# Liberty Movement > Grassroots Central >  Will the Libertarian Party Field A Candidate Against Presidential Candidate Rand Paul?

## AuH20

Thoughts? I say yes. They may go after him hard too. I could see the dems getting in on the action too.

----------


## supermario21

I could see Gary Johnson doing it, just because Rand is apparently a big porker in DC.

----------


## FSP-Rebel

They'd be finished if they ran someone against a Paul. The average anarchist would love it tho.

----------


## GregSarnowski

Well obviously Paul hasn't won the nomination yet but of course they will field a candidate in the general. But the LP is irrelevant on the national stage so it hardly matters. Also if it's Gary Johnson again I think Paul is at least as libertarian as him if not more so, certainly a more engaging speaker.

----------


## compromise

> I could see Gary Johnson doing it, just because Rand is apparently a big porker in DC.


Is he? Rand is definitely better fiscally than Gary.

----------


## GregSarnowski

> They'd be finished if they ran someone against a Paul. The average anarchist would love it tho.


I don't think the average anarchist or even hardcore libertarian supports Gary Johnson. He certainly didn't get a fawning reception at Porcfest.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I don't think the average anarchist or even hardcore libertarian supports Gary Johnson. He certainly didn't get a fawning reception at Porcfest.


Gary Johnson is worse than Rand on a few issues.

----------


## mczerone

If Rand took back his "I'm not a libertarian" statement, I could see them stepping back.

As it stands, Rand is putting forth the idea that he's a "True-blue-conservative-constitutionalist-Republican" - and he's not talking about libertarian philosophy or having a discussion about what the role of government should be from a libertarian POV.

To pretend that he's a "good enough" libertarian to not run a candidate is to give up on libertarianism altogether.

----------


## GregSarnowski

> Gary Johnson is worse than Rand on a few issues.


Remember at the Rally for the Republic when he bragged about all the government jobs he saved? Pretty embarrassing.

----------


## fr33

I predict that they will. They always do have a candidate.

----------


## CaptUSA

The Libertarian party is a firing circle.  (It took me a long time to realize they like being in the circle.)  

Of course they'll run a candidate.

----------


## GregSarnowski

> If Rand took back his "I'm not a libertarian" statement, I could see them stepping back.
> 
> As it stands, Rand is putting forth the idea that he's a "True-blue-conservative-constitutionalist-Republican" - and he's not talking about libertarian philosophy or having a discussion about what the role of government should be from a libertarian POV.
> 
> To pretend that he's a "good enough" libertarian to not run a candidate is to give up on libertarianism altogether.


Well look at where 40 years of the philosophical approach has gotten us. Rand is proposing practical, viable solutions that point in a libertarian direction, and most importantly he's doing it in a way that makes people think they arrived at those conclusions themselves.

----------


## thoughtomator

> Gary Johnson is worse than Rand on a few issues.


He's worse than Rand across the board. Johnson is not a libertarian _at all_. He's a soft statist.

----------


## specsaregood

> Well obviously Paul hasn't won the nomination yet but of course they will field a candidate in the general. But the LP is irrelevant on the national stage so it hardly matters.


When Rand does get the nomination, I fully expect any LP candidate to get a glowing reception and more media coverage than any previous LP candidate.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

Of course they will.   Hell Ron Paul could run on the R ticket and Judge Nap on the Dems and they would still field a candidate.  They need money coming in to keep up their sham of a political party and recruit some more suckers to make up for the ones that they lose along the way.

----------


## alucard13mm

> When Rand does get the nomination, I fully expect any LP candidate to get a glowing reception and more media coverage than any previous LP candidate.


Yep. To siphon votes away. LP party should recognize rand is as libertarian as you can get for mainstream. Rand can help LP by making libertarian ideas more accepted so LP has more of a chance in 2020 or 2024. If they dont recognize this...

----------


## FSP-Rebel

> I don't think the average anarchist or even hardcore libertarian supports Gary Johnson. He certainly didn't get a fawning reception at Porcfest.


I meant a generic, doctrinaire LP candidate like Badnarik or Ruwart. I was at Johnson's first porcfest in 2010, he got an ok reception and I got a pic with him down by the main pavilion but this is obviously before he started taking stances for his prez run. I agree with specs that the media might give them exposure but if they have a purist candidate then I can't help but think that would make Rand look exceptionally reasonable.

----------


## V3n

Yes.  The L party cares more about advancing their Party than principle (see: Bob Barr) just like the R's and D's do.
No one will pay attention to him/her, they'll get their usual 1% and won't amount to anything.

(I'm talking about the "Party" in my first sentence, not all individual libertarians)

----------


## angelatc

> Thoughts? I say yes. They may go after him hard too. I could see the dems getting in on the action too.


Of course they will.  They can a candidate against Ron Paul for heaven's sakes.

----------


## RonPaulFanInGA

Why wouldn't they?  It would be their party's one true chance for attention.  After forty years of being ignored, imagine all the hit pieces the media could run against Rand Paul with Libertarian Party quotes attached.  They could be the media's useful idiots as long as Rand Paul is running.

----------


## cjm

> Yes.  The L party cares more about advancing their Party than principle (see: Bob Barr) just like the R's and D's do.
> No one will pay attention to him/her, they'll get their usual 1% and won't amount to anything.
> 
> (I'm talking about the "Party" in my first sentence, not all individual libertarians)


I agree with all of this except the 1%.  Historically it's more like 0.4%

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> Yes.  The L party cares more about advancing their Party than principle (see: Bob Barr) just like the R's and D's do.
> No one will pay attention to him/her, they'll get their usual 1% and won't amount to anything.
> 
> (I'm talking about the "Party" in my first sentence, not all individual libertarians)


I think even more so it is a bunch of people sitting around that are a combination of clueless and delusional.  40 years - 40 $#@!ing years and this is what they have amounted to?

They trot out their list of LP members elected to public office every year.  There's at most 200 people nationwide.  What they fail to tell you in the huge majority of them are for non-partisan seats, and I bet if you dug deeper of the handful that were elected to partisan seats a bunch of them ran unopposed or on "fusion" tickets.  My best guess (and I don't have the time, nor desire to do the reasearch), is that of the 10's of thousands of elected offices in this country, maybe a dozen people at best won their seat running solely on the LP line of the ballot and were opposed in their race.  Quite a showing for a party that is 40 years old.  Yay team!

----------


## mello

They will. That candidate will never get on a national debate & will barely be mentioned by the MSM though. He or she will use a lot of money to just get on the ballot.

----------


## JCDenton0451

Don't get all the LP bashing in this thread.

----------


## RonPaulFanInGA

> They will. That candidate will never get on a national debate & will barely be mentioned by the MSM though.


No way.  The media liked to use negative comments about Rand Paul from the Kentucky Libertarian Party against him back in 2010.  They'll be running criticisms about Paul from them often if he wins the GOP nomination.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> The Libertarian party is a firing circle.  (It took me a long time to realize they like being in the circle.)  
> 
> Of course they'll run a candidate.


Very accurate and true.

----------


## twomp

I would be more worried if they didn't. The Libertarian party is their own party and SHOULD field their own candidates. We need more parties not less. I would be concerned if the Libertarian Party said they were in "cahoots" with the Republican party and won't challenge them. We need MORE choices not less.

----------


## specsaregood

> They will. That candidate will never get on a national debate & will barely be mentioned by the MSM though. He or she will use a lot of money to just get on the ballot.


When Rand is the GOP nominee, I fully expect the LP candidate to be invited to all the debates.

----------


## FrankRep

A pretty good Democrat strategy would be to send money to the Libertarian campaign to make sure they're well funded. If the Libertarians take at least 3-4% of the vote, the Democrats could get a huge advantage and win the election.

----------


## JCDenton0451

> If Rand took back his "I'm not a libertarian" statement, I could see them stepping back.
> 
> As it stands, Rand is putting forth the idea that he's a "True-blue-conservative-constitutionalist-Republican" - and he's not talking about libertarian philosophy or having a discussion about what the role of government should be from a libertarian POV.
> 
> To pretend that he's a "good enough" libertarian to not run a candidate is to give up on libertarianism altogether.


It irks me every time the media refer to Rand as a "libertarian" and he accepts this label. Not only it goes at odds with his political strategy, he dilutes the meaning of libertarianism in the process.

Rand's mission in the Republican party should be reforming Conservatism, not Libertarianism.

----------


## RonPaulFanInGA

> We need MORE choices not less.


When your party is a dud, has 0% chance of winning and usually gets less than 1% of the vote in national elections, it might as well not even be a "choice."

To me, a candidate/party needs to be viable to be a real "choice."

----------


## FrankRep

> It irks me every time the media refer to Rand as a "libertarian" and he accepts this label. Not only it goes at odds with his political strategy, he dilutes the meaning of libertarianism in the process.
> 
> Rand's mission in the Republican party should be reforming Conservatism, not Libertarianism.


The media is only using the "libertarian" term to smear Rand Paul to make him lose support.

----------


## cjm

> Don't get all the LP bashing in this thread.


Some of us are LP survivors.

----------


## The Free Hornet

> Thoughts? I say yes. They may go after him hard too. *I could see the dems getting in on the action too.*


*So you have eyes?*  If the LP/CP elect not to run a candidate, it looks like an endorsement of Rand (who based on the premise of your question, is the presumptive nominee of the GOP).  However, what is that endorsement worth?  Likely, less than zero.

I would hope LP/CP continue with business as normal and I would hope the _good_ candidates consider seriously their choices.

Maybe you should pick a better pot to stir next time...

----------


## speciallyblend

yes, because i will not be voting republican. I do not trust rand or the rest of them.

----------


## AuH20

> A pretty good Democrat strategy would be to send money to the Libertarian campaign to make sure they're well funded. If the Libertarians take at least 3-4% of the vote, the Democrats could get a huge advantage and win the election.


which ties into what Howard Dean recently said. He said that Rand could never be any type of libertarian because of his pro-life stance.

----------


## twomp

> When your party is a dud, has 0% chance of winning and usually gets less than 1% of the vote in national elections, it might as well not even be a "choice."
> 
> To me, a candidate/party needs to be viable to be a real "choice."


It's exactly that attitude that will have us voting Team Red or Team Blue forever. Eventually people are going to have step out of that mentality and say enough is enough.

----------


## FrankRep

> It's exactly that attitude that will have us voting Team Red or Team Blue forever. Eventually people are going to have step out of that mentality and say enough is enough.


Ron Paul went Team Red and became a Congressman.

----------


## AuH20

Clinton money forms a libertarian PAC that goes after Rand Paul. Watch for it!

----------


## JCDenton0451

> The media is only using the "libertarian" term to smear Rand Paul to make him lose support.


Well, he should be rejecting this label then, not embracing it.

----------


## JCDenton0451

> Clinton money forms a libertarian PAC that goes after Rand Paul. Watch for it!


What do you think their main line of attack will be?

----------


## twomp

> Ron Paul went Team Red and became a Congressman.


So did Peter King and John Boehner. What's your point?

----------


## radiofriendly

They will run a candidate and let them. The poor Libertarian party could have taken over the Tea Party...but, as we all know, it's worse than herding cats. And for some, milking cows, is a violation of the non-aggression principle. And they run candidates like Bob Barr--makes total sense. 


Snark aside, having strong articulate (and clean ) candidates articulate a liberty based message is good for our cause. This will make Rand Paul even stronger--and, as an added bonus, he can say, "see, I'm not even THAT libertarian!"

----------


## FrankRep

> So did Peter King and John Boehner. What's your point?


What's my point? I want to see more Ron Paul-like people in government and the LP can't do it. I say follow Ron Paul's strategy.

----------


## AuH20

> What do you think their main line of attack will be?


Try to paint him as as a strident David Duke, white Christian nationalist type who is attempting to masquerade as a libertarian. These people are quite transparent in their strategies in that they continually recycle them.

----------


## eleganz

Oh come on guys, GJ is going to run again and he has every right to.  Just because Rand is our guy (for most of us here) doesn't mean there can't be competition.  Ron was competition for the last two elections and we wanted him to count, everybody deserves the chance to shine...of all people, WE should be living and breathing this idea by now.

----------


## JCDenton0451

> which ties into what Howard Dean recently said. He said that Rand could never be any type of libertarian because of his pro-life stance.


It's one thing to be pro-life and consider abortion immoral. Harry Reid is pro-life. It's another thing if your policy is to have immoral acts outlawed. That's social conservatism. 

Rand Paul is a social conservative. Whether social conservatism is fundamentally compatible with libertarianism is a matter of debate.




> Try to paint him as as a strident David Duke, white  Christian nationalist type who is attempting to masquerade as a  libertarian. These people are quite transparent in their strategies in  that they continually recycle them.


Of which only the Christian thing might connect because it is true.

----------


## PatriotOne

Them running Gary Johnson against Ron Paul last year should be a clue that they are more interested in surviving as a party than having influence in politics.  If they were serious they would join us fighting within the GOP at this point.  That's where all the action is at right now but the Libertarian Leadership won't encourage that because they won't give up the donations.  

Hopefully their members will do this without leadership encouragement.  Well except Cajun.....she can stay right where she's at for the same reason the Hair Club for Men doesn't hire this guy as their spokesman.

----------


## radiofriendly

> Oh come on guys, GJ is going to run again and he has every right to.  Just because Rand is our guy (for most of us here) doesn't mean there can't be competition.  Ron was competition for the last two elections and we wanted him to count, everybody deserves the chance to shine...of all people, WE should be living and breathing this idea by now.


Agree.

----------


## FrankRep

> It's one thing to be pro-life and consider abortion immoral. Harry Reid is pro-life. It's another thing if your policy is to have immoral acts outlawed. That's social conservatism. 
> 
> Rand Paul is a social conservative. Whether social conservatism is fundamentally compatible with libertarianism is a matter of debate.


Abortion is murder and I support laws against murder.

----------


## neoreactionary

> We need more parties not less.


This is wrong. First-past-the-post voting ensures a _de facto_ (if not _de jure_) two-party system. People working outside the Democratic and Republican parties are doing more to hurt their causes than help them.

----------


## twomp

> What's my point? I want to see more Ron Paul-like people in government and the LP can't do it. I say follow Ron Paul's strategy.


And I would totally agree with you there. It IS currently working with Amash, Massie, Rand Paul and company there. But that still doesn't mean the Libertarian Party shouldn't continue sending out candidates. What happens if Rand Paul doesn't win the nomination and we are stuck with Rubio vs. Clinton? Should we vote for the "lesser of two evils" again? Have you noticed that the "lesser of two evils" usually result in more of the same?

----------


## neoreactionary

> It's one thing to be pro-life and consider abortion immoral. Harry Reid is pro-life. It's another thing if your policy is to have immoral acts outlawed. That's social conservatism.
> 
> Rand Paul is a social conservative. Whether social conservatism is fundamentally compatible with libertarianism is a matter of debate.




Do you think murder should be outlawed?

----------


## cjm

> Oh come on guys, GJ is going to run again and he has every right to.  Just because Rand is our guy (for most of us here) doesn't mean there can't be competition.  Ron was competition for the last two elections and we wanted him to count, everybody deserves the chance to shine...of all people, WE should be living and breathing this idea by now.


I'm not saying GJ shouldn't run or that the LP shouldn't field a candidate.  I'm just saying that the LP's 40 year track record makes the outcome somewhat predictable.  If anyone wants to promote liberty through the LP, I think that's great.  I don't recommend it, but to each his own.

----------


## 69360

Of course the will and of course they will get the usual .5%

----------


## amy31416

> Don't get all the LP bashing in this thread.


If you were around in 07-08, you probably would. They're douchebags.

----------


## twomp

> This is wrong. First-past-the-post voting ensures a _de facto_ (if not _de jure_) two-party system. People working outside the Democratic and Republican parties are doing more to hurt their causes than help them.


I disagree. They are the ones that are doing something that the majority of people don't have the stones to do. They are standing by their principal and working on what they believe in regardless of their "chances." Your argument reminds me of Laura Ingraham's thoughts on Edward Snowden. She says that she's glad the information he released is out there but somehow still thinks he should have "gone through the proper channels."

There needs to be an alternative and the refusal to even entertain the idea of a 3rd party is exactly what the tyrants want.

----------


## Brett85

I would say "yes," and it would probably be Gary Johnson.  A lot of the pro choice libertarians would probably vote for Johnson over Rand.  But, my guess is that Johnson would probably get about .5% of the vote, compared to the 1% he got last year.

----------


## FrankRep

> And I would totally agree with you there. It IS currently working with Amash, Massie, Rand Paul and company there. But that still doesn't mean the Libertarian Party shouldn't continue sending out candidates. What happens if Rand Paul doesn't win the nomination and we are stuck with Rubio vs. Clinton? Should we vote for the "lesser of two evils" again? Have you noticed that the "lesser of two evils" usually result in more of the same?


I voted for Gary Johnson in the general election last time, but he received 1% of the vote. 

That's not even worth my time voting. I'm not voting 3rd party again.

----------


## PatriotOne

> You're such a snarky $#@!.


And I invite you to stay in the Libertarian Party also for the same reason Vitamix doesn't hire this gal as their spokesman:

----------


## neoreactionary

> I disagree. *Al-Qaeda* are the ones that are doing something that the majority of people don't have the stones to do. They are standing by their principal and working on what they believe in regardless of their "chances."


See what I did there?




> Your argument reminds me of Laura Ingraham's thoughts on Edward Snowden. She says that she's glad the information he released is out there but somehow still thinks he should have "gone through the proper channels."


This demonstrates nothing more than that your brain is bad at making analogies.




> There needs to be an alternative and the refusal to even entertain the idea of a 3rd party is exactly what the tyrants want.


Is it a third party we need,  or is it a new and revitalized second party, raising a banner of no pale  pastels, but bold colors which make it unmistakably clear where we  stand on all of the issues troubling the people?

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> Is it a third party we need,  or is it a new and revitalized second party, raising a banner of no pale  pastels, but bold colors which make it unmistakably clear where we  stand on all of the issues troubling the people?


Well stated!

And to add, the LP is NOT a third party - they are a minor party at best.  A third party would mean that they had some sort of a national network, state offices, elected officials at all level of government, etc.  They don't.  In 40 years they have not managed to build anything that remotely resembles a political party.  See my post of the pitiful number of people they actually have holding elected office.  Again 40 $#@!ing years and this is what they accomplished.  They have never elected ANYONE to an office higher than a state legislature position, and the majority of the 12, count them, 12 people that have won a state legislature seat on their ballot line, did so by running on BOTH the Republican line and the LP line.  40 years of spending money, dressing up in jackets and ties and pretending to be a political party.  What they are really doing is a gradious sham where they take delusional and uninformed people and bilk them out of their hard earned money and precious time.  

If the LP was a horse, it should be put down.

----------


## twomp

> This demonstrates nothing more than that your brain is bad at making analogies.


I would say your brain is bad at understanding analogies. Bringing up Al-Qaeda does nothing for me. The government does it all the time. I'm not scared of the boogie man that you and your fellow tyrants bring up to try and fear me into agreeing with you.

----------


## FrankRep

I want to see Ron Paul-like people elected. I don't care what party they are in. The GOP is the best opportunity, however.

----------


## Carlybee

> And I invite you to stay in the Libertarian Party also for the same reason Vitamix doesn't hire this gal as their spokesman:


I don't belong to the Libertarian Party. I am a registered Republican.

----------


## neoreactionary

> I would say your brain is bad at understanding analogies. Bringing up Al-Qaeda does nothing for me. The government does it all the time. I'm not scared of the boogie man that you and your fellow tyrants bring up to try and fear me into agreeing with you.


This is a further demonstration that your brain is bad at making analogies. I am not trying to "fear [you] into agreeing with [me]."

You should recognize your cognitive limitations and be more humble.

----------


## jtstellar

why not.. 

and make sure you attack rand paul as viciously as you could with your 1% constituent, LP.  in most likely scenario that's going to start drawing disillusioned democrats from their own party.  

let's face it most people who place economics and constitution as their priority libertarian issue are now in gop supporting rand.  rest of the bums don't have much care for economic issues are likely dumb broke youngsters who worry about social issues and they are likely to stay democrat anyhow.  gogogo LP, you can draw those crowd away from the democrat.  it will be hilarious to see infighting between democrats and the LP if democrats have to worry about their behind because gary johnson is outdoing them on gay marriages issue and feminism(disguised in abortion debate).  hillary clinton:  hey don't be stealing my thunder man.  go gary johnson.  doooooo iiiiiiiiiit

----------


## FrankRep

> why not.. and make sure you attack rand paul as hardly as you could with your 1% constituent, LP.  in most likely scenario that's going to start drawing disillusioned democrats from their own party.  
> 
> let's face it most people who place economics and constitution as their priority libertarian issue are now in gop supporting rand.  rest of the bums don't have much care for economic issues are likely dumb broke youngsters who worry about social issues and they are likely to stay democrat anyhow.  gogogo LP, you can draw those crowd away from the democrat


Democrats support Big Government. They will not support the Libertarians.

----------


## PatriotOne

> I don't belong to the Libertarian Party. I am a registered Republican.


Oh geez.  Well can you at least keep that info on the down-low instead of saying it out loud?

----------


## Carlybee

> Oh geez.  Well can you at least keep that info on the down-low instead of saying it out loud?


Trust me, given some of the representatives in this thread like you..it isn't much to brag about.

----------


## eduardo89

They ran a candidate against Amash, so they certainly will against Rand. 

The LP are a bunch of loser douchebags who are more interested in 'ideologically pure' circlejerks than doing anything of significance.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> They ran a candidate against Amash, so they certainly will against Rand. 
> 
> The LP are a bunch of loser douchebags who are more interested in 'ideologically pure' circlejerks than doing anything of significance.


If that were true, Bob Barr and Gary Johnson wouldn't have been the last two LP candidates for president.

----------


## PatriotOne

> They ran a candidate against Amash, so they certainly will against Rand. 
> 
> The LP are a bunch of loser douchebags who are more interested in 'ideologically pure' circlejerks than doing anything of significance.


I like most Libertarians.  There were a lot of them that saw the benefit and opportunity of working to change the GOP since 2007 and still are.  But damn...a handful of the so-called Libertarians on this board make the rest of them look like a bunch of buffoons incapable of any strategy what-so-ever.  If I was a L, I'd be asking them to turn their card in.

