Serious Question...how can you possibly NOT be a libertarian?

[PugnacAutMortem]

Therein lies the problem: The libertarian movement is too small to be taken seriously by most voters, but the movement needs voters to consider them a viable choice to grow. The other alternative is that the major parties finally put forth such horrendous candidates that a significant number of voters can no longer stomach voting for the lesser evil, and choose instead to take a chance on the unknown quantity.

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.

[PugnacAutMortem]

Here is an historical list of all the countries throughout the world that currently have or have had a Libertarian form of government:

[68Charger]

The only other way is for someone exceedingly famous to run on a 3rd party ticket. Your scenario is the most likely, as unfortunate as that is.

who's doing the strawman here? Name ONCE that has happened.

[DenverGP]

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.

[PugnacAutMortem]

who's doing the strawman here? Name ONCE that has happened.

Jesse Ventura immediately comes to mind.

[TFOGGER]

who's doing the strawman here? Name ONCE that has happened.

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.

[bryjcom]

So what's the libertarian party's plan to take control of the political landscape? Just keep pounding the street in hopes it one day gains enough momentum to overturn the current 2 party system?

The libertarian party would have more votes if people stopped voting for the lesser of two evils.

The "two evils" are what gives us the current system. Until people realize that, we're fucked.

[Ronin13]

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.

[Artema]

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.

[Aloha_Shooter]

A vote for an authoritarian is a lost vote. I don't see that an authoritarian Republican is different than a different authoritarian. Maybe both sides will see enough lost elections due to good candidates screwing things up that they'll attempt to get good candidates themselves one day.

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.