I'd make the constituency more calm when discussing it. While I think that Libertarianism is, for the most part, consistent and effective, even I notice that many fellow Libertarians are difficult with which to have a conversation without them yelling bumper sticker lines like they have a bad case of Tourette's.

believer;1302509 wrote:So you mean you figured out that Repubs are not Dems and you finally figured out you're a liberal? Congrats!

Nah. Figured out that the Republicans are becoming more liberal, though.

O-Trap;1302715 wrote:I'd make the constituency more calm when discussing it. While I think that Libertarianism is, for the most part, consistent and effective, even I notice that many fellow Libertarians are difficult with which to have a conversation without them yelling bumper sticker lines like they have a bad case of Tourette's.

Live Free. Motherfucker!

justincredible;1302728 wrote:Live Free. Motherfucker!

END THE FED!!!

I swear that, while I agree with the sentiment, I'm punching the next person who I hear say that.

pmoney25;1301912 wrote:I was a Republican and wanted them to believe in small government. So instead of waiting for them to change. I jumped to the Libertarian party.

But you (myself included) have jumped to a party that does not stand to win major elections. If my vote is going to count, I usually vote for the lesser of two evils, which in the most cases is the lesser socialism tax and spend candidate.

If I had to align myself with a party it would be a “medium core” libertarian. I like public roads and police and a court system. I don’t care what drugs you use in private as long as you are not operating a vehicle or exposing it to a minor for consumption. Regulation (curbing harmful pollution) is fine with me in moderation, don’t think we need studies on every bridge built and how it effects the ecosystem for the yellow bellied titmouse.

Sonofanump;1302745 wrote:But you (myself included) have jumped to a party that does not stand to win major elections. If my vote is going to count, I usually vote for the lesser of two evils, which in the most cases is the lesser socialism tax and spend candidate.

If I had to align myself with a party it would be a “medium core” libertarian. I like public roads and police and a court system. I don’t care what drugs you use in private as long as you are not operating a vehicle or exposing it to a minor for consumption. Regulation (curbing harmful pollution) is fine with me in moderation, don’t think we need studies on every bridge built and how it effects the ecosystem for the yellow bellied titmouse.

This sounds about right.

Sonofanump;1302745 wrote:But you (myself included) have jumped to a party that does not stand to win major elections.

Yet. But, it's going to take people nutting up and quitting the whole "lesser of two evils" vote. Not sure it will ever happen, but I'm not giving up hope yet.

Sonofanump;1302745 wrote:If my vote is going to count, I usually vote for the lesser of two evils, which in the most cases is the lesser socialism tax and spend candidate.

Here's the thing: If you don't believe that there exists an effectual difference between the two, then you're not going to think a vote for either of them really "counts."

As such, I'm currently of the persuasion that no vote really "counts" at the moment.

I would like religion, contraception/abortion, and homosexuality to be dropped from their agenda. I think it's bullshit that people value someones religion so much. Who the hell cares what god the president does or does not pray to? It affects me in no way shape or form and does not affect his job. I do not care if people have access to contraceptives or not. Can't find a condom? Pull out or don't fuck. I think it's retarded that POTUS debates are covering this. Also, abortion. Their bodies, their right to choose. If political parties want to outlaw abortion, then they can pay to support the kid i did not want. And lastly, I don't give a shit who you fuck or who you marry. Honestly, who cares if gays get married? In no way does that affect peoples daily lives. It sure as hell doesn't make my life better or worse.

I want my party to focus on having a strong economy and a low unemployment rate. If we could get higher interest on my savings account that'd be pretty sweet too, and lower gas prices.

O-Trap;1302786 wrote:Here's the thing: If you don't believe that there exists an effectual difference between the two, then you're not going to think a vote for either of them really "counts."

As such, I'm currently of the persuasion that no vote really "counts" at the moment.

I do think there is an effectual difference between the two POTUS candidates and this year it seems pretty close in Ohio.

Sonofanump;1302799 wrote:I do think there is an effectual difference between the two POTUS candidates and this year it seems pretty close in Ohio.

Many people seem to feel the same way.

What's sad is, I'm willing to bet that if the number of people who actually like the Libertarian views were to vote Libertarian, we'd likely see a major Libertarian candidate within the next few elections. However, a lot of people seem to set their actual values on the shelf and default to the "lesser evil" come election time, simply because doing otherwise wouldn't yield immediate results.

Then, there are those of us who don't see an effectual difference between the two major candidates, so it doesn't make sense for us to vote for either of them. At this point in time, it seems like those are the only people who have any inclination to break the cycle.

However, your vote is your vote. You have your reasons for voting the way you do, so I'm certainly not going to browbeat you about it. Your vote makes no sense to me, but that's bound to happen when different people interact.