----------


## jtstellar

> They ran a candidate against Amash, so they certainly will against Rand. 
> 
> The LP are a bunch of loser douchebags who are more interested in 'ideologically pure' circlejerks than doing anything of significance.


lol pure

 i'm willing to bet a good percentage of them are willing to trample the constitution and put definition of marriage into federal law then force it to all states in favor of gay marriage.  many LP members are also to the right of rand paul on foreign policy and to the left of him on economics.  

there were vocal voices against ron in 08 and 12 based on economics his call for fed overhaul and honset money as well as in some cases foreign intervention, but as the paul family rise more and more out of anonymity, so do these voices quiet down substantially.  you can see the cowardice.  what can the catherine-mangu-wards achieve against paul in the LP?  not very much.  oh, right, whatever happened to that self described libertarian economist megan mcardle?  is she still alive

----------


## GregSarnowski

> If that were true, Bob Barr and Gary Johnson wouldn't have been the last two LP candidates for president.


Agreed, they seem to be more than willing to compromise, the problem is the system is heavily stacked against third parties and independents and that's not going to change anytime soon. 

What really needs to happen is the "Commission on Presidential Debates" needs to be disbanded and an independent organization go back to hosting the general election debates. The CPD is run by duopoly insiders and is designed to keep alternative voices out. Anyone who is on enough ballots to conceivably win the presidency should be allowed on stage. Americans go to the store and pick from 50 different kinds of potato chips, I think they can handle 4 or at most 5 candidates. It is a transparent farce and no one seems to care. Lawsuits against it have gone nowhere. At least the Green Party candidate was willing to show up last election and get arrested over it; Johnson wasn't.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Trust me, given some of the representatives in this thread like you..it isn't much to brag about.


*You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Carlybee again.*

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> Agreed, they seem to be more than willing to compromise, the problem is the system is heavily stacked against third parties and independents and that's not going to change anytime soon. 
> 
> What really needs to happen is the "Commission on Presidential Debates" needs to be disbanded and an independent organization go back to hosting the general election debates. The CPD is run by duopoly insiders and is designed to keep alternative voices out. Anyone who is on enough ballots to conceivably win the presidency should be allowed on stage. Americans go to the store and pick from 50 different kinds of potato chips, I think they can handle 4 or at most 5 candidates. It is a transparent farce and no one seems to care. Lawsuits against it have gone nowhere. At least the Green Party candidate was willing to show up last election and get arrested over it; Johnson wasn't.


I am off the opinion that the do not deserve to be in the debates because they are not real political parties.  Just because they can focus time, money and energy at getting on the ballots in X amount of states does not make them a real political party.  Win some state legislature seats on their own merit, build up some respectable leaders that can then run for Congress and State Senate seats, have some Congressmen go for the Senate.  Be an actual political party, and then you can run a candidate for the White House that isn't written off as a joke.

The LP, CP , et al are like a guy who refuses to get a job, but plays the lottery every week as his means of attaining wealth.  The LP isn't willing to do the hard work to succeed as a political party, they just play the lottery by running unqualified people for major offices each and every year.

----------


## GregSarnowski

> I am off the opinion that the do not deserve to be in the debates because they are not real political parties.  Just because they can focus time, money and energy at getting on the ballots in X amount of states does not make them a real political party.  Win some state legislature seats on their own merit, build up some respectable leaders that can then run for Congress and State Senate seats, have some Congressmen go for the Senate.  Be an actual political party, and then you can run a candidate for the White House that isn't written off as a joke.


The fact that they are on enough ballots to conceivably win the presidency proves they are a "real" political party. It is not an insignificant achievement, and it is one that the two "major" parties have conveniently availed themselves of. Your definition of what constitutes a real political party is arbitrary and serves the interests of the corrupt status-quo. It might look like we are making good inroads right now, but Rand or another decent candidate getting the GOP nomination is not a sure thing; not even close.

----------


## FrankRep

> They ran a candidate against Amash, so they certainly will against Rand. 
> 
> The LP are a bunch of loser douchebags who are more interested in 'ideologically pure' circlejerks than doing anything of significance.


So even Justin Amash is too big government for the Libertarians?

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> The fact that they are on enough ballots to conceivably win the presidency proves they are a "real" political party. It is not an insignificant achievement, and it is one that the two "major" parties have conveniently availed themselves of. Your definition of what constitutes a real political party is arbitrary and serves the interests of the corrupt status-quo. It might look like we are making good inroads right now, but Rand or another decent candidate getting the GOP nomination is not a sure thing; not even close.


Not buying it, sorry. 40 years of failure is enough. The LP has NEVER done the hard work it takes to build from the ground up.  They are nothing more than a complete and utter waste of time and money.

----------


## mad cow

I think that the CPD says you must have 15% of the vote to be accepted to the Presidential debates.

Maybe we should let the LP vote percentage accumulate,they would now have ~5% after 11 elections and in another 80 years they might have enough to make the debates.

At that rate,the sky's the limit.Who knows,in three hundred years or so we might get a Libertarian Party President.

----------


## eduardo89

> So even Justin Amash is too big government for the Libertarians?


They just run because they have absolutely nothing better to do with their time.

----------


## GregSarnowski

> Not buying it, sorry. 40 years of failure is enough. The LP has NEVER done the hard work it takes to build from the ground up.  They are nothing more than a complete and utter waste of time and money.


I am not just talking about the LP. I am talking about all alternatives. Did Ross Perot deserve to be in the debates? Why, because he had money? He certainly didn't have any national network he built from the ground up and he almost won it all. Should the people who voted for him not have had that choice? And most importantly, since that "near miss", why has the Commission on Presidential Debates - run by the former heads of the DNC and RNC - not allowed any other independent or third parties the opportunity? I think the answer is obvious.

Also, I like and support Rand Paul, but when he has the nomination stolen from him and the American people are once again presented with two terrible choices don't be surprised.

----------


## BamaAla

> They'd be finished if they ran someone against a Paul. The average anarchist would love it tho.


When did they get started?

----------


## GregSarnowski

> I think that the CPD says you must have 15% of the vote to be accepted to the Presidential debates.
> 
> Maybe we should let the LP vote percentage accumulate,they would now have ~5% after 11 elections and in another 80 years they might have enough to make the debates.
> 
> At that rate,the sky's the limit.Who knows,in three hundred years or so we might get a Libertarian Party President.


The CPD's criteria for inclusion in the debates is completely unreasonable and self-serving.

----------


## jmdrake

> Thoughts? I say yes. They may go after him hard too. I could see the dems getting in on the action too.


If they did, wouldn't anybody other than us know it?  I doubt it.  Rachel Madcow might run the story so a few dozen other people would know as well.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> I am not just talking about the LP. I am talking about all alternatives. Did Ross Perot deserve to be in the debates? Why, because he had money? He certainly didn't have any national network he built from the ground up and he almost won after all. Should the people who voted for him not have had that choice? And most importantly, since that "near miss", why has the Commission on Presidential Debates - run by the former heads of the DNC and RNC - not allowed any other independent or third parties the opportunity? I think the answer is obvious.


Perot got in because he was leading in some of the polling in 92.  Has an LP candidate ever come close to leading in a poll?  No.  Why?  Because with the exception of GJ they run obscure candidates.  Why are they obscure?  Because the LP has never bothered to build from the ground up.  Can you name one elected official that began his career in the LP and stayed in the LP for his entire career in office?

----------


## mad cow

> The CPD's criteria for inclusion in the debates is completely unreasonable and self-serving.


1972.they have had a Presidential candidate in every election since and including 1972.

Oops,quoted the wrong post.Meant to quote this post by BamaAla:



> When did they get started?

----------


## GregSarnowski

> Perot got in because he was leading in some of the polling in 92.  Has an LP candidate ever come close to leading in a poll?  No.  Why?  Because with the exception of GJ they run obscure candidates.  Why are they obscure?  Because the LP has never bothered to build from the ground up.  Can you name one elected official that began his career in the LP and stayed in the LP for his entire career in office?


I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I don't expect anything to change. There will be two candidates on the general election debate stage in 2016, and they will both be the same.

----------


## VoluntaryAmerican

Yes.

----------


## GregSarnowski

> 1972.they have had a Presidential candidate in every election since and including 1972.


I am not defending the LP but I prefer to reserve my disdain for the establishment. I think they deserve inclusion just by virtue of completing the herculean task of getting on enough ballots to conceivably win. There are maybe 3 alternative parties in the country that can accomplish that.

----------


## cajuncocoa

What difference does it make?  You're not worried, are you?

----------


## jtstellar

> What difference does it make?  You're not worried, are you?


"what difference, at this point, does it make???"

----------


## compromise

> "what difference, at this point, does it make???"


They are birds of a feather.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> "what difference, at this point, does it make???"





> They are birds of a feather.


so now everyone who ever asks if something makes a difference is Hillary Clinton?  Juvenile.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I don't expect anything to change. There will be two candidates on the general election debate stage in 2016, and they will both be the same.


It will change if they (or for that matter any other minor party) does the hard work that it takes to establish themselves.  But they likely won't.  Minor parties are made up of a combination of the naive, the delusional, opportunists and outcasts.  They don't have what it takes to be successful.

----------


## FrankRep

> What difference does it make?  You're not worried, are you?


I'll be worried that a Libertarian candidate will split the Rand Paul vote allow the Democrat to win.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> They'd be finished if they ran someone against a Paul. The average anarchist would love it tho.


Wouldn't they have to pick their candidate before RP's win was guaranteed?



> Is he? Rand is definitely better fiscally than Gary.


True.




> Gary Johnson is worse than Rand on a few issues.


At least.



> He's worse than Rand across the board. Johnson is not a libertarian _at all_. He's a soft statist.


Yeah, pretty much.   Johnson wasn't terrible but he doesn't stand up to Rand on basically any issue I can think of.



> Of course they will.   Hell Ron Paul could run on the R ticket and Judge Nap on the Dems and they would still field a candidate.  They need money coming in to keep up their sham of a political party and recruit some more suckers to make up for the ones that they lose along the way.


If they did that, they'd be stupid, but I don't know that they would.  Heck, Ron ran as the LP candidate before.




> It irks me every time the media refer to Rand as a "libertarian" and he accepts this label. Not only it goes at odds with his political strategy, he dilutes the meaning of libertarianism in the process.
> 
> Rand's mission in the Republican party should be reforming Conservatism, not Libertarianism.


I agree.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> I'll be worried that a Libertarian candidate will split the Rand Paul vote allow the Democrat to win.


Nothing to worry about...the LP doesn't get enough votes to effect the outcome.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Nothing to worry about...the LP doesn't get enough votes to effect the outcome.


So vote the lesser of two evils, because it doesn't matter anyway

/sarc.  HEAVY sarc.

The LP candidate will honestly be irrelevant to me if  Rand wins.  As long as Rand doesn't slip into Ted Cruz type foreign policy, he'll have my vote.  And if he does, he won't.  Regardless of the LP candidate.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> If they did that, they'd be stupid, but I don't know that they would.  Heck, Ron ran as the LP candidate before.


They ran a candidate against Amash in 2012. I wouldn't put it past them.

And yes Ron ran on the LP ticket after he left Congress.  In my opinion, he was an opportunist.  He used the LP ticket as a platform which helped him build a mailing list, which he then converted to newsletter subscribers.  I don't believe Ron was under the delusion that he could actually win - I think he is smarter than that.  Note that when Ron re-entered politics he did so as a Republican, and at no point during his second term as a House member did he switch to the LP, which he very well could have and may have been able to retain his seat.

Oh and before anyone says "Ron is a lifetime member of the LP".  Big deal.  It's a donation that gets you that "membership", it has nothing to do with party registration.  Considering he was using their party for his 88 campaign, it's no surprise that he would throw a few bucks their way.

----------


## mosquitobite

> If Rand took back his "I'm not a libertarian" statement, I could see them stepping back.
> 
> As it stands, Rand is putting forth the idea that he's a "True-blue-conservative-constitutionalist-Republican" - and he's not talking about libertarian philosophy or having a discussion about what the role of government should be from a libertarian POV.
> 
> To pretend that he's a "good enough" libertarian to not run a candidate is to give up on libertarianism altogether.


They ran Bob Barr??!

----------


## torchbearer

yes.
they will elect national delegates.
those national delegates will nominate only those who are interested in their nomination. (rand won't be)
thus, the LP will have a candidate on the ballot.

perhaps all those people should just eliminate their party so some people here will feel better.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> They ran a candidate against Amash in 2012. I wouldn't put it past them.


You do know that they don't exist to help the GOP, right?  And by Rand's own words, he's not a libertarian, so why shouldn't they?  I wouldn't worry about it though...and I'd probably vote for Rand over whomever they run anyway.




> And yes Ron ran on the LP ticket after he left Congress.  *In my opinion, he was an opportunist*.  He used the LP ticket as a platform which helped him build a mailing list, which he then converted to newsletter subscribers.  I don't believe Ron was under the delusion that he could actually win - I think he is smarter than that.  Note that when Ron re-entered politics he did so as a Republican, and at no point during his second term as a House member did he switch to the LP, which he very well could have and may have been able to retain his seat.
> 
> Oh and before anyone says "Ron is a lifetime member of the LP".  Big deal.  It's a donation that gets you that "membership", it has nothing to do with party registration.  Considering he was using their party for his 88 campaign, it's no surprise that he would throw a few bucks their way.


Never let an opportunity to take a dig at Ron go to waste.

----------


## VoluntaryAmerican

> They ran a candidate against Amash in 2012. I wouldn't put it past them.


It's their strategy to get as many people on the ballot as possible.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> yes.
> they will elect national delegates.
> those national delegates will nominate only those who are interested in their nomination. (rand won't be)
> thus, the LP will have a candidate on the ballot.
> 
> perhaps all those people should just eliminate their party so some people here will feel better.


No need to eliminate, just need to do the hard work that it takes to build a political party, instead of $#@!ing around and wasting money by running someone for national office.  How about each state affiliate focuses all of their time and effort on winning ONE congressional seat per state.  If they had 20% success, they would actually have a party.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> Never let an opportunity to take a dig at Ron go to waste.


Not a dig at all.  If Ron ran in '88 thinking he would win, he would be $#@!ing delusional.  I don't think he was.  I think he saw an opportunity and he took it - therefore he is an opportunist.  Is English your native language because you see to have trouble with it at times.

----------


## compromise

> You do know that they don't exist to help the GOP, right?  And by Rand's own words, he's not a libertarian, so why shouldn't they?  I wouldn't worry about it though...and I'd probably vote for Rand over whomever they run anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> Never let an opportunity to take a dig at Ron go to waste.


Rand clearly said that he's a libertarian Republican.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> It's their strategy to get as many people on the ballot as possible.


That's worked real well for them.  They are 0 for ??? in the last 20 years.

----------


## torchbearer

> No need to eliminate, just need to do the hard work that it takes to build a political party, instead of $#@!ing around and wasting money by running someone for national office.  How about each state affiliate focuses all of their time and effort on winning ONE congressional seat per state.  If they had 20% success, they would actually have a party.


the state parties are focusing on congressional races, but the party has rules, it has elections-
they are prescribed in time.
those elections will occur. they won't take away from any other effort...
unlike the GOP primary, the campaign for an LP delegate is less than a day long. you show up to the convention with your friends, and you get elected.
does not burn up any extra resources.
the reason LP can't be successful is because Boobus is ignorant.

----------


## mad cow

> No need to eliminate, just need to do the hard work that it takes to build a political party, instead of $#@!ing around and wasting money by running someone for national office.  How about each state affiliate focuses all of their time and effort on winning ONE congressional seat per state.  If they had 20% success, they would actually have a party.


How about each State affiliate focus on winning one STATE representative or senator?If they had a 5% success rate,they would have more of a party than they have today or have ever had.

And I would cheer them on.

----------


## AuH20

> the state parties are focusing on congressional races, but the party has rules, it has elections-
> they are prescribed in time.
> those elections will occur. they won't take away from any other effort...
> unlike the GOP primary, the campaign for an LP delegate is less than a day long. you show up to the convention with your friends, and you get elected.
> does not burn up any extra resources.
> _the reason LP can't be successful is because Boobus is ignorant._



The progs have no problem using the Boobus' ignorance against him. Seems that the LP is just not cut out for the trench warfare that typifies American politics.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> the state parties are focusing on congressional races, but the party has rules, it has elections-
> they are prescribed in time.
> those elections will occur. they won't take away from any other effort...
> unlike the GOP primary, the campaign for an LP delegate is less than a day long. you show up to the convention with your friends, and you get elected.
> does not burn up any extra resources.
> the reason LP can't be successful is because Boobus is ignorant.


No they cannot be a success because they have never worked from the ground up.  They run people for office that are in way over their head.  For petes sake they are running a waitress/retail manager with an Associates Degree for Governor of Kansas.  And yes the states do focus on Congressional races, usually a whole lot of them.  Instead of picking one race where they can possibly be competitive, running a candidate that has some past electoral success and standing in the community, they take a shotgun approach and run a bunch of people and get absolutely no where.  

If you think the only reason the LP cannot win is because the voters are ignorant, then you are clearly not looking at 40+ years of evidence of the LP's repeated failure.  Yet every year they keep doing the same thing.  That is insanity.

----------


## torchbearer

> No they cannot be a success because they have never worked from the ground up.  They run people for office that are in way over their head.  For petes sake they are running a waitress/retail manager with an Associates Degree for Governor of Kansas.  And yes the states do focus on Congressional races, usually a whole lot of them.  Instead of picking one race where they can possibly be competitive, running a candidate that has some past electoral success and standing in the community, they take a shotgun approach and run a bunch of people and get absolutely no where.  
> 
> If you think the only reason the LP cannot win is because the voters are ignorant, then you are clearly not looking at 40+ years of evidence of the LP's repeated failure.  Yet every year they keep doing the same thing.  That is insanity.


apparently, libertarians aren't as superficial as you are.
they don't care what you do for a living, they care what your ideas are.
You are an example of the general populations superficiality. 
An example why the LP will never win. the problem is the superficiality of the minds of people, not the LP running waitresses.

----------


## torchbearer

> The progs have no problem using the Boobus' ignorance against him. Seems that the LP is just not cut out for the trench warfare that typifies American politics.


yes, that is correct.
they believe in the ideas.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Rand clearly said that he's a libertarian Republican.


He also said he doesn't want the "albatross" of the libertarian label around his neck...so that's conflicting.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> They ran a candidate against Amash in 2012. I wouldn't put it past them.


To be clear, I like Amash, even more than I like Rand.  I wouldn't run a candidate against Amash if it was up to  me (Or Rand, for that matter.)  That said, Rand and Amash are libertarian leaning conservatives.  Ron Paul and Napolitano are full-blown libertarian minarchists.   The only way you can really get more libertarian than Ron or the Judge is to be a straight ancap.  I'm not saying you're definitively wrong here, but considering the last two LP candidates for President were inferior to even Rand Paul... well come to think of it they might be the establishment in your hypothetical.



> And yes Ron ran on the LP ticket after he left Congress.  In my opinion, he was an opportunist.  He used the LP ticket as a platform which helped him build a mailing list, which he then converted to newsletter subscribers.  I don't believe Ron was under the delusion that he could actually win - I think he is smarter than that.  Note that when Ron re-entered politics he did so as a Republican, and at no point during his second term as a House member did he switch to the LP, which he very well could have and may have been able to retain his seat.


I don't think any of them think they can win.  That doesn't mean you shouldn't do it.  I'll agree with you that the likes of a Rand Paul or Justin Amash, maybe even a Mike Lee... in that type of case the LP shouldn't run against them.  But when you've got a Romney or McCain vs Obama election, I think it makes perfect sense to get involved even if you aren't gonna win, just to make a point.  2012 showed us that 1% of the electorate cares but is not going to accept the establishment crap.  And no, Gary wasn't my favorite candidate, but you can't compare him to Romney or Obama, he was WAY better than that.




> Oh and before anyone says "Ron is a lifetime member of the LP".  Big deal.  It's a donation that gets you that "membership", it has nothing to do with party registration.  Considering he was using their party for his 88 campaign, it's no surprise that he would throw a few bucks their way.


I care what an individual does, not what party he's in.  Republicans like Amash and Massie are way better than Libertarians like Barr (horrible) and Gary Johnson (Decent, but not great.)

----------


## Christian Liberty

> He also said he doesn't want the "albatross" of the libertarian label around his neck...so that's conflicting.


To be fair, its really hard to tell if he meant "Libertarian."

----------


## Brett85

> So even Justin Amash is too big government for the Libertarians?


Justin Amash doesn't support baby murder, so the Libertarian Party probably doesn't view him as being an authentic libertarian.

----------


## Jeremy

Hopefully not

----------


## torchbearer

> Justin Amash doesn't support baby murder, so the Libertarian Party probably doesn't view him as being an authentic libertarian.


why do you feel a need to lie?
the delegation has no consensus on the matter.
Ron Paul was the LP nominee at one time.
you are worse than fox news.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> apparently, libertarians aren't as superficial as you are.
> they don't care what you do for a living, they care what your ideas are.
> You are an example of the general populations superficiality. 
> An example why the LP will never win. the problem is the superficiality of the minds of people, not the LP running waitresses.


Politics is like any other endeavor.  You need experience and qualifications to hold office.  Asking for the votes of the citizens of a district/state/town is asking them to employ you for the job you are running for.  The waitress running for governor of Kansas is asking the voters of Kansas to elect her to a position where she would be managing a budget of over $25 billion and oversight of 80,000 state employees.  There is nothing in her experience, either political or in her career that has even a hint of qualification for the job.  That is not being superficial, it's being intelligent.

----------


## torchbearer

> Hopefully not


the nomination will happen as a matter of party rules.

----------


## VoluntaryAmerican

> That's worked real well for them.  They are 0 for ??? in the last 20 years.


I'm not defending their actions and I'm not sure if it is working or not. I (think) that this is a new strategy, I've only been associating with the folks at the NJLP for about a year but that seems to be the strategy.

And you said before that they should focus on the ground up. I agree with that.

----------


## torchbearer

> Politics is like any other endeavor.  You need experience and qualifications to hold office.  Asking for the votes of the citizens of a district/state/town is asking them to employ you for the job you are running for.  The waitress running for governor of Kansas is asking the voters of Kansas to elect her to a position where she would be managing a budget of over $25 billion and oversight of 80,000 state employees.  There is nothing in her experience, either political or in her career that has even a hint of qualification for the job.  That is not being superficial, it's being intelligent.



the people running for office are intellectually capable of defending your rights.
all the other crap is superficial.
if all the candidates elected were LP waitresses, you wouldn't have to worry about them managing a big budget.
it would be a really small budget. i'd donate a calculator to the cause.
Our representatives should not be our managers. This is where you are so wrong.
Its like, you think as a socialist thinks, but don't realize- you are a socialist?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> why do you feel a need to lie?
> the delegation has no consensus on the matter.
> Ron Paul was the LP nominee at one time.
> you are worse than fox news.


