Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
1/25/2018 7:38:29 AM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 8/1/2002 10:24:51 AM EST
Another post sparked me interest in this question. I was formerly a Republican and the last 2 years or so I have more or less converted over to Libertarian. I am still registered GOP but am definitely more Libertarian. My question is this. We all know that it is nearly impossible at the current stage of U.S. politics to get a third party such as the Libertarian party elected. However, many people argue that since the Libertarians won't get elected anyway, that you might as well vote GOP since otherwise you are hurting the chances of the GOP getting into office and indirectly helping the Demorats. However, if all Libertarians just voted for the GOP anyway, then the Libertarian party will never get into office. I plan on voting Libertarian but I am not 100% sure. I want to help the party but at the same time I may be indirectly hurting myself Should I as a Libertarian vote GOP anyway? I'd like to think I can make serious progress by helping support the Libertarian party but these days I'm not so sure. For now I lean Libertarian and am going to vote for the candidate who I want in office, regardless, but let me know what you guys think.
Link Posted: 8/1/2002 10:31:09 AM EST
America is roughly 60% conservative, 40% liberal. Since Repubs and Libertarians split the conservative vote, they'll ALWAYS lose to the Liberals if they continue their infighting. This was abundantly proven in teh election and re-election of WJC. Bush 36 Clintoon 42 Parrot 22. Bush + Parrot beats Clintoon, but not if they can't play nice. On one hand, I'd hate to ask you to violate your conscience and vote against your libertarian leanings and vote Repub. On the other hand, you gotta live with it if you don't.
Link Posted: 8/1/2002 10:33:12 AM EST
What if all us libertarians registered Libertarian but voted GOP, until the number of registered Libertarians reached a more promising number?
Link Posted: 8/1/2002 10:35:55 AM EST
Yes...absolutely you should vote Republican, if that is you feel strongly about the rights and freedoms we all cherish. Face reality...the Libertarians, for all of their good ideas have no chance of winning. On the contrary, voting for the Libertarians has exactly the same effect on the Republicans as the Greens have on the Donkeys: Every vote for either non-major party is a vote for the opposition. Sorry...but that's just how it is. I know this is going to lead to teeth gnashing and tons of vitriol...I can hear liberty86 warming up his keyboard now...but there's no getting around it. [stick] Sometimes we really do have to make compromises in life. On the other hand, you can vote for the Libertarians, and if the Dems return to power in the house, maintain the senate and God forbid, retake the White House, then you'll REALLY have something to bitch about. (Sometimes I think some of us more vocal "Libery-arians" really like that. Keeps the blood pumping.) Good luck...it is a decision only you can make. Think it over.
Link Posted: 8/1/2002 10:41:41 AM EST
The key for the Libertarians is to get electable candidates on the local and state ballots, get them elected at that level and gradually gain name/policy recognition. Without that, the Libertarians will never have electable candidates for House, Senate and Presidential elections. In such a case, a vote for them is a vote for a Dem. Vote your conscience at the local levels and vote Republican at national levels for now.
Link Posted: 8/1/2002 11:02:40 AM EST
The Democrats have their own problem with the Greens drawing off votes. Depending on who runs for Pres. next term, I may end up voting Libertarian. I have concluded from the current administration that (except for gun rights) my rights as an American mean no more to this administration than they would to a Gore administration. I'm one of those voters who cast my "protest" vote for Perot. I swore not to do it again. Now I'm not so sure. I wish like hell that the Libertarians could field a viable candidate. Unfortunately I don't think they can. Overall, I'm pretty disgusted with the whole thing. I want "NONE OF THE ABOVE" on the ballot. THAT would get MY vote.
