The only other way (besides your scenario) is for someone exceedingly famous to run on a 3rd party ticket. Your scenario is the most likely, as unfortunate as that is.Quote:
Originally Posted by TFOGGER
The only other way (besides your scenario) is for someone exceedingly famous to run on a 3rd party ticket. Your scenario is the most likely, as unfortunate as that is.Quote:
Originally Posted by TFOGGER
https://achoels.files.wordpress.com/...wman-light.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by davsel
who's doing the strawman here? Name ONCE that has happened.Quote:
Originally Posted by PugnacAutMortem
You know, strawman, whatever, the reason that most of us are on this website is because we appreciate and embrace our 2nd amendment rights. Every vote that allows dems to stay in power, in colorado in particular, just empowered and encourages the left to push for more gun control. Their fear of losing power is what has kept new gun control off the the agenda since the recalls. Hick retains office, Bloomberg and the left see it as a sign that they can shove more gun control down our throats, and we won't stand up united against them.
Jesse Ventura immediately comes to mind.Quote:
Originally Posted by 68Charger
H. Ross Perot, 1992. His bid is often cited as a factor in Clinton's win, as he beat Bush in a number of states.Quote:
Originally Posted by 68Charger
The libertarian party would have more votes if people stopped voting for the lesser of two evils.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave_L
The "two evils" are what gives us the current system. Until people realize that, we're fucked.
Just a small observation I'd like to point out:
Many here throw around terms like "authoritarian" and "lesser of two evils." But answer me this: which is more effective and easier to accomplish- voting in a Libertarian among a mix of democrats and Republicans? Or trying to push in libertarianism among a republican majority? I see many more correlations with Republicans (err conservatives) and libertarians than I do with progressives and libertarians. Call me crazy.
See, the thing is, if the Democrats and Republicans were more libertarian leaning, then both sides would support the constitution, including 2A, and I honestly feel like either of the two parties was very evil, and we could focus on real politics, rather than anti-American laws all over the place.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin13
Any vote that allows for continued election of Marxists is a lost vote. I'd rather oppose Establishment Republicans from within than give Socialists who have already taken over the education and judicial systems more "official" powers to invoke "change". There are certainly bad statist Republicans but even the worst of them isn't as bad as the mildest Democrat who continues to enable the Obama/Pelosi/Reid agenda.Quote:
Originally Posted by Artema
But We've GOT to do it this time or the world will end.
He was Independent, not Libertarian... But an example nonethelessQuote:
Originally Posted by PugnacAutMortem
I take it back, he was reform party... So he is an example of a 3rd party exploiting pop culture..
Now we just need a famous Colorado resident to run for Gov under the Libertarian party, shouldn't be too hard to find, right?
Perot was not very famous until he ran, AND he lost... We're looking for examples where a Libertarian won because they were famous.Quote:
Originally Posted by TFOGGER
Dude, I don't know what rock you were living under but H. Ross Perot was pretty damned well known before he played the spoiler and gave Clinton the plurality. I supported him for the Republican primary over Bush I but once he went third party, he gave the election to the Dems and they knew it. Evidence came out later that the Dems pulled some dirty tricks to make Perot believe the Bush's had run some dirty trick against his family in order to keep him separate and sucking away Republican votes.Quote:
Originally Posted by 68Charger
It's not a matter of Libertarians winning, it's a matter of them or other independents sucking away or depressing GOP votes and thereby handing the elections -- and power -- to theSocialistsCommunistsanti-AmericansDemocrats.
To flip the OP, I can't see why any thinking person would vote Libertarian in an election where their vote could actually count (i.e., if you're in San Francisco, LA, Detroit, or NYC then it probably doesn't matter so go ahead and make your protest).
Very would be the operative word- he was well known in business circles, but as pop culture goes, your average Jane/Joe didn't know him until he started using his catch phrases in debates.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aloha_Shooter
The American public has the attention span of a gnat on crack. Unless he was on something like a reality show, probably 50% of the population won't know who he is.
I'd also submit that the "very famous" part has to come from OUTSIDE politics, and probably from outside business...
I could name a dozen very famous politicians that would have zero chance of winning on a 3rd party ticket... and any businessman is going to be doomed by the "he's one of the 1% fat cats" game that the Dems play, and apparently the American public will play into class warfare easily.
