-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Libertarian Party sends condolences to the Republican National Committee
- Thread starter GLENGLOCKER
- Start date
Barcroft
New member
imported post
The R's won't pay any attention; they never do anymore.
The R's won't pay any attention; they never do anymore.
deepdiver
Campaign Veteran
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.
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.
GLENGLOCKER
Regular Member
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.
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.
I_Hate_Illinois
Regular Member
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.'
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.'
Tomahawk
Regular Member
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.
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.
imperialism2024
Regular Member
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".
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".
I_Hate_Illinois
Regular Member
imported post
imperialism2024 wrote:
imperialism2024 wrote:
You hit the nail right on the head, boss.
swillden
Regular Member
imported post
imperialism2024 wrote:
imperialism2024 wrote:
Oh, how I wish I could argue that you're wrong.
swillden
Regular Member
imported post
Unless the voters are stupid, they'llUnless the voters are stupid, they'llUnless the voters are stupid, they'llTomahawk wrote:
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.
Unless the voters are stupid, they'llUnless the voters are stupid, they'llUnless the voters are stupid, they'llTomahawk wrote:
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.
Doug Huffman
Banned
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 KMA$$
Democracy is the rule of fools by fools. Let's be no greater fools than we must.
The LP's stand is principled and easily rejected by conservatives (paleo-conservatives if you will call the GOP conservative).
Conservatism can't be 'sliced and diced three different ways' because that's for feel-good moderate leftists. A conservative is fiscally conservative, socially conservative and conservative on foreign policy. Which is to say frugal, mean and isolationist.
Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA KMA$$
AbNo
Regular Member
imported post
GLENGLOCKER wrote:
+1
Looking at the current crop of candidates with an R next to their name, I honestly have little hope for the next election.
GLENGLOCKER wrote:
+1
Looking at the current crop of candidates with an R next to their name, I honestly have little hope for the next election.
Prometheus
Regular Member
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.
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.
Doug Huffman
Banned
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.
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.
swillden
Regular Member
imported post
Prometheus wrote:
Prometheus wrote:
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.
imperialism2024
Regular Member
imported post
Doug Huffman wrote:
Doug Huffman wrote:
Not to mention that a .45 probably won't penetrate such a thick skull. Hell, a .44 magnum probably wouldn't do it...