I'm not saying they're so superficial as to decide on one issue, but the LP platform is worded in a fashion that seems to justify a pro-choice position.

They say they "Understand the different views" but at the end of the day they defend "An individual's right to choose"... aka pro-choice.



> Justin Amash doesn't support baby murder, so the Libertarian Party probably doesn't view him as being an authentic libertarian.


I have minor issues with a couple things with Amash, namely that he did say he would hypothetically agree to raise taxes as a "compromise" and that he has voted for sanctions.  So he's not my perfect libertarian either.  That said, he's close enough, all things considered.

Of course, some here will take my disagreement as an attack, but I'm not attacking Amash.  I like Amash a lot.

----------


## VoluntaryAmerican

> I'm not saying they're so superficial as to decide on one issue, but the LP platform is worded in a fashion that seems to justify a pro-choice position.
> 
> They say they "Understand the different views" but at the end of the day they defend "An individual's right to choose"... aka pro-choice.
> 
> 
> I have minor issues with a couple things with Amash, namely that he did say he would hypothetically agree to raise taxes as a "compromise" and that he has voted for sanctions.  So he's not my perfect libertarian either.  That said, he's close enough, all things considered.
> 
> Of course, some here will take my disagreement as an attack, but I'm not attacking Amash.  I like Amash a lot.


Who gives a $#@!? Completely off topic.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> I'm not defending their actions and I'm not sure if it is working or not. I (think) that this is a new strategy, I've only been associating with the folks at the NJLP for about a year but that seems to be the strategy.
> 
> And you said before that they should focus on the ground up. That seems to be their focus, but they are also running people for Governor and other important seats.


I lived in NJ for a lot of years and it was never their strategy before.  Some maybe they finally have someone with a little sense there.  The problem they have always had (and this goes for other minor parties as well), is they spread themselves too thin.  If there are say 100 state rep seats up for grabs, they will run a candidate in every one that they can find someone willing to run, instead of logically looking at the most vulnerable seats (open seats for example), finding someone who has some political / business / community experience, pooling their resources (because they don't have many) and running to win.

----------


## Brett85

> why do you feel a need to lie?
> the delegation has no consensus on the matter.
> Ron Paul was the LP nominee at one time.
> you are worse than fox news.


Their platform contains a plank in favor of legal abortion, and that's an issue that Gary Johnson has criticized other libertarians on.

----------


## torchbearer

> I'm not saying they're so superficial as to decide on one issue, but the LP platform is worded in a fashion that *seems* to justify a pro-choice position.


really?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Their platform contains a plank in favor of legal abortion, and that's an issue that Gary Johnson has criticized _other_ libertarians on.


The word "Other" is unnecessary.  Gary Johnson is a  moderate liberal, not a libertarian.

----------


## Brett85

> really?


Yes.

http://www.lp.org/platform

"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."

----------


## torchbearer

> Their platform contains a plank in favor of legal abortion, and that's an issue that Gary Johnson has criticized other libertarians on.


well, here is one for my state:



> *Union*
> 
> 
> *Federalism*
> Louisiana is a sovereign State jealous of its territories and powers and  zealously guards them. We have a reciprocal responsibility to our  fellow States to bind the national government with the chains of the  Federal Constitution. We pledge in this union, assistance to protect all  from Invasion from without and to maintain republican government in our  own territory.
> 
> *International Relations*
>   We jealously guard our national and state sovereignty against any  attempt to institute a supranational government, organization, or  instrument designed towards such ends. International relations should be  conducted on a case by case basis only with relevant nations. We will  not subordinate public money to foreign interests, nor interfere with  the governing of, or initiate the use of force against, sovereign  peoples. We encourage limited, legal immigration, for our general  benefit.
> 
> ...


I posted this one because i was part of that epic convention that actually completed a platform without suffering from debate exhaustion. I was Vice-Chair at the time. (platforms are hard to pass in the LP- imagine the debate here x100)

and this is all the national plaform has to say:



> *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.


that has been hotly debated- but at least within the LP, an honest debate can be had.

----------


## VoluntaryAmerican

> I lived in NJ for a lot of years and it was never their strategy before.  Some maybe they finally have someone with a little sense there.  The problem they have always had (and this goes for other minor parties as well), is they spread themselves too thin.  If there are say 100 state rep seats up for grabs, they will run a candidate in every one that they can find someone willing to run, instead of logically looking at the most vulnerable seats (open seats for example), finding someone who has some political / business / community experience, pooling their resources (because they don't have many) and running to win.


This is the type of topics the party is discussing now. The president in NJ is a great guy, really a one-man-band. It's all voluntary, they have no paid members which is a big problem. 

But from what I've seen so far with my time there they are thinking more like you are.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> the people running for office are intellectually capable of defending your rights.
> all the other crap is superficial.
> if all the candidates elected were LP waitresses, you wouldn't have to worry about them managing a big budget.
> it would be a really small budget. i'd donate a calculator to the cause.
> Our representatives should not be our managers. This is where you are so wrong.
> Its like, you think as a socialist thinks, but don't realize- you are a socialist?


Oh let me guess you are one of the pie in the sky libertarians.  

Well guess what, right now Kansas (since we are using that as the example) has a $25 billion dollar budget.  You don't get from there, to a limited government without a lot of movement.  Additionally, she would have to work with a legislature that, is not going to be made up with people that agree with her on all issues.  I'm not a socialist, I am realistic.  You don't go from $25 billion to nothing just because you think its the ideal way that things should be.  And to be perfectly honest, look at history.  Even in colonial days, and pre-1860 America, government officials came from backgrounds where they had experience and leadership.  

But go ahead, keep running unqualified people for office.  Keep thinking that Americans are stupid because they won't elect an unemployed welder as their next Senator.  Enjoy your obscurity, because frankly I think you feed off it.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> This is the type of topics the party is discussing now. The president in NJ is a great guy, really a one-man-band. It's all voluntary, they have no paid members which is a big problem. 
> 
> But from what I've seen so far with my time there they are thinking more like you are.


Maybe they found the notes from the meeting back in the 70's LOL

----------


## VoluntaryAmerican

> Maybe they found the notes from the meeting back in the 70's LOL


Any relation to the assemblyman?

----------


## FrankRep

> Yes.
> 
> http://www.lp.org/platform
> 
> "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."


Well boom. The Libertarian Party just legalized murder.

----------


## Brett85

> that has been hotly debated- but at least within the LP, an honest debate can be had.


If a large number of Libertarian Party members are pro life, I would think that they would want to just leave the abortion issue out of their platform and not take a position on it.

----------


## torchbearer

> Oh let me guess you are one of the pie in the sky libertarians.



the only unqualified person, is the person who doesn't know the proper role of government. No matter how many large corporations they've managed.
We've been running this 'show' your way for at least a hundred years.
superficial bull$#@! is what we are all about now.

that is the reason for Rand's 'dap and dance'.

----------


## torchbearer

> If a large number of Libertarian Party members are pro life, I would think that they would want to just leave the abortion issue out of their platform and not take a position on it.


if a large portion of the delegation was pro-choice, the amendment would have stated the party believes in the woman's right to choose.
that isn't the case- so you get an agreement that government, the king of murder- shall not be the decider in this debate of morality.
ie, no group wants to use violence against the other in this debate.

----------


## Christian Liberty

OK... if they specified Federal Government, I might agree.  But they didn't.  They said "government."  They don't want any government involvement.  So, they're either pro-choice or anarcho-capitalists.

----------


## torchbearer

> Well boom. The Libertarian Party just legalized murder.


You should work for Fox News too.

----------


## torchbearer

> OK... anarcho-capitalists.


yup.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> I care what an individual does, not what party he's in.  Republicans like Amash and Massie are way better than Libertarians like Barr (horrible) and Gary Johnson (Decent, but not great.)


Can't rep ya again right now, but that's how I feel too.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> You should work for Fox News too.


A lot of people on this site could work for Fox News.  Pathetic.

----------


## TheTyke

In Kentucky 2010, the Libertarian Party did not run a candidate for Senate when it became clear Rand would win the nomination. Although I disagree with them on strategy sometimes, the members I know are respectable and the state chairman is an especially sharp guy. I can only hope the national party would adopt their strategy - and I'd urge LP delegates to support that positioning.

It's the wisest move politically. If you run a candidate when the other nominees are terrible, but refrain if they nominate someone liberty-minded, you are creating an electoral incentive to nominate liberty people. It sends the message "run a liberty candidate, or you WILL lose voters." But if you run one every time, no matter what, you become a certain percentage that can't be won by other party's candidates no matter what they stand for, and therefore they needn't pay attention to. It just becomes about the party and not the principle.

So my hope would be that the LP delegates who prefer principle over party will prevail over the establishment/Barr types in the convention.

----------


## torchbearer

> In Kentucky 2010, the Libertarian Party did not run a candidate for Senate when it became clear Rand would win the nomination. Although I disagree with them on strategy sometimes, the members I know are respectable and the state chairman is an especially sharp guy. I can only hope the national party would adopt their strategy - and I'd urge LP delegates to support that positioning.
> 
> It's the wisest move politically. If you run a candidate when the other nominees are terrible, but refrain if they nominate someone liberty-minded, you are creating an electoral incentive to nominate liberty people. It sends the message "run a liberty candidate, or you WILL lose voters." But if you run one every time, no matter what, you become a certain percentage that can't be won by other party's candidates no matter what they stand for, and therefore they needn't pay attention to. It just becomes about the party and not the principle.
> 
> So my hope would be that the LP delegates who prefer principle over party will prevail over the establishment/Barr types in the convention.


lezsay, i'm one of those people who would have become a delegate- but instead, spent my time campaigning for Rand.
well, instead of my ideas getting the delegate spot. someone who doesn't care what republicans are doing gets that spot instead.
those who like rand, will not be in the delegation.

if people here are so offended by the idea of competition- you could easily win all the delegate spots to the LP national convention, then you could nominate rand.

----------


## Brett85

> if a large portion of the delegation was pro-choice, the amendment would have stated the party believes in the woman's right to choose.
> that isn't the case- so you get an agreement that government, the king of murder- shall not be the decider in this debate of morality.
> ie, no group wants to use violence against the other in this debate.


Their platform makes it clear that they believe in "a woman's right to choose."  That's what "getting the government out of this issue" actually means, that abortion "doctors" should have the right to murder babies at will without fear of prosecution.

----------


## Brett85

> *ie, no group wants to use violence against the other in this debate.*


And that's an ironic statement.  Abortionists are certainly using violence against the babies that they murder.

----------


## torchbearer

> Their platform makes it clear that they believe in "a woman's right to choose."  That's what "getting the government out of this issue" actually means, that abortion "doctors" should have the right to murder babies at will without fear of prosecution.


how many of these LP platform debates have you been part of?
you are purposefully being deceitful if you are telling people Libertarians are pro-choice.
at least, half the delegate if pro-life. why would you besmirch all those people just to piss on the LP because it somehow makes you feel bigger?

----------


## torchbearer

> And that's an ironic statement.  Abortionists are certainly using violence against the babies that they murder.


you don't even understand the underlying debate.
the question debated isn't is murdering a baby moral?
the question debated is when do you become a person with rights?
that is why you'd be great at fox news.
you just make $#@! up.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> the only unqualified person, is the person who doesn't know the proper role of government. No matter how many large corporations they've managed.
> We've been running this 'show' your way for at least a hundred years.
> superficial bull$#@! is what we are all about now.
> 
> that is the reason for Rand's 'dap and dance'.


The Founding Fathers and those that followed after them understood the proper role of government.  I think you will have a hard time finding one that was a waiter before serving as Governor.

----------


## torchbearer

> The Founding Fathers and those that followed after them understood the proper role of government.  I think you will have a hard time finding one that was a waiter before serving as Governor.


because waiters are stupid $#@!s?
is that what you are saying?
are you comparing an 18th century uneducated bar wench to one of our young activist?

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Their platform makes it clear that they believe in "a woman's right to choose."  That's what "getting the government out of this issue" actually means, that abortion "doctors" should have the right to murder babies at will without fear of prosecution.


Yes, that's true of the national LP.  They are fond of saying they are pro-choice on _everything_.  I used to be proud of that fact, actually...but I owe Ron Paul a debt of gratitude for helping me to see that I was wrong there.  

That said, until there is a general consensus on when life begins, abortion will remain legal.  IMO, it's not a matter for the political community; it's a matter for the science community (insofar as determining criteria for when life begins).  Until then, those who oppose will have to be satisfied to live under their own moral code while trying to educate others.

----------


## torchbearer

> They are fond of saying they are pro-choice on _everything_.


now you are making $#@! up.
I want names for this anonymous "they" you talk about.
the "they"s i hung out with during national events were not anything like you described.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> now you are making $#@! up.
> I want names for this anonymous "they" you talk about.
> the "they"s i hung out with during national events were not anything like you described.


Nope, not making it up.

----------


## torchbearer

> Nope, not making it up.


and a button, that one person designed, is your "they"?
none of the people i associated with in the national party thought like that.
you are lying to say otherwise.
its like people saying Kokesh is Psyops. its just made up.
i've talked with the guy. he is a true believer.
that doesn't keep people from coming here and making $#@! up.

i'm almost at the point of making sure no libertarian in this state ever contributes to rand's campaign again.
if these are the kinds of people who would be benefiting from that effort.

they deserve the ass-$#@!ing they are getting.
i'll endure mine, just to enjoy watching theirs.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> and a button, that one person designed, is your "they"?
> none of the people i associated with in the national party thought like that.
> you are lying to say otherwise.
> its like people saying Kokesh is Psyops. its just made up.
> i've talked with the guy. he is a true believer.
> that doesn't keep people from coming here and making $#@! up.
> 
> i'm almost at the point of making sure no libertarian every contributes to rand's campaign again.
> if these are the kinds of people who would be benefiting from that effort.
> ...


Um, calm down and stop taking it so personally. I didn't say that any of the people YOU hung out with believe this or not; I didn't even mention the people you hang out with, so how can I be lying about them?

  I can't believe you've never seen any of those buttons or bumper stickers before.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> because waiters are stupid $#@!s?
> is that what you are saying?
> are you comparing an 18th century uneducated bar wench to one of our young activist?


What I am saying is that the job of Governor requires someone who has attained a certain level of education and success in their life.  It always has and always will.  Even in the early days of our country, when government was a limited as you can possibly dream of, the people who filled those offices were highly educated, had experience in business, law and in some cases politics, and had achieved a success as a leader in their community.  

But go ahead, keep running unemployed welders for Senate, and Walmart cashiers for State Attorney General.  You'll really advance the cause of liberty that way.

----------


## torchbearer

> What I am saying is that the job of Governor requires someone who has attained a certain level of education and success in their life.  It always has and always will.  Even in the early days of our country, when government was a limited as you can possibly dream of, the people who filled those offices were highly educated, had experience in business, law and in some cases politics, and had achieved a success as a leader in their community.  
> 
> But go ahead, keep running unemployed welders for Senate, and Walmart cashiers for State Attorney General.  You'll really advance the cause of liberty that way.


Go ahead and keep running plastic men and crooks.
See how well that keeps working out for you.

----------


## torchbearer

> Um, calm down and stop taking it so personally. I didn't say that any of the people YOU hung out with believe this or not; I didn't even mention the people you hang out with, so how can I be lying about them?
> 
>   I can't believe you've never seen any of those buttons or bumper stickers before.



I've been part of the national delegation.
Leader in the LP for 11 years.
you are talking about people i know.

----------


## fr33

> Well stated!
> 
> And to add, the LP is NOT a third party - they are a minor party at best.  A third party would mean that they had some sort of a national network, state offices, elected officials at all level of government, etc.  They don't.  In 40 years they have not managed to build anything that remotely resembles a political party.  See my post of the pitiful number of people they actually have holding elected office.  Again 40 $#@!ing years and this is what they accomplished.  They have never elected ANYONE to an office higher than a state legislature position, and the majority of the 12, count them, 12 people that have won a state legislature seat on their ballot line, did so by running on BOTH the Republican line and the LP line.  40 years of spending money, dressing up in jackets and ties and pretending to be a political party.  What they are really doing is a gradious sham where they take delusional and uninformed people and bilk them out of their hard earned money and precious time.  
> 
> If the LP was a horse, it should be put down.


In another topic you say that you don't want libertarians to support Rand. Now in this topic you gripe that they might support another candidate. We get it. You're a conservative that hates libertarians and you'll do everything you can to create division.




> The downside of the whole RP Revolution was that he picked up a bunch of tin foil hat wearers, libertines, radical anti-war leftists, and stoner video game addicts.  The same crowd that would stand on street corners with the V for Vendetta masks and Ron Paul signs.  And they wonder why Rand doesn't pander to them.  
> 
> Good $#@!ing riddance - I say. I am sure Gary Johnson would love to have you on his team.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> I've been part of the national delegation.
> you are talking about people i know.


No, I'm not.  I'm talking about buttons, bumper stickers and swag with the LP.org website URL on them.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> Go ahead and keep running plastic men and crooks.
> See how well that keeps working out for you.


So Ron, Rand, Massie and Amash are plastic men and crooks?

Why the $#@! are you even on this sure then?

----------


## cajuncocoa

> i'm almost at the point of making sure no libertarian in this state ever contributes to rand's campaign again.
> if these are the kinds of people who would be benefiting from that effort.


what is this even supposed to mean?

----------


## torchbearer

> So Ron, Rand, Massie and Amash are plastic men and crooks?
> 
> Why the $#@! are you even on this sure then?


the only man your types could agree on superficially that was almost libertarian, but not really:


none of the people you listed will be allowed to hold that office.

----------


## torchbearer

> what is this even supposed to mean?


i have an opportunity in the next few months to get back involved with the LP as someone who has led in the past. They want direction.
At this meeting, i can either promote pushing Rand.. or I can promote doing something else.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> In another topic you say that you don't want libertarians to support Rand. Now in this topic you gripe that they might support another candidate. We get it. You're a conservative that hates libertarians and you'll do everything you can to create division.


Haven't griped at all, just pointing out the folly that is the LP. And I don't hate libertarians, just the ignorant $#@!s that give the Liberty Movement a bad name.

----------


## torchbearer

> No, I'm not.  I'm talking about buttons, bumper stickers and swag with the LP.org website URL on them.






> that's true of the national LP.  They are fond of saying they are pro-choice on _everything_.


doesn't look like you were talking about buttons.
looks like you were talking about people.
the national LP people.

the national guys are more anarcho-cap.
the state LP guys are more minarch. (as least it was up to this year, they've had a quite a few members leave because of burn-out)

----------


## fr33

If Rand fails to get the nomination a lot of people in this topic will vote LP. Not all of course. Some vote GOP every time.

It's stupid to so viciously hate people who you have a lot in common with especially since the GOP elite are still working so hard against us.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> doesn't look like you were talking about buttons.
> looks like you were talking about people.
> the national LP people.
> 
> the national guys are more anarcho-cap.
> the state LP guys are minarch.


When one sees "LP.org" on a button, and the button says "Pro-Choice on Everything",  I think it's reasonable to assume the Libertarian Party (LP.org) may have had something to do with producing that button.  When I said "They" I was/am referring to the Libertarian Party.   Obviously you have some inside information that no one else has...you should alert the LP that there are buttons going out with lies on them.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> If Rand fails to get the nomination a lot of people in this topic will vote LP. Not all of course. Some vote GOP every time.
> 
> It's stupid to so viciously hate people who you have a lot in common with especially since the GOP elite are still working so hard against us.


You would think so, but I suspect there are some here more interested in the GOP than in liberty.  Just my observation.

----------


## torchbearer

> When one sees "LP.org" on a button, and the button says "Pro-Choice on Everything",  I think it's reasonable to assume the Libertarian Party (LP.org) may have had something to do with producing that button.  When I said "They" I was/am referring to the Libertarian Party.   Obviously you have some inside information that no one else has...you should alert the LP that there are buttons going out with lies on them.


or i can explain to you that any small group of libertarians can get together and make whatever logos they want.
its not a franchise, and its not monolithic.
there are some libertarians who are pro-choice on everything without even thinking about it.
but that isn't even a large group. that group is like 10% of the anarcho-cap group.
the fringe of the fringe.

and in fox news style, people on this forum will gladly focus on that small group to denigrate the whole.
yet, you hate when its done to the ron paul activist.

----------


## FrankRep

*Anti-war liberals can vote Libertarian*
http://www.lp.org/news/press-release...te-libertarian

Press Release
October 6, 2010


*LP Chair Mark Hinkle:*

*"We Libertarians have a saying that we're 'pro-choice on everything.'* We are uncompromising supporters of free speech. We completely oppose corporate welfare, and we hate the way big corporations often manipulate the government to get subsidies and protection from competition. And we are more immigration-friendly than either Republicans or Democrats."


*BUSTED.* 

Here's the "they" you wanted to know, torchbearer.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> You would think so, but I suspect there are some here more interested in the GOP than in liberty.  Just my observation.


The path to liberty runs directly through the GOP. The LP robs the libertarian wing of the GOP of money, time and activists. If those who are activists in the LP (and the CP as well), would have focused their energy on a proven path of success, we could very well be alot further along.

----------


## fr33

I prefer 40 years of the losertarians over 160 years of the Rethugs. The Rethugs and and their partner dems have given you what you have today.

----------


## PatriotOne

> or i can explain to you that any small group of libertarians can get together and make whatever logos they want.
> its not a franchise, and its not monolithic.
> there are some libertarians who are pro-choice on everything without even thinking about it.
> but that isn't even a large group. that group is like 10% of the anarcho-cap group.
> the fringe of the fringe.
> 
> and in fox news style, people on this forum will gladly focus on that small group to denigrate the whole.
> yet, you hate when its done to the ron paul activist.


This one is sold out of the National Libertarian Party store.  Are they one of the small independent groups you speak of?

http://www.lp.org/

----------


## Brett85

> you don't even understand the underlying debate.
> the question debated isn't is murdering a baby moral?
> the question debated is when do you become a person with rights?


Right, and the Libertarian Party believes that you aren't a person with rights until you're born.  They don't believe that babies in the womb should have any legal rights; they believe that abortionists should be allowed to murder them at well.

----------


## FrankRep

> I prefer 40 years of the losertarians over 160 years of the Rethugs. The Rethugs and and their partner dems have given you what you have today.


Rethugs like Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Justin Amash, Mike Lee, Tom McClintock, etc...?