I just wish people would actually vote their convictions. If they did, politicians would have to either follow suit, or never get elected.

I Wear Pants;1302394 wrote:While I disagree with at least some parts of economic conservatism I can completely understand the arguments behind it. I do not understand social conservatism, it's being on the wrong side of history on purpose.

It's not history's side I prefer as much as that which reflect my own ideology. I do agree it's not popular to desire more conservative social beliefs but then again it's not popularity I seek.

I really think that if you just put peoples views on the ballot box instead of their name and/or party, you would see that more people are probably more libertarian than they would know. Being Fiscally Conservative and Socially Liberal makes sense to people and I would fair to guess that it would be a good size of the population. There are plenty of Republicans who want fiscal conservatism but also think the government has no right to tell the people how to live their life and try to police their personal lives. You also have plenty of Democrats who are Socially liberal who think that maybe we should cut back on the spending somewhat.

I never thought Ron Paul during the primaries had a chance or that Gary Johnson has a chance of winning. However I do feel that the movement is still in the beginning stages and has made a lot of progress since 08. I feel that it will continue to grow and maybe in another couple elections can produce a serious candidate who leans more libertarian.With the advancements in technology people will continue to have more access to candidates and the way people access candidates will change dramatically.

justincredible;1302783 wrote:Yet. But, it's going to take people nutting up and quitting the whole "lesser of two evils" vote. Not sure it will ever happen, but I'm not giving up hope yet.

Maybe if someone that was actually better threw their hat into the ring they would have gotten more than a handful of votes in the primaries. And we already have a guy in office that can't even build consenus in his own party. That's not a formula for success.

gut;1302960 wrote:Maybe if someone that was actually better threw their hat into the ring they would have gotten more than a handful of votes in the primaries.

(1) "Better" and "popular" are not synonymous. Curious why you use them interchangeably.
(2) Not if he doesn't have the funds to run a large campaign.
(3) Not if nobody but a party liner is ever viewed as "electable" to start with.
(4) There currently exists a better option, but one of the evils will continue to win.

gut;1302960 wrote:And we already have a guy in office that can't even build consenus in his own party. That's not a formula for success.

True, but by golly, we're gonna run with that same formula over and over again, hoping for some miraculously different result.

You keep announcing as fact that the reason Paul or Johnson didn't win was because of lack of funds or popularity. Romney didn't start out as the favorite, and certainly at least a few who were temporarily well ahead of him. And Paul is a joke, so let's just talk about Johnson. If Johnson had been such a great choice, he would have actually managed to at least register on the radar.

No, the more logical explanation is Paul/Johnson aren't the messiahs you make them out to be. Or that they were ineffective at communicating their message. Or - and I know this one appears to be hard for you to wrap your head around - people actually see significant differences between Romney and Obama and believe he is a superior choice.

You want to send up Paul or Johnson to swing for the fences and reality is they strike out. Romney is more likely to get on base. It's easy to be dismissive of the electorate, but perhaps they do deserve a bit more credit. Certainly these last two elections - and for years, not just 1 day every 4 years - have been ripe for a 3rd party or non-mainstream candidate to emerge. That it hasn't happened perhaps says more about such a candidate/platform than it does about the electorate.

gut;1302987 wrote:You keep announcing as fact that the reason Paul or Johnson didn't win was because of lack of funds or popularity. Romney didn't start out as the favorite, and certainly at least a few who were temporarily well ahead of him. And Paul is a joke, so let's just talk about Johnson. If Johnson had been such a great choice, he would have actually managed to at least register on the radar.

No, the more logical explanation is Paul/Johnson aren't the messiahs you make them out to be. Or that they were ineffective at communicating their message. Or - and I know this one appears to be hard for you to wrap your head around - people actually see significant differences between Romney and Obama and believe he is a superior choice.

You want to send up Paul or Johnson to swing for the fences and reality is they strike out. Romney is more likely to get on base. It's easy to be dismissive of the electorate, but perhaps they do deserve a bit more credit. Certainly these last two elections - and for years, not just 1 day every 4 years - have been ripe for a 3rd party or non-mainstream candidate to emerge. That it hasn't happened perhaps says more about such a candidate/platform than it does about the electorate.

Romney had been the favorite for almost 4 years. The media kept writing these narratives that Gingrich, Cain, Perry, Santorum were contenders but that was not the case. Romney won because he outspent everyone. Romney ran the whole primary as a "severe" conservative and now he is running away from those statements because it doesn't suit him well. The guy is a classic salesman and you have bought into it. This guy will say and do whatever it takes to close the deal.

