takeover a sidewalk flower stand and you sound very silly sowing these elaborate plots.

[Phatscotty]

I heard today in the radio that the G20 was worried about the US deficit, and they mentioned that due the lack of agreement between democrats and republicans the supreme court could decide in an emergency plan? How can this news from the G-20 can impact the election?

I ask it here because I don't know much about it, don't want to start a thread without much facts.

This news will hardly affect the election because Americans in general are already aware of the US deficit problem.

That's interesting speculation about the Supreme Court... could you divulge more details about that?

My bad, the supreme court thing that I heard was about the election, I just found the blog transcript of it. Here is the written blog of the guy:

http://eleconomista.com.mx/columnas/col ... precipicio

He mentions that if democrats and republicans don't come to an agreement to make an adjustment in the economic policy by the end of the year there's an automatic plan in place that would both increase taxes and decrease spending and he thinks that this plan would push the US and the world further into recession.

yup. That was the escape clause for Obama when he was presented with a balanced budget from the house of Representatives. Rather than sign it or push the Senate to pass it, Obama said "we'll figure out it later".

America's credit rating was downgraded less than 24 hours later...

[Symmetry]

Symmetry, since you don't know very much about this, I'll do you a favor and explain it to you.

The Libertarian Party is a joke. Their average state convention consists of 30 high school dropouts in a Holiday Inn conference room making speeches at each other for a day. They're a book club that, every four years, painfully forms into some semblance of a political party.

Separate from the LP are a number of libertarian (lowercase "L") institutions that predate the 197? founding of the LP by years to decades and have nothing to do with it. These include the CATO Institute, Reason Magazine, etc. The annual budget of the CATO Institute is $25 million. Gary Johnson will spend $3 million on his presidential campaign this year. The former represent the intellectual mainstream of libertarian thought in the U.S., not the Libertarian Party. There is no connection between Reason and LP. I'm not going to try to prove it to you anymore than I'd try to prove Santa Claus didn't exist to a 5-year old. These are just basic facts.

If you want to continue peddling your conspiracy theories, fine. Just realize that the Libertarian Party couldn't conspire to takeover a sidewalk flower stand and you sound very silly sowing these elaborate plots.

I'm simply pointing out how reliable their mouthpiece is as an indicator of who the Libertarian Party thinks people should vote for.

Hint- they're all for the Libertarian Party candidate.