Thought on the Walorski/Donnelly run.

[ATOMonkey]

Spin?

Straight from the Libertarian platform.

1.2 Personal Privacy

Libertarians support the rights recognized by the Fourth Amendment to be secure in our persons, homes, and property. Protection from unreasonable search and seizure should include records held by third parties, such as email, medical, and library records. Only actions that infringe on the rights of others can properly be termed crimes. We favor the repeal of all laws creating “crimes” without victims, such as the use of drugs for medicinal or recreational purposes.

The Holy Grail of Libertarianism. Even California tweakers couldn't get on board with this.

1.4 Abortion

Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.

How exactly is this not a pro-choice position?

1.5 Crime and Justice

Government exists to protect the rights of every individual including life, liberty and property. Criminal laws should be limited to violation of the rights of others through force or fraud, or deliberate actions that place others involuntarily at significant risk of harm. Individuals retain the right to voluntarily assume risk of harm to themselves. We support restitution of the victim to the fullest degree possible at the expense of the criminal or the negligent wrongdoer. We oppose reduction of constitutional safeguards of the rights of the criminally accused. The rights of due process, a speedy trial, legal counsel, trial by jury, and the legal presumption of innocence until proven guilty, must not be denied. We assert the common-law right of juries to judge not only the facts but also the justice of the law.


The bedrock of our founding was that we would be a nation of laws, not of men. But this platform says we'll decide later if the law was just or not. This is a return to the England of old. Anarchy at it's finest.

3.1 National Defense

We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression. The United States should both avoid entangling alliances and abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world. We oppose any form of compulsory national service.

A large enough military to defend against aggression. I read this and I think current day Japan. Not exceptional American superpower. I don't want adequate. I want overwhelming. I want a military so powerful screwing with us is not a viable option.

That sure sounds isolationist to me.

3.3 International Affairs

American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world. Our foreign policy should emphasize defense against attack from abroad and enhance the likelihood of peace by avoiding foreign entanglements. We would end the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention, including military and economic aid. We recognize the right of all people to resist tyranny and defend themselves and their rights. We condemn the use of force, and especially the use of terrorism, against the innocent, regardless of whether such acts are committed by governments or by political or revolutionary groups.

Nice meaninless beauty pageant answer. The correct response is that the American government will protect its citizens from all enemies, foreign and domestic with such force and wrath as to make our enemies shudder at the thought of our mobilization.

More isolationalism.


3.4 Free Trade and Migration

We support the removal of governmental impediments to free trade. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders. However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a credible threat to security, health or property.

Sounds like promoting open borders to me.

3.7 Self-Determination

Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of individual liberty, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to agree to such new governance as to them shall seem most likely to protect their liberty.

How does this not promote insurrection in the event you dont achieve the results you want? Our founders never guaranteed results. They guaranteed the process.

All of these are very exagerated views of the Libertarian policy.

You can not pre-empt crime, so there is no reason to criminalize "pre-crime" activity.

Pro-choice, does not mean Pro-abortion, and this is Federal view and has as much to do with the 10th amendment as anything else. States may do as they wish, which worked great for the first 200 years.

Defense does not mean a small military. It means defense, as in not aggression. It does not mean that we would not respond to aggression, or that we would be ineffictive in doing so. It just means that we'd leave everyone to their issues as long as they left us to ours. Intervention in foreign countries has not produced a more peaceful world. In fact, there's a good case to be made for the opposite.

The policy on borders is to secure them, but to not restrict the movement of law abiding people across them. I guess out interpretation of what an "open border" is are not the same.

That last part is straight out of the Declaration of Independance. It's about LIBERTY, not election results. Liberty is of the utmost importance. If the government ever gets to the point that it denies our Liberty, then it is our duty to abolish that government.

 

[Fletch]

No Fletch. You're not allowed to play the victim card. You're much to smart for that. I have no sneer scale, and if I did it wouldn't apply to you.

I checked my old Magic deck, and I don't even have the Victim card. If it's from one of the later expansions, I stopped playing around 1998.

They say it's hard to read people in text, because emotion doesn't communicate well. I say it depends on the writer and the subject. You are extremely effective at communicating hatred, disgust, and contempt for libertarians generally and the Libertarian Party specifically. If there is any message I've gotten from you in the Politics forum, it's that Libertarians are scum. I don't believe I've seen a single post where you've talked about Libertarians (or libertarians) and the message was not one of condescension, derision, contempt, or disgust. I get the idea they're morally equivalent to child molesters in your book.