I wont go into Paul since he is no longer running. But Johnson basically has the same resume as Romney. A businessman and a Governor. However Johnson actually was a successful Governor, Got Reelected in a democratic state while reducing size of government spending, vetoing wasteful spending bills, left NM with a surplus, added jobs( job growth 11.6% to 1.6% and plenty more. Started his own business as a Single Man operation and turned it into a multi million dollar thousand employee operation.

I don't agree with him on 100% of things however I will always respect a man more who stands up for his beliefs and doesn't change them on a flip of a dime because his campaign crew told him it wasn't polling well.

I do think Romney will win and it may be a tad better than Obama but in 4 years we will be discussing which Liberal will be throwing him out of office because he will be a one term president.

pmoney25;1302994 wrote:Romney had been the favorite for almost 4 years. The media kept writing these narratives that Gingrich, Cain, Perry, Santorum were contenders but that was not the case. Romney won because he outspent everyone. Romney ran the whole primary as a "severe" conservative and now he is running away from those statements because it doesn't suit him well. The guy is a classic salesman and you have bought into it. This guy will say and do whatever it takes to close the deal.

I wont go into Paul since he is no longer running. But Johnson basically has the same resume as Romney. A businessman and a Governor. However Johnson actually was a successful Governor, Got Reelected in a democratic state while reducing size of government spending, vetoing wasteful spending bills, left NM with a surplus, added jobs( job growth 11.6% to 1.6% and plenty more. Started his own business as a Single Man operation and turned it into a multi million dollar thousand employee operation.

I don't agree with him on 100% of things however I will always respect a man more who stands up for his beliefs and doesn't change them on a flip of a dime because his campaign crew told him it wasn't polling well.

I do think Romney will win and it may be a tad better than Obama but in 4 years we will be discussing which Liberal will be throwing him out of office because he will be a one term president.

Pretty much this.

gut;1302987 wrote:Or - and I know this one appears to be hard for you to wrap your head around - people actually see significant differences between Romney and Obama and believe he is a superior choice.

IDGAF what other people see. I don't so I'm not going to vote for them. Simple.

gut;1302987 wrote:You keep announcing as fact that the reason Paul or Johnson didn't win was because of lack of funds or popularity.

Actually, I thought that was the first time I'd mentioned it, but I'll take your word for it.

gut;1302987 wrote:Romney didn't start out as the favorite, and certainly at least a few who were temporarily well ahead of him.

He didn't lead the polls the entire time, if that's what you mean. However, most people were betting on Romney once the debates began. He was in the talks last time, even, and there was discussion back then that this would be "his turn."

He was absolutely the favorite this go-around. People were shocked when Santorum popped up in the polls over him. Hell, Santorum (the only one competing with him at the time) dropped out. You think he actually would have if he'd had a chance at winning?

Nobody else was NEARLY as likely to win as Romney, beginning to end. I think you can even find plenty of people on here that were saying precisely that back when so many of the candidates were still involved. To suggest he wasn't the favorite from the get-go is silly and disingenuous.

gut;1302987 wrote:And Paul is a joke ...

What about Paul is a joke? Obviously, the people in his district don't think so. Neither does the Libertarian Party. Neither do a good portion of Republicans AND Democrats (he finished second in the Democratic Primary voting in New Hampshire).

You might disagree with him, and I wouldn't hold that against you (though I ask about it), but to simply write him off as a joke borders on a Rush Limbaugh fallacy.

gut;1302987 wrote:... so let's just talk about Johnson. If Johnson had been such a great choice, he would have actually managed to at least register on the radar.

Yes, Libertarian candidates certainly have a history of showing up on the radar in the primaries for the Republican Party. It couldn't have had anything to do with the fact that he was openly against some of the policies that the rest of the "front-runners" said they supported ... right.

gut;1302987 wrote:No, the more logical explanation is Paul/Johnson aren't the messiahs you make them out to be.

Johnson is hardly a messiah. Again, if you've read elsewhere on this forum, you'll see that my voting for Johnson is a compromise. There is plenty I don't like about his platform as a whole. I just think he's actually good for the country ... more than bad, anyway.

But since you bring up the LOGICAL explanation, it's that they don't fit the party line, and the default with BOTH parties is that the candidates who fit the party line most closely will be the ones getting the nod.

Neither of them thinks we should invade a foreign nation to keep it from possessing the same kinds of weapons we ourselves possess ... from exercising the same sovereignty that we exercise.

The LOGICAL explanation is that since they don't support military imperialism (funded by us good tax-payers, of course), which is currently a seemlingly key tenet of the Republican Party, they seemed fringe.

gut;1302987 wrote:Or that they were ineffective at communicating their message.