Link Posted: 8/1/2002 11:07:24 AM EST
[b]"a vote for a Libertarian is a vote for a Democrat"[/b] First, there is not discernable difference between Republicans and Democrats. Republicans are no more interested in personal freedoms than Democrats are. The sooner America realizes this the sooner we can affect REAL change. Second, America’s two party system is an illusion. The differences between Republicans and Democrats are crafted to keep up the illusion the two parties are fundamentally opposed. They are not. America has steadily lost freedoms the past 40 years no matter who held the majority in congress or the executive branch. Third, the "struggle" between the "two parties" have effectively kept third parties out of American politics for the past 40 years. As long as Americans vote Republican simply to defeat the Democrats (or vice versa) Third parties will be effectively locked out of politics. Those of you who do so are fighting the battle and loosing the war. Republicans and Democrats offer America corruption, wealth redistribution, and exchanging freedom for false safety as usual. I vote Libertarian at all levels. The time to vote Libertarian is now. America will not last much longer under the current ONE party system.
Link Posted: 8/1/2002 11:08:59 AM EST
simple answer--vote for the candidate that does what you want...period....
Link Posted: 8/1/2002 11:08:59 AM EST
Post from KBaker -
I have concluded from the current administration that (except for gun rights) my rights as an American mean no more to this administration than they would to a Gore administration.
View Quote
If the Bush Administration respects gun rights I don't give a rat's rear what other things they might do! Support for homosexual marriage wouldn't keep me from voting for them again! Eric The(LibertarianRepublican)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 8/1/2002 11:11:08 AM EST
"If the Bush administration...." Eris said IF and we all know it ain't so.....
Link Posted: 8/1/2002 11:11:52 AM EST
Originally Posted By EricTheHun: If the Bush Administration respects gun rights I don't give a rat's rear what other things they might do! Support for homosexual marriage wouldn't keep me from voting for them again! Eric The(LibertarianRepublican)Hun[>]:)]
View Quote
In a rudimentary, twisted sort of way, this is exactly correct. Once gun rights are gone, whatever else you beleive is irrelevant, cuz ALL the other rights will be gone as well. ESPECIALLY the right to vote. "These are the times that try mens souls....."
Link Posted: 8/1/2002 11:16:59 AM EST
Link Posted: 8/1/2002 11:20:45 AM EST
The great thing about only one vote is your vote means very little, especially in the presidential election. I vote Libertarian to convince the Republican party to remember us. If the GOP knows they have gun owners vote all the time, they won't do anything for us. They must remember that they have to earn our vote. Sunsetting the AW ban would get me to vote for George Bush II.
Link Posted: 8/1/2002 11:24:40 AM EST
Mr. Eswanson...this is what they said...have they done anything about it...sadly no.....
Link Posted: 8/1/2002 11:25:08 AM EST
Originally Posted By SS109: The great thing about only one vote is your vote means very little, especially in the presidential election. .
View Quote
Were you in Botswana from Nov 2000 - Feb 2001???? Hint: Florida vote counts.
Link Posted: 8/1/2002 11:25:21 AM EST
Originally Posted By eswanson: I believe it is the official position of the Bush administration that the 2nd Amendment confers an individual right, which is pretty much what we want. So the current administration does support "gun rights".
View Quote
How has the official position translated into repealing bad gun laws?
Link Posted: 8/1/2002 11:26:50 AM EST
Originally Posted By hound: Mr. Eswanson...this is what they said...have they done anything about it...sadly no.....
View Quote
Still, that is more than we have had in the last 40 years. Including Ron Reagan, and DUbya's daddy. Is it enuf? No. Will I give credit where due, and hope / exert pressure for more? Yes.
Link Posted: 8/1/2002 11:29:56 AM EST
Link Posted: 8/1/2002 11:37:21 AM EST
Originally Posted By eswanson:
Originally Posted By markl32:
Originally Posted By eswanson: I believe it is the official position of the Bush administration that the 2nd Amendment confers an individual right, which is pretty much what we want. So the current administration does support "gun rights".
View Quote
How has the official position translated into repealing bad gun laws?
