gut;1314013 wrote:Excellent article in the WSJ today from a man who's been a libertarian since the beginning. Basically said put on your big boy pants, focus on building coalitions within the party that closest aligns to your views, and don't give away the election to the party that LEAST supports your view.

They think they're enlightened, they think they're special and unique - like nobody else has thought of this the past 40 years. Reality is enlightened people know when to make a stand and when to make a compromise, and you don't try to build a coalition and make your stand in the 11th hour.

But it's fascinating to me that the libertarians won't compromise at the polls when, even if their teeny minority did get elected, they couldn't accomplish anything without compromise. Must be why the movement has failed to get any real traction.

FatHobbit;1314021 wrote:If a party is looking for those votes, shouldn't they be the ones who reach out to the voters? Why is it the voters responsiblity to compromise?

FatHobbit;1314021 wrote:If a party is looking for those votes, shouldn't they be the ones who reach out to the voters? Why is it the voters responsiblity to compromise?

Heretic;1314028 wrote:Because as a voter, you're supposed to be a sheep who blindly votes for a MAJOR party of choice no matter how you feel about one or both candidates. THAT'S HOW PROGRESS IS MADE!!!!!

Heretic;1314028 wrote:Because as a voter, you're supposed to be a sheep who blindly votes for a MAJOR party of choice no matter how you feel about one or both candidates. THAT'S HOW PROGRESS IS MADE!!!!!

gut;1314039 wrote:...
The irony is there is effectively little difference between Ron Paul or Gary Johnson and Mitt Romney, in terms of what they would be able to actually accomplish with Congress. The further irony is if Libertarians EVER get any real influence, they will have to compromise and build coalitions - something their constituents are apparently incapable of.

It's all really rather comical, especially the rationalizations and justifications to voluntarily disenfranchise oneself.

Con_Alma;1314070 wrote:...

Bingo. This is the key. It matters not what the President's desires are. It only matters what desires are in concert with the House.

gut;1314074 wrote:Yep, he has to pick and choose what he can push through. He has to compromise. It really becomes a question of leadership.

gut;1314013 wrote:Excellent article in the WSJ today from a man who's been a libertarian since the beginning. Basically said put on your big boy pants, focus on building coalitions within the party that closest aligns to your views, and don't give away the election to the party that LEAST supports your view.

They think they're enlightened, they think they're special and unique - like nobody else has thought of this the past 40 years. Reality is enlightened people know when to make a stand and when to make a compromise, and you don't try to build a coalition and make your stand in the 11th hour.

But it's fascinating to me that the libertarians won't compromise at the polls when, even if their teeny minority did get elected, they couldn't accomplish anything without compromise. Must be why the movement has failed to get any real traction.

WebFire;1314112 wrote:Horse ****. That is just giving in because "that's the way it's always been." Guess slaves should have just compromised too.

gut;1314116 wrote:Which is how libertarians FOR DECADES have justified their choice - you know the definition of insanity, right? YOU DON'T HAVE AN IMPACT on election day. You have to build your coalition and momentum on the other 1260 days otherwise you will continue to throw your vote away. Heck, there HAVE been years where a 3rd choice got a significant number of votes, yet it doesn't carry over or continue. You're pounding sand and some day you'll realize that.

The 40-year Libertarian in the WSJ today gets it. Many years from now you may as well.

WebFire;1314127 wrote:Sure, it's not perfect. So we should give up and vote D or R just because?

gut;1314134 wrote:That's why you have primaries. That's why you have 1460 other days to have an actual impact. Millions of Americans accept their responsibility in the consensus process and pick the best of the two candidates on election day.

I mean, we could scrap the primaries and just have a free-for-all, but I think people recognize that is unlikely to yield the consensus best candidate.

You're approach is far from "not perfect". It's a proven failure.

And to the whole idea of three or more parties - they have that in GB and elsewhere and I wouldn't say those countries or economies operate any better.

WebFire;1314146 wrote:The 1 party system is ruining this country, and just not on election day.

WebFire;1314146 wrote:The 2 party system is ruining this country, and just not on election day.

gut;1314074 wrote:Yep, he has to pick and choose what he can push through. He has to compromise. It really becomes a question of leadership. You can love Ron Paul for wanting to return to the gold standard (which he later corrected course on to competitive currency which, while far more sound is still equally problematic) but that's never going to happen. They are voting for a platform that is never going to happen, which puts them in the same company as the far right/left voting on the issue of abortion and other talking points that will go nowhere.

Cleveland Buck;1314781 wrote:If Ron Paul was elected president he could rescind all unconstitutional executive orders, refuse to execute unconstitutional laws, and bring the troops home all without even addressing Congress. I don't care if the statists in Congress all spit in his face, if he got that much done he would be greatest president this country ever had.

gut;1314783 wrote:Except he'd never get elected because he's a dingbat.

gut;1314760 wrote:LMAO....the 3 party or more system doesn't work so hot in Europe, either.

You could be right, though. The Repub party might fracture and it will be a Dem majority and two smaller minorities to squabble over scraps.

Cleveland Buck;1314790 wrote:You were saying Romney could get the same things done someone like Paul could, so we should throw our vote away on Romney. You were wrong again.

WebFire;1314801 wrote:Doesn't have to be a 3 party system. All the parties suck to be honest, because they all have their extreme views and refuse to play along with other parties. I don't know what the answer it is, but this ain't it.