OP
OP
RealGun
Member
For Senator and under current defensive conditions, I would be assuming they should have voted for the Republican, never the Democrat. I believe NRA was proposing the same thing when remotely reasonable.
Loss of Senate turned on libertarian votes
- Thread starter RealGun
- Start date
- Status
For Senator and under current defensive conditions, I would be assuming they should have voted for the Republican, never the Democrat. I believe NRA was proposing the same thing when remotely reasonable.
OP
OP
RealGun
Member
That would be quite debatable, not a given.
The Real Hawkeye
member
Nope. Not true. Every libertarian vote is an expression of a desire for liberty minded candidates, no matter what party they should appear in. If enough people vote libertarian, the other parties will take notice and perhaps put two and two together. We can only hope.
A vote for a libertarian, therefore, is a vote for those principles which are not being expressed in either of the two major parties. That's a vote for something. It's not a wasted vote. It says both of those other two candidates are so contrary to my views that I cannot bring myself to vote for them. There is substance to that statement. It means something, and should eventually come to mean something to the Republican Party, which was once the home of Classical Conservatives, the kissing cousins of libertarians.
PS The main difference between classical conservatives and libertarians is the reverence for tradition and traditional institutions such as marriage, family life, church, constitutional federalism and the rule of law which classical conservatives possess. They believe that liberty rests on these pillars. Disturb the pillars, and liberty cannot any longer be supported, or will be less supportable with the destruction of each pillar. That is precisely what conservatives seek to conserve, i.e., those liberty supporting pillars, thus the name conservative.
Libertarianism promotes liberty, but does not propose necessarily that liberty rests on these pillars, which they do not seek, therefore, necessarily to conserve. That's 95% of the difference between the two world views. They both desire the same general status of political and individual liberty, but have a different understanding of how that is achieved and/or preserved.
OP
OP
RealGun
Member
Would that it was that simple.
velojym
Member
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2006
- Messages
- 621
It really is, though enough folks buy into the 'wasted vote' theory that it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.
I find it hard to take elections seriously anymore, as they really do not reflect
the 'will of the people', and even if it did... what if I don't like it anyway?
Tyranny of the majority.
I find it hard to take elections seriously anymore, as they really do not reflect
the 'will of the people', and even if it did... what if I don't like it anyway?
Tyranny of the majority.
Lone_Gunman
Member
It really is that simple, if everyone would just do it. Instead we try to come up with some kind of strategy where we compromise our fundamental rights to a lesser degree to prevent losing them to a greater degree.
When we do that, we get someone like Bush, one of the most universally disliked politicians of our time.
I voted for Libertarians in every race I was able to last week.
As others have said, the Republicans had every chance to govern well with full range of power and they failed miserably. They got fired and that's a good thing.
I believe more and more people are realizing the value of the libertarian platform as rebublicans abandon the values they once stood for.
As others have said, the Republicans had every chance to govern well with full range of power and they failed miserably. They got fired and that's a good thing.
I believe more and more people are realizing the value of the libertarian platform as rebublicans abandon the values they once stood for.
orionengnr
Member
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2005
- Messages
- 5,713
I am on board with all of this, and have been saying something similar for years. Now, how do we get it implemented? Good Luck...
Brass Fetcher
Member
May I throw this out there?
Maybe the paper-thin margnis that we have seen since at least 2000 are due to voter indifference/knowledge?
IE, if you flip a quarter 100 times (okay 10 000 times), how many times will you get heads (Democrat) or tails (republican)? About fifty percent of the time? I see this not as a 3rd party issue, but as an issue with voter/citizen participation in politics - they seem to just be voting willy-nilly, for whomever they think has the sharper haircut or smoothest presentation. Don't blame people who are trying to make a difference. The route is rocky enough as it is for 3rd parties.
Maybe the paper-thin margnis that we have seen since at least 2000 are due to voter indifference/knowledge?
IE, if you flip a quarter 100 times (okay 10 000 times), how many times will you get heads (Democrat) or tails (republican)? About fifty percent of the time? I see this not as a 3rd party issue, but as an issue with voter/citizen participation in politics - they seem to just be voting willy-nilly, for whomever they think has the sharper haircut or smoothest presentation. Don't blame people who are trying to make a difference. The route is rocky enough as it is for 3rd parties.