View Quote
Last time I checked, under our system of government the legislature repeals laws. The executive branch just can't do it on a whim. I'm surprised all those Libertarians who have been successfully elected to the legislature aren't working on it. Oh...never mind.
View Quote
Lets look at the Libertarian track record when they get there. For now I am holing the Republicans who tout freedom yet do little to foster it accountable.
Link Posted: 8/1/2002 11:37:29 AM EST
Originally Posted By markl32: First, there is not discernable difference between Republicans and Democrats. Republicans are no more interested in personal freedoms than Democrats are. The sooner America realizes this the sooner we can affect REAL change... ...Republicans and Democrats offer America corruption, wealth redistribution, and exchanging freedom for false safety as usual. I vote Libertarian at all levels. The time to vote Libertarian is now. America will not last much longer under the current ONE party system.
View Quote
I think you may have hit the nail right on the head. This idea that the R's give a hoot about our rights is easily shown to be nonsense by what is happening to the BoR right now. And a smaller government? Puh-leeze! Has anyone grown the gov't faster than Ronnie Raygun and his *cough* spirtual son Dubya? Now, lots of D's are starting to rethink their anti-gun stance. The differences between the D's and R's grows smaller every day. I think there are individual D's and R's that are ok, but the sum of their efforts just takes more of our money and makes our lives worse. I am VERY inclined to vote L this time. At least I won't have to hold my nose as I vote...
Link Posted: 8/1/2002 11:40:42 AM EST
Oh that's it...because the people in power SAY that they are against something they should stay in just because they talk a good game....the time for talking is over...with they events in Iraq, Israel, and in New york...I think the time to run your mouth is over---not you the politicos---I do not want to hear one more speech about how we are going to do "something" I want to turn on the news and here that today at 1:00 Mr. Saddam was called onward, I want to hear that today at 4:30 the President decided that gun-laws are unconstitutional and they are forthwith rolled away, and I want to hear that at 3:30 today Mr. PLO was involved in a major fire in his headquarters....any ONE of these would Guarantee re-election...do you doubt this?
Link Posted: 8/1/2002 11:41:58 AM EST
Link Posted: 8/1/2002 11:44:02 AM EST
Link Posted: 8/1/2002 11:54:28 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/1/2002 11:59:13 AM EST by Benjamin0001]
The only way that this can be handled fair and square is to have Two election when two candidates are cut from basically the same cloth. A ballot which includes A Republican and a Libertarian is suicide for the conservative platform. It doesn't advance the cause it hurts it tremendously. The only solution when there is a third party candidate is to have two primaries, and then a final vote for office. This really needs to be a national issue as it is of such dire consequence that failer do to this will not only not allow a third party ever to hold high office with any regularity it also hinders the advancement of all prevailing ideologies and Democracy, also by Extention it hinders the Republic itself. And actually is just pure folly as it comes down to a mathematical certainty. No message is ever sent because your opponent invariably creames you when this scenario is present at the ballot box.
Link Posted: 8/1/2002 11:57:47 AM EST
Originally Posted By eswanson:
Originally Posted By markl32: Lets look at the Libertarian track record when they get there. For now I am holing the Republicans who tout freedom yet do little to foster it accountable.
View Quote
Okay. But I'm not about to cast a vote that has little practical effect other than to help a Democrat in the meantime. Especially not in an important state-wide race like the Illinois governor's race, which is how all this got started.
View Quote
You are fighting the battle and loosing the war by voting "against" a Democrat. You are rubber stamping business as usual in the one party system. Check your premises! -yours in the spirit of debate!
Link Posted: 8/1/2002 11:59:17 AM EST
My question is this. We all know that it is nearly impossible at the current stage of U.S. politics to get a third party such as the Libertarian party elected. However, many people argue that since the Libertarians won't get elected anyway, that you might as well vote GOP since otherwise you are hurting the chances of the GOP getting into office and indirectly helping the Demorats.