If you want change in the way our government is currently set up (two party system), and you don't vote for the change (3rd party..Libertarian or anything else) then you continue to perpetuate the problem. I despise the idea that a vote not for R or D is a wasted vote. How in the hell do you ever expect anything to change if you aren't willing to put your nuts on the line and vote for who you believe will actually bring change? I actually should use the word reform instead of change.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aloha_Shooter
Artema actually said it best...if the Republicans and Democrats as institutions would just lean more libertarian then I wouldn't have any problem with the setup we have now. It's not possible unfortunately because there has to be division in order for things to function in this system.
And if you think that a few votes for a libertarian candidate will change anything, you're badly fooled- and playing into the Demoncrat play book...Quote:
Originally Posted by PugnacAutMortem
you think the Democrats look at election results, see a double-digit vote for the Libertarian and say "Damn, we'd better move our policies towards the center"? [facepalm][hahhah-no]
They look at those results, and will say "great, that helped us win that election"
Or do you believe that the general population will see those results, and decide that maybe the Libertarians are popular enough to start paying attention to?
Because your average American doesn't give 3rd parties a second thought without something to grab their attention.
Let's discuss the farce that is the Electoral College. Electors are not constrained to vote in accordance with the popular vote in their state, nor are they apportioned in accordance with that vote. Under the current system, a candidate can win as few as 12 key states, and still accumulate the 270 votes necessary to win the presidency. Perot garnered over 20% of the popular vote in 1992, but received not a singe electoral vote. Somehow this is a representative republic?
True. But the Libertarian party has received an (one) electoral vote for President/Vice President. And the first woman to receive an electoral vote (for Vice President) was a Libertarian. Not that it's likely to happen again- the two big parties vet their electors much more now.Quote:
Originally Posted by TFOGGER
Unfortunately, I don't see any evidence our two party system is going away any time soon. Therefore, why not work on changing the platform of the party you most align with.Quote:
Originally Posted by PugnacAutMortem
Welcome to the Tea Party.
Party platforms have drastically shifted over time. Work within the party to shift it in the direction you would prefer. It may never reach full-on Libertarian, but a third party candidate will never win a major election in our lifetime.
Wasted vote.
Are you kidding? Tea Party is full of bat-poop insane wackos. The original informal Tea Party with Ron Paul is not what exists today. If they pretended to do what they claim to do a fraction of a percentage of the time I still wouldn't vote for many of those nutjobs. And Rand Paul is a PINO. Paul In Name Only! As of now I vote based on the candidate, not the party, so I wouldn't be against voting for someone affiliated with them, just not the main wackos.Quote:
Originally Posted by davsel
People are different and they often do not agree on goals or methods to achieve those goals. When they do agree, they form alliances of like minded people to accomplish goals using methods they can agree upon. When those goals and/or methods clash, alliances are broken. Political parties are just one such example of these alliances. Political parties are not empowered by or required by the US Constitution. I have never sworn allegiance to or ceded any of my authority as a citizen to any political party.Quote:
Originally Posted by PugnacAutMortem
I do not believe everyone will ever agree on any one thing. If such a thing were ever to happen, I personally would expect that the apocalypse was imminent.
Libertarian is not the same as libertarian. You probably already know that one is a party and the other is an idealogy. I assume that not all Libertarians are libertarians.
The Electoral College is defined and authorized by the US Constitution. This is the Constitution that many of us have sworn to uphold and defend. The role and make up of the Electoral College has been redefined over time through the amendment process and I would hope that if citizens have ideas on how to make the process better, they work within the Constitutional methods as provided to do so.
Be safe.
I believe you don't understand what l̶i̶b̶e̶r̶t̶a̶r̶i̶a̶n̶i̶s̶m̶ the Tea Party is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Artema
All this party talks reminds me of this scene:
http://youtu.be/KnpnYAId6dU
I know what it IS, and what it is supposed to be. I'm a fan of the tea party movement, not the Tea Party.Quote:
Originally Posted by davsel
The enemy of my enemy is my friend. So yes, the republican party has work to do but if we dont all join our efforts, dems will continue their pathway. Let's work on defeating the dems first, then focus on the republicans.
You've just proven my point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Artema
Congratulations?Quote:
Originally Posted by davsel
The alternative is countries with parliaments, where after the election they do all the horse trading to see who gets to form the government. Works well in smaller countries, not so sure it would work here. Often it fails and it's election day again.Quote:
Originally Posted by TFOGGER
Although, you always do seem to get the fights that break out and generally bad behavior which can be really funny to watch.
