Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: Libertarian Party sends condolences to the Republican National Committee

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    VA Beach, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    558

    Post imported post

    Thought folks wouls get a chuckle at this.

    http://www.lp.org/media/article_564.shtml

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    6

    Post imported post

    The R's won't pay any attention; they never do anymore.



  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    If they won't listen to their base, they aren't going to care what the libertarians say. Maybe the libertarian party will learn from the GOP's failures, adjust their more radical aspects of the platforms slightly to be more palatable to a broader spectrum of Americans like the Dems did (in other words, lie to the sheep a bit) and become a competitive party for the right reasons. I am more libertarian than republican, especially pertaining to gun rights, but they always fail to tell the anarchist and pot smoking arms of the party to sit down and shut up so the adults can get on with restoring our freedoms a bit at a time at a pace the sheep can cope so they don't stampede.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    VA Beach, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    558

    Post imported post

    So diver what your saying they should compromise there beliefs? That's what's wrong with both the major parties. You have the GOP embracing McCain and Romney who are actually liberals. Also you have the Dems embracing Jim Webb who is more conservative then 99 percent of the GOP candidates for president.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Joliet, Illinois, USA
    Posts
    237

    Post imported post

    Glen, I think what diver is saying is that in the case of the libertarian party, they need to put the more mainstream and electable candidates in the forefront of the party rather than the extremist tips of the their wingspan of beliefs. Just like how you don't see the GOP candidates come right out and say 'We back the rich, **** everyone else' or the Democrats saying 'We want to control every facet of your existence because you are too stupid to', you cant have the Libertarian candidates coming out saying 'Smoke weed and have as little government as possible.'

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    I like libertarian ideas, but I'm with Ron Paul when he says that the system isn't set up for third parties to make much headway, and hasn't been since before the Civil War. Face it, if a guy as popular as Teddy Roosevelt couldn't get elected on a third party ticket, the best Ross Perot or Ralph Nader or anyone else could hope for is to be a spoiler.

    The religious right had the best strategy: pick one of the two establishment parties and infiltrate it. By playing their cards right, they managed to make the religious right wong of the Republican Party one of the most influential for the past genertion. Right now the neocon wing is running the show, perhaps the Goldwater/libertarian/Paul wing could make inroads in the future.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    Unfortunately, the GOP is listening to their base. Their base is mainly concerned with shipping gays and immigrants on one big boat out of the country, and then selling off their empty homes to pay for various wars around the world to "protect our freedom" while creating a police state here to make us feel "secure".

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Joliet, Illinois, USA
    Posts
    237

    Post imported post

    imperialism2024 wrote:
    Unfortunately, the GOP is listening to their base. Their base is mainly concerned with shipping gays and immigrants on one big boat out of the country, and then selling off their empty homes to pay for various wars around the world to "protect our freedom" while creating a police state here to make us feel "secure".
    You hit the nail right on the head, boss.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Firestone, Colorado
    Posts
    1,189

    Post imported post

    imperialism2024 wrote:
    Unfortunately, the GOP is listening to their base. Their base is mainly concerned with shipping gays and immigrants on one big boat out of the country, and then selling off their empty homes to pay for various wars around the world to "protect our freedom" while creating a police state here to make us feel "secure".
    Oh, how I wish I could argue that you're wrong.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Firestone, Colorado
    Posts
    1,189

    Post imported post

    Unless the voters are stupid, they'llUnless the voters are stupid, they'llUnless the voters are stupid, they'llTomahawk wrote:
    I like libertarian ideas, but I'm with Ron Paul when he says that the system isn't set up for third parties to make much headway, and hasn't been since before the Civil War.
    Hasn't been, ever. There may have been some early anomalies, but it's a mathematical fact that any winner-takes-all election system has a powerful bias in favor of a two-party system. It's pretty easy to see this intuitively: As a third-party begins to rise in power it will draw most of its support from whichever major party is ideologically closest, strengthening the party that is more ideologically distant. Voters quickly realize that voting for their preferred third-party canditate will just put the major party they dislike the most in office. The result is two parties and lots of voters casting ballots for the lesser of two evils.