And all that's fine, really. We're allowed to hate things. I hate Pink Floyd with a passion -- can't stand to hear a single note on the radio without turning the channel. But just as Roger Waters or David Gilmore might ask me, the purpose of my previous post was to ask you "how much of this should I take personally?"

 

[Bill of Rights]

Spin?

Straight from the Libertarian platform.

1.2 Personal Privacy

Libertarians support the rights recognized by the Fourth Amendment to be secure in our persons, homes, and property. Protection from unreasonable search and seizure should include records held by third parties, such as email, medical, and library records. Only actions that infringe on the rights of others can properly be termed crimes. We favor the repeal of all laws creating “crimes” without victims, such as the use of drugs for medicinal or recreational purposes.

The Holy Grail of Libertarianism. Even California tweakers couldn't get on board with this.

1.4 Abortion

Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.

How exactly is this not a pro-choice position?

1.5 Crime and Justice

Government exists to protect the rights of every individual including life, liberty and property. Criminal laws should be limited to violation of the rights of others through force or fraud, or deliberate actions that place others involuntarily at significant risk of harm. Individuals retain the right to voluntarily assume risk of harm to themselves. We support restitution of the victim to the fullest degree possible at the expense of the criminal or the negligent wrongdoer. We oppose reduction of constitutional safeguards of the rights of the criminally accused. The rights of due process, a speedy trial, legal counsel, trial by jury, and the legal presumption of innocence until proven guilty, must not be denied. We assert the common-law right of juries to judge not only the facts but also the justice of the law.


The bedrock of our founding was that we would be a nation of laws, not of men. But this platform says we'll decide later if the law was just or not. This is a return to the England of old. Anarchy at it's finest.

3.1 National Defense

We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression. The United States should both avoid entangling alliances and abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world. We oppose any form of compulsory national service.

A large enough military to defend against aggression. I read this and I think current day Japan. Not exceptional American superpower. I don't want adequate. I want overwhelming. I want a military so powerful screwing with us is not a viable option.

That sure sounds isolationist to me.

3.3 International Affairs

American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world. Our foreign policy should emphasize defense against attack from abroad and enhance the likelihood of peace by avoiding foreign entanglements. We would end the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention, including military and economic aid. We recognize the right of all people to resist tyranny and defend themselves and their rights. We condemn the use of force, and especially the use of terrorism, against the innocent, regardless of whether such acts are committed by governments or by political or revolutionary groups.

Nice meaninless beauty pageant answer. The correct response is that the American government will protect its citizens from all enemies, foreign and domestic with such force and wrath as to make our enemies shudder at the thought of our mobilization.

More isolationalism.


3.4 Free Trade and Migration

We support the removal of governmental impediments to free trade. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders. However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a credible threat to security, health or property.

Sounds like promoting open borders to me.

3.7 Self-Determination

Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of individual liberty, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to agree to such new governance as to them shall seem most likely to protect their liberty.

How does this not promote insurrection in the event you dont achieve the results you want? Our founders never guaranteed results. They guaranteed the process.

Boy for decrying "spin", you're doing a hell of a job of it, SFUSMC.

You keep making the claim that libertarianism is all about drugs. It's not, as you've been told many, many times. It's about the right of the individual to make personal choices for him or herself without fearing government sticking its enormous nose in. Do you drink alcohol? Have you ever? The 21st Amendment, in its repeal of the 18th, is a libertarian action. (of course, it went on to continue restrictions that are not libertarian as well. Can't have everything, I guess.)

Abortion: Yeah, it's pro-right-to-choose, because some people will choose abortions and some will choose to carry the pregnancy to term. We do NOT have any definitive standard that sets out when life begins. We have belief, not fact. I don't trust a bureaucrat or politician to make the decision better for anyone than that person can make it for themselves. Whichever it is, unless you think government should have the power to make all decisions for us because they're so much better at it, I can't see how anyone can claim to be otherwise.

So you don't believe in Jury Nullification either? Our Founders sure did. There are lots of times that the law is just plain wrong. The ordinance in Speedway is a good example. As it stands now, the local PD are the ones judging the law and choosing not to enforce it. Would it be better if they had no such authority and were just robots, following the dictates of whoever wrote that ordinance? Or is it that they should have that authority solely because they pin a badge on their shirt when they go to work?