I did not leave the party, the party left me, and I will not back a party because they're only half bad and the other party is HALF bad.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave_L
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
I have joined the Republican Party solely to vote in primary elections where it seemed like there was a shot at influencing those primaries. I did the same thing with the Democrat Party a couple times although my primary selections generally lost. I'm a pretty firm independent but it is generally most logical and effective to steer the GOP toward independence and smaller government than to keep giving the reins to the ultimate big statist government types by "voting conscience." For that matter, I don't accept the premise that the Libertarian Party is necessarily the choice of conscience. Many of the planks appear to be more anarchist than anything else and while the Founding Fathers did not envision or want a huge statist government, neither did they believe in complete anarchy. The Constitution set up laboratories of freedom and empowered states to set their own rules but left freedom of travel so the best ideas would eventually win. Furthermore, the 19th century national security view of many Libertarian candidates like Ron Paul is unworkable in an environment with the quick and free travel available since the mid-20th century.
As far as "the party left me", that's true for moderate Democrats like Ronald Reagan in the 1950s and 1960s but the GOP has never been for the Libertarian wet dream advocated so claiming the GOP "left me" is utter BS. In fact, the reason TR was hated so much by Establishment Republicans in the late 19th and early 20th centuries was that he led the fight to break down totalitarian and winner-takes-the-spoils corrupt government. Sound familiar?
Side note here for any of the Libertarian folks on here: we are having an election night event at the Fox and Hound in Lone Tree (9239 Park Meadows Dr, Lone Tree, Colorado 80124) starting at 1800, so come on by and have a drink and watch results, meet some of the candidates (including myself), eat foods. Whatever. I'm the guy with a scruffy regrowing beard and plugs in my ears!
Attachment 51737
Facebook event link here: https://www.facebook.com/events/278291349026541/
I am a libertarian, and I find neoconservatives and RINOS offensive, and the people who populate the religious right to be creepy and weird.
That said, for the first time since I voted for GWB I put aside my animosity for the Republican party and voted for that sad collection of pachyderms, bedside for the first time since the left wing take over of Colorado, it feels like there's a chance of throwing the leftists out of power.
And if the recall elections taught me anything, its that there's nothing quite like the sense of schadenfreude one gets from reading the twitter feed of a leftist authoritarian the day after they're tossed out of office.
Curious, what is your opinion on pure Anarchy (assuming that's what the Libertarian party is built off on as you surmise) versus what we currently have or where we are trending towards?Quote:
Originally Posted by Aloha_Shooter
I need to preface my post: Now, while I align much more Libertarian these days than republican, one thing I keep seeing constantly from libertarians (especially libertarian groups on FB that a friend of mine constantly shares) is this whole idea that D and R are both different sides of the same shit sandwich. I always thought this was the most stupid, lazy thing ever. If both parties are essentially the same, then how come they can't agree on anything? How come they both stand for different things? I understand that there are several repubs (McCain, Graham, etc) that it seems are less and less right-leaning these days, but give me a break! There are actually a lot of republicans who want smaller government, want us to butt out of people's lives, and really truly give a rats ass about securing the border. Meanwhile, saying they're the same as the dems, when clearly, if the dems took over completely, this country would be fucked in a week; whereas I honestly don't think we'd be too bad if we had an R takeover (I mean completely unopposed- not enough D votes to stop any legislative decisions)... I feel there are enough of us that are conservative enough, and liberty minded enough, that IF republicans ever got back full control, both house and senate, and the White House, we would be able to keep them in line. Because we all know that demonrats don't listen to conservative constituents.
It's because the parties themselves both grow government- what they SAY is irrelevant when their actions lead to more laws, growth of the government (in budget, power, and actual number of departments and employees)Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin13
True, but that's a very narrow idea there. On the whole, yes, they both grow government, but the thing is they both don't grow it in the same ways. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for shrinking government, and ideally this will happen before it gets too big and to a massive tipping point to where it will be impossible to reduce the size. Conversely, if we're going to have government grow I'd rather it be in the direction of R instead of D... I seriously see more minimum wage BS and crap like that coming if the D's continue to win. At least we won't be paying for everyone else as much under more right-leaning rule.Quote:
Originally Posted by 68Charger
Which is why at the federal level, I support the divided government. As long as neither party has enough power to pass legislation, the government growth and interference is kept at a minimum. Eventually, something will have to change the course of this train because I believe there is a cliff somewhere down the tracks. I just don't know how far, but I sure don't want either party adding coal to the fire.Quote:
Originally Posted by 68Charger
I am a fiscally conservative with more libertarian social policies... but firm belief in the constitution and the bill of rights as our founding, and guiding document.. (throw those out and I am loading firearms)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin13
Basically, their roads lead to the same place- but the scenery is different along the way...[dig]
I normally see my republican vote against the Stupid progressive BS that wants to make America just like Europe