View Quote
Hiya Mister Greens. Good question! I myself am definatley a libertarian. I vote for them whenever I get the chance. Anyways, here are my thoughts on your question: the only difference I see between Republicans and Democrats is Republicans pretend to care about taxes, but don't do anything about it and democrats are more honest about wanting all your money. You can listen to all these goobers on the board telling you that Republicans will save the country, but if that's so, how is it that George Bush Sr. put through the biggest tax increase to that point in America? Remember "Read my lips?" Dubya saddled us with the biggest welfare bill for farmers we've ever seen and put steel tariffs on so now we can all pay extra taxes on cars and refridgerators. Bush also pushed for the Patriot act so any of these jokers telling you that Republicans will protect your rights are fooling themselves. Back to finances--so King George sent every tax payer a $300 check. Big fucking deal--300 measly dollars is supposed to convince me that all of a sudden, my tax burden is so much less? Maybe I can use that $300 extra bucks to help cover the inflated price of buying a car with the steel tarrifs! Or maybe the $300 he so graciously returned to me will help me afford the artifically high prices at the supermarket that the welfare farmers are shipping out! What about the other thousands of tax dollars they stole from me? Anyways, this is turning into a rant here, but the point that I'm making is both republicans and democrats lack priciples and both of them will screw you. Libertarians have their problems, too. I was actively involved in the local Libertarians fow a while, but I have to say that even though the libertarian philosophy would benefit anyone willing to work for a living, the only people I saw at the meetings were a bunch of eggheads. Don't get me wrong, they were nice people and very honest, but they were NOT very charismatic, as a general rule. The libertarians sorely need people who can persuade, lead and inspire people. And since the Libertarians are still so small, Mister Greens, your talents funnelled into the furtherance of the libertarian cause will have a much greater impact on the movement than your talents funneled into the republicans. If you keep supporting the republicans, then they will keep doing the same shit that they have been doing. There is no reason for them to change, because not enough people vote their principles or vote for what they believe. Dubya meekly proposes to privatize something like 2% of the social security tax income. Oh wow! What a brave, conservative leader. Vote for what you believe in, not what the crowd is voting for, or nothing will ever change. Republicans, like the Democrats don't give a goddamn about your rights. Libertarians are the only ones who argue for smaller government and mean it. To support the Republicrat party is to support the status quo. -Nick Viejo.
Link Posted: 8/1/2002 12:02:41 PM EST
Link Posted: 8/1/2002 12:05:40 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/1/2002 12:05:55 PM EST by Benjamin0001]
It is the Libertarians themselves who should be championing a two primary election process. Is it is the only way that they will have of getting into office. Ben
Link Posted: 8/1/2002 12:09:46 PM EST
Originally Posted By MisterGreens: Another post sparked me interest in this question. I was formerly a Republican and the last 2 years or so I have more or less converted over to Libertarian. I am still registered GOP but am definitely more Libertarian.
View Quote
I was worried about bumping the 3500 character limit, so I ended my previous writing early. This is a new topic anyways. The other thing to consider, Mr. Greens, is do some soul searching about why you're voting. People on this board will jump on my shit for saying this, but your vote doesn't really matter. I see you are from Florida, so you're a good example. Let's suppose, last election you voted for the opposite presidential candidate that you really did. In other words, if you voted for Bush, let's suppose you voted for Gore in '00. Not a goddamn thing would be different today because you voted for Gore. Voting is really just a feel-good exercise and any individual voter doesn't make any difference. Even though I know it's fruitless, I myself vote, even in off-year elections just to feel good for a few minutes but anything you or I do in the voting booth won't make a lick of difference. So as long as you're doing something that will not impact the outcome of the political race, you might as well vote for what you truly believe. I myself, if I can't support any of the candidates on the ballot, I will just write in "No Confidence." All you people who want to vote, "None of the above" can do the same thing. In the British political system, the Parliament has a vote of "No Confidence" when they want to jettison the prime minister. I think it's a nice crossover to our system to write it in. -Nick Viejo.