Or they were crystal clear about their message, but the contemporary Grand Ol' Party doesn't like it. Their foreign policy doesn't end with "Fuck yeah!" enough to get a foot-hold in the Republican Party, no matter how much more sense they make economically. Hell, how many times was it even posted on here that people liked everything about Ron Paul "except for his position on Iran?"

gut;1302987 wrote:Or - and I know this one appears to be hard for you to wrap your head around - people actually see significant differences between Romney and Obama and believe he is a superior choice.

How much have we heard on here that Romney sucks ... from professed Republicans, no less?

Moreover, on what is he different ... what issue? And what policy on that issue differs substantially?

We haven't, after all, seen any president who wasn't either a Republican or Democrat since the turn of the 20th century, so I would contend that HISTORY suggests that we vote for the party-line Republican or Democrat because ... well ... we've gotten into quite a habit of viewing those as the only two viable options.

So if someone comes a long and runs as a Republican (or a Democrat, for that matter), but they don't agree with the rest of the Republican field on a particular issue, it's pretty easy to paint them as not-quite-Republican.

gut;1302987 wrote:You want to send up Paul or Johnson to swing for the fences and reality is they strike out.

No, the reality is, the coaches aren't letting them bat.

Honestly, think back to being in school, with student council. If the popular kid voted "most likely to play a pro sport" went up against the nerd voted "most likely to succeed," who was going to win? The majority of the people voting didn't care who had better ideas or an actual plan. They voted on popularity and familiarity.

You REALLY think the majority of Americans vote differently now?

gut;1302987 wrote:Romney is more likely to get on base.

Doesn't matter if the runs all count for the same team.

gut;1302987 wrote:It's easy to be dismissive of the electorate, but perhaps they do deserve a bit more credit.

Historically, I think they do. There is a reason that the Republican and Democrat parties became as popular as they did.

Today's version of the two are reaping the benefits of what they're not sowing. Not sure what kind of credit that deserves. You're welcome to judge for yourself, but on merit alone, I'd suggest both parties have been the ones striking out when they get the chance (to avoid losing the message in the analogy, I mean the presidency).

gut;1302987 wrote:Certainly these last two elections - and for years, not just 1 day every 4 years - have been ripe for a 3rd party or non-mainstream candidate to emerge.

And they have been, which is why we're having this discussion. Sixteen years ago ... hell, even eight years ago ... we probably wouldn't be having this discussion NEARLY as frequently as we do today (by "we," I mean the American people).

gut;1302987 wrote:That it hasn't happened perhaps says more about such a candidate/platform than it does about the electorate.

If you omit the fact that we've got over 110 years of status quo to overcome, I agree, but preconceived prejudices don't change quickly when they've been going on that long.

At some point, you do have to admit that people stop thinking about what they're doing and just start doing what they always do, because ... well ... that's how they've always done it.

The safe play for Paul, Johnson, or any non-party-liner would have been to put convictions away and tow the party line. It's been the safest bet in recent history, and it will continue to be the safest bet as long as voters mentally check out and vote based on party affiliation.

For what it's worth, by "based on party affiliation," I'm including those who switch each election because they "didn't like the last Republican" or "didn't like the last Democrat" and then automatically default to the other major party.

Advocating that we continue in such a rut seems like, as Einstein would have put it, insanity.

pmoney25;1302994 wrote:Romney had been the favorite for almost 4 years. The media kept writing these narratives that Gingrich, Cain, Perry, Santorum were contenders but that was not the case. Romney won because he outspent everyone. Romney ran the whole primary as a "severe" conservative and now he is running away from those statements because it doesn't suit him well. The guy is a classic salesman and you have bought into it. This guy will say and do whatever it takes to close the deal.

I wont go into Paul since he is no longer running. But Johnson basically has the same resume as Romney. A businessman and a Governor. However Johnson actually was a successful Governor, Got Reelected in a democratic state while reducing size of government spending, vetoing wasteful spending bills, left NM with a surplus, added jobs( job growth 11.6% to 1.6% and plenty more. Started his own business as a Single Man operation and turned it into a multi million dollar thousand employee operation.

I don't agree with him on 100% of things however I will always respect a man more who stands up for his beliefs and doesn't change them on a flip of a dime because his campaign crew told him it wasn't polling well.

I do think Romney will win and it may be a tad better than Obama but in 4 years we will be discussing which Liberal will be throwing him out of office because he will be a one term president.

Yep. It'll be time to "remove the proven failure," even though it will likely be for someone who is no better ... a Democrat party-liner who tells his party constituency what they want to hear to win the primary, and then slides to the "center" in his rhetoric during the general election.

I'm curious why gut thinks we consider Johnson "the messiah?" Because he's our candidate of choice? That seems silly. God forbid we support for someone other than Romney or Obama.

I consider Ron Paul the messiah, for the record.

sleeper;1303041 wrote:I consider Ron Paul the messiah, for the record.

Reps.