And, Just Like That, He Lost Their Votes

[steveh_131]

You have two choices. You can participate in purging the party of establishment squishes, or, bury your head in your principled, LP sand; vote for nobody, and pretend you're making a difference. I think the former is a better strategy.

I believe that I am doing the former.

I voted in the primary. I did my part. They chose an establishment hack.

So they lost my vote in the general. I don't see how rewarding them with my vote when they choose poorly is going to help fix the party. That would be like telling my son he gets a toy if he behaves, then giving it to him anyways when he misbehaves. Kinda counterproductive.

 

[jamil]

And Romney not spelling his last name O B A M A was reason enough to get most of the republican vote.

Facile isn't it? I know you have more intellectual honesty than that.

You know that Obama opponents disliked him for a whole lot more than merely how he spells his name. Most people who voted AGAINST Obama rather than FOR Romney did so because they perceived a sharp turn to the left by this president.

 

[jamil]

We tried that. The "establishment squishes" as you call them changed the rules and locked people out when they started to make headway. So been there, tried that.

Now, how about answering the questions I asked instead of telling me what my choices are and what YOU think is better for me.

Do you like where the Republican Party has been taking us?

Do you like the Patriot Act? Do you like NDAA? Do you like asset forfeiture without due process? Do you like the ever-decreasing protections of the Bill of Rights they've foisted upon the American people? Do you like the deals they make to allow increases in the debt ceiling and the ever-increasing deficits resulting? Do you like borrowing money to pay for wars?

I missed this reply.

First, the Republican Party gets to decide its rules. If you want them changed, then become a Republican and vote for the changes you want. If you're talking about the Libertarian plan to circumvent the will of the primary voters by out-delegating them at the convention, I'm sorry, I have no sympathy for that. But you do have a point if your issue is that the Republican Party participated in adopting election rules that tend to inhibit tertiary parties from getting into the game.

To answer your question, no, I don't like the direction of the Republican establishment. I want to go NE on the political map from where we are now. The Republican establishment is trying to take us SE. Obama's taking us SW. South is a direction on which Republicans most often compromise with Democrats. That's why I've concluded that squishy totalitarianesque Republicans need to be expelled from the party with all due prejudice.

 

[hornadylnl]

Facile isn't it? I know you have more intellectual honesty than that.

You know that Obama opponents disliked him for a whole lot more than merely how he spells his name. Most people who voted AGAINST Obama rather than FOR Romney did so because they perceived a sharp turn to the left by this president.

I know many of obama's opponents hated him. I know I read it here a million times. Anybody But Obama. No matter what proof was given as to the similarities between Romney and Obama, they didn't care. Anybody but Obama. Hitler could have been the repub nominee and there were repub voters who would have chosen him over Obama. I saw almost zero SUBSTANCE as to why they thought I SHOULD vote for Romney. The reasons given for Romney were the same as given for McCain and he just said he's going to keep pushing for gun bans. Supreme Court nominees that voted to keep Obamacare. And somehow Romney was going to be different.

 

[jbombelli]

I missed this reply.

First, the Republican Party gets to decide its rules. If you want them changed, then become a Republican and vote for the changes you want. If you're talking about the Libertarian plan to circumvent the will of the primary voters by out-delegating them at the convention, I'm sorry, I have no sympathy for that. But you do have a point if your issue is that the Republican Party participated in adopting election rules that tend to inhibit tertiary parties from getting into the game.

To answer your question, no, I don't like the direction of the Republican establishment. I want to go NE on the political map from where we are now. The Republican establishment is trying to take us SE. Obama's taking us SW. South is a direction on which Republicans most often compromise with Democrats. That's why I've concluded that squishy totalitarianesque Republicans need to be expelled from the party with all due prejudice.

My issue is this: for years we libertarians were told to try and change the Republican party from the inside. Get your guy in there. Try to bring change from inside. We were told this by Republicans, of course. Then, when we got someone in there who really started to make headway, they changed the rules to lock him out. And here some people are, still saying the same thing. Join them. Bring change from the inside. Well, we've been there and tried that, and when it looked like we might get somewhere we were intentionally locked out. Obviously the GOP is not going to change its direction. They've made this obvious.

How many times do I have to be patted on the head while being lied before I'm allowed to tell the Republican Party to go **** itself?

If you don't like the direction the Republican party is taking us, why do you keep rewarding them with your vote? "Anybody but ______" is not getting it done.

 

[jamil]

I know many of obama's opponents hated him. I know I read it here a million times. Anybody But Obama. No matter what proof was given as to the similarities between Romney and Obama, they didn't care. Anybody but Obama. Hitler could have been the repub nominee and there were repub voters who would have chosen him over Obama. I saw almost zero SUBSTANCE as to why they thought I SHOULD vote for Romney. The reasons given for Romney were the same as given for McCain and he just said he's going to keep pushing for gun bans. Supreme Court nominees that voted to keep Obamacare. And somehow Romney was going to be different.

As many similarities as you might find between Romney and Obama, you never would acknowledge the the many differences.

As squishy as Romney was (even for me), Hitler? Please. Be real. I participated in many of those threads and you guys did a lot of creative policy pigeonholing to get your Romney=Obama.

 

[hornadylnl]

As many similarities as you might find between Romney and Obama, you never would acknowledge the the many differences.

As squishy as Romney was (even for me), Hitler? Please. Be real. I participated in many of those threads and you guys did a lot of creative policy pigeonholing to get your Romney=Obama.

Who's going to be the next great squish going to be and what jewels of difference are they going to bring this time? More Repeal and Replace Obamacare? I was against guns before I was for them?

The democrat strategists are geniouses. These scandals are doing nothing but helping Obama. The repubs are attacking the scandals like a pit bull and getting absolutely nowhere. Meanwhile, they're getting their asses handed to them election after election and in the arena of ideas. What ideas do the republicans have to offer that they've actually acted on when they were in the seat of power? They talk a great game while in the minority yet do nothing of their agenda when they are in power.

 

[jamil]

My issue is this: for years we libertarians were told to try and change the Republican party from the inside. Get your guy in there. Try to bring change from inside. We were told this by Republicans, of course. Then, when we got someone in there who really started to make headway, they changed the rules to lock him out. And here some people are, still saying the same thing. Join them. Bring change from the inside. Well, we've been there and tried that, and when it looked like we might get somewhere we were intentionally locked out. Obviously the GOP is not going to change its direction. They've made this obvious.

How many times do I have to be patted on the head while being lied before I'm allowed to tell the Republican Party to go **** itself?

If you don't like the direction the Republican party is taking us, why do you keep rewarding them with your vote? "Anybody but ______" is not getting it done.

Who? Ron Paul? Right. You supported a Republican who is at least as Libertarian, if not more so, than the actual Libertarian candidate, and you think Republicans will go for that? You must expect that the furthest extremities on the bell curve are the loneliest places to occupy. Maybe a more ecumenical libertarian would have been more successful. But then you and other Libertarians seem to hate Rand because he's not a big L, all in Libertarian. So there we are.

I'm not advocating that *you* specifically join the Republican Party or even vote for a Republican. You're a Libertarian. You have a Party to support. So support it.

For you I fully believe that voting for a non-big-L-libertarian Republican would be "selling out" or compromising, and if you did (short of an epiphany), I'd probably not respect you. Just understand that more people think like Rand Paul than Ron Paul and believing that way for us isn't selling out or compromising either.

 

[jamil]

Who's going to be the next great squish going to be and what jewels of difference are they going to bring this time? More Repeal and Replace Obamacare? I was against guns before I was for them?

The democrat strategists are geniouses. These scandals are doing nothing but helping Obama. The repubs are attacking the scandals like a pit bull and getting absolutely nowhere. Meanwhile, they're getting their asses handed to them election after election and in the arena of ideas. What ideas do the republicans have to offer that they've actually acted on when they were in the seat of power? They talk a great game while in the minority yet do nothing of their agenda when they are in power.

Looking at the last several Repub POTUS, I'd say that, unfortunately, Bush 43 accomplished a great deal of his neocon agenda. Reagan accomplished a lot of his too. Some good, some not so much. Bush 41, waste of time especially with all the flowery thousand points of light bull****.

 

[hornadylnl]

Looking at the last several Repub POTUS, I'd say that, unfortunately, Bush 43 accomplished a great deal of his neocon agenda. Reagan accomplished a lot of his too. Some good, some not so much. Bush 41, waste of time especially with all the flowery thousand points of light bull****.

And which parts of Bush 43's neocon agenda advanced liberty?

 

[rambone]

First, the Republican Party gets to decide its rules. If you want them changed, then become a Republican and vote for the changes you want. If you're talking about the Libertarian plan to circumvent the will of the primary voters by out-delegating them at the convention, I'm sorry, I have no sympathy for that.

I don't understand where you're coming from. Getting inside the party and winning delegates according to the (rigged) rules is about the only hope for reform we have. And you talk about it as if it was some kind of cheating? No sympathy for those who selflessly devoted themselves to achieving these reforms?

The Republican Establishment played all sorts of games to suppress the voices of duly-elected Republican Party delegates. At the state and national levels.

"If you want them changed, become a Republican and vote for changes." Ha. That makes sense until you actually spend time on the inside and see how the machine actually works. I was elected to be a delegate to the Indiana GOP convention and consumed a considerable amount of time and money in the process. Just to get shut down and ruled out of order by a crooked chairman.

I tried to document some of this in the following threads.

Indiana Republican State Convention

At both the RNC & DNC, votes were predetermined and scripted


I recommend watching this illustrative video to see how the national conventions were conducted as well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhhORb6deqw

 

[jamil]

And which parts of Bush 43's neocon agenda advanced liberty?

I don't generally defend Neocons, but at least thanks to Bush, public school authorities can't force me to put my son on Ritalin.

 

[jamil]

I don't understand where you're coming from. Getting inside the party and winning delegates according to the (rigged) rules is about the only hope for reform we have. And you talk about it as if it was some kind of cheating? No sympathy for those who selflessly devoted themselves to achieving these reforms?

The Republican Establishment played all sorts of games to suppress the voices of duly-elected Republican Party delegates. At the state and national levels.

"If you want them changed, become a Republican and vote for changes." Ha. That makes sense until you actually spend time on the inside and see how the machine actually works. I was elected to be a delegate to the Indiana GOP convention and consumed a considerable amount of time and money in the process. Just to get shut down and ruled out of order by a crooked chairman.

I tried to document some of this in the following threads.

Indiana Republican State Convention

At both the RNC & DNC, votes were predetermined and scripted


I recommend watching this illustrative video to see how the national conventions were conducted as well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhhORb6deqw

It's like I said elsewhere, if you're really a full blown all in Libertarian, don't expect much success as a Republican. You're not going to change the Republican Party into the Libertarian party if that's what you want. You're just not, for the same reasons that the Libertarian Party is not successful.

But, you can make the Republican Party more libertarian, which is what I want to do. But that's not your goal. So please don't be surprised by your failure. You're a Libertarian. Be proud. Be them.

 

[hornadylnl]

I don't generally defend Neocons, but at least thanks to Bush, public school authorities can't force me to put my son on Ritalin.

So you got that in exchange for the prescription drug benefit, the patriot act, bail outs, etc? What a victory.

Was government bigger or smaller in January 2009 than it was in January 2001?

 

[rambone]

It's like I said elsewhere, if you're really a full blown all in Libertarian, don't expect much success as a Republican. You're not going to change the Republican Party into the Libertarian party if that's what you want. You're just not, for the same reasons that the Libertarian Party is not successful.

