I don't think it is an oversimplification. I think you are making some over simplified libertarian purity test. Even at the most conservative estimates, the numbers clearly show there are many more libertarians than vote for libertarian parties (or donate to, which is a reasonable if not ideal proxy for donations by libertarians I would say).

Your original point doesn't stand, many libertarians support Republicans. It's truly weird logic that you (begrudgingly) accept that libertarians vote for Republicans, and yet you think any other form of "active" support would be out of the question. Doesn't make any sense. If a libertarian wanted to be active in politics it's quite reasonable to think many would support the same candidates they vote for.

Your strong bias and attitude showed in your other comment on Clinton and Bush as pathetic warmongering neoliberals. It is not incorrect. However to bring those up and exclude Trump or any other very high up politician of the two parties of not being the same thing except some are neoconservatives (which is close to neoliberals), is telling.

Your gaslighting tactics have become more pronounced now too. I never begrudgingly accepted what you stated. I believe I had an apt example. A person identifying in good faith as a socialist isn’t going to be supporting establishment Dems like Thiel and Rand Paul and similar “libertarians” do for their counterparts. I believe you or someone else brought up The Squad. Which has an easy response - the socialist supporters of theirs are not them. The Squad are also not socialists. They are progressives or democratic socialists. Affiliations with differences that are bigger than neolibs and neocons, imho.

I see this is likely about the well worn tactic of conservative [republicans] not identifying as such. Leftists don’t have a pattern of hiding this way. OTOH, there are countless examples of traditional belief right wingers who continue to do this. Supporters around them will continue to dig their heels in saying this facade is not so.

All of this fits with your belief that it is not an oversimplification to label centrists, center-left, neoliberals, progressives, hard leftists, and further on the left all as liberal.

Reality is not "bias" and disdain for warmongers is not "attitude". Sorry you feel that way, it really shows in the rest of your comment.

And if you didn't accept that, it wasn't gaslighting it was a mistake on my behalf. I thought you did -- you still honestly don't believe many libertarians vote Republican? The data just doesn't agree with you, so either you're willfully ignorant of it or using some no true libertarian fallacy.

> see this is likely about the well worn tactic of conservative [republicans] not identifying as such. Leftists don’t have a pattern of hiding this way. OTOH, there are countless examples of traditional belief right wingers who continue to do this. Supporters around them will continue to dig their heels in saying this facade is not so.

That's all based on your no true libertarian beliefs that don't match reality though.

> All of this fits with your belief that it is not an oversimplification to label centrists, center-left, neoliberals, progressives, hard leftists, and further on the left all as liberal.

I have no such belief.

Since you bring them up, many people in the above categories from centrists to communists vote for and support the Democratic party. That doesn't make them not-a-hard-leftist, not even though many of them actually describe the Democrats as a right wing party and claim to dislike many of their policies! I don't know why you have such a mental block about libertarians who support Republicans.

> no true libertarian fallacy

The fallacy is about something specific. Not this. Is it a fallacy to say the Workers Party of Korea lead by Kim Jung un isn’t socialist? Or the PRC isn’t socialist?

> warmonger

Trump didn’t leave Afghanistan. After spending his entire campaign and presidency talking about how amazing he was for being against Iraq and seeing mistakes made this century.

Did he do anything to help out in the Middle East? Yemen continued being pillaged by America thru Saudi. Same with Palestine.

Trump did the pointless escalation of the Iranian general murder too.

That was my point. I said Trump was excluded in my last comment too. I also said it’s not incorrect to say they are warmongers.

> I have no such belief.

You linked to the two sites with studies/data, no? You bring up that data in other parts of your comment. They combined everything listed as liberal. I questioned that and you didn’t have an issue with it.

I’d like to see any non tiny portion of socialists or any one more to the left, support Dems. Voting for is not supporting.

Dem[s] and especially lib[eral] are used as pejoratives frequently in those circles. makes supporting the Dem party contradictory.

You said many will describe Dem party as right wing. How would they be supporting the party then?

So again it’s not the same thing. Your words like “mental block” saying I am stubborn. I understand if you believe those things about socialists and communists then you will not believe IMO more accurate critiques and accountability of a number of the people who say they are libertarians

—

Since it has been two days, a response might not happen. My tldr overall pt: many of the identifying libertarians aren’t as such. Prime example is some one brought up already - Rand Paul. The far left not wavering on their principles so much like supposed libertarians is telling.

This is just going in circles and all over the place. You seem to be upset about Trump and very upset I called his opponents what they are -- warmonger scum. Obama too, and Biden historically although if he's been forced away from wars by Trump's withdrawal plans and anti war rhetoric I'll take that as a great win and proof you don't have to hold office to effect political change.

And the no true libertarian fallacy is that you're saying people aren't libertarians based on your purity tests. You have failed to show why Thiel is not a libertarian: your examples (military and border control) are completely wrong.

And again, I have no such belief. How do you equate data with me believing that ridiculous thing you wrote.

Finally, you're playing semantics with the whole "voting is not supporting" thing. I know you have no argument without that, but voting is literally supporting. That said, even with your semantics, leftists certainly support Democrats. I haven't bothered to look up studies but everywhere I look I see it, on here, reddit, leftist politicians like Sanders, political donation data, and people I know. And you're just claiming without any data that leftists don't support democrats and libertarians don't support republicans. Both wrong.

I’ve stated already to you. Bernie is a social Democrat. My examples were socialists and communists. You switched to leftists. And again I already brought up this Bernie point before. You say semantics then you shoehorn in leftists when I have never brought leftists up. Just sub groups of leftists.

I don’t care if voting is technically supporting. It is obvious I mean support more than vote. Like Thiel does. This is something that has been consistent on my end and other people who responded to you in this thread.

You continue to restate something I then said fine to (military, border control). I said immigration and something else. You didn’t reply to that. You repeated something I did not argue against once you stated it. Why bring it up again?

—

How oh how am I “very upset” about what you said about his opponents? I said I did not disagree. How is saying that being very upset?

At this point every single thing I wrote in this comment shows you have repeated things or said things that have already been addressed. Then you take someone saying they do not disagree with your assessment on trump’s “opponents” (How are Bill Clinton and George Bush his opponents? So this isn’t true you didn’t bring up his opponents) as being very upset with it.

Yes I am upset with Trump. I am also upset with Clinton and George Bush. Obama too. Biden too.

> Biden historically although if he's been forced away from wars by Trump's withdrawal plans and anti war rhetoric I'll take that as a great win

Key word “if”.

Everything on your end has been seemingly done in bad faith. I listed all of this throughout this comment.

> And you're just claiming without any data that leftists don't support democrats

This was never said. More bad faith.

> And the no true libertarian fallacy is that you're saying people aren't libertarians based on your purity tests.

Reply to what I said. Is North Korea’s workers Union Les by Kim Jung Un, socialist? Is rhe PRC Govt communist as they say they are?

> going in circles

Yes because you like in this past comment keep regressing. Bringing up things as if they haven’t been brought up. Changing my words multiple times. Wild conjecture like being very upset with Trump opponents being called out when you didn’t even bring up his opponents. Regardless an incredible statement for someone who dislikes every one you have brought up.

Once of us is going in circles in bad faith. Which does not allow me to continue as nothing I say is actually properly responded to.

There is no reason to continue this as it doesn’t appear you can overcome issues like in the last comment.