10 thoughts on “Jo Jorgensen Wins Libertarian Party Presidential Nomination”

  1. I’m sorry, but any party who seriously considers a candidate named Vermin Supreme maybe should not be considered a serous party. The Libertarians would do much better to NOT include folks of that demeanor or tenor as a candidate.

    They originally had 20 some odd folks (some odder than others) under consideration, and V.S. was one of them. The fact that he was considered in the top 6 is startling.

    And Don usually says the LP should not run Presidential candidates, but start at local levels. That may be sound advice. But it seems his party of choice doesn’t listen to reason. -IMO

    Like

    Reply

    1. And then there is the VP nominee, Spike Cohen, who wrote …”but as an individual candidate my policy is anarchy.””

      Not exactly a winning strategy. Also, IMO.

      Like

      Reply

  2. I did not participate in the convention. I do not believe it is productive for us to run Presidential or Gubernatorial candidates until we first secure seats in the State legislatures.

    Like

    Reply

    2. Understood. But will you vote for her? Why or why not?

      I was ready to get behind Amash. This woman out of nowhere–I’m not so sure.

      I wish the party had stronger marketing. Even something as simple as a high-quality portrait of the candidate would go a long way toward building credibility.

      Like

      Reply

      1. I will follow my previous policy and vote swap 4(possibly 6) votes for ms Jorgenson in LA for my vote for Trump here. LA is a certain win for Trump. VA is in play

        Like

        Reply

          1. He seems to think that getting people in LA (his family) to vote for the Libertarian candidate while he votes for Trump will ensure … family shenanigans that have zero to do with the election.

            Like

  3. Jo Jorgensen’s platform includes her approach to poverty:

    https://joj2020.com/issues-jo-jorgensen/

    “The real cure for poverty is a vibrant economy that generates plentiful jobs and high wages, combined with an affordable cost of living.”

    That makes sense. The issue is that our “vibrant economy” has been dependent upon low wages and high costs of living where the jobs are. This has been true since Reagan and the ensuing dismantling of unions and retirement funds Paired with a shift in tax policies favoring wealth and corporate buyouts that destroyed jobs.

    And this is true no matter who is president, including the current officeholder. Even after 2 years of the lopsided tax cuts, 42% of jobs paid at or less than $15/hr. And that is the new minimum wage conservatives are ranting about, but not yet a reality.

    What has happened is that we have kept wages so low that half the people don’t earn enough to pay taxes and the rest have had tax cuts. With the tax base so small, based on shifting most profits from labor to investors, we cannot even pay our bills or, as we now know, weather a recession sans huge debt loads.

    So Jorgensen has the right idea, but certainly nothing new. As a corporate nation, we refuse to recognize that the value of a broad based middle class far outweighs an impressive DOW. if for no other reason that it spreads the obligation to fund our nation over the entire working population. Instead, the big money is hiding in plain sight, but minimally, if not completely, non-taxable in creative ways here and abroad.

    In summation, Jorgensen is more pie-in-the-sky promises with no realistic path to fiscal responsibility.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

Leave a reply to lenrothman Cancel reply