Link Posted: 8/1/2002 12:22:29 PM EST
Originally Posted By eswanson: Fine, but the Illinois gubernatorial election is one "battle" that we Illinois gun owners can't lose! That's the problem. We in Illinois may very well lose the war by losing this battle, and that's why I'm concerned that the Libertarians being in the race will take votes away from a Republican candidate who actually has a chance of winning. That is my whole, entire problem with Libertarians. Not their philosophy, personalities, or anything else. Just that in this instance, their presence in an election that they have [i]no hope[/i] of winning could have some very nasty consequences.
View Quote
Will the Republican Governor deliver all that you are hoping for? Historically they have not. I understand you delema, I truly do. You have a lot of work to do in your state. At some point you will have to cut your losses and vote your conscience. If I understand correctly the Libertarian out there, Cox(?), is a good guy.
Link Posted: 8/1/2002 12:24:03 PM EST
"Perhaps you're operating under a misunderstanding of how the government works. I don't think the President decides what laws are unconstitutional and "rolls" them away." I'm sorry what? Shrub and Asscroft decided to strip anyone they wanted to of rights and imprison them and you say he can't do this?
Link Posted: 8/1/2002 12:39:59 PM EST
Originally Posted By EricTheHun: If the Bush Administration respects gun rights I don't give a rat's rear what other things they might do! Support for homosexual marriage wouldn't keep me from voting for them again! Eric The(LibertarianRepublican)Hun[>]:)]
View Quote
Eric, if I thought the Bush Administration's "support" for my right to arms wasn't just a flag to wave to get votes, I'd agree with you. However, I'm sure that, should it come to it, Bush & Co. would find a perfectly "legal" reason to strip us of that right in the name of "public safety." I don't trust 'em. Period.
Link Posted: 8/1/2002 12:46:47 PM EST
Link Posted: 8/1/2002 2:44:36 PM EST
Originally Posted By eswanson: I believe it is the official position of the Bush administration that the 2nd Amendment confers an individual right, which is pretty much what we want. So the current administration does support "gun rights".
View Quote
That is almost correct, Ashcroft also said "with some restrictions as to keep some types of weapons out of the wrong hands"? Physo's, mentally desturbed, bank robbers, killers, rapists, and of course Honest citizens. I gather this to mean "no change just leave things as they are" Brady, NICs, tax stamps,...etc
Link Posted: 8/1/2002 2:58:19 PM EST
Originally Posted By garandman:
Originally Posted By hound: Mr. Eswanson...this is what they said...have they done anything about it...sadly no.....
View Quote
Still, that is more than we have had in the last 40 years. Including Ron Reagan, and DUbya's daddy. Is it enuf? No. Will I give credit where due, and hope / exert pressure for more? Yes.
View Quote
Yea, Ronny movie star Reagan gives us a Perminant Machine Gun Ban with no sunset, Daddy Bush's ban on non sporting (68 gun control act)import guns create's all kind of grey area's you can't even count. Klinton takes the Ball (sorry Monica) from Daddy Bush and tries the Domestic thing, AW and Mag ban, at least it may sun-set. This is the only case I have seen that we might get AW's and Mags back. Is it my imagination but is it just the Republicans that have the most power at the time the one's killing the Republican party? Correct me if I am wrong but 35 Republicans in the house voted for the AWB but no one said anything about that.
Link Posted: 8/1/2002 5:07:56 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/1/2002 5:19:52 PM EST by MisterGreens]
Originally Posted By SS109: The great thing about only one vote is your vote means very little, especially in the presidential election.
View Quote
I wouldn't be so quick to gesture that. I was an absentee ballot from Broward County in 2000 (a disputed vote!). Even though my vote didn't win the election, don't ever let anyone tell you that your vote doesn't count. I voted Bush in 2000 but I wondered. Nick Viejo, you give excellent advice. Although my mind was pretty made up already, you helped. I am going to vote for my favorite candidate, probably Libertarian this time.