----------


## torchbearer

> *Anti-war liberals can vote Libertarian*
> http://www.lp.org/news/press-release...te-libertarian
> 
> Press Release
> October 6, 2010
> 
> 
> *LP Chair Mark Hinkle:*
> 
> ...


that is a him, not a they, and it wasn't endorsed by us.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> I prefer 40 years of the losertarians over 160 years of the Rethugs. The Rethugs and and their partner dems have given you what you have today.


So you prefer libertarians that lose in the LP, over libertarians that win in the GOP?

----------


## torchbearer

> Right, and the Libertarian Party believes that you aren't a person with rights until you're born.  They don't believe that babies in the womb should have any legal rights; they believe that abortionists should be allowed to murder them at well.


none of that is true either.
there are some libertarians that may believe that, but not all- nor even a majority.

----------


## torchbearer

> This one is sold out of the National Libertarian Party store.  Are they one of the small independent groups you speak of?
> 
> http://www.lp.org/


yes, they are a small group. just a few people who decide on what the national office puts out.
its not approved, nor ran by anyone outside that small group.

----------


## Brett85

> none of that is true either.
> there are some libertarians that may believe that, but not all- nor even a majority.


Like I said, if that's the case then they should change their platform and take out the part about abortion.  Their current platform states that the government shouldn't be involved in the issue and that abortion should be legal in the U.S.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> the only man your types could agree on superficially that was almost libertarian, but not really:


You mean like Ron Paul did?

----------


## fr33

> Right, and the Libertarian Party believes that you aren't a person with rights until you're born.  They don't believe that babies in the womb should have any legal rights; they believe that abortionists should be allowed to murder them at well.


To be fair the GOP doesn't think you have any of those rights at any age. They approve of assassinating people without due process.

----------


## FrankRep

> that is a him, not a they, and it wasn't endorsed by us.


LP Chair Mark Hinkle: "We Libertarians have a saying..."

Sounds like more than one Libertarian says that they're "pro-choice on everything."

----------


## torchbearer

perhaps the problem is-
if all you know is the monolithic beast called the GOP. you think that is how all parties must be.
monolithic, directed from the top. etc.

the LP is a bunch of meet-up groups, each with their own cast of characters.
it was a miracle to get a state platform, because the number of differing opinions were greater than the number of people in this thread.

----------


## torchbearer

> LP Chair Mark Hinkle: "We Libertarians have a saying..."
> 
> Sounds like more than one Libertarian says that they're "pro-choice on everything."


We libertarians don't believe that.
Now, this one person said "we" too.

----------


## fr33

> So you prefer libertarians that lose in the LP, over libertarians that win in the GOP?


I know it's hard for you to understand but I do support libertarian republicans. There are so few of them and so many statist rethugs that I'm not willing to jump on the GOP bandwagon nor am I going to criticize the LP for being outnumbered.

----------


## torchbearer

> You mean like Ron Paul did?



Ron Paul believed in his words, did ron support his re-election after seeing his actions?
Reagan = fake.

----------


## Brett85

> To be fair the GOP doesn't think you have any of those rights at any age. *They approve of assassinating people without due process.*


I thought that was President Obama.

----------


## torchbearer

by the way, a +rep to those who actually read the LALP platform.
It is something i'm proud of.

----------


## FrankRep

> We libertarians don't believe that.
> Now, this one person said "we" too.


Nice try, but I'm quoting an official Libertarian Party press release.


LP Chair Mark Hinkle: "We Libertarians have a saying..."

Sounds like more than one Libertarian says that they're "pro-choice on everything."

----------


## torchbearer

> I thought that was President Obama.


federal government.
and in truth, all governments- since the rule of law is no more.

----------


## torchbearer

> Nice try, but I'm quoting an official Libertarian Party press release.
> 
> LP Chair Mark Hinkle: "We Libertarians have a saying..."
> 
> Sounds like more than one Libertarian says that they're "pro-choice on everything."


right, officially approved by the small group of guys in that office.
nice try.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> none of that is true either.
> there are some libertarians that may believe that, but not all- nor even a majority.


You may well be right, heck, I often say that abortion among libertarians is an issue that's split roughly 50/50.

I think the LP platform is wrong.






> Like I said, if that's the case then they should change their platform and take out the part about abortion.  Their current platform states that the government shouldn't be involved in the issue and that abortion should be legal in the U.S.


True.



> To be fair the GOP doesn't think you have any of those rights at any age. They approve of assassinating people without due process.


That's true, the LP is definitely less evil than the GOP even if their candidate is pro-choice.  But less evil doesn't make good.  A candidate that is pro-abortion is  still evil, even if less so.

That said, I would have (reluctantly) voted for Johnson in 2012, had I been 18 years old.

----------


## fr33

> I thought that was President Obama.


The majority of the GOP members in the House and the Senate support it. They along with the dems gave us the Patriot Act and the NDAA. The LP didn't do that.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I thought that was President Obama.


And McCain, Graham, probably Rubio (Despite standing with Rand for the filibuster) and possibly Ted Cruz (Despite the same, I don't trust anyone who wants to run into Syria guns blazing.)

----------


## torchbearer

> You may well be right, heck, I often say that abortion among libertarians is an issue that's split roughly 50/50.
> 
> I think the LP platform is wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True.
> ...


the platform is decided by the people who show up as national delegates.
its not hard to become one. just show up to your state convention.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> perhaps the problem is-
> if all you know is the monolithic beast called the GOP. you think that is how all parties must be.
> monolithic, directed from the top. etc.
> 
> the LP is a bunch of meet-up groups, each with their own cast of characters.
> it was a miracle to get a state platform, because the number of differing opinions were greater than the number of people in this thread.


Your understanding of the makeup of the GOP is flawed.

The GOP is made up of the following.  Almost every county (parish in LA, borough in AK) in the country has a GOP committee that is comprised of either elected or appointed committeemen and women that represent a voting precinct (some sparsely populated areas of the country have one committee for multiple counties). Each county committee elects one or more (depending on the state) of its members to serve on the state committee.  The state committee elects some of its members to serve on the national committee.  There are some variances to this depending upon the state (for example in IA I believe the committe persons are chosen via caucus), but for the majority of states this is how it is done.

The more libertarian minded people that run for their local committee seat, the closer we come to shifting control of the party away from neo-cons and moderates.  For example my county committee is heavily dominated by libertarians and paleocons and those we have sent to state share our views, which in turn influences the state committee.

This also helps when it comes to elections, as our committee comes out in full force for candidates we support: Tom Davis, Mark Sanford, Nancy Mace, etc.  Since we are connected closely with the voters in our precinct, our personal endorsement has a lot of influence.

----------


## FrankRep

> right, officially approved by the small group of guys in that office.
> nice try.


Can you explain in more detail about your statement because it sounded like you just denounced an official Libertarian Party press release stating that "pro-choice on everything" is a Libertarian saying.

----------


## Brett85

> The majority of the GOP members in the House and the Senate support it. They along with the dems gave us the Patriot Act and the NDAA. The LP didn't do that.


I'm not a big fan of the Republican Party either.  I'm a registered Republican so that I can vote for candidates like Rand and Amash in GOP primaries.  I disagree with the Republican Party on foreign policy issues, police state issues, and the war on drugs.  (Although the GOP's platform doesn't actually express support for policies like the Patriot Act and indefinite detention in the NDAA)

----------


## torchbearer

> Can you explain in more detail about your statement because it sounded like you just denounced an official Libertarian Party press release stating that "pro-choice on everything" is a Libertarian saying.


that is correct. The LALP wouldn't support such a statement. I don't. 
I understand how you couldn't even conceive of independent state parties with independent peoples, who can openly state that national office is speaking only for the national office.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I'm not a big fan of the Republican Party either.  I'm a registered Republican so that I can vote for candidates like Rand and Amash in GOP primaries.  I disagree with the Republican Party on foreign policy issues, police state issues, and the war on drugs.  (Although the GOP's platform doesn't actually express support for policies like the Patriot Act and indefinite detention in the NDAA)


I'll probably do the same thing, but the GOP is in favor of  all that crap in general.  The Rand Paul and Justin Amash type Republicans are actually ENEMIES of the elite that run the party.

----------


## torchbearer

> Your understanding of the makeup of the GOP is flawed.
> 
> The GOP is made up of the following.  Almost every county (parish in LA, borough in AK) in the country has a GOP committee that is comprised of either elected or appointed committeemen and women that represent a voting precinct (some sparsely populated areas of the country have one committee for multiple counties). Each county committee elects one or more (depending on the state) of its members to serve on the state committee.  The state committee elects some of its members to serve on the national committee.  There are some variances to this depending upon the state (for example in IA I believe the committe persons are chosen via caucus), but for the majority of states this is how it is done.
> 
> The more libertarian minded people that run for their local committee seat, the closer we come to shifting control of the party away from neo-cons and moderates.  For example my county committee is heavily dominated by libertarians and paleocons and those we have sent to state share our views, which in turn influences the state committee.
> 
> This also helps when it comes to elections, as our committee comes out in full force for candidates we support: Tom Davis, Mark Sanford, Nancy Mace, etc.  Since we are connected closely with the voters in our precinct, our personal endorsement has a lot of influence.


I understand the GOP structure, I'm an elected republican within the executive committee in this state.
i'm also familiar with the LALP structure.
And by September, i will be an active/elected member of executive committees in both parties.
this will be the second time that has happened.

----------


## fr33

> Rethugs like Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Justin Amash, Mike Lee, Tom McClintock, etc...?


The exception that proves the rule. With every generalization there are a few exceptions. I stand by my statement. 160 years of bipartisan government growth.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Ron Paul and Napolitano are full-blown libertarian minarchists.   The only way you can really get more libertarian than Ron or the Judge is to be a straight ancap.


I'm not even going to get into the whole, "Is Ron Paul an anarchist/voluntaryist?" thing, but ...

What makes you think that Judge Nap is not an an-cap?

@ 2:15 in the clip below:
- someone to Judge Nap: "I think you're an anarchist and you don't know it yet."
- Judge Nap's response (after pause/applause): "Do you hear me denying anything?"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37tEeO-qTYo

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> I understand the GOP structure, I'm an elected republican within the executive committee in this state.
> i'm also familiar with the LALP structure.
> And by September, i will be an active/elected member of executive committees in both parties.
> this will be the second time that has happened.


Then you should know better than to say the GOP is a top-down, monolithic entity.  It is not.  The reason the GOP platform and leadership is in its current state is because libertarians have been lax at running for these local seats in recent years.  All it takes is enough motivated people and the party will change.  The process has already begun.

----------


## Carlybee

> You would think so, but I suspect there are some here more interested in the GOP than in liberty.  Just my observation.


There are certainly some who seem uninterested in changing it which was what the plan was supposed to be, I thought.

----------


## amy31416

> To be fair the GOP doesn't think you have any of those rights at any age. They approve of assassinating people without due process.


And they heavily support a state getting lots of US aid that is very pro-abortion.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I'm not even going to get into the whole, "Is Ron Paul an anarchist/voluntaryist?" thing, but ...
> 
> What makes you think that Judge Nap is not an an-cap?
> 
> @ 2:15 in the clip below:
> - someone to Judge Nap: "I think you're an anarchist and you don't know it yet."
> - Judge Nap's response (after pause/applause): "Do you hear me denying anything?"


I can't watch this now, I'm on vacation on my grandparents' internet connection: they have limited internet usage, so while I can post on the site and things like that, watching videos wouldn't be good for their data.

That said, I can take your word for it.

I wasn't so much denying that Judge Nap is an anarchist so much as I was simply unaware that he claimed to be.

That said, his views on gay marriage would make me question that... that's the one issue where Nap fails to take a truly libertarian position, at least IMO.  A true libertarian, and certainly a true anarchist, position would be to state that government should have nothing to do with marriage at all, yet Nap uses Loving v Virginia as a precedent.  That issue really doesn't matter to me, but I'd be surprised to see any ancap defend marriage licensing of any sort even under lesser of two evils type conditions.

As for Ron, I'd be curious as to your logic regarding why you think he is.  That would be quite uncharacteristic of him, it wouldn't be consistent with his character, since he never refrains to say what he believes on everything else.  Why pretend to not be an anarchist, especially now that he's not even in congress anymore?

----------


## torchbearer

> Then you should know better than to say the GOP is a top-down, monolithic entity.  It is not.  The reason the GOP platform and leadership is in its current state is because libertarians have been lax at running for these local seats in recent years.  All it takes is enough motivated people and the party will change.  The process has already begun.


the LAGOP would never come out against the national office.
there is intimidation and whipping. anyone who disagrees is attacked.
dissent is attacked.
in the LALP, rejecting the national lines is common.
there is no intimidation and whipping of people. anyone who disagrees is given time to debate.
dissent is expected.

----------


## Carlybee

> I thought that was President Obama.



Who do you think was in office when the Patriot Act was written?

----------


## FrankRep

> The exception that proves the rule. With every generalization there are a few exceptions. I stand by my statement. 160 years of bipartisan government growth.


It proves that Liberty candidates can get into Government through the GOP.

This is a pretty good start:

Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Justin Amash, Mike Lee, Tom McClintock, etc..

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Who do you think was in office when the Patriot Act was written?


Much as I dislike the Patriot Act, I don't think there's anything about "assassination" in there.




> I'm not even going to get into the whole, "Is Ron Paul an anarchist/voluntaryist?" thing, but ...
> 
> What makes you think that Judge Nap is not an an-cap?
> 
> @ 2:15 in the clip below:
> - someone to Judge Nap: "I think you're an anarchist and you don't know it yet."
> - Judge Nap's response (after pause/applause): "Do you hear me denying anything?"
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37tEeO-qTYo


Also, I find it odd that an ancap would use a refusal to deny something as an admission of guilt.  I think you just destroyed the 5th amendment

----------


## Brett85

> Who do you think was in office when the Patriot Act was written?


He specifically referred to "assassinating American citizens without due process," which is something President Obama has done.  I don't remember President Bush ever doing that, as bad as he was on other civil liberties issues.

----------


## fr33

> Also, I find it odd that an ancap would use a refusal to deny something as an admission of guilt.  I think you just destroyed the 5th amendment


We're at a point where patriotic constitutionalists are being treated as terrorists by fusion centers and labeled terrorists by the media.

I can certainly understand why an ancap would be careful about what he says.

----------


## Carlybee

> He specifically referred to "assassinating American citizens without due process," which is something President Obama has done.  I don't remember President Bush ever doing that, as bad as he was on other civil liberties issues.



Well I'm certainly not defending anything Obama has done.  My thought process being that without the open door to rights abuses brought on by the Patriot Act, there might not have been NDAA.




> Under the Bush administration, claims of worldwide detention authority were used to hold even a U.S. citizen detained on U.S. soil in military custody, and many in Congress now assert that the NDAA should be used in the same way again.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> I prefer 40 years of the losertarians over 160 years of the Rethugs. The Rethugs and and their partner dems have given you what you have today.


generally speaking, I do as well.  There are exceptions...Ron Paul, Amash and Massie for the GOP and Bob Barr (what were they thinking??) for the LP.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Well I'm certainly not defending anything Obama has done.  My thought process being that without the open door to rights abuses brought on by the Patriot Act, there might not have been NDAA.


Oh, I don't disagree.  We aren't defending Bush either.  To me,  Bush might as well be Obama.

----------


## Carlybee

> Oh, I don't disagree.  We aren't defending Bush either.  To me,  Bush might as well be Obama.



I was in some thread earlier and some guy was blasting me to "prove" that Bush lied about Iraq. There are some here who do not seem sincere in liberty, if you ask me.  I know you aren't one of them.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> generally speaking, I do as well.  There are exceptions...Ron Paul, Amash and Massie for the GOP and Bob Barr (what were they thinking??) for the LP.


I think Rand Paul could be an exception as well.  And Bob Barr was truly awful.  Johnson was pretty bad too, although far better than Romney or Obama, and marginally better than Virgil Goode.  But Rand Paul is still better than Gary Johnson, at least IMO.

----------


## Brett85

> I was in some thread earlier and some guy was blasting me to "prove" that Bush lied about Iraq. There are some here who do not seem sincere in liberty, if you ask me.  I know you aren't one of them.


So you don't think it's possible to be opposed to the war in Iraq without thinking that Bush lied to get us involved in that war?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I was in some thread earlier and some guy was blasting me to "prove" that Bush lied about Iraq. There are some here who do not seem sincere in liberty, if you ask me.  I know you aren't one of them.


I actually asked that question to Cajuncocoa recently, although I was playing devil's advocate.  The argument I normally use against Iraq is that it wouldn't matter even if they did have WMDs, so the fact that Bush lied was not essential to my argument.  I can't watch video here (vacation, limited internet data where I am) but I'm pretty sure that the video she posted did answer my question.

I assume you're thinking of someone else...

----------


## torchbearer

> generally speaking, I do as well.  There are exceptions...Ron Paul, Amash and Massie for the GOP and Bob Barr (what were they thinking??) for the LP.


there is a story on Barr.
the short.
all libertarians that are like me, left the LP in 2007 to help Ron.
leaving behind only the libertarians who aren't like me, and those people who were so new, they didn't really know what was going on.
That convention was dominated by GOP-lite.
as we crossed lines to help Ron, it seemed the WAR faction of the LP had free reign to do whatever.
that persisted into the gary johnson nomination.
the failure of those central committees have culminated in a lot of people seeking us old timers to come back and right the ship.
i was personally asked to attend this upcoming meeting with that in mind.
The losers that went with fake libertarians are being thrown to the curb.
I have an opportunity to direct our state activist. not sure what way i will advocate.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> So you don't think it's possible to be opposed to the war in Iraq without thinking that Bush lied to get us involved in that war?


IIRC the video Cajun recently posted showed Bush admitting to such, although I don't remember for sure, and as I said, I couldn't watch at ATM.  But yes, its certainly possible.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> the LAGOP would never come out against the national office.
> there is intimidation and whipping. anyone who disagrees is attacked.
> dissent is attacked.
> in the LALP, rejecting the national lines is common.
> there is no intimidation and whipping of people. anyone who disagrees is given time to debate.
> dissent is expected.


Torch, what happened to getting elected to positions within the LAGOP, so that you can stop that and help ensure our candidates are treated fairly?  Isn't that what some other states have done?

----------


## Carlybee

> I actually asked that question to Cajuncocoa recently, although I was playing devil's advocate.  The argument I normally use against Iraq is that it wouldn't matter even if they did have WMDs, so the fact that Bush lied was not essential to my argument.  I can't watch video here (vacation, limited internet data where I am) but I'm pretty sure that the video she posted did answer my question.
> 
> I assume you're thinking of someone else...


No it wasn't you, it was one of spladle's sock puppets I think...

----------


## Carlybee

> Torch, what happened to getting elected to positions within the LAGOP, so that you can stop that and help ensure our candidates are treated fairly?  Isn't that what some other states have done?


Fear of getting their fingers broken?

----------


## cajuncocoa

> right, officially approved by the small group of guys in that office.
> nice try.


I'm sorry, but your argument is a lot like a Louisiana conservative Democrat trying to tell us that the national party isn't pro-choice just because you can find a small group of Dems in our state who are pro-life.  I wasn't trying to derail your conversation about LP candidates, but I certainly wouldn't have thought you didn't know about that slogan.

----------


## torchbearer

> Torch, what happened to getting elected to positions within the LAGOP, so that you can stop that and help ensure our candidates are treated fairly?  Isn't that what some other states have done?


we are elected to those offices, but the national officers have so much control, that they go dirty, even on parish level elections.
they aren't taking us lightly.
for instance, in my parish- we have 4 seats open after the election that were to be appointed by the committee.
we had 3 ron paul guys and 5 statist dick suckers on the committee.
the statist dicksuckers won the seats with their appointees, though i had people nominated for all positions open. all the people were local business owners, well respected in the community.
within a month, most of the guys the statist put up had retired from their positions.
they put up people just to block our guys. these people didn't even want the positions.
they talked about expanding the party, but their nominees for the committee were husband and wives of others on the committee.
i filled the committee room with interested people, and they'd rather sabotage the whole process just to keep us out.

----------


## torchbearer

> I'm sorry, but your argument is a lot like a Louisiana conservative Democrat trying to tell us that the national party isn't pro-choice just because you can find a small group of Dems in our state who are pro-life.  I wasn't trying to derail your conversation about LP candidates, but I certainly wouldn't have thought you didn't know about that slogan.


the LALP isn't pro-choice.
the LADems are pro-choice.
I never heard of the slogan. it wasn't a real libertarian slogan campaign under my watch, and if the retards went nuts in my absence, that will be corrected shortly.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> there is a story on Barr.
> the short.
> all libertarians that are like me, left the LP in 2007 to help Ron.
> leaving behind only the libertarians who aren't like me, and those people who were so new, they didn't really know what was going on.
> That convention was dominated by GOP-lite.
> as we crossed lines to help Ron, it seemed the WAR faction of the LP had free reign to do whatever.
> that persisted into the gary johnson nomination.
> the failure of those central committees have culminated in a lot of people seeking us old timers to come back and right the ship.
> i was personally asked to attend this upcoming meeting with that in mind.
> ...


I suspected as much...thanks for the clarification.

----------


## Dogsoldier

Without the Ron Paul, liberty who are mostly libertarian people Rand can't win. Romney found out the hard way. Simple as that.

I know many who are not on board with Rand because of foreign policy and so far he hasn't spoke out against the drug war like Ron did. 

Ron Paul as far as voting record and personal beliefs was 100% libertarian. He has said he ran as republican for advantage only.

Don't give me no crap about abortion. There are libertarians who are pro life and pro choice and Ron was on the pro life side. When it comes to abortion I'd love to hear a solution to this issue. So far neither side has the answer as far as I can tell. To let abortion be what decides how you vote is ridiculous considering all the other problems we have. If no one has any rights at all then a fetus doesn't have a chance. That's where we are.

----------


## presence

I think it would be great if Rand owned the R primary and the L party put up a contender that made the D party irrelevant.

----------


## TheTyke

In any case, even if we disagree with LP strategy or some platform parts, we should be thinking of how to win them over for the general election... not push them away.

Why do we always have to factionalize and divide? I just can't see that any wars were won by firing on our allies. Whether that means Rand, GOP personalities OR the LP. Be prepared to counter those who may undermine us (like Beck) but don't just blast indiscriminately at everyone who doesn't agree on everything. To beat the Establishment that runs our country will require perfect strategy, some luck - _and all the friends we can get._ Seriously..