Not isolationism. We'll trade with others; in fact, that's far preferable. We're just not going to be the world's police. You have a problem? Best find a way to deal with it. No one's going to come to our aid if we're the ones challenged. If it's our citizens in danger, then yes, our troops need to be going in and overwhelmingly solving the problem, a task that will be far easier if we're not off prosecuting every other little skirmish everywhere else in the world.

Open borders. I differ with the Libertarian Party on this point in practice, but in theory it's a good plan because, done correctly, which means removing the incentives for people to come here presently in place, we do benefit from others' ingress. Where we have problems is when we start giving them more benefits, more aid, more more more more more than we give our own citizens. I say we stop printing government documents in a bazillion languages, stop giving handouts to people who've given nothing to us, stop providing because they're "disadvantaged".... My grandfather once bought a place he afterward called the "Dime House", because by saving dimes, he paid for it. He was "disadvantaged", too, but there was no program in place to "help" him. He made it on his own and was da*n proud to do so.

Your quote from the Declaration of Independence ignores the next two sentences:

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

How does it not promote insurrection? Simple. You don't get what you want, you keep working to change the system from within.

What was that Biblical passage about turning the other cheek? Something about "seventy times seven"?


Blessings,
Bill

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

I checked my old Magic deck, and I don't even have the Victim card. If it's from one of the later expansions, I stopped playing around 1998.

They say it's hard to read people in text, because emotion doesn't communicate well. I say it depends on the writer and the subject. You are extremely effective at communicating hatred, disgust, and contempt for libertarians generally and the Libertarian Party specifically. If there is any message I've gotten from you in the Politics forum, it's that Libertarians are scum. I don't believe I've seen a single post where you've talked about Libertarians (or libertarians) and the message was not one of condescension, derision, contempt, or disgust. I get the idea they're morally equivalent to child molesters in your book.

And all that's fine, really. We're allowed to hate things. I hate Pink Floyd with a passion -- can't stand to hear a single note on the radio without turning the channel. But just as Roger Waters or David Gilmore might ask me, the purpose of my previous post was to ask you "how much of this should I take personally?"

You've totally misread me. I am direct, say what I mean, write curtly, and at times like to show off my rapier-like wit. But I don't hate anyone for their views. I don't think people are scum because of what they think. And unless attacked, I never mean anything personally. I admittedly have contempt for people who state a belief without knowing what that belief entails. Ignorance is forgivable if an attempt is made to overcome it. Failing to do so turns ignorance in to stupidity. I have no time for stupid people. I'm somewhat taken aback by your assessment but as I respect your views I'll have to reassess my writing style.

I have no disgust for Libertarians (or libertarians). In fact I agree with much of the platform. There are parts of it I don't, and the parts I don't agree with override my ability to support a Libertarian candidate (although I do look for libertarian principles in the candidates I support). I view hard core Libertarians as absolutists unable or unwilling to recognize that sometimes as distasteful as it is, the world is not as we wish it to be and compromise is a necessary evil. I find many to be just as angry as progressives, but for different reasons.

I also find most Libertarians on this forum have from time to time schewed their Libertarian beliefs when a circumstance or situation has a real or perceived negative impact on them. Then they gladly seek redress from the very government they loath.

I also understand the rules of logic, wherein you can only change one variable or make one decision at a time. You know that from being a senior software engineer. I don't understand the logic of accepting failure if you can't get your way. I guess I'm just programmed that in the end I will select the best possible option rather than going down in absolute defeat.

 

[Fletch]

You've totally misread me. I am direct, say what I mean, write curtly, and at times like to show off my rapier-like wit. But I don't hate anyone for their views. I don't think people are scum because of what they think. And unless attacked, I never mean anything personally. I admittedly have contempt for people who state a belief without knowing what that belief entails. Ignorance is forgivable if an attempt is made to overcome it. Failing to do so turns ignorance in to stupidity. I have no time for stupid people. I'm somewhat taken aback by your assessment but as I respect your views I'll have to reassess my writing style.

I have no disgust for Libertarians (or libertarians). In fact I agree with much of the platform. There are parts of it I don't, and the parts I don't agree with override my ability to support a Libertarian candidate (although I do look for libertarian principles in the candidates I support). I view hard core Libertarians as absolutists unable or unwilling to recognize that sometimes as distasteful as it is, the world is not as we wish it to be and compromise is a necessary evil. I find many to be just as angry as progressives, but for different reasons.

I also find most Libertarians on this forum have from time to time schewed their Libertarian beliefs when a circumstance or situation has a real or perceived negative impact on them. Then they gladly seek redress from the very government they loath.

I also understand the rules of logic, wherein you can only change one variable or make one decision at a time. You know that from being a senior software engineer. I don't understand the logic of accepting failure if you can't get your way. I guess I'm just programmed that in the end I will select the best possible option rather than going down in absolute defeat.

That makes a whole hell of a lot more sense to me. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[Joe Williams]

Democrats and Republicans are not homogenous nationwide. An Oklahoma Democrat is a New York Republican.

Oh hell, no. Having lived both in the West and the Northeast, I'm here to tell you that an Oklahoma Democrat is likely far more conservative than a Republican from the Northeast!

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Boy for decrying "spin", you're doing a hell of a job of it, SFUSMC.

You keep making the claim that libertarianism is all about drugs. It's not, as you've been told many, many times. It's about the right of the individual to make personal choices for him or herself without fearing government sticking its enormous nose in. Do you drink alcohol? Have you ever? The 21st Amendment, in its repeal of the 18th, is a libertarian action. (of course, it went on to continue restrictions that are not libertarian as well. Can't have everything, I guess.)

Abortion: Yeah, it's pro-right-to-choose, because some people will choose abortions and some will choose to carry the pregnancy to term. We do NOT have any definitive standard that sets out when life begins. We have belief, not fact. I don't trust a bureaucrat or politician to make the decision better for anyone than that person can make it for themselves. Whichever it is, unless you think government should have the power to make all decisions for us because they're so much better at it, I can't see how anyone can claim to be otherwise.

So you don't believe in Jury Nullification either? Our Founders sure did. There are lots of times that the law is just plain wrong. The ordinance in Speedway is a good example. As it stands now, the local PD are the ones judging the law and choosing not to enforce it. Would it be better if they had no such authority and were just robots, following the dictates of whoever wrote that ordinance? Or is it that they should have that authority solely because they pin a badge on their shirt when they go to work?

Not isolationism. We'll trade with others; in fact, that's far preferable. We're just not going to be the world's police. You have a problem? Best find a way to deal with it. No one's going to come to our aid if we're the ones challenged. If it's our citizens in danger, then yes, our troops need to be going in and overwhelmingly solving the problem, a task that will be far easier if we're not off prosecuting every other little skirmish everywhere else in the world.

Open borders. I differ with the Libertarian Party on this point in practice, but in theory it's a good plan because, done correctly, which means removing the incentives for people to come here presently in place, we do benefit from others' ingress. Where we have problems is when we start giving them more benefits, more aid, more more more more more than we give our own citizens. I say we stop printing government documents in a bazillion languages, stop giving handouts to people who've given nothing to us, stop providing because they're "disadvantaged".... My grandfather once bought a place he afterward called the "Dime House", because by saving dimes, he paid for it. He was "disadvantaged", too, but there was no program in place to "help" him. He made it on his own and was da*n proud to do so.

Your quote from the Declaration of Independence ignores the next two sentences:


How does it not promote insurrection? Simple. You don't get what you want, you keep working to change the system from within.

What was that Biblical passage about turning the other cheek? Something about "seventy times seven"?


Blessings,
Bill

OK Bill, you're another guy I resect immensely. But I didn't spin anything. Let's take your points one by one.

First, all laws are by nature prohibitive. They provide for prohibition of behaviors and actions. So blindly being against prohibition is to be against the rule of law.

Having said that, I have consistently said I believe that there is an unreasonable disparity between the legal statuses of alcohol and drugs. I have also said repeatedly I could support legalizing some or most drugs. But not all. That support is predicated on a public policy review of the impact of legalization. Just saying they should be legal because you have an individual right to screw yourself up doesn't cut it. There are other external impacts that should be assessed. The Libertarian position is an absolutist debate topic, is not achievable in its presented form, and is endemic of the unyeilding position that has for 40 years prevented the Libertarian party from gaining positive traction and will keep it in the political shadows for another 40 years.

Oh, and no, I don't drink. I have an obsessive compulsive personality and am prone to over endulging in everything I do. In order to prevent my own personal destruction I choose not to drink. But I have no problem with people that do. Legal, personal choice.

I believe that abortion is wrong but that availability of the procedure should be determined by state, not federal law. My point on the abortion plank is that it is in fact a pro-choice position masquarading as a neutral position, which it clearly is not.

There are certainly situations where jury nullification is warranted. But they should be extremely rare. The plank position is that the "justice of the law" should be considered by the jury. This is an unacceptable position IMHO and would lead to a state of anarchy where some laws could be followed but others not. Where in some instances a jury would determine that circumstances warrant different outcomes. Where it's OK to convict a black man yet acquit a white one. No, I can't ever support that position.

We tend to forget that the Constitution, in addition to limiting the role of government, established the rules by which government functions. We vote for representatives who vote for laws. We don't get to pick and choose the laws we like or don't like. If we don't like the laws passed our redress is not to ignore or flaunt them. It is to elect new representatives who will change them. A more perfect example of this could not be found than the election held yesterday. In many parts of the country this was a revolution. A bloodless coup. Now we will have to see if there is follow through.

We will have to disagree on our military and foreign entanglements. I am a staunch supporter of maintaining a strong military so powerful just the thought of it's use strike fear in a potential adversary's heart such that we never have to use it. I don't want us to be the world's police, and with a few exceptions (Somolia, Bosnia, Panama to name a few) don't think our military has been used that way. I think it's a red herring argument. I fully support taking the fight to our enemies in Iraq and Afganistan. I also fully support having allies like OAS, NATO and Israel, although I wish the nature of the relationship with OAS and NATO were different. But that's more a factor of our inept ability to negotiate than anything else. Without allies it is us against the rest of the world. I support membership in the UN only to the extent that we can keep our friends close and our enemies closer. I would not cede an ounce of power to that corrupt organization. The Libertarian position does not support treaty organizations. This is more dangerous IMHO.

Finally, my "quote" was not from the Declaration of Independence at all. It came directly from the Libertarian platform. Contrary to ATO Monkey's assertion this statement is straight from the DoI, it is in fact a bastardized quote from the DoI supporting the revolutionary position of the Libertarian party. The actual quote is "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." The Libertarian platform shortens the text, removes the highlighted words "these ends" and inserts "individual liberty", totally changing the construct, intent and meaning of the passage while pretending as asserted that this text is "straight from the Declaration of Independence." It gives a false impression that the Founders would support revolt against a government that infringed on any individual liberty. This is simply not the case and is a dangerous call for insurrection in the name and with the proported blessing of the Founders.

The Founders were not absolutists. They were principled yet compromising men who did their best to balance individual liberties with the need to govern a country. They tried to implement a weak federal government. It failed. If they really believed individual liberties trumped all else they would have never written the Constitution. That doesn't mean they would want or would support a federal government as it exists today. But by the same token I don't believe they would want or support a system of government based solely on individual liberties as articulated by the Libertarian platform.

 

[hornadylnl]

Rather than sit around and wait to see what you're "given" why not work to help find, field and support the best candidate?

And the republican party is just a ok with that right? They didn't work to push out any true conservatives during the primary, right? The problem with your assertion here is that the Republican party establishment is our biggest enemy when it comes to fielding and supporting the candidates in the primaries.

Electing politicians is not much different than raising children. You reward good behavior and punish the bad. Our politicians care very little about pleasing their base because they know their base will vote for them in lock step. They pander and cater to the middle, the independents, etc. because that's who decides the elections. If you gave your child $100 every time they brought home a report card regardless of what grades they had, how hard do you think they will work for that A?

You have no right to complain about how your candidate represents your issues if you continue to vote for them every election. I voted for Vogel and I stand by it. If you have a problem with that, you are losing much more sleep over it than I am. I used to be a die hard republican, listen to Limbaugh, Hannity, etc. I watched Bush and the republican house and senate spend this country in to oblivion. Now, about the only talking heads I will Listen to is Wilkow (who is pretty much a shill for the republican party) and Mike Church. I read the book Atlas Shrugged and now I don't really even get bothered about politics any more and don't pay that much attention to it any more. The American people at their true core are about 80-90% liberal. Some may be conservative on many issues but they still have some issues that they welcome the big nanny government into their lives. Either you're pro liberty or you're not.

 

[Hotdoger]

tHIS.... and I'm a registered "R".... but they can't seem to get their heads out of their asses any better than the "D's" do.

I call BS!!!!

There is no "registering" in Indiana!

 

[lashicoN]

The worst possible choice of the three. Libertarians elected him just as if you voted for him.

Libertarians will spend the next two years complaining, whining and crying about him, but you own him.

So Libertarians who voted L actually voted for a D, but R's who voted for an R instead of an L share no blame for the D winning? That's extremely interesting. If they are so much alike, why didn't R's vote for Vogel?

They are making a difference Republicans don't like. They're confusing Conservatives and getting Liberals elected.

We aren't confused. I wouldn't have voted for Jack or Joe. The other people I know who vote L would not have voted on that portion at all if it was only D and R. We didn't get liberals elected, liberals did.

A two party system is foolish. I'd prefer we didn't have any parties, just Americans running to serve out country, but that isn't the reality, so I'll continue to vote for the person claiming to support shrinking government, which yes, SemperFi, includes a smaller military, people able to do what they want with their own bodies, and everything else FREEDOM brings.

 

[Fletch]

We aren't confused. I wouldn't have voted for Jack or Joe. The other people I know who vote L would not have voted on that portion at all if it was only D and R. We didn't get liberals elected, liberals did.

This is the point I've been trying to make for a long time, and not just in this thread. Libertarians do not necessarily default to being Republicans when there's no LP option. Some default to being Democrats. Some stay home.

In Oklahoma, there is no official libertarian option. There may be "independents" on the ballot, but there's no LP and write-ins are prohibited. When I go to the polls as a philosophical libertarian, I do not simply vote straight Republican as folks around here seem to think I would, because I'm not a Republican-by-default. Some Democrats got my vote yesterday. Some Republicans did. Some independents did. And in some races I "stayed home" by leaving them blank.

I vote (or abstain) based on my own evaluations. I don't care that libertarians "are seen as" right-wingers... I don't vote the way that others see me, I vote as me.

 

[Donnelly]

Don't blame a political party for the failings of individuals- ask yourself why you didn't go out personally and try to get more of the folks who voted for Donnelly to see that Jackie Walorski was the better option.

Blessings,
Bill

^^^^This^^^^



Rep given.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

So Libertarians who voted L actually voted for a D, but R's who voted for an R instead of an L share no blame for the D winning? That's extremely interesting. If they are so much alike, why didn't R's vote for Vogel?



We aren't confused. I wouldn't have voted for Jack or Joe. The other people I know who vote L would not have voted on that portion at all if it was only D and R. We didn't get liberals elected, liberals did.

A two party system is foolish. I'd prefer we didn't have any parties, just Americans running to serve out country, but that isn't the reality, so I'll continue to vote for the person claiming to support shrinking government, which yes, SemperFi, includes a smaller military, people able to do what they want with their own bodies, and everything else FREEDOM brings.

OK, let's consider this a different way.

I can't even tell you who ran in our district from the Libertarian party. You know why? They never told me. No a single piece of mail. No one knocked on my door to share anything about hteir candidate. Just the same snooty attitude displayed by Libertarians here that somehow it is my responsibility to learn about their candidate.

I don't know the answer to the following questions in the 2nd; I don't live there. Based on the absolute void of communication from the Libertarian party in Fort Wayne, I've got a pretty good idea though.

How much money was spent by Libertarians to field their candidate? How large an organization was established to support the candidate? Build a voting coalition? What effort was made on election day to get the vote out? What polls were run? How many candidate forums were set up? How many volunteers knocked on doors and explained the issues and positions of the candidate?

I'm sure the answer is none, none, very little, none. You'll dismiss all these questions as being slanted toward Republicrats, but they matter. You aren't going to be viewed seriously if you're not serious. You're not going to be viewed favorably if you're not competitive. And Rs didn't vote for Vogel because Libertarians aren't competitive. Like it or not in the final analysis you can come to no other rational conclusion.

As I've said before, there aren't two political parties. There's one decision point. Do you support centralized or decentralized government. The political parties are simply manifestations supporting the choice. In that view there is no place for a third party, because there is no third decision point. When you have more than one choice of candidates in an election that could logically fit your decision, there will be a natural splitting of the electorate, and the least desirable candidate will win.

The fact that the Republican party has been co-opted is relevant, but the answer is not to form a competitive party, expecially one with such a controversial platform. It is to regain control of the Republican party. Or kill it and replace it with something else. But it still comes down to a single choice - do you want a centralized or decentralized government.

Maybe it's just more fun being a spoiler. I don't know.

 

[hornadylnl]

The repubes have the house back less than 24 hours and they're already talking compromise? "the question is how do we meet in the middle?"