Link Posted: 8/2/2002 4:00:35 AM EST
Link Posted: 8/2/2002 4:11:24 AM EST
Link Posted: 8/2/2002 4:32:33 AM EST
Originally Posted By LWilde: Yes...absolutely you should vote Republican, if that is you feel strongly about the rights and freedoms we all cherish. I know this is going to lead to teeth gnashing and tons of vitriol...I can hear liberty86 warming up his keyboard now...but there's no getting around it. [stick] Sometimes we really do have to make compromises in life.
View Quote
[:P] Thanks LWilde! MisterGreens, a vote of conscience is [b]Never[/b] a wasted vote! Imagine asking Washington, Adams, Franklin, Paine, or Henery the same question? I've said it before; Republicans=Tweedely-dee, Democrats= Tweedely-dum. [size=1][b]I am not a libertarian!!![/b][size=1] [url]http://www.ustaxpayers.org/[/url] Either tweedely-dee, or tweedely-dum will ALWAYS be president unless we vote for others. The republican party is, and has been moving further left for years. One look at GWB and Ted Kennedy sharing the stage on the "Education" bill, or Bush's signature on "Campaign Finance", should convince anyone not in outright denial. The only way for them to learn is for them to see voters voting for a real Constitutionalist.
Link Posted: 8/2/2002 5:06:38 AM EST
Originally Posted By garandman:
Originally Posted By EricTheHun: If the Bush Administration respects gun rights I don't give a rat's rear what other things they might do! Support for homosexual marriage wouldn't keep me from voting for them again! Eric The(LibertarianRepublican)Hun[>]:)]
View Quote
In a rudimentary, twisted sort of way, this is exactly correct. Once gun rights are gone, whatever else you beleive is irrelevant, cuz ALL the other rights will be gone as well. ESPECIALLY the right to vote. "These are the times that try mens souls....."
View Quote
Gun rights mean NOTHING if there is no willingness to use them. If that's what it takes, 5-6 million of us must say "bring it on".
Link Posted: 8/2/2002 5:09:26 AM EST
Originally Posted By eswanson: I believe it is the official position of the Bush administration that the 2nd Amendment confers an individual right, which is pretty much what we want. So the current administration does support "gun rights".
View Quote
The only reason they did this is so the Supreme Court would not hear the case. They did not want it made the "law of the land"...
Link Posted: 8/2/2002 5:14:04 AM EST
Originally Posted By eswanson:
Originally Posted By hound: I want to hear that today at 4:30 the President decided that gun-laws are unconstitutional and they are forthwith rolled away,
View Quote
Perhaps you're operating under a misunderstanding of how the government works. I don't think the President decides what laws are unconstitutional and "rolls" them away.
View Quote
Perhaps YOU are. The President can tell the "Regulators", through his Attorney General, how to "interpret" the laws...
Link Posted: 8/2/2002 5:16:37 AM EST
Originally Posted By eswanson:
Originally Posted By markl32: You are fighting the battle and loosing the war by voting "against" a Democrat. You are rubber stamping business as usual in the one party system. Check your premises! -yours in the spirit of debate!
View Quote
Fine, but the Illinois gubernatorial election is one "battle" that we Illinois gun owners can't lose! That's the problem. We in Illinois may very well lose the war by losing this battle, and that's why I'm concerned that the Libertarians being in the race will take votes away from a Republican candidate who actually has a chance of winning. That is my whole, entire problem with Libertarians. Not their philosophy, personalities, or anything else. Just that in this instance, their presence in an election that they have [i]no hope[/i] of winning could have some very nasty consequences.
View Quote
[b]GOOD!![/b], If that is the only way for them to get the message, so be it!! Maybe if enough people in your state resist the law they'll get the message.
