The world's full of paradoxes, apparent contradictions that can be resolved by redefining terms. It's wasting our time to talk about contradictions without explaining them.

"What you describe is like if I were to go to church every Sunday to tithe and pray"
Sometimes I suspect that's half the people who go to church, and I agree that is a contradiction. :)
I don't go to the "church" of political parties or candidates. I haven't signed on to any domga or creed. I try to think for myself and accept the world as it is.

I agree with the all the first part. The last sentence is just mindless ad hominem.

Can you understand better if I take a rude self-righteous tone?
[CG trying to be a self-righteous jerk]Quit buying into political salemens' narratives and do something to make a positive change. How can you claim to be an objectivist when you are actively undermining liberty?

No. My being a jerk probably won't explain anything. Objectivism and liberty are not venues for me to be self-righteous. They're too important for that. They're not the natural state for humankind, either, so we need to put constant effort in to maintain them.

It's normal that we won't accept each other's program 100% b/c we're not the same people. If you think step 1 in increasing liberty is to first get everyone to agree on every details, there will never be a step 2. This is true for any group but esp liberty-minded people who tend to think for themselves.

All the big candidates "respond" to "supporters" lobbying. The bigger the donation of support, the more likely the response will be positive. The things that matter, i.e., the limited powers as specifically described in the constitution and amendments (especially 9 and 10) are defied and the oath of office ignored.
You have proven through your admitted choices of candidates, and repeatedly voting for Obama, that you have no interest in accomplishing what you claim are your goals.

You're kidding right?

You claim to be an Objectivist. You claim to be a libertarian. Then you claim to have voted for, campaigned for and raised money for obama and intend to do the same for clinton. Pick a side cg.

Why?

Yes, but I don't think small donors can have much influence on the president. So going to there events may be a good way to meet business people but it probably will not help influence policy.

Gary Johnson, Ron Paul and obama and clinton. Contradictions.

What is that contradicting?

I like meeting libertarians, but at those events I'm primarily looking for people looking for help with electronics/technology or law.

I do not know Hillary at all. She comes off as a ruthless politician, but I haven't researched her that closely.

Since we're dreaming, how about Gary Johnson or Ron Paul on a sci-fi anti-aging drug.

The economy contracts for two quarters in 2016, but somehow people remember how the banking crisis peaked in 2008. People were so hopeful for change, and they feel disappointed to be back in a similar situation, with the 6-year expansion being anemic, 1% less growth than a typical expansion. Maybe the president and gov't can do anything about it. The pendulum swings to a Republican, who has a scandal, leading to a libertarian candidate.

This candidate uses the precedent of expanded executive power to cut gov't programs or force them to do nothing even if the president cannot shut off funding. The president uses these powers to declare some of the Gulches that are forming open-trade zones with lower taxes and regulation. He publically refutes critics claims that they are just places for money laundering, drug running, tax evasion, and human trafficing. He even hints that the ones that come up with good policies might be a model for other places.

After a few years, large companies invest in the Gulches. It becomes politically hard to undo what happened in the early 2020s. States are more and more forced to give up power and control.

Well said Rich. +1 for truth and rationality.

like President Obama? Hilary Clinton?

You have stated that you will campaign for and raise money for clinton. A contradiction yet again cg.

Why go to an event? We all know Hillary well enough by now. I will never vote for her for President or dog catcher or anything else. The people you would meet at an event like that would not even be close to Libertarian. It doesn't make sense.

"he was going to campaign and raise money for hillary"
I probably will go to at least one event. My primary motivation will be just to meet people. At my level of contribution, no one close to the president is even going to know who I am. That's not so for Congress, so going to the events can actually make a difference. With Hillary there's a chance, though, because I know people who have worked closely with her in the past.

This is why you get the contradiction flag CG. What you describe is like if I were to go to church every Sunday to tithe and pray. It would be a contradiction because I'm an atheist. If I don't believe in God, why would I actively take my time and energy to support 'God's work'? Would it make any sense for an atheist to do that? I think you can see the contradiction there. Check your premises. Either there is a belief somewhere in there or there is a lie.

I go to candidate fundraisers, not party fundraisers. It is never b/c I think there's a mainstream candidate with a plan to reduce size/intrusiveness of gov't. I certainly don't think the mainstream parties are going to do that. I want someone who responds to supporters' lobbying on specific measures.

This is meaningless unless you say what.

I remember it was around 03 when Kerry was winning against Dean, Clark, and some other people for the Democratic nomination.

I stopped believing in the parties steadily over the next few years. That does not mean I stopped voting or lobbying mainstream candidates. I just stopped believing either mainstream party would increase liberty.

He would help his cause if he would occasionally disagree with her and Obama.

I agree, I think if these idiot R,s nominate Jeb they might as well start saying Madam President or Her Highness Hillary.

Somehow that logic didn't apply forever when the Republican Party was born in the 1850's. It is tough to start a new party, but not impossible. Ross Perot might have won had he not folded like a cheap tent when exposure of his daughter's reputation was threatened in 1992.