    Lots of people tout the Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) method used in Australia, among other places, as a solution. Unfortunately, it doesn't work either. It does allow third parties to rise to prominence, but the same strategic-voting effect occurs when the third party gets close to actually being competitive. It does have the advantage that it allows third parties to get mainstream attention to their ideas, though.

    What would work is the mathematically-best Condorcet voting method or the slightly inferior, but still very good Approval voting method. Like IRV, Condorcet has each voter rank the candidates in order of preference. So, you could list RP first, then McCain, then Obama, or whatever. For that matter, with ranked methods there's really no reason to require a primary -- McCain, Romney, Giuliani and Thompson could all be on the ballot, and you could rank them right along with Democrats, Libertarians, etc.

    The Condorcet pairwise evaluation method assures that your very best strategy is to vote your honest opinions, and it assures that the most-preferred candidate will win. Condorcet even satisfies a weakened form of Arrow's Independence of Irrelevant Alternatives criterion, making it a nearly perfect method, mathematically. Condorcet's only downside is that it's a bit hard to understand. Given how many voters can't quite grasp the Electoral College process, that's a problem.

    Approval voting, where you can vote for as many candidates as you like, and you simply mark all of the ones you 'approve', without ranking them, is almost perfect in how it de-strategizes voting, but has the disadvantage that it doesn't allow you to say that you prefer A over B, but find both of them acceptable. So it correctly accounts the information you provide, but doesn't allow you to provide as much as ranked ballot methods. It does have the advantage, however, that it is fantastically easy to understand: the winner is the candidate with the most approval votes. Some variations add a caveat, that if no candidate has at least 50% approval the election has to be re-run with new candidates, but that's optional.

    Unfortunately, the founding fathers didn't have the insights provided by modern mathematics, or they would almost certainly have set up a different system, and I think the results would have been better. Then again, no democratic system, whether direct democracy or a democratic republic, can avoid the "bread and circuses" problem of an uneducated or apathetic electorate that votes against their own true best interests.

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Democracy is the rule of fools by fools. Let's be no greater fools than we must.

    The LP's stand is principled and easily rejected by conservatives (paleo-conservatives if you will call the GOP conservative).

    Conservatism can't be 'sliced and diced three different ways' because that's for feel-good moderate leftists. A conservative is fiscally conservative, socially conservative and conservative on foreign policy. Which is to say frugal, mean and isolationist.

    Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA *******

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Shenandoah Valley, Virginia
    Posts
    3,806

    Post imported post

    GLENGLOCKER wrote:
    So diver what your saying they should compromise there beliefs?
    +1

    Looking at the current crop of candidates with an R next to their name, I honestly have little hope for the next election.
    Why open carry? Because 1911 > 911.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    NW Indiana, Indiana, USA
    Posts
    248

    Post imported post

    Reminds me of this:


    McAmnesty is going down in flames come Novemember. I doubt he'll break 40% of the vote against HillBamma.

    Considering the mess bush has left us, it's better for the GOP to have a wake up call in Novemember and let the dems ride this sinking ship down for the next 4 years. Assuming we make it another 4 years with the dollars current free fall.

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Plus one, sorry to say. Great image that I have passed around.

    But look at the ignorance of the hypothetical M1911, the GOP can't even blow its brains out properly with an SA pistol not cocked (or as Leo might say, half-clocked). Phui, wotta buncha maroons.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Firestone, Colorado
    Posts
    1,189

    Post imported post

    Prometheus wrote:
    Considering the mess bush has left us, it's better for the GOP to have a wake up call in Novemember and let the dems ride this sinking ship down for the next 4 years. Assuming we make it another 4 years with the dollars current free fall.
    Given the way Bush has been spending money and driving up the federal deficit, the dollar's free fall may be the thing that saves us. Inflation is how the government can screw its creditors while appearing to be a responsible debtor. Not that it won't be painful, but given the situation our nation is in, overloaded with debt at every level (personal, municipal, state, federal) we're in for a painful comeuppance regardless. You can only live above your means for so long.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    But look at the ignorance of the hypothetical M1911, the GOP can't even blow its brains out properly with an SA pistol not cocked (or as Leo might say, half-clocked). Phui, wotta buncha maroons.
    Not to mention that a .45 probably won't penetrate such a thick skull. Hell, a .44 magnum probably wouldn't do it...

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •