Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Angelino97
It is a bit comical that several state-level groups are rejecting the perverted nominee. I don't know the history of the party but I don't recall any party's state-level organization rejecting the national party choice. Maybe that happened during the 50s and 60s in the south? Libertarians should have skipped nominating a candidate and called on their members to simply vote for Trump. Even their national party chair is publicly toying with a Trump vote.

Maybe this election cycle will break up the Libertarian party into traditional libertarians and the social pro-perversion and drug libertarians. The former are really in line with Trump and MAGA Republicans.

3 posted on 06/15/2024 8:16:18 AM PDT by Reno89519 (Build the Wall, Deport Them All. No amnesty for anyone.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Reno89519
The Libertarian Party has a bit of a tradition rejecting their national nominee. In 2000, the Arizona LP rejected Harry Browne and ran L. Neil Smith for president.

And there is currently an effort to create a new libertarian party, called the Liberal Party.

Ironically, the Liberal Party was founded by the "Oliver Chase wing" last year, because they thought the LP's Mises Caucus was too far to the right.

7 posted on 06/15/2024 9:34:28 AM PDT by Angelino97
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson