I Wear Pants;1309406 wrote:Also bullshit is voting for anyone who you don't feel is the best candidate because of your perception of their likelihood to win. Vote for who you think is best regardless of what you think the odds are otherwise you're simply part of the problem.
Browns' fans vote for the Browns each and every year because they think their team is the best, despite the odds. Are they smart, stupid, "part of a problem" or misguided? One could argue they are clueless and make a strong case.
My Q to justin, and all the other Ronulans, is an easy one to ask, but you guys can't easily answer it. Libertarians have been around for decades. Dr. Paul's crusade, while admirable, isn't the maiden voyage for 3rd party candidates. John Anderson got over 6% of the vote and Perot got over 10%, but their crusades and their followers didn't have any momentum, any money, no national backing, and 2 admirable foes, not just 1. It's a mountain that you better have a plan to attack or you will follow Mssrs. Anderson and Perot into obscurity. The Pauliban, as much as you wish it were so, is not unique to the national scene and will die just as those before it have unless they meet their problems head on.
Your inflexibility is the anchor that holds you back. Your "purity" (no ideas but Ron's are acceptable) is what's keeping others from joining your side. Libertarians have 2 killer policies that won't allow expansion of their party: Drugs should be legal and hiding from the world stage.
While I'll agree the "War on Drugs" is a loser, a large majority of Americans don't want heroin, crack, and meth available at the 5 and dime on the corner. These high-powered drugs aren't the equal of alcohol and the tireless rantings that they should be legal as long as no one else is affected is ignorant to the overall effect of these deadly drugs. As long as you keep beating the love for dangerous narcotics, you won't get much past your 5% threshold. Equally, withdrawing from the world, failing to protect allies, failing to keep shipping lanes safe, and deciding that world harmony is for anyone not named America are also opposed by a majority of Americans. There is middle ground, but the rigidity of Libertarians is keeping them from expanding their party's base and becoming a real player in politics. For example, I would suggest legalizing pot
and no others as a starting point.
I agree with the Ronulan's view of limited government and how our economy should function. I would venture to guess a large majority of the populace is in agreement as far as these issues go. If the fringe elements of "drugs are great" and "we're only protecting American soil" planks were compromised, then I could see Libertarians becoming a very viable alternative. Until then, the rigidity of their views will forever limit their expansion.
