It's Time For A Revolution within the GOP

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hey Look!

It is

yet another :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: rendition of the "Why Libertarians will never get ahead/are more principled than anyone else/we're prisoners of 2 indistinguishable parties/no change can happen unless you break the 2 party cycle/that's never going to happen/blah blah boring blah" thread.
Click to expand...

In Full Accordance With Prophecy.


It's also a perfect illustration of the effect the LP party has had on liberty loving Americans: it provides a wedge of division that descends into unproductive bickering, with the effect of derailing any substantial discussion that actually might lead to something useful.

It's damned near cause and effect, correllation = .98: Every time someone mentions reforming the GOP to influence them to be more liberty oriented, we end up with exactly this same damned thread played over, and over, and over.

Someone on this board, I forget who, once said that the LP's greatest impact was to fraction away from the Republican party those who had an interest in Liberty. They have lead them to a desert where their voice is lost in the wind, and their votes, at best, enable the application of libertarian principles to the duties of municipal dog catching.


I submit this thread, and every other one just like it, and every other conversation in the real world or online, as Exhibit A.
 
ok geek So tell me how are the two parties doing on issues like Individual liberty, less Govt and private property??? The LP as a wedge?????? :rolleyes:
Hows it going with telling McCain to stop beenin a RINO? or Bush????

blah blah blah :barf:

both parties have no clue what even your signature means..... nor do they care


Barth your statement:What are you talking about? Politics is one of the purer free markets in America.

I disagree your telling me that with 2 parties (one short of a monpoly of power) and with no term limits, so they cant stay in office for decades.......that we have real free market-like choices????? :rolleyes:
 
xd9fan, et al:

You're missing my point.

The only thing you control is your own voice, energy, time, money and vote.

You can apply these things in one of three possible ways:

1) Not at all: Impact = 0.
2) Towards the LP, or any other 3rd part: Impact >= 0, <=1.
3) Towards reforming one of the majors: Impact > 1

If you're going to choose to be politically active, it makes sense to employ what power you have such that it has the biggest impact. You can spend time & energy becoming a big mahoff with the LP, but the biggest LP mahoff has less impact on the national or state scene than the measliest freshman legislator.

Flipside, what would be the impact of having 1 more liberty oriented major party guy in the Senate, and 5 or 6 in the House?

Wouldn't be much, but it could make a difference.

I'm sure that the magnitude of resources and people the LP is able to attract could be used to achieve that simple goal.

But it won't be, because there will never be a Libertarian in congress in my lifetime.

But I do know that from the 2 major parties, candidate choices will be made at the sub election level, and that ultimatel 1 of those 2 candidates will sit in the office. And YES, participation can make a difference THERE, where it counts.


And that's all she wrote. It really is that simple.
 
their is one libertarian in Congress right now......his name is Ron Paul of Texas. He ran under the Gop but he is a self proclaimed libertarian. Will he run under the LP....who knows. I think he should. The GOA love him. I included.
 
Kinda demonstrates the point I'm making.
Click to expand...
Not really, because Ron Paul was a libertarian who ran as a Republican, not a Republican who converted to libertarian thought.

He wouldn't be any different if he ran as a Democrat.

And I will absolutely not jump on the bandwagon to support some atrocious policy like the War on People Using Some Drugs or the War on Middle Eastern Nations That Bush Doesn't Like just because a majority of the people in the USA do .... :banghead:
 
That is _precisely_ what I'm talking about: getting candidates of libertarian pursuasion elected through one , and eventually both of the major parties, rather than dead ended in the LP.
 
you can take everything geekWithA.45 has posted and put my name beside it as well.


I have often said that the greatest threat to the implementation of libertarian ideals is the Libertarian Party.


The ONLY chance we'll ever see a libertarian America is if one of the two parties in power institutes it ... I don't see the DNC EVER coming over to the libertarian side, so that leaves us with the GOP (who's own stated platform contains a few little libertarian things).

"Taking your ball and going home" will not win elections and put your people in place where they can effect change.

We've seen the "neo-con"/"religious right"/"RINO" factions come to power in the GOP in the last few years (with this president especially) ... that doesn't mean that the party can't be saved. It will be a lot easier to turn the GOP back toward libertarianism then to get the LP in power in enough places to make a dent in the leftist juggernaut.

Maybe it will take a couple of defeats ... unfortunately with things like RICO, McCain-Feingold and the PatriotAct we can't afford to have the GOP out of power (and by default the DNC in power) for very long before we reform the GOP and push through another "Republican Revolution" so it really has to be pulled off within one election cycle.

If we can't get the GOP back in the libertarian direction ... well then frankly we're [rhymes with duck]ed.



one more time for those who didn't pay attention before:
www.rlc.org
 
I have often said that the greatest threat to the implementation of libertarian ideals is the Libertarian Party.

What does this statement mean???? Give examples please because I'm not seeing the GOP or the DEM give a rats a$$ about Individual liberty. :rolleyes:
 
Not really, because Ron Paul was a libertarian who ran as a Republican, not a Republican who converted to libertarian thought.
Click to expand...

