...Quote:
Originally Posted by Bailey Guns
Soooooo...because you said it was a possible scenario it ceases to be name calling? Is that what you are trying to say?
...Quote:
Originally Posted by Bailey Guns
Soooooo...because you said it was a possible scenario it ceases to be name calling? Is that what you are trying to say?
Oh, FFS. I said it was possible the libertarians might be the delusional types. Happy? You really wanna pick out that one statement out of all the others to prove your point? Knock yourself out.
One big authoritarian thing I've noticed is how both of the big parties don't consider voting to be a right or an honor, they only see it as a way to game the system to get what they want. That is the epitome of authoritarian way of thinking. As a person who likes freedom I don't see an authoritarian party system losing votes because a small number of people vote for good candidates to be a bad thing.
I don't see the two things as being exclusive of one another. Having the honor and right to vote does not exclude that people are doing so only to get what they want. I believe most if not everyone who casts a vote is doing so to get something that they want. If we never got anything we wanted from the voting process (a disincentive) eventually, intelligent people would stop voting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Artema
Gaming the system, which could alternately be described as using strategy (good or bad) to get elected is sort of like using scientific principles to improve your advertising campaign.
I have no dog in this argument Libertarian vs Republican vs Democrat vs Green vs MLP party. I vote for candidates who will do what I want them to do (like that ever happens). Right now, I want the party most likely to not destroy my country, state, and community quickly, to control the government. I don't for a minute believe that any candidate actually believes or supports all of the things on their party's platform. I don't like election campaigns but I am happy to have a say about who gets to represent me.
If you aren't in it to win it, you won't.
The math is very simple.Quote:
Or you can whine, moan, have a chip on your shoulder, and act like you "teach anybody a lesson" which has been real successful in the past.... forever, for you. Yeah, getting 1% of the vote makes people respect you, clearly. Your candidates will never be electable and your arguments will never change. Basically, you have the same logic as progressives. But hey, at least you believe in something.
Republicans have lost in Colorado, and in many cases the number of votes cast for libertarian candidates has been larger than the vote spread between the loser Republican and the winner Democrat.
Clearly there is an impasse here. Republicans want to win.
Libertarians want to vote for candidates who represent their views.
It strikes me as patently obvious that many Republican candidates could easily pick up a significant number of libertarian-minded voters by reaching out to them directly, interacting with libertarian groups and leaders, and, I know this is probably expecting too much, but even adopting some of their stances on policy issues.
This isn't exactly rocket science. Political candidates catering to the interests of a particular constituency in order to earn their votes is, so far as I can tell, a pretty time-honored tradition in the United States. That some Republicans need to be told this doesn't strike me as something likely to engender confidence in the GOP.
lol, too true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Justin
I honestly don't believe such a thing is really possible... Gipper did put it best: "The nearest thing to eternal life we will ever see on this earth is a government program." - Ronald Reagan.Quote:
Originally Posted by bryjcom
And to all these folks who continue voting for Libertarian candidates thinking it will somehow one day change... How's that been working out for you? Again, Gary Johnson .9% of the vote, Hess 1.8% of the vote. Isn't the definition of insanity doing the same thing over and over expecting different results? When one way doesn't work, it's probably time to step back, reassess your tactics, come up with a new plan and give that a shot. I think throwing a candidate on the ballot, and then saying "You republicans aren't winning us over by insulting us," isn't working. I don't think you'd ever allow the republicans to win you over. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Tough, both sides of already thrown rocks. The Libertarians are claiming that the republicans are calling them lazy and delusional. Are you guys so free from fault? I think it was the libertarians that continue to spout "The lesser of 2 evils is still evil." So when someone calls someone else evil, getting called lazy and delusional in return somehow makes them the ones who are at fault? I hear criticism on both sides. But one thing I don't hear from the libertarians (don't get me wrong, who I support) is any attempt to try new tactics or even try to work with the republican party to make things better.
And what will the libertarians accomplish once they do finally get someone elected? You think the Rs and the Ds are just going to welcome them into the fold with open arms and listen to what they have to say? I doubt we'll see a Libertarian president or governor anytime in my lifetime, but I don't doubt they'll make it into congress... at which point they'll be 1 vs 99 who don't see things the same way in the senate, and 1 vs 434 in the house. What exactly will they accomplish? They'll be that one voice of dissent, silenced by the rest.
You make some pretty bold assumptions and are jumping to impossible-to-make conclusions here. You really think that Libertarians just don't agree with anyone about anything? lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Ronin13
So how many taxes and regs could we eliminate to get the Federal Government the size it was in 1890 ... or better yet 1790? :DQuote:
Originally Posted by bryjcom
Since you're a card carrying member of the GOP you should be able to answer this yourself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin13