So the tea party is wounded and Chris Christie is the face of (R)

[Bailey Guns]

Name one year that Republicans have been in charge where either government scope and/or spending has decreased, and I'll listen.

Think about why that's a stupid "did you stop beating your wife" question. Come on...you can do it. Let me give you a hint. It has to do with growth, expansion, etc. It's never gonna happen. I agree that gov't has too much control where they shouldn't, I agree that some republicans are partially to blame for that, and I agree that gov't spends way too much money on things they shouldn't be involved in and spending money on. But to make a blanket statement that there should be no gov't expansion and spending should never increase is as ignorant as thinking the libertarian party is the answer to our prayers.

The budget deficit was erased and we had a budget surplus when republicans were in charge of the house and senate from roughly 1998 to 2001. There were a lot of factors that went into that, of course, but it was at least partially due to fiscal restraint by republicans regarding gov't spending. You will NEVER get that with democrats. You will NEVER get that with a divided legislature. At least with republicans in charge we have a chance to get smaller gov't and less spending. You will NEVER get that with libertarians because the general population may be stupid but they're not stupid enough to vote for libertarians in large numbers. Thank God.

As to the other part of your question you'll have to define "government scope" a little better.

Now it's your turn to play that game:

Name one year when libertarians have been in charge...

Oh, wait. You can't. Because they're a fringe party and get a fraction of the vote because rational, intelligent people don't vote for them because libertarians live in a fantasy world.

Even the savior of the libertarians, Ron Paul, didn't have the stones to run as a libertarian.

You can continue to hump the libertarian leg all you want. You'll also continue to be irrelevant in the political world...just like libertarians.

[ChunkyMonkey]

^^ truth

[Aloha_Shooter]

You can continue to hump the libertarian leg all you want. You'll also continue to be irrelevant in the political world...just like libertarians.

They aren't quite irrelevant, their obfuscation helps elect Democrats. Yeah, there's a lot to argue with establishment Republicans like Dick Lugar over but "libertarians" like GM don't help fight Obamanism either, they just accelerate the decline.

[Justin]

They should be earning every vote by sticking to conservative values and stop trying to be democrat lite in order to appease everyone.

Should he get the nomination for president, I look forward to reading your impassioned justifications for why we should all vote for Chris Christie.

[Justin]

I would argue that Cuccinelli did. There's no reason that a Ron Paul loving Libertarian would have had any problem voting for him.

The problem is that I believe that the Libertarians (capital L ... as in party members) have become Political Hipsters that are more interested in eschewing the mainstream and voting for politicians you've never heard of than actually fighting to see their ideals implemented in law. Too many of them wouldn't vote for David Nolan if he had an (R) after his name (yes, I know he's dead ... but you get my point).

I have long held that the single greatest impediment to the implementation of libertarian ideals is the Libertarian Party.

In a way I think the LP is in the same morass that the GOP is in ... the party structures are out of touch with the base (and to a certain extent, reality). As long as it can be done in such a way as to not split the right of center vote, I think its time to dump both the LP and the GOP ... but we might as well make the mascot of this new party a unicorn since it's just as likely.

Accusations of political hipsterism aside, there appear to be plenty of reasons for a straight up libertarian, or even a Republican-leaning libertarian to vote against him. Hell, in this very thread people have pointed out that Cucinelli opposes birth control on the belief that it's a form of abortion.

Not only is that idiotic, it's demonstrably, factually wrong, and a deeply erroneous strategy.

Hell, let's assume that not even a single libertarian would have changed their vote for him, but think of all of the Republican women, men, and general independents who he would have driven off even (and I give him the benefit of the doubt here) if he had held beliefs half as crazy as have been attached to him.

I mean, that's some Todd Akin level stupidity right there, and as long as a Republican has even a whiff of that about them, they're going to fail to win a majority of the votes.

[Justin]

Quoted for truth. I identify as libertarian, rather than a Libertarian. Fiscal conservative, social liberal. If the GOP wants to remain viable, they need to drop the pseudo religious demagoguery and concentrate on reducing the role of the federal government in our lives, returning power to the state and local governments.

Quoted for truth.

We live in an era of crushing government debt, out of control inflation, a government that spies on its own citizens on the thinnest of justifications, regularly violates the constitution on an hourly basis, detains citizens without due process, bombs foreigners based on shady justifications, dumps hundreds of billions of dollars down a huge hole pursuing an unwinnable drug war (throwing doctors and patients alike in prison on the say-so of some DEA agent with an Associates Degree in "criminal justice", and the biggest issue the Republicans can latch onto is the fact that some gays somewhere are wearing wedding bands while ass-fucking each other, and/or that a woman opts to terminate a pregnancy before the zygote even has a nervous system?

I'm sorry, but those issues don't even rate bothering with for anyone who's under 50, and actively drive most voters away from the Republican party.

So, if the Republicans want to continue to lose elections, by all means, they should continue to nominate crackpots whose stock in trade is scaring the bejesus out of little old ladies who faithfully go to church every Sunday.

[Aloha_Shooter]

Hell, in this very thread people have pointed out that Cucinelli opposes birth control on the belief that it's a form of abortion.

Mmmm ... no, one person has alluded to McAuliffe's version of Cuccinelli's position and called it Cuccinelli's. The fact that so many establishment Republicans and self-proclaimed Libertarians keep falling for these tactics says something. We keep letting the liberals change the meaning of words, rewrite history, ignore or rewrite traditions and culture, redefine where the "center" is and then we wonder why society keeps sliding left.

Case in point, we not only let Democrats claim THEY are the center and moderates when we all know they've only gotten more extreme left-wing, people who take what used to be accepted as moderate/centrist positions loudly proclaim themselves as very conservative and vow to drive out the "moderate" Republicans. They do this even though we know a lot of people (whose votes we need) don't like to view themselves as on either edge. Fsck no, Chris Christie isn't a "moderate", he's a LIBERAL Republican (but Republican nonetheless). Fiscal responsibility, self-reliance, and moderately limited government are traditionally mainstream CENTRIST views but we let the liberals tell the uninformed public that anyone who believes in those core American values is a rightwing extremist.

Second case in point, the GOP used to be identified as true blue and Democrats were red. For some unexplained reason, this traditional color scheme that went back decades was suddenly flipped in the 1984 election. I'm not a mindreader nor party to any of the backroom editorial decisions of the 1980s but certainly the Democrats' desire to escape their traditional association with Reds/Communists is one workable theory. For whatever reason, conservatives not only accepted that sudden flip meekly but they loudly grabbed hold of it even though numerous studies have shown red conveys feelings of anger, instability and violence while blue conveys feelings of calm and stability. Instead of meekly accepting this change and talking about "red states", conservatives should have been hammering home the point that Obama, Pelosi and Reid are the Reds.

Trying to start a new party is as losing a proposition now as it was in 1912. Obama and his ilk didn't start a new Proletarian Party, they took control of the existing Democratic Party which was nowhere near as extreme 20 or even 10 years ago as it is today. Conservatives need to take control of the Republican Party and use its infrastructure to win. Liberal Republicans like Christie and Lugar need to quit sneering at Tea Party Republicans and realize we all need to band together if we don't want an Obamanation.

[Justin]

Mmmm ... no, one person has alluded to McAuliffe's version of Cuccinelli's position and called it Cuccinelli's. The fact that so many establishment Republicans and self-proclaimed Libertarians keep falling for these tactics says something. We keep letting the liberals change the meaning of words, rewrite history, ignore or rewrite traditions and culture, redefine where the "center" is and then we wonder why society keeps sliding left.

I direct your attention to this post:

https://www.ar-15.co/threads/118993-...=1#post1396969

Wherein Asmo stated:

It was all over all the TV and radio advertisements here... Couldn't go a commercial break on any local channel without hearing it.

Now, admittedly, I'm going out on a limb here, and it's possible that Asmo is lying or misinformed, but I prefer to assume he's on the up-and-up and is correctly reporting things.

Furthermore, even if Cucinelli's isn't against those things, he's on the record as a strong social conservative, something that likely drove away female voters and those who don't buy into the political machinations of the God Squad. Even some rabidly pro-gun VA voters had second thoughts about Cuccinelli as seen here at one of the best blogs for gun issues as well as political coverage in VA:

http://www.pagunblog.com/2013/11/05/...e-in-virginia/

Case in point, we not only let Democrats claim THEY are the center and moderates when we all know they've only gotten more extreme left-wing, people who take what used to be accepted as moderate/centrist positions loudly proclaim themselves as very conservative and vow to drive out the "moderate" Republicans. They do this even though we know a lot of people (whose votes we need) don't like to view themselves as on either edge. Fsck no, Chris Christie isn't a "moderate", he's a LIBERAL Republican (but Republican nonetheless). Fiscal responsibility, self-reliance, and moderately limited government are traditionally mainstream CENTRIST views but we let the liberals tell the uninformed public that anyone who believes in those core American values is a rightwing extremist.