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Without the Ron Paul, liberty who are mostly libertarian people Rand can't win. Romney found out the hard way. Simple as that.
> 
> I know many who are not on board with Rand because of foreign policy and so far he hasn't spoke out against the drug war like Ron did. 
> 
> Ron Paul as far as voting record and personal beliefs was 100% libertarian. He has said he ran as republican for advantage only.
> 
> Don't give me no crap about abortion. There are libertarians who are pro life and pro choice and Ron was on the pro life side. When it comes to abortion I'd love to hear a solution to this issue. So far neither side has the answer as far as I can tell. To let abortion be what decides how you vote is ridiculous considering all the other problems we have. If no one has any rights at all then a fetus doesn't have a chance. That's where we are.


At the very least pro-choice libertarians should respect the 10th amendment.  As long as they do that, I'm fine.

If not, my problems with them go beyond abortion itself...

Regarding Rand, I'm planning to give him a shot unless he goes significantly downhill.

----------


## torchbearer

> At the very least pro-choice libertarians should respect the 10th amendment.  As long as they do that, I'm fine.
> 
> If not, my problems with them go beyond abortion itself...
> 
> Regarding Rand, I'm planning to give him a shot unless he goes significantly downhill.


just letting you know, there are some an-caps in the LP.
they don't even recognize the constitution as legit since they didn't agree to it.
so the 10th amendment wouldn't mean anything to them.
now, on the other hand- they wouldn't be seeking any government to force any opinion on you...
but then again, that is pro-choice.

though, i'd say that is a minority position.

----------


## FrankRep

> In any case, even if we disagree with LP strategy or some platform parts, we should be thinking of how to win them over for the general election... not push them away.
> 
> Why do we always have to factionalize and divide?


The libertarians "factionalized and divided" when they left the GOP to form the Libertarian Party. It's seriously time to get back into the GOP and make some real change and get more Ron Paul-like people elected.

----------


## torchbearer

> The libertarians "factionalized and divided" when they left the GOP to form the Libertarian Party. It's seriously time to get back into the GOP and make some real change and get more Ron Paul-like people elected.


yeah, insult a bitch, then tell her to fall in line.
how does that game theory work out for you?

----------


## The Free Hornet

> I'm not a socialist, I am realistic.


You're a socialist and the worst type of socialist: the bad math socialist.  For me, the LP is my protest vote, my voice in the booth.  Here's the math part, pay attention (!).  Whether I vote "R", "D", or "L", my vote is not likely to affect the outcome in any race in my lifetime.  If it does affect the outcome, I'm happy to toss every worthless "R" in the pile.  $#@! 'em!

If my vote says a waitress is more qualified than a lawyer/war hero, then that's my choice and I'll expect you to mind your own damn business.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> just letting you know, there are some an-caps in the LP.
> they don't even recognize the constitution as legit since they didn't agree to it.
> so the 10th amendment wouldn't mean anything to them.
> now, on the other hand- they wouldn't be seeking any government to force any opinion on you...
> but then again, that is pro-choice.
> 
> though, i'd say that is a minority position.


If that's the case, they should be focusing on dismantling the Federal government.  Dismantling state-level anti-abortion laws wouldn't be their job.

If that was their stance, I wouldn't have a problem with that.  Heck, as insanely pro-choice as he was, Murray Rothbard was also opposed to ANY centralization of authority, so he would never have agreed to a Federal law that would have legalized abortion nationwide.

I'd seriously have a hard time voting for any candidate who supported Roe v Wade.  I don't think I could do that.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> You're a socialist and the worst type of socialist: the bad math socialist.  For me, the LP is my protest vote, my voice in the booth.  Here's the math part, pay attention (!).  Whether I vote "R", "D", or "L", my vote is not likely to affect the outcome in any race in my lifetime.  If it does affect the outcome, I'm happy to toss every worthless "R" in the pile.  $#@! 'em!
> 
> If my vote says a waitress is more qualified than a lawyer/war hero, then that's my choice and I'll expect you to mind your own damn business.


"War hero"?  What?

----------


## FrankRep

> yeah, insult a bitch, then tell her to fall in line.
> how does that game theory work out for you?


How's the 1% of the vote working out for you?

----------


## The Free Hornet

> The libertarians "factionalized and divided" when they left the GOP to form the Libertarian Party. It's seriously time to get back into the GOP and make some real change and get more Ron Paul-like people elected.


Who "left"?  LOL, the Republicans lefted, that's who.  But seriously, nobody went anywhere. Get that stupid $#@!ing notion out of your small mind.  Run good candidates, mind your business, don't worry about what other parties do.

----------


## torchbearer

> If that's the case, they should be focusing on dismantling the Federal government.  Dismantling state-level anti-abortion laws wouldn't be their job.
> 
> If that was their stance, I wouldn't have a problem with that.  Heck, as insanely pro-choice as he was, Murray Rothbard was also opposed to ANY centralization of authority, so he would never have agreed to a Federal law that would have legalized abortion nationwide.
> 
> I'd seriously have a hard time voting for any candidate who supported Roe v Wade.  I don't think I could do that.


they may be working to that goal, but they don't run many committees. none that i know of.
we had a token anarchist on our committee.
i enjoyed having a different perspective, but he objected to everything that was government... so his vote on things was predictable.

----------


## torchbearer

> How's the 1% of the vote working out for you?


the more important question is- how is winning those elections with neocons working out for you?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> they may be working to that goal, but they don't run many committees. none that i know of.
> we had a token anarchist on our committee.
> i enjoyed having a different perspective, but he objected to everything that was government... so his vote on things was predictable.


I'd probably vote the same way he does on virtually anything.  The ONLY thing I want government to do is provide for the national defense (Through use of a navy, air force, and militia, NO STANDING ARMY) and to punish crime (Defined as being bona fide acts of aggression against another person or their property, period.)  

I do count abortion in that category, so I strongly believe it should be illegal.

Although I support doing that state by state.  Not at the Federal Level.  I'd rather the Feds just disband themselves, their useless.

----------


## torchbearer

> I'd probably vote the same way he does on virtually anything.  The ONLY thing I want government to do is provide for the national defense (Through use of a navy, air force, and militia, NO STANDING ARMY) and to punish crime (Defined as being bona fide acts of aggression against another person or their property, period.)  
> 
> I do count abortion in that category, so I strongly believe it should be illegal.
> 
> Although I support doing that state by state.  Not at the Federal Level.  I'd rather the Feds just disband themselves, their useless.


if you support doing it state by state, why not county by county?
why not city by city?
why not street by street?
why not family by family?
the decision has to be made somewhere...
some people think that those decisions are best left with each person.

thus, to end abortion, you'd have to convince people to be moral.

----------


## FrankRep

> the more important question is- how is winning those elections with neocons working out for you?


Republican Party: Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Thomas Massie, Justin Amash, Mike Lee, Tom McClintock, Ted Cruz, Paul Broun, Jim Bridenstine, Steve Stockman

Libertarian Party: 0

Your move.

----------


## fr33

> If my vote says a waitress is more qualified than a lawyer/war hero, then that's my choice and I'll expect you to mind your own damn business.


Right on. I'll take an army of waitresses and tire-changers any day against the corrupt lawyers and lobbyists. Only an elitist Republican would criticize a blue collar worker.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> if you support doing it state by state, why not county by county?
> why not city by city?
> why not street by street?
> why not family by family?
> the decision has to be made somewhere...
> some people think that those decisions are best left with each person.
> 
> thus, to end abortion, you'd have to convince people to be moral.


Why not leave infantcide to (Insert level of government here)?

Why not leave murder to (insert level of government here)?

I support abortion being banned in every state... I'd leave most things to town by town or even family by family, but abortion is murder and use of force to stop it or to punish those who engage in it is justified.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Republican Party: Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Thomas Massie, Justin Amash, Mike Lee, Tom McClintock, Ted Cruz, Paul Broun, Jim Bridenstine, Steve Stockman
> 
> Libertarian Party: 0
> 
> Your move.


Is Ted Cruz the only fake liberty candidate on that list, or are there others?  I'm not familiar with all of those people.

----------


## supermario21

Who is funding the LP then? The reason the LP makes no ground/has no clout is because the name of the party is pretty much used by anyone who wants to take it. The think tanks don't support the LP. Heck, most of the Cato/Reason people are probably Republicans or at least vote/lean in that direction. The LP banner is carried by anyone who wants to essentially bring their own money/supporters into the party. The LP candidates the last 3 elections have been all over the map. Badnarik was probably the most pure libertarian, Barr was a sideshow and Gary Johnson was much the same.

----------


## FrankRep

> Republican Party: Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Thomas Massie, Justin Amash, Mike Lee, Tom McClintock, Ted Cruz, Paul Broun, Jim Bridenstine, Steve Stockman
> 
> Libertarian Party: 0
> 
> Your move.





> Is Ted Cruz the only fake liberty candidate on that list, or are there others?  I'm not familiar with all of those people.


Are Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Thomas Massie, Justin Amash, and Mike Lee fake liberty candidates?

----------


## AuH20

> Is Ted Cruz the only fake liberty candidate on that list, or are there others?  I'm not familiar with all of those people.


There is sentient life beyond Ron Paul.

----------


## The Free Hornet

> Right on. I'll take an army of waitresses and tire-changers any day against the corrupt lawyers and lobbyists. Only an elitist Republican would criticize a blue collar worker.


Capt's attitude is toxic to _winning_ the votes of hard working people.  Publicly dismissing candidates - of any party - for not being the son of a multi-millionaire will turn off many voters.  I'm sure the Democrats are just as elitist but they have the advantage of the MSM.  When GOPers confirm the MSM spin, it means game over (like the party of 'legitimate rape').

----------


## torchbearer

> Republican Party: Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Thomas Massie, Justin Amash, Mike Lee, Tom McClintock, Ted Cruz, Paul Broun, Jim Bridenstine, Steve Stockman
> 
> Libertarian Party: 0
> 
> Your move.



I'm sorry, you forgot the 1000s of other $#@!s your GOP got elected.
Your GOP controlled the entire congress and white house... what the $#@! did your GOP do with it?
Your move.

----------


## torchbearer

> Who is funding the LP then? The reason the LP makes no ground/has no clout is because the name of the party is pretty much used by anyone who wants to take it. The think tanks don't support the LP. Heck, most of the Cato/Reason people are probably Republicans or at least vote/lean in that direction. The LP banner is carried by anyone who wants to essentially bring their own money/supporters into the party. The LP candidates the last 3 elections have been all over the map. Badnarik was probably the most pure libertarian, Barr was a sideshow and Gary Johnson was much the same.


Do you know the story on how Badnarik ended up with the nomination?
Here's a clue- it would never happen in today's GOP.

----------


## FrankRep

> I'm sorry, you forgot the 1000s of other $#@!s your GOP got elected.
> Your GOP controlled the entire congress and white house... what the $#@! did your GOP do with it?
> Your move.


You forgot to list all the Libertarian Party members in the Government. Oh yeah, that's right. You have 0.

----------


## torchbearer

> Why not leave infantcide to (Insert level of government here)?
> 
> Why not leave murder to (insert level of government here)?
> 
> I support abortion being banned in every state... I'd leave most things to town by town or even family by family, but abortion is murder and use of force to stop it or to punish those who engage in it is justified.


if you see a woman having an abortion, would you feel justified in putting a bullet in her head?

----------


## torchbearer

> You forgot to list all the Libertarian Party members in the Government. Oh yeah, that's right. You have 0.


Ron Paul is a member of the libertarian party, and was a member of congress.

----------


## supermario21

> Do you know the story on how Badnarik ended up with the nomination?
> Here's a clue- it would never happen in today's GOP.


No, I was nowhere near voting age at that point. Care to share?

----------


## FrankRep

> Ron Paul is a member of the libertarian party, and was a member of congress.


Ron Paul won the Republican Nomination and was elected to Government as a Republican. Nice try though.

----------


## torchbearer

> No, I was nowhere near voting age at that point. Care to share?


in that year, 2004, there were 2 favored candidates going into the convention.
Aaron Russo and Gary Nolan.
there were two other guys, a pot activist from California(forgot his name) and Michael badnarik. no one had really heard of him.
Our state delegation going to the convention was heavily in favor of Gary Nolan.
but, unlike a GOP convention- delegates that arrive to the LP national convention are actually free voters.
that is important.
because had the delegates voted in the same manner in which they had intended to going to that convention- russo or nolan would have been the nominee.
the point of turning happened at the debate.
badnarik blew it out of the water. the way he could articulate the libertarian position won us over.
our delegation went from nolan to badnarik. why?
the man could articulate our ideas to the public. he had principles. he knew how to express them well. he understood the constitution.
we didn't choose the celebrities, we choose the best qualified man for the job.
a debate at the convention changed it all.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> You mean like Ron Paul did?


Had the internet existed in the 70s, people would have been aware of what a fraud Reagan was.

----------


## torchbearer

> Ron Paul won the Republican Nomination and was elected to Government as a Republican. Nice try though.


Ron also won the Libertarian Nomination, and was elected to government with libertarian ideas. not gop ideas.
he is a libertarian that understood the superficiality of the electorate.
he was my only representative in government.

----------


## torchbearer

you will never have a real GOP convention, with free delegates, and debates.

----------


## fr33

> You forgot to list all the Libertarian Party members in the Government. Oh yeah, that's right. You have 0.


The LP is innocent of creating what we have today. The GOP is guilty. Yet you continue to criticize the innocent while promoting the criminal.

----------


## FrankRep

> Ron also won the Libertarian Nomination, and was elected to government with libertarian ideas. not gop ideas.
> he is a libertarian that understood the superficiality of the electorate.
> he was my only representative in government.


Ron Paul was elected to Congress as a Republican.

----------


## fr33

> you will never have a real GOP convention, with free delegates, and debates.


I'm expecting people to start promoting the "delegate strategy" again even though it's chances of winning have been debunked.

----------


## torchbearer

> Ron Paul was elected to Congress as a Republican.


yes, a lebel for the superficial. mentioned in previous post. and discussed earlier in this thread.

----------


## FrankRep

> The LP is innocent of creating what we have today. The GOP is guilty. Yet you continue to criticize the innocent while promoting the criminal.


Is that a new LP slogan? "Don't blame us; we can't get anyone elected!"

----------


## PatriotOne

> And yes Ron ran on the LP ticket after he left Congress.  In my opinion, he was an opportunist.  He used the LP ticket as a platform which helped him build a mailing list, which he then converted to newsletter subscribers.  I don't believe Ron was under the delusion that he could actually win - I think he is smarter than that.  Note that when Ron re-entered politics he did so as a Republican, and at no point during his second term as a House member did he switch to the LP, which he very well could have and may have been able to retain his seat.
> 
> Oh and before anyone says "Ron is a lifetime member of the LP".  Big deal.  It's a donation that gets you that "membership", it has nothing to do with party registration.  Considering he was using their party for his 88 campaign, it's no surprise that he would throw a few bucks their way.


Coincidently, I just got done listening to todays Ron Paul New Channel show.  Ron stated he originally wanted to come into politics as an independent but after checking into it he decided to go the GOP route due to the political bias.  

Newsflash everybody:  Ron's an Independent and an opportunist . 

Starts around 31:20...

http://www.ronpaulchannel.com/video/...-your-privacy/

----------


## torchbearer

> I'm expecting people to start promoting the "delegate strategy" again even though it's chances of winning have been debunked.


everytime the gop beats down dissent, more gopers awake to the horror.
there is a civil war brewing in our state GOP, and it has everything to do with the BS that happened at the last convention.
long time gopers joined us after that.

so, we won't be allowed victory... but we win by exposing their true nature to their membership.

----------


## fr33

> Is that a new LP slogan? "Don't blame us; we can't get anyone elected!"


Don't blame us. We didn't take your rights away. Morons in the Republican and Democrat party voted them away.

----------


## FrankRep

> Ron Paul was elected to Congress as a Republican.





> yes, a lebel for the superficial. mentioned in previous post. and discussed earlier in this thread.


Wow. Is that really your response? You are clueless about politics and winning elections.

----------


## PatriotOne

> Ron also won the Libertarian Nomination, and was elected to government with libertarian ideas. not gop ideas.
> he is a libertarian that understood the superficiality of the electorate.
> he was my only representative in government.


Ron's an independent.  He said so on his news show today.  He uses political parties as vehicles to get his independent message out.

----------


## torchbearer

> Is that a new LP slogan? "Don't blame us; we can't get anyone elected!"


the libertarian party was started by republicans who were offended by the party of nixon after he took us off the gold standard.
had everyone who disagreed with him, left him with the dying party- we'd have a true second party today.
but when a few men left, the others remained in fear.

so now those who enjoyed the privilege of law are mocking those who braved going a different path, rejected the "we are all keynesians now" bull$#@!.

----------


## torchbearer

> Ron's an independent.  He said so on his news show today.  He uses political parties as vehicles to get his independent message out.


Ron Paul is a human being who is trying to convince other human beings.
He is very technically a member of the Libertarian Party by his voluntary will. he still associates with the party today. never renouncing that membership.

----------


## torchbearer

> Wow. Is that really your response? You are clueless about politics and winning elections.


Um, I am a leader in the 5th district caucus.
We won our elections.
I won my delegate election.
I won my executive committee election.
We know how to win elections.

----------


## FrankRep

> Um, I am a leader in the 5th district caucus.
> We won our elections.
> I won my delegate election.
> I won my executive committee election.
> We know how to win elections.


How many Libertarians do you have in the state and federal government?

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> there is a story on Barr.
> the short.
> all libertarians that are like me, left the LP in 2007 to help Ron.
> leaving behind only the libertarians who aren't like me, and those people who were so new, they didn't really know what was going on.
> That convention was dominated by GOP-lite.
> as we crossed lines to help Ron, it seemed the WAR faction of the LP had free reign to do whatever.
> that persisted into the gary johnson nomination.
> the failure of those central committees have culminated in a lot of people seeking us old timers to come back and right the ship.
> i was personally asked to attend this upcoming meeting with that in mind.
> ...


The only way consistent with the purpose of the party: radicalism

----------


## AuH20

I love Bednarik, but you can make a legitimate argument that the Reform Party was far more successful than the LP ever was. And the Reform Party was started only in 1995.

----------


## PatriotOne

> Ron Paul is a human being who is trying to convince other human beings.
> He is very technically a member of the Libertarian Party by his voluntary will. he still associates with the party today. never renouncing that membership.


He uses the Libertarian Party as a vehicle just like he used the GOP as a vehicle.  He's not any party loyalist.  He's independent.  It's what he stated today on his news program.

----------


## torchbearer

> How many Libertarians do you have in the state and federal government?


we went into the GOP caucus, in their race, with their rules, and we won.
on an equal playing field- we out performed.
the proof is in the pudding.

you act as if the elections are even playing field and they aren't.
you are almost boostful about the fact the media and government collusion has effective kept all other parties out of the consideration of its viewers.
You saw what they did to Ron, and he was running as a republican.
imagine what the libertarian guy gets.
and you want to know how we've held up to the tyranny?

well, the proof is in the pudding.
we were forged by it to work hard as activist.
we used the apparatus of the LP to train as members of a party body. familiar with committee etiquette and able to debate to flawless victory.
this is the reason liberty has a chance in Louisiana now.
I understand the superficiality of the voters.
I'm working the GOP, but that is not all.

----------


## torchbearer

> He uses the Libertarian Party as a vehicle just like he used the GOP as a vehicle.  He's not any party loyalist.  He's independent.  It's what he stated today on his news program.


there are no party loyalist in the LP.
there are people loyal to certain ideas.
Ron fit within the party, and the party accepted him.
Can't say that for the GOP.
He didn't get their nomination for president.

----------


## cajuncocoa

Has anyone ever considered that the elites and establishment don't want the LP to be successful?

----------


## enoch150

> I love Bednarik, but you can make a legitimate argument that the Reform Party was far more successful than the LP ever was. And the Reform Party was started only in 1995.


I can't recall... what policy did the Reform Party advocate that has been adopted? Do they still exist as a party?

----------


## torchbearer

> radicalism


define.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> there are no party loyalist in the LP.
> there are people loyal to certain ideas.
> Ron fit within the party, and the party accepted him.
> Can't say that for the GOP.
> He didn't get their nomination for president.


I agree with this.

----------


## AuH20

> I can't recall... what policy did the Reform Party advocate that has been adopted? Do they still exist as a party?


Yup. They still exist, but nowhere as influential as during the Perot days. Remember that Perot got roughly 8 million votes as an independent! And they also later sent Jesse Ventura to the governor's mansion. The LP doesn't have anything close to that type of breakthroughs. They seem to be stuck in a perpetual hamster wheel.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> define.


http://www.lewrockwell.com/1970/01/m...e-the-state-2/




> Radical in the sense of being in total, root-and-branch opposition to the existing political system and to the State itself. Radical in the sense of having integrated intellectual opposition to the State with a gut hatred of its pervasive and organized system of crime and injustice. Radical in the sense of a deep commitment to the spirit of liberty and anti-statism that integrates reason and emotion, heart and soul.

----------


## torchbearer

> Yup. They still exist, but nowhere as influential as during the Perot days. Remember that Perot got roughly 8 million votes as an independent! And they also later sent Jesse Ventura to the governor's mansion. The LP doesn't have any close to that type of breakthroughs.


perot got in debate because he had the money to buy the tv time to get name recognition. remember the informericals?
LP didn't have the millions, could not get the name recognition and thus wasn't allowed to be in a debate.
and you think this is something to be proud of?

----------


## torchbearer

> http://www.lewrockwell.com/1970/01/m...e-the-state-2/


How much money does Lew need to come talk to a central committee?

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> How much money does Lew need to come talk to a central committee?


I have no idea. I don't know him nor have I asked him to speak at one of my gatherings. Those were Murray's words, anyhow.

I'll send him an email and see if he has a price, though.

----------


## torchbearer

> I have no idea. I don't know him nor have I asked him to speak at one of my gatherings. Those were Murray's words, anyhow.


well, i don't expect murray, but I would expect Lew to do just as well, and people would recognize his renown for intellectual thought.
i wish he'd speak to lp committees.
i know he rejects that process, but he could 'educate'? yeh?

i'm not afraid to let all voices to be heard.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> well, i don't expect murray, but I would expect Lew to do just as well, and people would recognize his renown for intellectual thought.
> i wish he'd speak to lp committees.
> i know he rejects that process, but he could 'educate'? yeh?
> 
> i'm not afraid to let all voices to be heard.


Walter Block may be willing to go, and he's both very responsive to emails (I've had several pleasant exchanges with him on a bevy of differing issues) and works/lives in Louisiana. Would you like his email address?

----------


## enoch150

> Their current platform states that ... that abortion should be legal in the U.S.


No it doesn't.

From 1974 - 2006 there was an agreement between the minarchists and the anarchists that the platform would not explicitly call for the government to do anything, nor even acknowledge that government must exist. They agreed to focus on what the government should not be doing. That agreement was violated in 2006 and phrases like "Government exists to protect the rights of every individual including life, liberty and property" were added. There haven't been enough principled libertarians in the party since then to change it back, due to getting involved with the Republican party to help Ron Paul. But remnants of the old platform remain.

Where the platform says "Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides" and "leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration."

That is the traditional libertarian approach to the abortion question - not taking a position on the matter because it is the only issue where, no matter what position you take, someone's rights are violated. Individual libertarians have their own opinions, and there are just as many who hold the view that murder is worse than slavery as their are on the pro-choice side.

Where the platform says "we believe that government should be kept out of the matter"

That is just a remnant hat tip to the old accord where government was not recognized as required for anything.

Someone not familiar with LP history can be forgiven for not understanding what was meant. Hopefully the old platform can be restored, clarified, and made more internally consistent in 2014, now that the principled libertarians are abandoning the Republican party.

----------


## torchbearer

> Walter Block may be willing to go, and he's both very responsive to emails (I've had several pleasant exchanges with him on a bevy of differing issues) and works/lives in Louisiana. Would you like his email address?


Walter is a friend of mine on some social networking sites.
i'm sure i could contact through them.
but i think he's been to some of our conventions.

----------


## Dogsoldier

Badnarick is the guy I wish we could run now. He was even better then Ron Paul. I would have paid a lot of money to see him in the debates.

I just want to point out that being "constitutional" isn't all that. The constitution has major flaws. It says that the government can take your property at will pretty much. I'm not for that at all. Thats not right. Property=rights. No property no rights. 

On 1 end it says "life,liberty,and the pursuit of happiness" and on the other end doesn't deliver on that statement. 

The original phrase was "life,liberty,and PROPERTY!!!! "....That was from John Locke.....Why did the founders change the wording to "life,liberty and the pursuit of happiness"?

PROPERTY=RIGHTS!!!..........

Some of the founders understood this.

"The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the law of God,
 and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence." -John Adams

Which is what I have been preaching to all you liberty minded people out there. Restoring property rights should be the main focus of the liberty movement. Restore property rights and the rest will fall into place. Right now no one has any rights at all. I challenge anyone to name a for sure RIGHT that you have. Anyone?

As far as I can tell we don't even own our own bodies anymore.


 A Right: a power, privilege, faculty, or demand INHERENT in one person and incident upon another.
 Powers of free action/something that you have the sovereign authority to do because there is no higher power to get permission from.

----------


## torchbearer

> Badnarick is the guy I wish we could run now. He was even better then Ron Paul. I would have paid a lot of money to see him in the debates.
> 
> I just want to point out that being "constitutional" isn't all that. The constitution has major flaws. It says that the government can take your property at will pretty much. I'm not for that at all. Thats not right. Property=rights. No property no rights. 
> 
> On 1 end it says "life,liberty,and the pursuit of happiness" and on the other end doesn't deliver on that statement. 
> 
> The original phrase was "life,liberty,and PROPERTY!!!! "....That was from John Locke.....Why did the founders change the wording to "life,liberty and the pursuit of happiness"?
> 
> PROPERTY=RIGHTS!!!..........
> ...


You should read Badnarik's book: Its Good to Be King

----------


## torchbearer

there is a bit of a musical introduction...

----------


## torchbearer

repeat after me, "It's Good to be king!"

----------


## Brett85

> Where the platform says "Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides" and "leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration."
> 
> That is the traditional libertarian approach to the abortion question - not taking a position on the matter because it is the only issue where, no matter what position you take, someone's rights are violated. Individual libertarians have their own opinions, and there are just as many who hold the view that murder is worse than slavery as their are on the pro-choice side.
> 
> Where the platform says "we believe that government should be kept out of the matter"
> 
> That is just a remnant hat tip to the old accord where government was not recognized as required for anything.
> 
> Someone not familiar with LP history can be forgiven for not understanding what was meant. Hopefully the old platform can be restored, clarified, and made more internally consistent in 2014, now that the principled libertarians are abandoning the Republican party.


I just don't agree that "getting the government out of the issue" of abortion is somehow a "neutral position."  To me that seems to clearly be the pro choice position, that the government shouldn't pass laws against abortion.  A neutral position would be something like,

"As libertarians we can agree that there should be no federal funding of abortion or funding for groups that provide abortions.  Since libertarians are divided on the issue of the legality of abortion, the Libertarian Party is not taking an official stance on this issue."

I would consider that to be a "neutral" position, rather than the current language contained in the Libertarian Party platform.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> we went into the GOP caucus, in their race, with their rules, and we won.
> on an equal playing field- we out performed.
> the proof is in the pudding.
> 
> you act as if the elections are even playing field and they aren't.
> you are almost boostful about the fact the media and government collusion has effective kept all other parties out of the consideration of its viewers.
> You saw what they did to Ron, and he was running as a republican.
> imagine what the libertarian guy gets.
> and you want to know how we've held up to the tyranny?
> ...


Yes, but Torch, Ron WAS elected numerous times as a Republican Congressman.  Amash is a Republican Congressman.  Massie is a Republican Congressman.  Lee is a Republican Senator.  Rand is a Republican Senator.

So, it is possible.

----------


## torchbearer

> Yes, but Torch, Ron WAS elected numerous times as a Republican Congressman.  Amash is a Republican Congressman.  Massie is a Republican Congressman.  Lee is a Republican Senator.  Rand is a Republican Senator.
> 
> So, it is possible.



Didn't say it wasn't possible... but it took more than just GOPers to do it.
And the ones who took the leadership positions in this state came from the LP.
If I have to hear one more snide remark about the LP from some snot-nozed repug, i will lose it.
I can't tell if they are man or pig sometimes.

----------


## PatriotOne

> there are no party loyalist in the LP.
> there are people loyal to certain ideas.
> Ron fit within the party, and the party accepted him.
> Can't say that for the GOP.
> He didn't get their nomination for president.


So you are an independent also?  As it should be.  It's sure how the power brokers use the parties.  They use the Repubs, the Dems, the Libertarian and any other party to push their agendas.  The GOP is where the action is right now to push our agenda.  I'd change registration cards tomorrow to the Purple People Eaters Party if that was where the action was.  They are just vehicles.  No need to have any emotional attachments to any of them...including the Libertarian Party.

----------


## torchbearer

> So you are an independent also?  As it should be.  It's sure how the power brokers use the parties.  They use the Repubs, the Dems, the Libertarian and any other party to push their agendas.  The GOP is where the action is right now to push our agenda.  I'd change registration cards tomorrow to the Purple People Eaters Party if that was where the action was.  They are just vehicles.  No need to have any emotional attachments to any of them...including the Libertarian Party.


I am not a partisan. I am an ideologue.
I go wherever i am compelled to activate.

I got my training amongst a like minded party.
But one heavy on debate and dissent.

Now I can rally people to get me into GOP positions to ply my ability to debate.
I can be a stone wall, while we get others ready to join me.

----------


## enoch150

> Of course they will.  They can a candidate against Ron Paul for heaven's sakes.


The LP conventions are in May. That's when they had to make a decision to run a candidate or sit it out. There were still states left to go, but only the truly deluded believed Ron Paul was still in contention at that point, holding out hope that somehow a majority of neocons could be convinced to change their votes to Paul at the Republican convention.

No Libertarian candidate appeared on the ballot running against Ron Paul for President or Congress, at least back to 1996, which is as far back as I looked.

----------


## jtstellar

> They are birds of a feather.


to an extent that makes one uncomfortable, i'm afraid so

LP and establishment are like wars at two different fronts, attacking the reform movement from different angles

----------


## enoch150

> I just don't agree that "getting the government out of the issue" of abortion is somehow a "neutral position."  To me that seems to clearly be the pro choice position, that the government shouldn't pass laws against abortion.  
> 
> A neutral position would be something like, "As libertarians we can agree that there should be no federal funding of abortion or funding for groups that provide abortions.  Since libertarians are divided on the issue of the legality of abortion, the Libertarian Party is not taking an official stance on this issue."
> 
> I would consider that to be a "neutral" position, rather than the current language contained in the Libertarian Party platform.


The intent was to be neutral from the point of view of the people who wrote it. I agree that success was dubious. The LP is, and always has, been neutral on abortion, even if the specific language in the current platform is terrible and confusing.

----------


## PatriotOne

> I am not a partisan. I am an ideologue.
> I go wherever i am compelled to activate.
> 
> I got my training amongst a like minded party.
> But one heavy on debate and dissent.
> 
> Now I can rally people to get me into GOP positions to ply my ability to debate.
> I can be a stone wall, while we get others ready to join me.


Normally I see you as one of the more reasonable Libertarians who understand the strategy of working within the GOP but then you go post things like this and it makes me wonder if I give you too much credit.  Why Torch...why?




> i'm almost at the point of making sure no libertarian in this state ever contributes to rand's campaign again.
>  if these are the kinds of people who would be benefiting from that effort.
> 
>  they deserve the ass-$#@!ing they are getting.
>  i'll endure mine, just to enjoy watching theirs.

----------


## torchbearer

> Normally I see you as one of the more reasonable Libertarians who understand the strategy of working within the GOP but then you go post things like this and it makes me wonder if I give you too much credit.  Why Torch...why?


there is a life cycle for libertarians.
partially induced by living in a world that is the opposite of moral...
in that life cycle, i should be in my hermitage with long beard by now. a recluse.
that is where long time libertarians end up.
but unfortunately for me, Ron called for help.. i couldn't sit idle.
I have suffered abuse by the system in political action.
I have suffered mockery from those who have similar minds in the GOP.
and there are days in which i'm thinking- why the $#@! am i doing this?
i have a place i can go to hide for awhile.
but then a streak in me cares about humanity-
then i'm reminded what humanity is...

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Will the Libertarian Party Field A Candidate Against Presidential Candidate Rand


Yes. They should. It is best for the Libertarian Party to keep a national presence. Individual voters will make their own decisions.

----------


## FrankRep

> Yes. They should. It is best for the Libertarian Party to keep a national presence. Individual voters will make their own decisions.


Rand Paul is best for the United States, however, and that trumps the best interests of the LP.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Didn't say it wasn't possible... but it took more than just GOPers to do it.
> And the ones who took the leadership positions in this state came from the LP.
> If I have to hear one more snide remark about the LP from some snot-nozed repug, i will lose it.
> I can't tell if they are man or pig sometimes.


Torch, don't you see this is just like the people who wouldn't consider Ron Paul because of what they didn't like in some of his supporters?  You must be tired or something.  Because you usually don't make this personal.  You keep your eye on the prize of what we are trying to get done.

----------


## LibertyEagle

I think this thread is ticking off people because of some kind of weird or assumed allegiance to a political party.  Personally, I don't care about any of them beyond which one we can most effectively use to get our candidates elected.  Other than that, I could care less.

----------


## FrankRep

Yay Ron Paul! 

*Ron Paul: Rand Paul 'Capable' of Being GOP Nominee* 

Politico.com
Aug. 15, 2013

----------


## torchbearer

> Torch, don't you see this is just like the people who wouldn't consider Ron Paul because of what they didn't like in some of his supporters?  You must be tired or something.  Because you usually don't make this personal.  You keep your eye on the prize of what we are trying to get done.


The personal part is that i know people in the LP, good people- and some people in here are lying about them.
I am tired in the sense that i'm now going into my 18th year of campaigning for liberty. banging your head against a wall that long, starts to wear on you.
then you see the real thoughts of your 'allies', and how they disrespect your associations... in the same way the gop leadership disrespects us all...
its just enough to make you want to quit.

----------


## enoch150

> Yup. They still exist, but nowhere as influential as during the Perot days. Remember that Perot got roughly 8 million votes as an independent! And they also later sent Jesse Ventura to the governor's mansion. The LP doesn't have anything close to that type of breakthroughs. They seem to be stuck in a perpetual hamster wheel.


Although I wouldn't do so today, I did vote for Perot in 1996, the first time I could. And I do see 87 people still listed as Reform Party members in Connecticut. I guess they still technically exist here, but they don't even have minor party status. Wikipedia says they're active in five states.

That being said, I think the LP has been more successful in recent years in terms of influencing debate and implementing policy, even without being elected.

----------


## FrankRep

> I am tired in the sense that i'm now going into my 18th year of campaigning for liberty. banging your head against a wall that long, starts to wear on you.


All the while you've been banging your head against the wall, Ron Paul has been kicking ass as a GOP Texas Congressman. You still ignore Ron Paul's advice, however.

----------


## torchbearer

> All the while you've been banging your head against the wall, Ron Paul has been kicking ass as a GOP Texas Congressman. You still ignore Ron Paul's advise, however.


i think this statement sums up my argument against any further action.

----------


## FrankRep

> i think this statement sums up my argument against any further action.


Well, just stop the politically dumb action and follow Ron Paul's advice and take over the GOP.

----------


## fr33

> I think this thread is ticking off people because of some kind of weird or assumed allegiance to a political party.  Personally, I don't care about any of them beyond which one we can most effectively use to get our candidates elected.  Other than that, I could care less.


Some here feel the need to bash the LP. I live in an area dominated by war-mongering GOPers and I usually vote for LP candidates in the general while trying to help liberty-Republicans in the primary. Excuse me CaptLou and AuH20 for not licking the boots that are stomping on my rights and stealing my money and property. The best thing that could happen to Texas would be a 3 way split in the vote because our governor is no better than any democrat. He is Al Gore's spawn and the great "Texas Republicans" are a farce. It was a Republican that threatened to take my land away with the TTC. Forgive me for wishing a pox upon the GOP. They are progressive globalists.

----------


## Carlybee

I've thought of joining the LP many times. I am libertarian idealistically and I align more with the LP platform.  I became an R for the sole purpose of getting Ron Paul elected.  I am rudderless.  So far Rand hasn't moved me although unless he screws up pretty badly I will vote for him if he runs and gets the nomination even though I disagree with quite a few things in the R platform.  My main concern is getting our civil liberties restored.  If that doesn't happen, nothing else matters and it needs to happen soon.  However unlike some I am not willing to sell my soul to establishment and neocon hacks, neither politicians nor media. If you don't stand for something, you stand for nothing.

----------


## jtstellar

so as libertyeagle mentioned something about people being ticked off because of presumed political allegiance

following the same logic, i don't owe LP any allegiance either.. so if i ever deem republican party becoming the better more practical libertarian solution, should i choose that 'better' libertarian party over the LP?  since i owe LP nothing, ya, i think so.  it seems almost as if  people are at times arguing not against political allegiance, but that it should go the other way toward LP.  how about no

----------


## enoch150

> All the while you've been banging your head against the wall, Ron Paul has been kicking ass as a GOP Texas Congressman. You still ignore Ron Paul's advice, however.


Ron Paul's only success was waking some people up.

Personally, I think national and statewide races by LP candidates are pointless, but there's no reason an LP candidate can't do as much as Ron Paul at a local level from a lesser office.

----------


## FrankRep

> Ron Paul's only success was waking some people up.


Ron Paul has been highly successful. I don't understand your need to downplay Ron Paul's success.

----------


## BamaAla

I'm not a libertarian, but I think they should run a candidate if they want to. It isn't easy getting ballot access and they owe it to their members to run someone representative of their platform. If individual members of the LP want to vote for Rand, they can and will. That said, it annoyed the crap out of me when they ran a candidate against Amash.

----------


## alucard13mm



----------


## fr33

> Ron Paul has been highly successful. I don't understand your need to downplay Ron Paul's success.


Come on Frank. Don't you want to defend you Governor and how awesome Texas Republicans are? Nevermind the TTC and what a tool your governor is... Luckily GWB picked on stupid and scared city people in Arlington to build his huge hot dog stand against the landowners' will. Keep blowing smoke up our ass about how great the GOP is. I know too well how it just isn't true.

----------


## speciallyblend

> Didn't say it wasn't possible... but it took more than just GOPers to do it.
> And the ones who took the leadership positions in this state came from the LP.
> If I have to hear one more snide remark about the LP from some snot-nozed repug, i will lose it.
> I can't tell if they are man or pig sometimes.


as a republican for only a lil longer. I remind all  these hypocrites attacking the lp. In the 2008 and 2012 elections the gop candidate was in the same boat as the lp. They lost at the presidential level. Kindafunny watching folks say our vote was wasted when they voted for romney or mccaint. laughable. I will be voting outside the failed gop this  election though the gop forced me to vote outside of them in 2008 and 2012 at the presenditial level and i will do it again!  The gop will lose with out me and you and us and a huge swath of colorado voters. The gop backed themselves in the corner.  I will never buy the gop est BS!! you can smell the crap a mile away.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Some here feel the need to bash the LP. I live in an area dominated by war-mongering GOPers and I usually vote for LP candidates in the general while trying to help liberty-Republicans in the primary. Excuse me CaptLou and AuH20 for not licking the boots that are stomping on my rights and stealing my money and property. The best thing that could happen to Texas would be a 3 way split in the vote because our governor is no better than any democrat. He is Al Gore's spawn and the great "Texas Republicans" are a farce. It was a Republican that threatened to take my land away with the TTC. Forgive me for wishing a pox upon the GOP. They are progressive globalists.


Some certainly are.  But, also remember that Debra Medina was doing quite well in the gubernatorial race prior to the Beck interview.

Thing is, the Republican Party has multiple factions.  The big government Rockefeller-Republicans, the big government neo-Trotskyites and the small government constitutionalists.  

I am convinced that there are still plenty of people out there who want the kind of America that Reagan talked, but didn't walk.  It was his talk that attracted Ron Paul to him; the only difference was that Ron Paul was the real deal.

I am also convinced that there are enough people who would elect someone with that same message, as long as the messenger is able to convey it in the right way.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> as a republican for only a lil longer. I remind all  these hypocrites attacking the lp. In the 2008 and 2012 elections the gop candidate was in the same boat as the lp. They lost at the presidential level. Kindafunny watching folks say our vote was wasted when they voted for romney or mccaint. laughable. I will be voting outside the failed gop this  election though the gop forced me to vote outside of them in 2008 and 2012 at the presenditial level and i will do it again!  The gop will lose with out me and you and us and a huge swath of colorado voters. The gop backed themselves in the corner.  I will never buy the gop est BS!! you can smell the crap a mile away.


See, you too are making it about political parties! Our only goal should be in getting our candidates elected and we should use whichever ones will work in getting that done.  Political parties should be considered as nothing but tools; as inanimate objects.  Because that is what they are.

----------


## fr33

> Some certainly are.  But, also remember that Debra Medina was doing quite well in the gubernatorial race prior to the Beck interview.
> 
> Thing is, the Republican Party has multiple factions.  The big government Rockefeller-Republicans, the big government neo-Trotskyites and the small government constitutionalists.  
> 
> I am convinced that there are still plenty of people out there who want the kind of America that Reagan talked, but didn't walk.  It was his talk that attracted Ron Paul to him; the only difference was that Ron Paul was the real deal.
> 
> I am also convinced that there are enough people who would elect someone with that same message, as long as the messenger is able to convey it in the right way.


Glenn Beck is a neocon. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013...e-middle-east/

There is no more legitimate reasons to agree with his apology tour to libertarians. He has made it clear that he is not one of us.

So of course he worked against Medina. 

What we are witnessing now is those standing up for the Glen Becks while condemning the Medinas.

I live in the Texas GOP and I challenge any LP hater to discover how the LP doesn't respect my rights anymore than a GOPer.

Texas Republicans despise property rights. Libertarians don't.

----------


## fr33

If Texas Republicans gave a damn about the constitution, it would be legal to open carry. They don't respect our rights at all.

----------


## Carlybee

> Glenn Beck is a neocon. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013...e-middle-east/
> 
> 
> So of course he worked against Medina. 
> 
> What we are witnessing now is those standing up for the Glen Becks while condemning the Medinas.
>  .


He worked against Medina in collusion with Rick Perry's campaign as well.

----------


## FrankRep

*Ron Paul: Advice to Liberty Activists on How to Win Elections*




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Ary5F5jKJY

Congressman Larry McDonald was President of the John Birch Society before he was killed.

Ron Paul: "[Larry McDonald] was the most principled man in Congress." 
- The Philadelphia Inquirer

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I live in the Texas GOP and I challenge any LP hater to discover how the LP doesn't respect my rights anymore than a GOPer.
> 
> Texas Republicans despise property rights. Libertarians don't.


Who gives a rat's ass?  I live in Texas too.  A "Libertarian" (from the Libertarian Party) isn't going to be elected; that is fact.  I wish it was different, but it is not.   I'm interested in getting our candidates elected.  I don't care in what damn party.

Take a look at what Ron Paul had to say about it.

----------


## Carlybee

The hall monitors need to buzz off and let people have a discussion about whether the LP will run a candidate as per the OT and stop talking down to people like they're idiots. Or do you think if you beat people over the head with the mantra it will make them care about what you have to say?

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> The hall monitors need to buzz off and let people have a discussion about whether the LP will run a candidate as per the OT and stop talking down to people like they're idiots. Or do you think if you beat people over the head with the mantra it will make them care about what you have to say?


Yes, they will run a candidate. So will the CP and the Green Party.  Roseanne Barr will likely run again, and I am sure there will be some other minor parties on the ballot like the Justice Party and the Socialist Workers Party. In the end, will it make any difference?  No.

What does this mean for Rand supporters?  Well, job number one is to get him to win the nomination. If he does, then hopefully some of those people who are willing to donate time and money to an LP or CP candidate will wake up and see the opportunity that is staring them in the face.

----------


## cajuncocoa

We need more choices, not less.  If either the GOP or the Dems are worried that some 3rd party candidate will siphon off enough votes from them to effect the outcome, they should run better, more principled candidates.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> We need more choices, not less.  If either the GOP or the Dems are worried that some 3rd party candidate will siphon off enough votes from them to effect the outcome, they should run better, more principled candidates.


At the 2012 Iowa Caucuses there were six candidates on the ballot representing multiple wings of the GOP. That's a lot of choices.  In Thomas Massie's primary contest there were seven candidates representing multiple wings of the GOP.  In the SC-1 Special Election, there were 16 candidates on the ballot representing multiple wings of the GOP.

How many more choices would you like?

----------


## erowe1

Yes, they definitely will.

There are two ways they could go with this. One would be to use it as an opportunity for a consistent full-blown libertarian to contrast their philosophy with Rand's (and he with them).

But that's not what they're going to do. What they will do instead is see this as their big opportunity to go mainstream by fielding a candidate who is far less libertarian than Rand, in hopes that they can get all the conservatives to bolt the GOP and essentially switch places with them. Sound stupid? That's why you know they're going to do it.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> At the 2012 Iowa Caucuses there were six candidates on the ballot representing multiple wings of the GOP. That's a lot of choices.  In Thomas Massie's primary contest there were seven candidates representing multiple wings of the GOP.  In the SC-1 Special Election, there were 16 candidates on the ballot representing multiple wings of the GOP.
> 
> How many more choices would you like?