Boehner calls for smaller, less costly government - wtop.com

 

[Fletch]

How much money was spent by Libertarians to field their candidate? How large an organization was established to support the candidate? Build a voting coalition? What effort was made on election day to get the vote out? What polls were run? How many candidate forums were set up? How many volunteers knocked on doors and explained the issues and positions of the candidate?

I'm sure the answer is none, none, very little, none. You'll dismiss all these questions as being slanted toward Republicrats, but they matter. You aren't going to be viewed seriously if you're not serious. You're not going to be viewed favorably if you're not competitive.

(Addressing my fellow libertarians) These are all valid points. Let's face it, libertarians suck at organizing. Trying to get libertarians to row the boat in the same direction is like trying to keep a bunch of bullfrogs in a wheelbarrow. The best we ever managed to do was in the massive donating and ad-hoc organization that happened in Ron Paul's presidential campaign for 2008. A lot of that dissolved into the Tea Parties, for which libertarians are not given credit, but when it comes to the party that is putatively "ours", the level of suck remains high.

Frankly, I don't believe much will ever come of trying to organize a group of people whose common trait is stubborn individualism. It's far too antithetical to our nature. I believe it's all the explanation that is necessary for several decades of failure to get a real head of steam rolling. But I do believe that a significant portion (not all, not even most, but a significant portion) of the Tea Party's power came from libertarian-minded individuals who decided to do EXACTLY what the hardcore Republicans here have been saying we should do. A lot of us may have gone from the RP campaign back to the LP fold, but I'm fairly well convinced that a lot of us decided to stay and put our efforts into expanding the libertarian share of the Republican Party. I have no numbers or stats to back that up, but it's the way I read what's been happening over the last two years.

 

[hornadylnl]

Ok, which wing of the republicrat party is actually working to decentralize the government? Not paying lip service on election day but actually doing it? We had a more centralized government in 2006 than in 2000. Your heros had both house and the presidency then. Your attempts to paint repubes as something they clearly aren't is rediculus.

 

[TiminMishawaka]

(Addressing my fellow libertarians) These are all valid points. Let's face it, libertarians suck at organizing.

This was my point from the beginning. If the Libertarians can't run their campaigns, then there's no way they can run the country. Yeah, not everything the Republican party does makes everyone happy but we don't live in a world where we get everything we want. You have to WIN elections in order to start effecting real change. It's join or die and in this district of Indiana the Libertarians chose die and sent Obama's lap dog back to Washington. Thanks Libertarians. Thanks a lot. Now go pleasure yourself with a Don't Tread On Me flag while talking about your "moral" victory.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Ok, which wing of the republicrat party is actually working to decentralize the government? Not paying lip service on election day but actually doing it? We had a more centralized government in 2006 than in 2000. Your heros had both house and the presidency then. Your attempts to paint repubes as something they clearly aren't is rediculus.

My heroes? Seriously? Why are you so angry? Your guy lose?

This was my point from the beginning. If the Libertarians can't run their campaigns, then there's no way they can run the country. Yeah, not everything the Republican party does makes everyone happy but we don't live in a world where we get everything we want. You have to WIN elections in order to start effecting real change. It's join or die and in this district of Indiana the Libertarians chose die and sent Obama's lap dog back to Washington. Thanks Libertarians. Thanks a lot. Now go pleasure yourself with a Don't Tread On Me flag while talking about your "moral" victory.

+1 and repped. It's evident that they just want to be pissed off for another two years until the next election cycle when they can throw their votes away and be even angrier. I believe in rugged individualism, but damn when it gets cold enough outside even I put a coat on so I don't catch a cold.

 

[hornadylnl]

You have to WIN elections in order to start effecting real change.

The repubes just won the house back. Just what change are they going to affect? It hasn't even been 24 hours and the speaker to be is already talking about compromise. I want zero compromise for the next 2 years. Shut the mf'er down.

 

[hornadylnl]

My heroes? Seriously? Why are you so angry? Your guy lose?



+1 and repped. It's evident that they just want to be pissed off for another two years until the next election cycle when they can throw their votes away and be even angrier. I believe in rugged individualism, but damn when it gets cold enough outside even I put a coat on so I don't catch a cold.

I think the angry ones are the ones who are crying about the repube losing due to us voting third party. I'm not angry. I already know our country is lost and I'm under no illusions that the repubes are going to save us.