But, you can make the Republican Party more libertarian, which is what I want to do. But that's not your goal. So please don't be surprised by your failure. You're a Libertarian. Be proud. Be them.

I'm currently an elected Republican. I'm not sure why you're trying to tell me what my own goals are.

I don't generally defend Neocons, but at least thanks to Bush, public school authorities can't force me to put my son on Ritalin.

Can you elaborate?

 

[jbombelli]

It's like I said elsewhere, if you're really a full blown all in Libertarian, don't expect much success as a Republican. You're not going to change the Republican Party into the Libertarian party if that's what you want. You're just not, for the same reasons that the Libertarian Party is not successful.

But, you can make the Republican Party more libertarian, which is what I want to do. But that's not your goal. So please don't be surprised by your failure. You're a Libertarian. Be proud. Be them.

I spent 25 years being a Republican, voting for Republicans who said one thing and did another. Republicans promised me smaller government, they preached freedom and liberty, lower taxes, fiscal responsibility ... and in the end I really got none of those things. I keep hearing how we have to turn away from the sprint towards the socialist police state a bit at a time, how we can't just derail the train so to speak, but the reality is that over all this time we've never actually turned away from that path. We just zigzag a little here and a little there, but the end result is the same. More debt, less freedom, more deficits, bigger government, all the things I thought I was voting against by pulling the handle for the (R) candidates.

The final straw was the whole Ron Paul fiasco and the rule changes, and Romney as the candidate. If Republicans were truly for smaller government, fiscal responsibility, lower taxes ... all those things they preach, ROMNEY would NOT have been the guy on the ballot. There were far, far better choices aside from Ron Paul if that's what the Republicans wanted. But they don't. They want to beat the Democrats, and don't care what they lose in doing so.

In the end, voting for your favorite flavor of turd sandwich is still voting for a turd sandwich.

 

[jamil]

I spent 25 years being a Republican, voting for Republicans who said one thing and did another. Republicans promised me smaller government, they preached freedom and liberty, lower taxes, fiscal responsibility ... and in the end I really got none of those things. I keep hearing how we have to turn away from the sprint towards the socialist police state a bit at a time, how we can't just derail the train so to speak, but the reality is that over all this time we've never actually turned away from that path. We just zigzag a little here and a little there, but the end result is the same. More debt, less freedom, more deficits, bigger government, all the things I thought I was voting against by pulling the handle for the (R) candidates.

The final straw was the whole Ron Paul fiasco and the rule changes, and Romney as the candidate. If Republicans were truly for smaller government, fiscal responsibility, lower taxes ... all those things they preach, ROMNEY would NOT have been the guy on the ballot. There were far, far better choices aside from Ron Paul if that's what the Republicans wanted. But they don't. They want to beat the Democrats, and don't care what they lose in doing so.

In the end, voting for your favorite flavor of turd sandwich is still voting for a turd sandwich.

I get that you're upset about the Ron Paul thing. And if I were a Ron Paul guy and counted on the delegate trick to work, I'd probably be upset too.

But really, what did you expect? Paul was basically counting on having "his" delegates vote for him, even if the states went to someone else. Legal, but still a trick. Of course Republicans slammed that shut.

 

[jamil]

I'm currently an elected Republican. I'm not sure why you're trying to tell me what my own goals are.

So you're pragmatic after all?

Can you elaborate?

Some schools were requiring fidgety students and students with behavioral issues take drugs like Ritalin.

Bush signed into law a prohibition for state and local school administrators requiring students take prescription drugs as a condition of attendance. So that's the one "freedomy" kind of thing Bush did that came to mind.

 

[jamil]

So you got that in exchange for the prescription drug benefit, the patriot act, bail outs, etc? What a victory.

Was government bigger or smaller in January 2009 than it was in January 2001?

Um, did you think I voted for Bush?