The Real Hawkeye
member
Tyranny of the majority indeed. That's exactly why the Founders did not want the United States to become a national democracy, where all decisions for all of us were made by national majorities. This notion was anathema to them. That's why the Constitution established federalism, i.e., practically no decisions regarding "the ordinary course of affairs, lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State," were to be handled at the national level. This is the system we need to return to. The system we know today in what used to be the United States of America bears little if any relation to that envisioned and established by the Founding Fathers, and that's the reason we are in such a mess.
Other than a seemingly noble title the constitution party is no where near a mirror image of the libertarian party. The constitution party would be more appropriately named the american theocracy party. Lets study some of their platform from http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php and you can tell me how much it sounds like libertarian:
Pornography, at best, is a distortion of the true nature of sex created by God for the procreative union between one man and one woman in the holy bonds of matrimony, and at worst, is a destructive element of society resulting in significant and real emotional, physical, spiritual and financial costs to individuals, families and communities. We call on our local, state and federal governments to uphold our cherished First Amendment right to free speech by vigorously enforcing our laws against obscenity to maintain a degree of separation between that which is truly speech and that which only seeks to distort and destroy.
We shall uphold freedom of speech by restricting publishing!
HIV / AIDS is a contagious disease which is dangerous to public health. It should not be treated as a civil rights issue. Under no circumstances should the federal government continue to subsidize activities which have the effect of encouraging perverted or promiscuous sexual conduct. Criminal penalties should apply to those whose willful acts of omission or commission place members of the public at risk of contracting HIV / AIDS.
Are they trying to outlaw homosexual or promiscious sex?
Back to the original subject though the republicans only have themselves to blame but I'd love to see more elections lost with a winning's margin of voters voting libertarian. The votes are there boys, you just have to earn 'em. Legislating religion and passing legislation in the name of terror isn't going to do it though.
Libertarians, whether "L" or "l", are the only ones who truly, without reservation, support gun owners. Every single gun "law" that has ever been perpetrated is unconstitutional, and therefore counterfeit. If Republicans would just admit that fact, and work to return the Bill of Rights to its position as the highest "law of the land", our country would be much safer and freer. You may think I am a nutcase (I have been called that and worse) but I would like to see everyone who wants to carrying a gun any time they want, anywhere they wish, in any way they see fit. It would be good if they knew how to safely do so, but the anti-gun mindset this country has adopted is not very productive for teaching good gun habits.
If you want to see what other hare-brained things I have to say, come see my campaign website and my blog
Kent
PS: Hello velojym
If you want to see what other hare-brained things I have to say, come see my campaign website and my blog
Kent
PS: Hello velojym
2ndamd
Member
I grew up a midwestern Democrat (Pro-life, pro-worker, pro-guns). We use to have great leaders like Senator JJ Exxon, and Harry S Truman.
I did not leave the Democratic party, they left me for more weird policy and higher taxes, and basically growing Govermental powers.
I became a Republican.
Then we had this round of even more big spending (but no taxes to pay for it.....that's okay just charge it), and of course the evil Patriot Act (IMHO).
So, now I am a Libertarian.
I am glad to see that we made a difference in Montana. I wonder if the Libertarian vote cost MO and VA their seats too?
I did not leave the Democratic party, they left me for more weird policy and higher taxes, and basically growing Govermental powers.
I became a Republican.
Then we had this round of even more big spending (but no taxes to pay for it.....that's okay just charge it), and of course the evil Patriot Act (IMHO).
So, now I am a Libertarian.
I am glad to see that we made a difference in Montana. I wonder if the Libertarian vote cost MO and VA their seats too?
Actions Have Consequences
Big "L" Libertarians would deny that pulling a lever for the Libertarian might have consequences...unintended consequences.
Nearly every person I have met who voted Libertarian or was active in Libertarian Party internal activity was a former Republican...who would have likely voted Republican had not the Libertarian alternative been on the ballot. A buddy of mine who used to be active in LP activity put it this way, "The "gun-totin' follow the COTUS" types outnumber the "pot for twelve-year-olds" types by at least three to one."
However, the Libertarians do not bear the whole responsibility for the current Democrat Senate any more than any other small group of voters. But, to deny that it is likely that the Monatan Senate race was tipped to the Democrats due to the presence of the LP candidate is an exercise in buck-passing and responsibility-evading worthy of a welfare cheat.
