Libertarian Presidential Candidate a woman

submitted by GC4210 from self.GenderCritical

Just saw that it’s Jo Jorgensen for the Libertarian party. I voted Libertarian last time (please don’t make me defend the party platform, I’m mostly a moderate and politically homeless in general, it was a protest vote as I’m in a non-swing state), so I’ll probably vote that way again. Do we know who is running on Green Party platform yet?

all 6 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–][deleted] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I'm similar to you in that I'm politically homeless. I have political views that span into every direction.

Ok, I'm on the fence about her with two things. The one related to GC is "Should “gender identity” be added to anti-discrimination laws?" Her Answer: YES.

Well, she doesn't want biological males within biological female sports, but would defend the laws allowing them to be there. Is the "gender identity" issue confusing for most people? I feel like maybe I'm confused on this one or missing something.

Edited for punctuation and structure. Probably still missed things too, damnit.

[–]GC4210[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Ugh damn. It’s so hard to get anyone willing to say no though. And how can you say they shouldn’t but don’t think laws should say that?! That’s some disappointing double speak.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I think that a lot of folks would straight up shut her down if she said "no" on it. It's because of how it's strung up in the media. When most people hear anti-discrimination laws, they're going to jump on board with it because it sounds like it should be great-- plus they get those sweet ass brownie points in social groups when they get to discuss it. I'm willing to bet the grand majority of people, at least in the US, are like this. Just reading surface bullshit made to look harmless and evading the points that would piss a lot of people off, contorting their face at the thought of ANYONE not wanting to be inclusive.

Hmm, looking further in we've got: abolish minimum wage, no to tax breaks for companies to stay within the US, yes to increase in high-skilled immigrant work visas, no to affirmative action (which is going to be pretty much voided outside of possibly race for biological women if shit keeps going the way that it is), and finally decreasing immigration restrictions.

Sounds like turbo-capitalism and a perfect storm way to easily exploit the workforce of fresh immigrants while fucking over people with valid education/experience wanting living wages. We already see how corrupt the current system of capitalism is here now with monopolization hitting hard and heavy and lobbyists/big business/the upper upper class able to buy their way into whatever they want. Not regulating that when it's gotten as bad as it has might lead to good things or absolutely shit ones.

Sorry to derail a bit. I know this isn't the place for discussion yet, but I'm happy to discuss things further in the PMs.

[–]FlippyKing 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It is almost guaranteed to be Howie Hawkins, it if isn't officially declared him yet. The only other real competition is Dario Hunter. The only obstacle I can see to Hawkins is if enough Greens take issue with his being on some other socialist party's ticket or the way other candidates were excluded from events. I don't see any of that blocking him though.

I'm registered green and have voted green for two and half decades. I may vote libertarian this time, depending on Jo's views (edited a week later to add: oh hell no. Here's an example of the reasoning going on there: people should be allowed to move freely where every they wish (OK, good premise) Therefore we oppose all tariffs and barriers to trade (wait, what? That's a non sequitur.) The Libertarian Party is sticking to proposals that will solve nothing and their prioritizing of rich people's inconveniences over real problems.). Dario at first sided strongly with the green's "lavender caucus" on the idea of expelling Georgia's green party for endorsing the women's declaration on sex-based rights. He may have walked it back a bit, after the "dialogue not expulsion" petition started.

Howie apparently "misgendered" or "dead-named" some trans people and had to kiss the ring. The lavender caucus' leader Margret Elizabeth (very much, picture Dean Pelton from the show Community but apparently 'woman identifying') I think got Howie to say twaw. Greens have been pretty much trans activists, and while there are very vocal gender critical members and members who want the party to embrace diversity of opinion on the trans/gc issue, it is an uphill battle just as it is every where else where decisions and policies are made.

I think what's going on in the Greens is important, because I don't know how the roots of the greens (the very hippy/crunchy granola/earth mother goddess types-- kinda why I joined) can pretend away biological reality. I don't see how any party on the left can embrace any kind of philosophical idealism over material reality.

[–]jkfinn 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

She calls the quarantine "house arrest." She wants to make social security optional. She's for withdrawing from the Paris Climate Agreement. She's opposed to foreign aid. There are some positives but they don't seem part of larger & logical political plan. But that first point says it all... "individual freedom" over quarantine.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I saw that too! I don't know much about her yet.