As many as necessary...why fear competition?

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> As many as necessary...why fear competition?


I don't think anyone is "fearing competition".  If you read my post from earlier today, I said in although multiple minor parties will run candidates, in the end it won't make any difference to the outcome of the election.  And while there are benefits to competition, a minor party candidate's run is an exercise in futility.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> I don't think anyone is "fearing competition".  If you read my post from earlier today, I said in although multiple minor parties will run candidates, in the end it won't make any difference to the outcome of the election.  And while there are benefits to competition, *a minor party candidate's run is an exercise in futility.*


I disagree. 

The way I see it, these minor parties represent the people.  The fact that they cannot gain foothold is testament to the fact that our government no longer represents us.  Minor parties get their donations from people like me, and we can only send $2500 (or $2600 now?)  per year to any particular candidate.  The major party candidates receive contributions from large multinational corporations and they can get million$ from those corporations.  Is it any wonder that our representatives from the major 2 parties listen to corporate interests rather than their individual constituents when a bill comes up for a vote?  

Until that changes, there will always be a place in my heart for minor political parties.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> I disagree. 
> 
> The way I see it, these minor parties represent the people.  The fact that they cannot gain foothold is testament to the fact that our government no longer represents us.  Minor parties get their donations from people like me, and we can only send $2500 (or $2600 now?)  per year to any particular candidate.  The major party candidates receive contributions from large multinational corporations and they can get million$ from those corporations.  Is it any wonder that our representatives from the major 2 parties listen to corporate interests rather than their individual constituents when a bill comes up for a vote?  
> 
> Until that changes, there will always be a place in my heart for minor political parties.


Truth is the people running as minor party candidates, can run on either of the two major party tickets through the primary process, and then have access to not only the money but also the manpower.  They choose not to, and therefore set themselves up for failure.

I've said it before, but it needs repeating, there are more libertarians elected to federal, state and local offices as Republicans than there are as members of the LP or CP.

Let me ask you this.  Prior to running for House, Massie had some political experience and name recognition serving as Judge Executive of Lewis County.  Now when he decided to run for the House he had two options: run in the GOP primary or run as a third party candidate.  Now, to get on the primary ballot, he needed to pay the fee and collect 2 signatures.  To get on the general election ballot as a minor party candidate he would have needed 400 signatures (not a huge amount really, considering he already was well known in the district). In fact, one can argue that knocking on doors for a couple weekends getting signatures is a lot easier and less costly than facing 6 opponents in a primary contest.  So why do you think that Massie ran for office under the GOP banner?  Is it because he is a GOP bootlicker and wanted to suck up to the establishment?  Is it because he's not a real libertarian?  Or maybe it is because the man is smart enough to realize that the GOP is the wise path for libertarians to take to win elected office.

----------


## PatriotOne

> As many as necessary...why fear competition?


It's not competition.  It's the difference between getting your/our product on the shelves of Walmart or the local corner co-op.  Where do you think your going to sell more product?  Walmart or the local co-op?

----------


## AuH20

> Glenn Beck is a neocon. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013...e-middle-east/
> 
> There is no more legitimate reasons to agree with his apology tour to libertarians. He has made it clear that he is not one of us.
> 
> So of course he worked against Medina. 
> 
> What we are witnessing now is those standing up for the Glen Becks while condemning the Medinas.
> 
> I live in the Texas GOP and I challenge any LP hater to discover how the LP doesn't respect my rights anymore than a GOPer.
> ...


I don't think you would know what a neocon was if it came up and bit you. It's the broad brush generalizations that make me want to pull my hair out. Neoconservatives per the Irving Kristol model have no problems with gun restrictions ala Cheney's opposition to the Heller verdict. Neoconservatives aren't opposed to the drug war like Glenn Beck. They espouse open borders for corporate raiders. Neoconservatives want American power directed into every hellhole and geopolitical friction point (see Marco Rubio wanting to draw Georgia into NATO). Now regarding Beck's fascination with the Middle East, he laid it out here. The fire will spread triggering the great economic reset:




Secondly, let's get to the Medina campaign that was an absolute albatross. Running a truther tinged campaign as a governor? Really? That's going to work. It's funny that Beck is the one assailed as this shadowy figure that brought down the AMAZING Deborah Medina (spare me) when Medina was the poor candidate. NOT READY FOR PRIME TIME which encompasses a very important theme in this thread. She just couldn't just shut up and keep it to Texas affairs. Property taxes, Texas sovereignty, etc. No, she had to embrace the convoluted fantasy land of thermite laced beams and holograms instead of keeping her eye firmly affixed to the prize.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> It's the broad brush generalizations that make me want to pull my hair out.


It is as bad as when the liberals label people as "racist" because they disagree with a social welfare policy.

----------


## AuH20

> It is as bad as when the liberals label people as "racist" because they disagree with a social welfare policy.


Label someone a neocon and you can avoid debating them. With a simple word, they have been isolated and polarized as a wicked creature that lurks in the shadows and who feeds on the blood of the elderly and infirmed. Look, the same Gotcha political tagging happens on the more mainsteam sites. You believe in national sovereignty for other nations? You're a Paulinista who's one step away from flag burning! I'm tired of the clan wars. Don't have time for the nonsense and insular attitude.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> That said, his views on gay marriage would make me question that... that's the one issue where Nap fails to take a truly libertarian position, at least IMO.  A true libertarian, and certainly a true anarchist, position would be to state that government should have nothing to do with marriage at all, yet Nap uses Loving v Virginia as a precedent.  That issue really doesn't matter to me, but I'd be surprised to see any ancap defend marriage licensing of any sort even under lesser of two evils type conditions.


I am not aware of the case to which you are referring - or of what Judge Nap has said about it. But from what you say here, it doesn't sound like he's done any more that state that some particular case serves as some particular precedent for some particular legal position with respect to the legal system as it exists today. There is nothing particularly non- or anti-anarchist in that sort of thing. Tom Woods does this sort of thing all the time. He's an anarchist, but he frequently makes Constitution-based arguments because those are the terms in which such discussions often take place. This would especially be true of Judge Nap - he is, after all, a FOX News legal analyst. "Going full an-cap" just isn't in the job description ...




> As for Ron, I'd be curious as to your logic regarding why you think he is.


I didn't say that I think he is. I said, "I'm not even going to get into the whole, 'Is Ron Paul an anarchist/voluntaryist?' thing."
I was merely acknowledging the existence of that particular can of worms. I have no desire to open it up (again).




> That would be quite uncharacteristic of him, it wouldn't be consistent with his character, since he never refrains to say what he believes on everything else.


It would not be uncharacteristic of him at all. He does refrain from saying what he believes on some particular things.
There's a video clip in which someone asks him about 9/11 - and he says the issue is "too controversial."
Well, 9/11 doesn't hold a candle to anarchism when it comes to political controversy in today's environment ...




> Why pretend to not be an anarchist, especially now that he's not even in congress anymore?


For the same reasons that any public figure might do so.
 What purpose could it possibly serve other than to marginalize & discredit themselves in the eyes of the audiences they're trying to reach?
(e.g., FOX News viewers, rank-and-file conservatives & GOPers, etc.) Woods has explicitly cited this reason as applied to himself.
Tom Woods doesn't go around shouting, "I'm an anarchist! Rawr rawr raaaawwwwrrr!!!" That doesn't mean he's "pretending not to be" ...
(And the same would go for Judge Nap & Ron Paul - if they are "really" anarchists.)

IOW: If you're an anarchist, you don't need to flaunt the fact in order to be an effective spokesman for liberty - and in some cases, it might be quite unwise and counter-productive for you to do so. It would just pointlessly detract from the message you're trying to get across.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Truth is the people running as minor party candidates, can run on either of the two major party tickets through the primary process, and then have access to not only the money but also the manpower.  They choose not to, and therefore set themselves up for failure.
> 
> I've said it before, but it needs repeating, there are more libertarians elected to federal, state and local offices as Republicans than there are as members of the LP or CP.
> 
> Let me ask you this.  Prior to running for House, Massie had some political experience and name recognition serving as Judge Executive of Lewis County.  Now when he decided to run for the House he had two options: run in the GOP primary or run as a third party candidate.  Now, to get on the primary ballot, he needed to pay the fee and collect 2 signatures.  To get on the general election ballot as a minor party candidate he would have needed 400 signatures (not a huge amount really, considering he already was well known in the district). In fact, one can argue that knocking on doors for a couple weekends getting signatures is a lot easier and less costly than facing 6 opponents in a primary contest.  So why do you think that Massie ran for office under the GOP banner?  Is it because he is a GOP bootlicker and wanted to suck up to the establishment?  Is it because he's not a real libertarian?  Or maybe it is because the man is smart enough to realize that the GOP is the wise path for libertarians to take to win elected office.


Oh, I know it's easier to run under the banner of one of the two major parties; there's no denying that.  But that BIG MONEY that will come your way as a result can corrupt people, even some people who thought they were above it.  

Until and unless we return the process of governing by the will of the people (in lieu of corporate interests) we will not solve too many problems that we are complaining about right now.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> Oh, I know it's easier to run under the banner of one of the two major parties; there's no denying that.  But that BIG MONEY that will come your way as a result can corrupt people, even some people who thought they were above it.  
> 
> Until and unless we return the process of governing by the will of the people (in lieu of corporate interests) we will not solve too many problems that we are complaining about right now.


Agreed, but we cannot close our eyes and wish really hard. We need more people in elected office that share the same principles as our Founding Fathers.  It's a simple numbers game really. It took the progressives 100 years to get us to this point, we can't undo it overnight.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Agreed, but we cannot close our eyes and wish really hard. We need more people in elected office that share the same principles as our Founding Fathers.  It's a simple numbers game really. It took the progressives 100 years to get us to this point, we can't undo it overnight.


Not negating anything you're saying, but the way I feel, things aren't made worse by having more choices; they are made better.  Let's say the GOP screws Rand out of the nomination in 2016 (it's possible)....are you going to feel comfortable voting for Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, et al?  If that's the case, I will definitely be checking into the LP or CP candidate...but if the LP nominates someone like Bob Barr again, they won't get my vote either.

It's easier for progressives:  everything they want is exactly what the elites/establishment wants.  It all works in their favor.

----------


## Carlybee

> Not negating anything you're saying, but the way I feel, things aren't made worse by having more choices; they are made better.  Let's say the GOP screws Rand out of the nomination in 2016 (it's possible)....are you going to feel comfortable voting for Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, et al?  If that's the case, I will definitely be checking into the LP or CP candidate...but if the LP nominates someone like Bob Barr again, they won't get my vote either.
> 
> It's easier for progressives:  everything they want is exactly what the elites/establishment wants.  It all works in
>  their favor.


Same here. I'm not holding my nose for anyone. That being said the thought of Hillary is a nightmare too.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Same here. I'm not holding my nose for anyone. That being said the thought of Hillary is a nightmare too.


Yes, she definitely would be...but if her opponent is Jeb or Rubio there will be no difference. Of course, you already know that.

----------


## fr33

> I don't think you would know what a neocon was if it came up and bit you. It's the broad brush generalizations that make me want to pull my hair out. Neoconservatives per the Irving Kristol model have no problems with gun restrictions ala Cheney's opposition to the Heller verdict. Neoconservatives aren't opposed to the drug war like Glenn Beck. They espouse open borders for corporate raiders. Neoconservatives want American power directed into every hellhole and geopolitical friction point (see Marco Rubio wanting to draw Georgia into NATO). Now regarding Beck's fascination with the Middle East, he laid it out here. The fire will spread triggering the great economic reset:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpCo6...layer_embedded
> 
> Secondly, let's get to the Medina campaign that was an absolute albatross. Running a truther tinged campaign as a governor? Really? That's going to work. It's funny that Beck is the one assailed as this shadowy figure that brought down the AMAZING Deborah Medina (spare me) when Medina was the poor candidate. NOT READY FOR PRIME TIME which encompasses a very important theme in this thread. She just couldn't just shut up and keep it to Texas affairs. Property taxes, Texas sovereignty, etc. No, she had to embrace the convoluted fantasy land of thermite laced beams and holograms instead of keeping her eye firmly affixed to the prize.


I know that Glenn Beck wants the US to be in a never-ending struggle for Israel's sake and it's very similar to neo-conservatism. We're supposed to unconditionally support the most irresponsible welfare queen on the planet. Nobody's baby-mama can compare to Israel.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...east-The-Bible

----------


## cajuncocoa

> I don't think you would know what a neocon was if it came up and bit you.


These guidelines work for me...and Glenn Beck fits the description:




> They agree with Trotsky on permanent revolution, violent as                   well as intellectual.               
>                  They                   are for redrawing the map of the Middle East and are willing                   to use force to do so.                   They believe in preemptive war to achieve desired ends.                                They                   accept the notion that the ends justify the means    that                   hard-ball politics is a moral necessity.                 They                   express no opposition to the welfare state.                 They                   are not bashful about an American empire; instead they strongly                   endorse it.                 They                   believe lying is necessary for the state to survive.                 They                   believe a powerful federal government is a benefit.                 They                   believe pertinent facts about how a society should be run should                   be held by the elite and withheld from those who do not have                   the courage to deal with it.                   They believe neutrality in foreign affairs is ill-advised.                                  They hold Leo Strauss in high esteem.                                They                   believe imperialism, if progressive in nature, is appropriate.                 Using                   American might to force American ideals on others is acceptable.                   Force should not be limited to the defense of our country.                 9-11                   resulted from the lack of foreign entanglements, not from too                   many.                 They                   dislike and despise libertarians (therefore, the same applies                   to all strict constitutionalists).                   They endorse attacks on civil liberties, such as those found                   in the Patriot Act, as being necessary.                                They                   unconditionally support Israel and have a close alliance with                   the Likud Party.


 http://www.lewrockwell.com/2003/07/r...een-neoconned/

----------


## FrankRep

> These guidelines work for me...and Glenn Beck fits the description:
> 
> http://www.lewrockwell.com/2003/07/r...een-neoconned/


Glenn Beck doesn't support Trotsky or Leo Strauss.

Glenn Beck doesn't support the welfare state.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Glenn Beck doesn't support Trotsky or Leo Strauss.
> 
> Glenn Beck doesn't support the welfare state.


  Congrats, you found 3 items out of 17 that don't apply to Beck. (Has he actually mentioned Trotsky or Strauss though?)

 It's not necessary for all 17 to apply in order to qualify.  He's hitting on enough of them that he can't shake the label.

----------


## Brett85

> Yes, she definitely would be...but if her opponent is Jeb or Rubio there will be no difference. Of course, you already know that.


I think that Rubio would clearly be better than Hillary on domestic issues; on foreign policy issues he would be just as bad or even worse.  Jeb would probably be about like his brother, and I don't think that George W. Bush was any better as President than Obama.

----------


## compromise

> Congrats, you found 3 items out of 17 that don't apply to Beck. (Has he actually mentioned Trotsky or Strauss though?)
> 
>  It's not necessary for all 17 to apply in order to qualify.  He's hitting on enough of them that he can't shake the label.





> They dislike and despise libertarians (therefore, the same applies to all strict constitutionalists).


He claims to be one, frequently has them on his show and begs to be accepted by them.




> They endorse attacks on civil liberties, such as those found in the Patriot Act, as being necessary.


Glenn Beck never supported infinite detention in NDAA and has recently come out in opposition to the Patriot Act.




> They believe a powerful federal government is a benefit.


Beck believes in greater states' rights and downsizing the federal government by eliminating a number of departments.




> They believe pertinent facts about how a society should be run should be held by the elite and withheld from those who do not have the courage to deal with it.


Beck declared Snowden a hero in the NSA scandal.

Beck is also strongly opposed to intervention in Libya and Syria. What genuine neoconservative would hold that position? Intervention in those nations is strongly supported by John McCain, Bill Kristol, Charles Krauthammer, Paul Wolfowitz, John Bolton, Tom Cotton and Marco Rubio.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> I know that Glenn Beck wants the US to be in a never-ending struggle for Israel's sake and it's very similar to neo-conservatism.


Israel and all things indirectly related is the issue that Beck, Kristol, Hannity and Levin will agree on.

Ideologically, only Kristol is a true neo-conservative.

Beck is harder to categorize. He jumps around a lot, and is not consistent. He is more of an Israel-first evangelist, combined with Constitutionalism and some libertarianism.

Hannity and Levin are Israel-first objectivists.

----------


## erowe1

> Glenn Beck never supported infinite detention


That's true.

If I recall correctly, his position was that every prisoner at Gitmo should just be shot in the head.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Intervention in those nations is strongly supported by John McCain, Bill Kristol, Charles Krauthammer, Paul Wolfowitz, John Bolton, Tom Cotton and Marco Rubio.


Agree with that list. All neo-conservatives.

----------


## FrankRep

> Congrats, you found 3 items out of 17 that don't apply to Beck. (Has he actually mentioned Trotsky or Strauss though?)


Glenn Beck no longer supports the Patriot Act either.

----------


## AuH20

> These guidelines work for me...and Glenn Beck fits the description:
> 
> http://www.lewrockwell.com/2003/07/r...een-neoconned/


Cajun I think you are blinded by hate. If you want to ridicule Beck for having a unhealthy biblical attachment with Israel then you won't get any complaints from me. If you want to state that he is at an ideological divide with Ron Paul on the military capabilities of the United States, I will not disagree either. But the facts bear out in a near irrefutable fashion that he is not a neoconservative. It's not even a valid comparison.


1.They agree with Trotsky on permanent revolution, violent as well as intellectual. 

_Equating Glenn Beck who is a noted restorationist, to Leon Trostky. 0 for 1_.


2.They are for redrawing the map of the Middle East and are willing to use force to do so.

_That's a canard. O for 2._

3.They believe in preemptive war to achieve desired ends. 

_Negative. 0 for 3._ _Stated the flaws of the Bush Doctrine._

4.They accept the notion that the ends justify the means – that hard-ball politics is a moral necessity.

_I believe the same. 1 for 4._

5.They express no opposition to the welfare state.

_Yes, that's Glenn Beck alright. 1 for 5._

6.They are not bashful about an American empire; *instead they strongly endorse it.*
_1 for 6. Beck wants to pull back._

7.They believe lying is necessary for the state to survive.

_Nope. 1 for 7._ 

8.They believe a powerful federal government is a benefit.

_Nope . 1 for 8.

Beck is a federalist._

9.They believe pertinent facts about how a society should be run should be held by the elite and withheld from those who do not have the courage to deal with it.

_Yes, Glenn Beck. Mr Elite Mormon.

1 for 9._

10.They believe neutrality in foreign affairs is ill-advised. 

_Another strange question 1 for 10. Beck doesn't want to be everywhere like true neocons._

11.They hold Leo Strauss in high esteem. 

_1 for 11
More nonsense_

12.They believe imperialism, if progressive in nature, is appropriate.

_1 for 12
Ha ha_

13.Using American might to force American ideals on others is acceptable. Force should not be limited to the defense of our country.

_There are numerous videos out there with Beck stating the OPPOSITE. You cannot force democracy on those who are culturally inclined to do otherwise__1 for 13_

14. 9-11 resulted from the lack of foreign entanglements, not from too many.

_Nope. 

1 for 14._

15.They dislike and despise libertarians (therefore, the same applies to all strict constitutionalists).

_1 for 15

Nope. Look who he hangs around with. Penn Jilette and others._ 

16.They endorse attacks on civil liberties, such as those found in the Patriot Act, as being necessary. 

_Nope. Numerous videos on this as well. Stated Patriot Act was a ruse.

1 for 16_

17.They unconditionally support Israel and have a close alliance with the Likud Party.

_He supports Israel, most notably Jerusalem, the holy land. 2 for 17._

So let's recap.  Beck fulfills just two of the 17 criteria points. Yes, 2 of the 17 points for Mr. Neoconservative. Perhaps, you can stretch it to 4 out of 17 if you really want to grind the axe. Cajun, you need to do some better research on the guy as opposed to being one of the herd.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> Let's say the GOP screws Rand out of the nomination in 2016 (it's possible)....are you going to feel comfortable voting for Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, et al?


My feelings don't enter into my voting decision honestly. I am in SC, whomever the GOP nominee is will win the state. I'll either vote for them or abstain. I won't vote for the LP candidate because it "feels better" to do so. If it is someone particularly good, I may cast a vote as a "protest vote", but that's unlikely. There is no emotion involved in my decision whatsoever.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> My feelings don't enter into my voting decision honestly. I am in SC, whomever the GOP nominee is will win the state. I'll either vote for them or abstain. I won't vote for the LP candidate because it "feels better" to do so. If it is someone particularly good, I may cast a vote as a "protest vote", but that's unlikely. There is no emotion involved in my decision whatsoever.


It's not emotion, Capt., it's principles. At least it is for me.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> It's not emotion, Capt., it's principles. At least it is for me.


But you asked if I would "feel comfortable", so either you are referring to a state of contentment or the absence of physical stress.  One would assume the former since they don't give voters La-Z-Boys to sit in when casting their ballot.

So, if you are asking would I be abandoning my principles for casting a vote for someone I disagree with ideologically, well yes.  And in that case I would abstain.  But I don't get any sort of satisfaction by voting for a third party candidate.  As I said, I may cast a protest vote, but that is unlikely.  I don't like to give any encouragement to the madness that is the LP or CP. I have only done it once that I can recall.

----------


## Keith and stuff

> I don't think the average anarchist or even hardcore libertarian supports Gary Johnson. He certainly didn't get a fawning reception at Porcfest.


People in New Hampshire aren't fond of paying sales taxes, even if they are lol fair sales taxes.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Cajun I think you are blinded by hate. If you want to ridicule Beck for having a unhealthy biblical attachment with Israel then you won't get any complaints from me. If you want to state that he is at an ideological divide with Ron Paul on the military capabilities of the United States, I will not disagree either. But the facts bear out in a near irrefutable fashion that he is not a neoconservative. It's not even a valid comparison.
> 
> 
> 1.They agree with Trotsky on permanent revolution, violent as well as intellectual. 
> 
> _Equating Glenn Beck who is a noted restorationist, to Leon Trostky. 0 for 1_.
> 
> 
> 2.They are for redrawing the map of the Middle East and are willing to use force to do so.
> ...