It makes you wonder which party is more reality-based and which is more faith-based.
Big "L" Libertarians would deny that pulling a lever for the Libertarian might have consequences...unintended consequences.
Nearly every person I have met who voted Libertarian or was active in Libertarian Party internal activity was a former Republican...who would have likely voted Republican had not the Libertarian alternative been on the ballot. A buddy of mine who used to be active in LP activity put it this way, "The "gun-totin' follow the COTUS" types outnumber the "pot for twelve-year-olds" types by at least three to one."
However, the Libertarians do not bear the whole responsibility for the current Democrat Senate any more than any other small group of voters. But, to deny that it is likely that the Monatan Senate race was tipped to the Democrats due to the presence of the LP candidate is an exercise in buck-passing and responsibility-evading worthy of a welfare cheat.
It makes you wonder which party is more reality-based and which is more faith-based.
mohican
Member
speaking of the Senate, how about a repeal of the 17th amendment?
I suppose that the big thing that separates gun-owner Libertarians from gun-owner Republicans is the attitude that "other people" need to be punished, somehow, by someone, for something. As long as you are not hurting others, I will support your right to do anything you want, even if I think it is disgusting. This is why I can even support government-sympathizers being who they are and preaching what they believe.
Kent
Kent
Justin
Moderator Emeritus
If the Republicans want the libertarians to vote for them, then perhaps they can start by catering to the conservative fiscal policies and liberal social policies espoused by libertarianism.
The libertarians didn't kill the Republicans. The Republicans did it to themselves.
The libertarians didn't kill the Republicans. The Republicans did it to themselves.
No. As a cover for shredding what was left of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Remember the USA PATRIOT act? Remember all the illegal wiretapping? Remember the government sanctioned torture?
America is a land defined by the Constitution and Bill of Rights which guarantee "liberty and justice for all" by strictly limiting what any government in America is permitted to do. The United States is the government currently "calling the shots" in America. The US is defined by bureaucracies and "laws"; most of which are in direct violation of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The United States is the gravest threat America has ever faced.
America is a land defined by the Constitution and Bill of Rights which guarantee "liberty and justice for all" by strictly limiting what any government in America is permitted to do. The United States is the government currently "calling the shots" in America. The US is defined by bureaucracies and "laws"; most of which are in direct violation of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The United States is the gravest threat America has ever faced.
"If that Republican wants to blame anyone for his loss, he can blame himself and his party for letting it come down to <3,000 votes."
I'm Republican, and I didn't vote. Why bother? No difference between either the Democrats and the Republicans.
No reduction in government size, the reverse has happened. No tax reductions.
More useless laws. Homeland security, a new blood sucking agency, and, at the same time, the two faced folks leave the borders open, and the Mexican invasion continues, and, their import/export of drugs and money continues.
The first priority of any Homeland Security agency should be keeping people from entering the country illegally, with illegal substances.
As for the Libertarians, they have many good points. There would be NO DRUG TRADE, if we followed their principals, and allowed freedom to use or not. That might destabilize Columbia, and a few other South American countries, but, it would sure solve the drug problem.
The Netherlands don't have a drug import problem..
Bush's policy in Iraq near mirror our experiences, and Johnson's actions, in Vietnam, with, it looks like the same political result. Loss of party confidence, and position. Failing to learn from history, for a president, should earn him an
F, but, all it does, is cost his party dearly, and his supporters.
S
I'm Republican, and I didn't vote. Why bother? No difference between either the Democrats and the Republicans.
No reduction in government size, the reverse has happened. No tax reductions.
More useless laws. Homeland security, a new blood sucking agency, and, at the same time, the two faced folks leave the borders open, and the Mexican invasion continues, and, their import/export of drugs and money continues.
The first priority of any Homeland Security agency should be keeping people from entering the country illegally, with illegal substances.
As for the Libertarians, they have many good points. There would be NO DRUG TRADE, if we followed their principals, and allowed freedom to use or not. That might destabilize Columbia, and a few other South American countries, but, it would sure solve the drug problem.
The Netherlands don't have a drug import problem..
Bush's policy in Iraq near mirror our experiences, and Johnson's actions, in Vietnam, with, it looks like the same political result. Loss of party confidence, and position. Failing to learn from history, for a president, should earn him an
F, but, all it does, is cost his party dearly, and his supporters.
S
- Status