Link Posted: 8/2/2002 7:37:03 PM EST
Ok... First of all, a disclaimer: I'm more Republican than Libertarian, although I do agree with some of their philosophy. As I see it, the Republicans are the only hope we have to keep the US from becoming a European-style 'Socialist Democracy'. 1) Yes, 30-some Republicans voted for the AWB in 94 (just before the Dems lost Congress). However, how many voted to repeal it in 1996? 2) The MG ban was a (IIRC Dem sponsored) rider on an otherwise semi-usefull bill (IIRC, the FOPA repealed some of the more onerous GCA provisions). Reagan most likely decieded not to 'throw out the baby with the bath water', and signed it... 3) Ashcroft has a history of being 'pro-gun', and the GOP has been traditionally 'lax' on the rights of accused criminals in the same way that the Dems have treated the 2nd Ammendment. Then again, I have a 'Tin Foil Hat Quotient' between 5 and 10 (on a percent-scale). 4) On a national level, getting GWB in may have done more for gun rights and conservative issues than you can immagine, in terms of judicial nominees. The types of justices that Bush will appoint are more likely to rule in favor of an individual right to own guns, or the unconstitutionality of 'requiring payment of a tax and refusing to accept it' (MG ban) than the other alternative (Al Gore nominating flaming-liberal judges... Or worse, Clinton the Second (because some 3rd party candidate GreNadered the GOP)... Just think...). If you think there's 'no difference' between dems and reps, just look at who they appoint ('stealth' judges excepted, I believe one or 2 'conservative' nominees have turned out to be leftists). Regan, Nixon, and Bush Sr's court is getting old. We need GW to replace them 4) On the state level, yes Ventura won (but he's a one-term-wonder). However, from what I read of the state of Illinois gun laws, a Dem governor is a high price to pay for a symbolic vote. Voting your conscience is a noble theory, but taking the lesser of two evils is a pragmaticly correct approach. Up here in WI, we're not quite that bad, but if McCallumn looses, we'll be out a chance at CCW for another 6 years or so, and guess which party is set to raid the hen house? Begins with L... On the note of primaries, how about if local Libertarian candidates ran as GOP, but on a Libertarian platform. It would be better for US conservativisim in general, and maybe it would even popularize their platform some more. A Liberpublican is much better than a Demopublican, IMHO (and since it's possible to be a 'Liberal (I mean Moderate) Republican' in some states (*cough* Jeffords *cough*)), this would be more effective than running AGAINST the GOP in the general election....
Link Posted: 8/2/2002 11:34:08 PM EST
Originally Posted By liberty86: a vote of conscience is [b]Never[/b] a wasted vote! Imagine asking Washington, Adams, Franklin, Paine, or Henery the same question? I've said it before; Republicans=Tweedely-dee, Democrats= Tweedely-dum. Either tweedely-dee, or tweedely-dum will ALWAYS be president unless we vote for others. The republican party is, and has been moving further left for years. The only way for them to learn is for them to see voters voting for a real Constitutionalist.
View Quote
Liberty86, in a similar thread I posed a reply to your views along with a question for you but you ignored it. Let me try again = [b]And where would third, fourth or fifth party candidates take us????? [/b] Consider this: 1) Bush can't even get moderate conservatives appointed to the Federal Courts or Supreme Court. What chance in HELL do you think your "independant-party" President would have to get ANYONE approved by the Senate and appointed to the courts? 2) Bush has (apparently) the full support of Congress in deploying troops overseas to fight Al Qaeda. Just WHAT do you suppose your "independant-party" President would have to give up in order for Congress to "go along" with anything he'd want to do militarily or internationally (like pulling out of the UN, securing the borders, etc.)? 3) Bush has some VERY competent, rational and qualified people around him (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice etc.) who have the connections and widespread respect needed to make HIS administration effective in dealing with conflicting forces in Congress or around the world. Just WHO is going to be the advisors and cabinet-level "troops" in your "independant-party" President's administration that would have the "gravitas" to neuter Congress and the media by their sheer experience and compentency?? (remember, you're not just voting for the man, you're voting for his entourage too - how deep is an independant-party candidate's entourage... think James Stockdale [%|] ) 4) As far as "independant-party" Executives being the virtual Messiahs you all so expect, WHERE is the evidence that ANY "independant-pary" Executive actually WOULD be so different? What WONDEROUS things did Jesse Ventura do for Minnesota that any Republican or Democrat wouldn't have? Ya' know, the problem with most "fringe-party" freaks is that they always want to stampede for the highest office in the land when no one from their party has even proven they can even be effective Mayors, Governors and Senators let alone President! Look, I'm all for changing the direction of this government, but damn, do it from the LOCAL LEVEL UP!! Vote for the Libertarians and the Constitutionalists for state offices first and prove that their ideas and abilities actually can work.
