Great article about 3rd party voting.

[HoneyBadger]

Your right, Perot did not withdraw in 1996, he just only recieved 6% of the popular vote, and basically ignored the 2000 election. My bad. I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about the 1992 election where he received 19% of the vote?

I do exactly understand RP's methodology, and I disagree with a lot of his ideals. SOME things I do agree with him on- like an elimination or downsizing and repurposing of the FCC and similar agencies which we no longer actually need- but his methodology is just wrong. What is wrong about it? Nevermind don't answer that. This thread needs to die.
I personally think RP would make a great advisor or counsel, but I really dont think he can actually get anything done as a President. Slight contradiction here between this and your next statement...
Hey I had forgotten about the Fed Audit bill! So I had to go look it up http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1702879.html
Yeap he got that done, with 270 co-sponsors. Only One Republican voted against it. Honestly with the current admin in the Fed I dont see how this bill could have failed. No one trusts them and their "QE" measures.

Doing nothing is a death trap. Do nothing and the debt grows and grows, unemployeement gets extended again and again, welfare is uncontrolled and Obamacare kills small and meduim business costing more and more jobs. Doing nothing does not coast us off the cliff, it launches us over it with no hope of a parachute. For the last 12 years, our presidential administration has been "doing something to fix the problem" - A problem that didn't exist. The problems wouldn't exist if they weren't messing with a functional system to begin with.

I remember these kinds of responses back when Obaloney was giving his hope and change, give me a chance, give new a chance, bullshit speeches and all the heads full of mush were eating that shit up, not the same as the old guys, something different. Yeah he was different alright. Those voters said the same thing, whats it hurt, he cant do more damage than is already done, blah blah blah. TRILLIONS in debt within days of him taking office was the first clue they were all wrong. And you're wrong too. I am wrong about what? If you really think a Libertarian would make the debt situation worse, then you clearly don't understand what Libertarianism is about, even though earlier you claimed to completely understand Ron Paul.

[HoneyBadger]

Well said. The most retarded part is most of the self-proclaimed conservatives are libertarian and just don't realize it. Take a look at the definitions some folks are throwing out in one of the other recent threads. They seem to know what they want, but are too scared or stubborn to realize they're voting for something else. I'm tired of arguing with them about it. I need to remember I can lead a person to a solution, but I can't make him think.

Bingo!

[Mazin]

Hogging up the ugly tree lmao

[Ronin13]

Well said. The most retarded part is most of the self-proclaimed conservatives are libertarian and just don't realize it. Take a look at the definitions some folks are throwing out in one of the other recent threads. They seem to know what they want, but are too scared or stubborn to realize they're voting for something else. I'm tired of arguing with them about it. I need to remember I can lead a person to a solution, but I can't make him think.

What about those of us who don't like to be pigeonholed into a political category that doesn't best suit our own self view? I agree with a lot of foreign policy ideas held by the Republicans, but on many social issues I stand behind the Libertarians. I like both for domestic policy and government, but on a couple independent things I align with the Democrats (very small number of things). But overall, I'm either typically classified as a Tea Party or Constitutionalist/Jeffersonian, and see myself closer to these ideas than the big two, and [almost big] 3rd (that would be D, R, and L).
However, I am, for voting purposes, a registered Republican.

[roberth]

What about those of us who don't like to be pigeonholed into a political category that doesn't best suit our own self view?

As I see it there is no room in the Libertarian platform for dissent, my understanding of this is proven every day on this very board. That is why I say the (L) is an exclusive party, meaning that if you don't tow their very narrow line you're excluded.

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, maybe one of the (L) people who doesn't think I'm an establishment asshole or pejorative of the day.

[HoneyBadger]

What is there to be dissentful of? Libertarian philosophy is based on principles, not whatever "values" are currently cool and hip.

[Sharpienads]

Well said. The most retarded part is most of the self-proclaimed conservatives are libertarian and just don't realize it. Take a look at the definitions some folks are throwing out in one of the other recent threads. They seem to know what they want, but are too scared or stubborn to realize they're voting for something else. I'm tired of arguing with them about it. I need to remember I can lead a person to a solution, but I can't make him think.

And you wonder why more people don't want to join your club (or maybe you don't wonder). You just called us retarded, scared, stubborn, and unable to think. We are able to think. We are not scared. Stubborn... yeah, probably some/most of us. I'm sure that we agree on a lot of things, if not most things. This election seems to be a big sticking point. I understand you arguments, but a lot of times Libertarians do come off as either whiny, better than the rest of us, unrealistic, or a combination. Would I vote for RP or GJ if they had the nomination? Absofuckinlutely. Will I vote 3d party this election? Nope. The change we all want won't happen overnight, we need to get there incrementally.

As far as what we call ourselves, one day the Libertarian party will grow and get more popular. And if/when that day comes, they will be just as corrupt as the other parties, and you'll have to find a new thing to call yourself. I know what being a conservative means to me. I can't help it if others have tarnished the label.

Just my $0.02.

[roberth]

What is there to be dissentful of? Libertarian philosophy is based on principles, not whatever "values" are currently cool and hip.

Exactly. Very narrow, unfortunately for the (L) a very small percentage of the citizenry hold those values.

We have to face the unpleasant truth that the majority of citizens want some measure of federal and state government intervention in their lives even if that intervention is detrimental. That mindset will take decades to reverse. The (L) does not have the patience or foresight to undertake that task, that is why we must work within the (R) to slowly turn that mindset back towards constitutional values.

[Sharpienads]

What is there to be dissentful of? Libertarian philosophy is based on principles, not whatever "values" are currently cool and hip.

I've heard an argument that I can't be a Libertarian if I didn't want a porn shop to be across the street from my kids elementary school. Do I believe the porn shop has every right to exist? Of course. Do I want it next to an elementary school? No.

Can I still be a Libertarian? Where do you draw the line between local government intervention and/or having a say in what goes on in your local community and having a hands off approach to government? Somebody's not going to be happy. The porn shop is going to say they have a right to build wherever they want, I'm going to say they need to pick a different spot.

[Sharpienads]

My previous post was post #69, btw.