So he had to misrepresent himself to get elected? Is this the sort of pillar of morality and virtue that tipifies Libertarians? Are you saying he would have lost if he represented himself accurately? :confused:
 
So he had to misrepresent himself to get elected? Is this the sort of pillar of morality and virtue that tipifies Libertarians? Are you saying he would have lost if he represented himself accurately?
Click to expand...

You are very confused. Ron Paul didn't misrepresent anything. He ran on the Republican ticket, thats all.

He simply brought his own libertarian ideas to the Republican Party.

Bush did the same thing, really. He brought traditionally Democratic ideas to the Republican Party.
 
We keep slipping as long as the news bunch lets the hags from CA have thier choice but they want to control everyone else's stuff and call it fairness. :barf:
 
You are very confused. Ron Paul didn't misrepresent anything. He ran on the Republican ticket, thats all.
Click to expand...

Oh, right. I thought he misrepresented himself by running as an electable Republican instead of running as an unelectable Libertarian. In actuality, he misrepresented himself by running as an electable Republican instead of running as an unelectable Libertarian.

My mistake. :rolleyes:
 
I am not sure why you think what he did was misrepresentation.

He has not changed any of his beliefs. He got the Republican nomination through a primary election. There used to be a lot of libertarian Republicans; there numbers have dwindled as the Neo-Cons have seized control of the Party.
 
Too little, too late! Sorry Youngin's, my generation should have started the ruckus 20 years ago, there just wasn't enough of us that could still find our balls!
 
Gee M-Rex... one might ALMOST think you had a problem with Libertarians...

And Ron Paul is a politician: you expect virtue out of one? You're more niave than I thought. However, he has ideals that can be called "libertarian", ran (and was elected) as a Republican, and has remained a Repub. Don't see where that's bad in any way. Perhaps you could explain the badness?
 
Gee M-Rex... one might ALMOST think you had a problem with Libertarians...
Click to expand...

Am I that transparent? ;)

And Ron Paul is a politician: you expect virtue out of one?
Click to expand...

Much wisdom in that statement. Mea culpa for not considering that before.

A 'Libertarian' cloaking himself in the guise of a 'Republican' is equivilant to a 'Democrat' cloaking himself in the guise of a 'Moderate/Centrist'. If he would have shown himself truthfully for what he was, he wouldn't have been elected. Now, if we're talking about libertarian (small L) ideas being incorporated into the platform of Republicans (large R), then I can agree with some of them. I'd like to see the entire party shift to the conservative end of the spectrum.
 
i've been keeping up w/ this topic, but ever since lone gunman responded w/ his take on why the libertarian party is irrelevant, i felt like anything i had to offer on the subject was already said...

however, i understand xd's frustration and all that - because i am frustrated w/ politics/politicians, too. unfortunately, there is no real opportunity for a massive upheaval of the 2-party system any time soon, and even if there was, the libertarian party isn't the answer.

i like the libertarian platform but the drug legalization part... it doesn't fly w/ me, and it won't fly w/ most americans. as such, i cannot vote 3rd party because 1- my 3rd party vote won't matter anyway, and 2- i'm not ok w/ drug legalization (though i absolutely agree the current policy is not effective). while the 2 party system in recent years has boiled down to the lesser of 2 evils, it is still better than the great 1-party system. 3 or more parties would probably be too splintering - but i don't know that to be a bad thing nor if it is a good thing...
 
No, it's to to throw the farce know as the 2-party system into a deep hole and bury it. It's time time to pass laws that help fledgling third parties get off the ground. It's time for the CONSTITUTION PARTY to take hold!
 
I think Conservatives and libertarians should abandon the Republican Party. It is too much in the hands of the establishment internationalists to salvage. We need to form a new party, even if we lose for years to come. So long as our leaving will cause the destruction of the Republican Party, we will eventually win. The Republican Party was ruined by the influx of neocons. They are the ones calling the shots now in that party, so it is hopeless. Conservatives and libertarians need to combine two party structures that currently exist, i.e., the Libertarian Party and the US Constitution Party, and form a new party together. Neither can win alone, but we have enough similarities that we could work together on 90% of the issues that are most important to us, and what is most appealing to the average hard working American.
 
You know, perhaps more liberty-minded individuals would be willing to vote for Republicans if they would, oh, I dunno, maybe cater to their political concerns.

Instead all they get from Republicans are ham-fisted scare tactics and insults.

I mean, call me crazy, but telling someone they're stupid for not supporting you when you aren't catering to their needs doesn't exactly engender a lot of confidence.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

G
  • Locked
GOP 2008 - Rep. Duncan Hunter?
Replies
5
Views
491
Leatherneck
L
X
  • Locked
GOP Right Sees Lemons in White House Race
Replies
13
Views
638
JohnL2
J
X
  • Locked
One more reason the GOP has losted its mind
Replies
15
Views
832
geekWithA.45
G
C
  • Locked
where do I belong???
2
Replies
39
Views
1K
DRZinn
D
X
  • Locked
The clever GOP strategy for defeat in November
2 3 4 5
Replies
113
Views
4K
xd9fan
X
Back
Top