Link Posted: 8/3/2002 1:37:48 AM EST
OmegaMan makes some valid points. I always thought the Libertarians had a much better chance at the local and state levels. Consider this, the only way a Libertarian executive could be successful is if were a despot, because he could never garner the support in Congress necessary to get anything done.
Link Posted: 8/3/2002 5:33:06 AM EST
Omega Man, First let me agree with your ground up strategy. I believe that’s what it will take to get a Libertarian in federal level positions, having a good track record in the state and local positions first. This is also the stated goal of the Libertarian party. No shocker there, it makes perfect sense. You second point… Nothing would get done with a Libertarian president. Your premise then assumes the republicans and dems would not go along with a libertarian present. To me that underscores the problem we have currently! If the current party is so anti freedom and against smaller government they could get nothing done with a Libertarian then what the hell good are they? I wish I had more time to make my point, I have to hurry off to school. Lastly, you say getting nothing done is a bad thing. I disagree wholeheartedly! Gridlock is the freedom loving American’s friend. It would suit me fine if all the Repulicarats sat on the hill for the next year and passed not one law. Every time they act we lose money, freedom, or both. Think outside the box, there is a better way. Get out of the us vs. them, republican vs. democrat mind set. That is what’s trapping you in to accepting this tyranny. -Yours in the sprit of debate! P.S. On Monday I’ll have finally earned a B.S. in Management and Business Information Systems. It took me 10 years, but what the hell. Better late than never. Today’s class, Monday class and I am done! I keep telling my classmates we are “short”, but they don’t get it…
Link Posted: 8/3/2002 5:36:45 AM EST
Any one remember that Saturday Night Live skit with Dana Carvy(I think) as Perot? I can still picture him yelling “Stockdale. Stockdale!” Oh man that cracked my shit up. Damn it! I got to get to school. I am holing you all responsible if I am late and flunk the program. Stop goading me into debate!
Link Posted: 8/3/2002 6:07:01 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/3/2002 6:09:28 AM EST by Bearlaker]
Originally Posted By garandman:
Originally Posted By SS109: The great thing about only one vote is your vote means very little, especially in the presidential election. .
View Quote
Were you in Botswana from Nov 2000 - Feb 2001???? Hint: Florida vote counts.
View Quote
One more reason I'm glad I live in Utah. I can vote for a constitutionalist and [b]know[/b] the lib ain't gonna win this states measly 6 electoral or even very many popular votes...
Link Posted: 8/4/2002 1:12:52 PM EST
Link Posted: 8/4/2002 3:01:43 PM EST
Originally Posted By eswanson:
Originally Posted By hound: I'm sorry what? Shrub and Asscroft decided to strip anyone they wanted to of rights and imprison them and you say he can't do this?
View Quote
Okay, please let me know the location in the U.S. Code, the Constitution, or wherever else that says the President has the ability to declare a law unconstitutional and "roll" it away. I'm pretty sure that's the Supreme Court's job.
View Quote
All the president has to do is not sign legislation, or have his AG challange those on the books. This president has already signed a bill he said was Un-Constitutional...
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top