Chris Christy is what's wrong with the Republican party, just as much as the Bible thumpers who only care about bashing gays and trying to repeal Roe v. Wade. Hell, I'll even vote for a Republican if he's pro gun and fiscal conservative first, and social conservative a distant second, but the sad fact of the matter is that most of the Republican candidates have seem to confused the church pulpit for the electoral soap box.

Second case in point, the GOP used to be identified as true blue and Democrats were red. For some unexplained reason, this traditional color scheme that went back decades was suddenly flipped in the 1984 election. I'm not a mindreader nor party to any of the backroom editorial decisions of the 1980s but certainly the Democrats' desire to escape their traditional association with Reds/Communists is one workable theory. For whatever reason, conservatives not only accepted that sudden flip meekly but they loudly grabbed hold of it even though numerous studies have shown red conveys feelings of anger, instability and violence while blue conveys feelings of calm and stability. Instead of meekly accepting this change and talking about "red states", conservatives should have been hammering home the point that Obama, Pelosi and Reid are the Reds.

No disagreement here, though I don't think that the color change was quite as concentrated a conspiracy as you think. (Though I could be wrong.)

Trying to start a new party is as losing a proposition now as it was in 1912. Obama and his ilk didn't start a new Proletarian Party, they took control of the existing Democratic Party which was nowhere near as extreme 20 or even 10 years ago as it is today. Conservatives need to take control of the Republican Party and use its infrastructure to win. Liberal Republicans like Christie and Lugar need to quit sneering at Tea Party Republicans and realize we all need to band together if we don't want an Obamanation.

The problem is that the Tea Party movement originally started as a call to arms for fiscal sanity, and about ten minutes later was co-opted by a bunch of Bible-carrying lunatics who'd just as soon handle snakes as get an immunization shot. I completely agree that the likes of Christie and Lugar need to go, but if they're going to be replaced by people who are the modern equivalent of members of the Flat Earth Society, I'm not interested in supporting them.

I have no delusions that the Libertarian party will rise to prominence, short of the Republicans completely imploding (a distinct possibility) and the Democrats screwing up so badly that their lapdogs in the media can't cover for them. That said, libertarian voters represent a distinct minority, but one that's close enough to swing elections in close races, and if the Republicans really want those votes, they should maybe stop fellating the Ted Haggards of the world and throw an occasional bone to the libertarian types.

I'm a sentient human being capable of rationally listening to the arguments in favor of voting for a Republican candidate, and I have voted for Republicans in the past, but if the R's can't muster an argument better than "OOOH DEMOCRATS SCARY SO VOTE FOR ME!" then I'm not interested. Republican scare-mongering about Democrats is just as much of a turnoff as when gun control advocates say something completely retarded and follow it up with "...and it's for the children!"

[Bailey Guns]

Should he get the nomination for president, I look forward to reading your impassioned justifications for why we should all vote for Chris Christie.

Because party trumps person. It's as simple as that. And since there's at least a chance the republicans will regain the senate and keep the house it would be very important to have a republican president. I despise Christie and Ron Paul. But if either were (or had been) the nominee I would vote for him.

It's academic anyway. Christie will not be the R nominee.

And aside from a few knuckleheads out there saying stupid things, I rarely hear republican candidates thumping their bibles or even mentioning Roe v Wade. I think way too many of you buy into this because the media constantly drums it into your heads...like the "War on Women".

Furthermore, the republican party should not become more socially liberal with their platform. That's the whole premise of "conservative" and that's why the republican party is in a shambles right now. That's also why the Tea Party is gaining more and more traction every year. What they should do is start educating the low info types that abortion and religion are ideas that should be left up to each individual state (along with a few other things, like education). I don't have a problem with a candidate saying he's pro life...like Romney. He was very clear about where he stood personally on abortion and his religion but never brought it into the campaign until forced to do so by the leftist media who then spins what he says into he's "waging a war on women".

Just as many democrats say stupid things (Hudak comes to mind) but they generally get a pass from the majority of the media. Let a republican (like Akin) say something stupid and it's 24/7 news.

[Bailey Guns]

The problem is that the Tea Party movement originally started as a call to arms for fiscal sanity, and about ten minutes later was co-opted by a bunch of Bible-carrying lunatics who'd just as soon handle snakes as get an immunization shot. I completely agree that the likes of Christie and Lugar need to go, but if they're going to be replaced by people who are the modern equivalent of members of the Flat Earth Society, I'm not interested in supporting them.

That's pretty funny considering far more Tea Party candidates have been elected to national office than libertarians ever will be.

And I think your snake-eating, Flat Earth Society characterization of Tea Party candidates couldn't be further from the truth.