I disagree with your analysis.  For example, #15...the fact that he's friends with Penn Jillette doesn't mean he doesn't hate libertarianism.  I have friends who are progressives; I have friends who still adore Dick Cheney.  I despise what they believe, but we're still friends.  I disagree with your analysis on #3. Ben Swann recently wrote about Beck calling for a war in Syria and Iran.  I stopped listening to Beck regularly after the Debra Medina sabotage.  If he's changed about other things on the list, good for him.  But I suspect that's only because a Dem is in the White House right now.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> But you asked if I would "feel comfortable", so either you are referring to a state of contentment or the absence of physical stress.  One would assume the former since they don't give voters La-Z-Boys to sit in when casting their ballot.
> 
> So, if you are asking would I be abandoning my principles for casting a vote for someone I disagree with ideologically, well yes.  And in that case I would abstain.  But I don't get any sort of satisfaction by voting for a third party candidate.  As I said, I may cast a protest vote, but that is unlikely.  I don't like to give any encouragement to the madness that is the LP or CP. I have only done it once that I can recall.


What? You don't get a La-Z-Boy in your state?? Y'all need an upgrade! 

Seriously, of course I was speaking of being able to live with your vote for either of them.  I couldn't, but to each his own.

----------


## AuH20

> I disagree with your analysis.  For example, #15...the fact that he's friends with Penn Jillette doesn't mean he doesn't hate libertarianism.  I have friends who are progressives; I have friends who still adore Dick Cheney.  I despise what they believe, but we're still friends.  I disagree with your analysis on #3. Ben Swann recently wrote about Beck calling for a war in Syria and Iran.  I stopped listening to Beck regularly after the Debra Medina sabotage.  If he's changed about other things on the list, good for him.  But I suspect that's only because a Dem is in the White House right now.


Ben Swann had a misleading headline which we already discussed. Glenn Beck did not call for a preemptive war into Iraq and Syria. His foreign correspondent Buck Sexton implied it. Beck stated that he would to pull all U.S. Forces out of the Middle East into a defensive shell and then wait for Al Qaeda to strike. You don't have to like or respect Glenn Beck, but he's not a neoconservative.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> I stopped listening to Beck regularly after the Debra Medina sabotage.


As critical of him as you are on this forum, I would have supposed that you at the very least listen to him from time to time to see what he has to say.  In my opinion, you really are unqualified to evaluate him.

Since we are on the subject, do you listen to Levin, Hannity, Rush or any of the other media personalities you routinely bash?  Or is all the bashing you do born out of a hatred you have for these men because they didn't have an erection for Ron Paul?

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> What? You don't get a La-Z-Boy in your state?? Y'all need an upgrade! 
> 
> Seriously, of course I was speaking of being able to live with your vote for either of them.  I couldn't, but to each his own.


Again, I don't have to "live with my vote". It is a function that accomplishes a intended task.  No emotional connection whatsoever.  I don't sit there and beat myself up over a vote I have cast in the past.

----------


## compromise

> I disagree with your analysis.  For example, #15...the fact that he's friends with Penn Jillette doesn't mean he doesn't hate libertarianism.  I have friends who are progressives; I have friends who still adore Dick Cheney.  I despise what they believe, but we're still friends.  I disagree with your analysis on #3. Ben Swann recently wrote about Beck calling for a war in Syria and Iran.  I stopped listening to Beck regularly after the Debra Medina sabotage.  If he's changed about other things on the list, good for him.  But I suspect that's only because a Dem is in the White House right now.


He's not only friends with Jillette and Napolitano, he claims he is politically influenced by them, agrees with them on a number of issues, promotes Austrian economics books and even calls himself a libertarian. How can this guy hate libertarianism?

----------


## cajuncocoa

> As critical of him as you are on this forum, I would have supposed that you at the very least listen to him from time to time to see what he has to say.  In my opinion, you really are unqualified to evaluate him.
> 
> Since we are on the subject, do you listen to Levin, Hannity, Rush or any of the other media personalities you routinely bash?  Or is all the bashing you do born out of a hatred you have for these men because they didn't have an erection for Ron Paul?


I've listened to them enough to know what they're about.  I've heard them talk the talk of small government; if they really believed what they say they would have at least refrained from smearing Ron Paul as they did.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> He's not only friends with Jillette and Napolitano, he claims he is politically influenced by them, agrees with them on a number of issues, promotes Austrian economics books and even calls himself a libertarian. How can this guy hate libertarianism?


I could claim to be LeBron James; that doesn't mean I can shoot hoops. Austrian economics is only one component of libertarianism. Beck doesn't cut it with his FP views.

----------


## AuH20

> He's not only friends with Jillette and Napolitano, he claims he is politically influenced by them, agrees with them on a number of issues, promotes Austrian economics books and even calls himself a libertarian.* How can this guy hate libertarianism?*


Because he said mean things about Ron Paul. He will burn forever for that crime. I could care less. I'm not a FEELINGS guy. All I know is that Beck is doing yeoman's work that transcends the LP and many other liberty organizations. And the same goes for Alex Jones, who hates Beck. Keep moving the flag forward. And this support structure appplies to that dancing fool Kokesh as well. I'm a big tent guy and if you can attract listeners and promote anti-state ideas, I'll support you.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Because he said mean things about Ron Paul. He will burn forever for that crime. I could care less. All I know is that Beck is doing yeoman's work that transcends the LP and many other liberty organizations. And the same goes for Alex Jones, who hates Beck. Keep moving the flag forward. And this support structure appplies to that dancing fool Kokesh as well. I'm a big tent guy and if you can attract listeners and promote anti-state ideas, I'll support you.


No, it's not just that he said "mean things" about Ron Paul...Beck called Dr Paul's ideas dangerous and more than implied that Ron's supporters were domestic terrorists. If he really believes that, I wonder how serious he is about embracing more than economic libertarian philosophy. And if he supports continued spending for this ridiculous war on terror, he can't really be serious about fiscal responsibility either.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> I could claim to be LeBron James; that doesn't mean I can shoot hoops. Austrian economics is only one component of libertarianism. Beck doesn't cut it with his FP views.


You do realize that not all libertarians are strict Jeffersonians?  But then again, since you label Beck a neo-con because he agrees with two of the 17 points of neo-con doctrine, maybe I am am starting to understand your method of labeling people.  The must agree with all of the points of libertarianism to be a libertarian, but if they only agree with a few of the points of neo-conservatism then they are a neo-con.  Gotcha.

----------


## compromise

> I could claim to be LeBron James; that doesn't mean I can shoot hoops. Austrian economics is only one component of libertarianism. Beck doesn't cut it with his FP views.


But that means he disagrees with libertarians. It doesn't mean he hates libertarianism. Does DeMint hate libertarianism? Does Mike Lee hate libertarianism? Does Raul Labrador hate libertarianism? Does Mulvaney hate libertarianism? These are people that are rhetorically very similar to Glenn Beck when it comes to including libertarian-leaning individuals within the GOP and agree with Beck regarding Iran. They are also among Rand's and Amash's closest political allies.

You're basically saying that because Glenn agrees with #3 and #13 (which are pretty much the same point anyway) regarding Iran, that Glenn also agrees with #15 automatically. So really you've only got 1 point.

----------


## Carlybee

> As critical of him as you are on this forum, I would have supposed that you at the very least listen to him from time to time to see what he has to say.  In my opinion, you really are unqualified to evaluate him.
> 
> Since we are on the subject, do you listen to Levin, Hannity, Rush or any of the other media personalities you routinely bash?  Or is all the bashing you do born out of a hatred you have for these men because they didn't have an erection for Ron Paul?



I listen to all of them and can't stand any of them. You erection comment is vulgar and inappropriate.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> I listen to all of them and can't stand any of them. You erection comment is vulgar and inappropriate.


But completely on target.

There are some folks on here (and one former mod), who have an unhealthy emotional attachment to Ron Paul, and have hatred boiling inside them for anyone who dared to be critical of him.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> You do realize that not all libertarians are strict Jeffersonians?  But then again, since you label Beck a neo-con because he agrees with two of the 17 points of neo-con doctrine, maybe I am am starting to understand your method of labeling people.  The must agree with all of the points of libertarianism to be a libertarian, but if they only agree with a few of the points of neo-conservatism then they are a neo-con.  Gotcha.


That's wrong. Quite a few libertarians right here on this board have disagreements on minor issues, but in order to be considered libertarian (or any other label) the most important ingredients must be present.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> I listen to all of them and can't stand any of them. You erection comment is vulgar and inappropriate.


But completely on target.

There are some folks on here (and one former mod), who have an unhealthy emotional attachment to Ron Paul, and have hatred boiling inside them for anyone who dared to be critical of him.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> But completely on target.
> 
> There are some folks on here (and one former mod), who have an unhealthy emotional attachment to Ron Paul, and have hatred boiling inside them for anyone who dared to be critical of him.


And others of you have no respect for his main principles at all. I sometimes wonder why some of you bothered to join up here...unless it was an attempt to co-opt Ron's r3volution (nicely played, too)

----------


## AuH20

> No, it's not just that he said "mean things" about Ron Paul...Beck called Dr Paul's ideas dangerous and more than implied that Ron's supporters were domestic terrorists. If he really believes that, I wonder how serious he is about embracing more than economic libertarian philosophy. And if he supports continued spending for this ridiculous war on terror, he can't really be serious about fiscal responsibility either.


Yes, Glenn Beck stated that Ron Paul's foreign policy proposals are dangerous since they are abrupt as opposed to a stage by stage breakdown. Now to Beck's terrorist segment, watch it again and note that he says that most RP supporters are operating under a HARMLESS METAPHORICAL revolutionary premise as opposed to terroristic intent. That segment was completely overblown as usual. He never stated that Ron Paul supporters are terrorists. He was simply questioning the use of 'slippery slope' imagery.

----------


## Carlybee

> But completely on target.
> 
> There are some folks on here (and one former mod), who have an unhealthy emotional attachment to Ron Paul, and have hatred boiling inside them for anyone who dared to be critical of him.


That's fine but should you be making vulgar comments about him in his son's sub forum? I'm sure some of his family looks in from time to time. I mean really that is pretty low whether you care for him or not.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> That's wrong. Quite a few libertarians right here on this board have disagreements on minor issues, but in order to be considered libertarian (or any other label) the most important ingredients must be present.


You do realize that there are people who call themselves libertarians that believe Ron Paul is not a libertarian?

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/9...arian-ideology

http://www.browndailyherald.com/2012...a-libertarian/

http://theblogofprogress.com/?p=367

http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2012/01/0...ul-libertarian

----------


## Smitty

Beck is controlled opposition.

If Rand gets the GOP nomination it will be despite the efforts of the RNC.

It's difficult to believe that so many on here have already forgotten the 2012 GOP primary.

Maybe someday the Republican party can be reformed,...but it's a long way from being so at present.

Both of the dominant political parties are owned,..and not by the advocates of liberty.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Yes, Glenn Beck stated that Ron Paul's foreign policy proposals are dangerous since they are abrupt as opposed to a stage by stage breakdown. Now to Beck's terrorist segment, watch it again and note that he says that most RP supporters are operating under a HARMLESS METAPHORICAL revolutionary premise as opposed to terroristic intent. That segment was completely overblown as usual.


Overblown in your opinion. I disagree.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> You do realize that there are people who call themselves libertarians that believe Ron Paul is not a libertarian?
> 
> http://www.newrepublic.com/article/9...arian-ideology
> 
> http://www.browndailyherald.com/2012...a-libertarian/
> 
> http://theblogofprogress.com/?p=367
> 
> http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2012/01/0...ul-libertarian


Yes, I do.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> Yes, I do.


So maybe you are not correct in your belief, maybe these folks are the ones that are correct and you are wrong.  See what happens when you split hairs over labels?

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> Yes, Glenn Beck stated that Ron Paul's foreign policy proposals are dangerous since they are abrupt as opposed to a stage by stage breakdown. Now to Beck's terrorist segment, watch it again and note that he says that most RP supporters are operating under a HARMLESS METAPHORICAL revolutionary premise as opposed to terroristic intent. *That segment was completely overblown as usual.* He never stated that Ron Paul supporters are terrorists. He was simply questioning the use of 'slippery slope' imagery.


Agreed.  I believe it stems from the emotional attachment some people had to a political candidate.  Their devotion to him is similar to the devotion that pre-teen girls have to the latest heartthrob pop star.

----------


## compromise

> And others of you have no respect for his main principles at all. I sometimes wonder why some of you bothered to join up here...unless it was an attempt to co-opt Ron's r3volution (nicely played, too)


When I joined here, I agreed with Ron Paul. I no longer do. Like Ron does, I recognize Rand is a better political leader than he is.

Rand has successfully brought me over to agreeing with him on every issue through his strong arguments.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> So maybe you are not correct in your belief, maybe these folks are the ones that are correct and you are wrong.  See what happens when you split hairs over labels?


I would agree that Ron is not a strict libertarian, if one accepts that slogan I mentioned last night (pro-choice on everything)...by that criterion I'm not either. But Ron and I are both a closer fit to pure libertarianism than Beck or Hannity.

----------


## AuH20

> Overblown in your opinion. I disagree.


For a libertarian, you sure are closeminded. I'll let you in on a dirty little secret. I am far more radical than you, but I understand that we are in the fight of our lives. We need every cook, doorman and rodeo clown to counter this statist takeover.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> When I joined here, I agreed with Ron Paul. I no longer do. Like Ron does, I recognize Rand is a better political leader than he is.
> 
> Rand has successfully brought me over to agreeing with him on every issue through his strong arguments.


Good. Now we've identified the problem between us. I still stand with Ron.

----------


## Carlybee

> Agreed.  I believe it stems from the emotional attachment some people had to a political candidate.  Their devotion to him is similar to the devotion that pre-teen girls have to the latest heartthrob pop star.


Thank God we had someone who inspired that kind of devotion. True statesmen are few and far between. True scholars and upholders of the Constitution as well. I will never apologize for being inspired by a great man. The same man without whom you would not have this venue to complain about him or his supporters.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> I would agree that Ron is not a strict libertarian, if one accepts that slogan I mentioned last night (pro-choice on everything)...by that criterion I'm not either. But Ron and I are both a closer fit to pure libertarianism than Beck or Hannity.


I think you should add, in your own opinion to that, because obviously there are people out there who would disagree with you. In fact, one of the articles called Ron Paul an embarrassment to libertarianism.

----------


## enoch150

> Ron Paul has been highly successful. I don't understand your need to downplay Ron Paul's success.


Other than waking some people up, at what has he been highly successful? Don't get me wrong - that was critically important and he succeeded at it in a way unlike anyone in decades, and perhaps centuries. We won't know his full impact for years. It continues to snowball, inspiring candidates and leading to other successful elections which may, eventually, prove successful in having a major effect on policy.

But that success came from Ron Paul's Presidential runs. His terms in Congress did nothing other than lend enough credibility to get him on the Presidential debate stage - something which, theoretically, could be done from any party, as demonstrated by Ross Perot. 

Ron Paul's career in Congress was unsuccessful except in setting the record for the largest number of 1 - 434 votes. As a matter of policy, his Congressional career accomplished nothing.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> For a libertarian, you sure are closeminded. I'll let you in on a dirty little secret. I am far more radical than you, but I understand that we are in the fight of our lives. We need every cook, doorman and rodeo clown to counter this statist takeover.


My Dad always told me not to be so open-minded that my brain might fall out. I listened. You have to stand for something or you'll fall for anything.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> Thank God we had someone who inspired that kind of devotion. True statesmen are few and far between. True scholars and upholders of the Constitution as well. I will never apologize for being inspired by a great man. The same man without whom you would not have this venue to complain about him or his supporters.


That devotion is called hero worship, and it is never a good thing, regardless of whom the object of your devotion is.  And regarding this place, it's a web forum.  There are plenty of them out there.  And I participate in others as well.  This one though, is a lot more entertaining, and frankly a lot easier to navigate.

----------


## PatriotOne

> My feelings don't enter into my voting decision honestly. I am in SC, whomever the GOP nominee is will win the state. I'll either vote for them or abstain. I won't vote for the LP candidate because it "feels better" to do so. If it is someone particularly good, I may cast a vote as a "protest vote", but that's unlikely. There is no emotion involved in my decision whatsoever.


You are a very logical person...spock-like.  I'm heavy on the logic side also.  Trying to convince emotionally driven people (and in some cases emotionally unstable people) using logic is darn near impossible.  Maybe you should include feel good kitten/puppy pictures with every post?

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Agreed.  I believe it stems from the emotional attachment some people had to a political candidate.  Their devotion to him is similar to the devotion that pre-teen girls have to the latest heartthrob pop star.


I haven't seen my teens for many years. I assure you, I'm grounded in principle here, not infatuation.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> You are a very logical person...spock-like.  I'm heavy on the logic side also.  Trying to convince emotionally driven people (and in some cases emotionally unstable people) using logic is darn near impossible.  Maybe you should include feel good kitten/puppy pictures with every post?


OK, we're going to start throwing around insults instead of having a discussion as adults. I'll catch up with the rest of you again when PO goes for a nap.

----------


## Carlybee

Okay this is just turning into a Ron Paul bashfest. All men are fallible, no one argues that, but some of these comments are just insulting. Don't be surprised when you start running people off that you might need later on.

----------


## Carlybee

> That devotion is called hero worship, and it is never a good thing, regardless of whom the object of your devotion is.  And regarding this place, it's a web forum.  There are plenty of them out there.  And I participate in others as well.  This one though, is a lot more entertaining, and frankly a lot easier to navigate.


It's not hero worship..it's called respect. I'm not an Obamabot...that is hero worship.

----------


## Carlybee

> You are a very logical person...spock-like.  I'm heavy on the logic side also.  Trying to convince emotionally driven people (and in some cases emotionally unstable people) using logic is darn near impossible.  Maybe you should include feel good kitten/puppy pictures with every post?


Actually no, you are just insulting. I doubt logic figures into it much if at all.

----------


## AuH20

> It's not hero worship..it's called respect. I'm not an Obamabot...that is hero worship.


We all respect Ron Paul. He's the John Baptist of a forgotten era. That's not to say he hasn't made his share of tactical mistakes.

----------


## FSP-Rebel

time for a group hug

----------


## PatriotOne

> OK, we're going to start throwing around insults instead of having a discussion as adults. I'll catch up with the rest of you again when PO goes for a nap.


I decided long ago I was just wasting my time having a logical discussion with you.  I'd rather beat my head against a brick wall.

----------


## PatriotOne

> Actually no, you are just insulting. I doubt logic figures into it much if at all.


You and Cajun are easily in the top ten emotionally driven active members on this board.

----------


## AuH20

> time for a group hug


The an cap voice of reason. What would we do without you? They must love you at DP. heh.

----------


## FSP-Rebel

> The an cap voice of reason. What would we do without you? They must love you at DP. heh.


Yeah right, most of that bunch can't stand Rand in the slightest. And because of that I rarely check in over there. It used to be such a helpful and upstanding site, not so much any more. It's still a money maker tho.

----------


## PatriotOne

> time for a group hug

----------


## Deborah K

> That devotion is called hero worship.


I disagree. Hero worship infers that there's been undying veneration, with no criticism.  Most RP supporters (even the devoted ones) have vented their concerns and criticisms at one point or another.

----------


## jllundqu



----------


## jtstellar

> Yeah right, most of that bunch can't stand Rand in the slightest. And because of that I rarely check in over there. It used to be such a helpful and upstanding site, not so much any more. It's still a money maker tho.


i got banned from dp once 

then as i attempted to restart an account, the site asked me for $5 a month, and then i realized a new subscription policy was instituted shortly before the account 'cleansing'.  but nystrom disguised it as purely having disagreements and just not liking some people.  

and of course, i got banned by hitting nystrom over the back side of his head by reminding him in front of everyone of his past comment "rand paul is a one-man soap machine" as, i can't remember what occasion exactly, nystrom was attempting to praise rand on the heel of a major legislative vote or some achievement of sorts by rand.. think twice if you want to embarrass mr. nystrom if you plan to keep an account there free of charge, lol.  

"you pissed me off!  now pay me five dollars!"  

was it a surprise nystrom hated ron paul so hard after ron's quarrel with the fake australian site hosts masquerading as supporters?  nystrom just plain despised the possibility that ron could have any control of the slightest degree over how nystrom makes money when it pertains to using ron's name.  well, nystrom does take the phrase 'when they came for the jews' to his heart down to a T, even if it meant supporting two charlatans from australia.  i think nystrom is truly starving over there.. someone really needs to serve him a meal

----------


## Carlybee

> You and Cajun are easily in the top ten emotionally driven active members on this board.


Nope..just have conviction and won't apologize for that either.

----------


## satchelmcqueen

ihope they run someone libertarian against him. the more the better. did anyone watch the 4 person debate that johnson was in on the internet? it was so good. you had 4 people saying almost the same thing. it would have made any rino look foolish to have been there. so i say the more of the same stance on stage, the better for us.

----------


## Matt Collins

> But the LP is irrelevant on the national stage so it hardly matters.


The LP can probably decide the outcome of a lot of Presidential elections if they simply get their candidate to only campaign in the swing states.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> When I joined here, I agreed with Ron Paul. I no longer do. Like Ron does, I recognize Rand is a better political leader than he is.
> 
> Rand has successfully brought me over to agreeing with him on every issue through his strong arguments.


LOL!  And therefore... Rand is completely failing at what he's trying to do.

I don't think Rand is trying to convince libertarians to be more moderate.  I think he's trying to convince moderates to be more libertarian.





> I think that Rubio would clearly be better than Hillary on domestic issues; on foreign policy issues he would be just as bad or even worse.  Jeb would probably be about like his brother, and I don't think that George W. Bush was any better as President than Obama.


Probably  true.

Would you vote for someone like Rubio?  I wouldn't.



> My feelings don't enter into my voting decision honestly. I am in SC, whomever the GOP nominee is will win the state. I'll either vote for them or abstain. I won't vote for the LP candidate because it "feels better" to do so. If it is someone particularly good, I may cast a vote as a "protest vote", but that's unlikely. There is no emotion involved in my decision whatsoever.


Why not just cast a protest vote?  What good reason is there not to?




> I disagree with your analysis.  For example, #15...the fact that he's friends with Penn Jillette doesn't mean he doesn't hate libertarianism.  I have friends who are progressives; I have friends who still adore Dick Cheney.  I despise what they believe, but we're still friends.  I disagree with your analysis on #3. Ben Swann recently wrote about Beck calling for a war in Syria and Iran.  I stopped listening to Beck regularly after the Debra Medina sabotage.  If he's changed about other things on the list, good for him.  But I suspect *that's only because a Dem is in the White House right now*.


That's the thing, we don't know but that's possible.  That said, right now, Glenn Beck is the one I genuinely see some hope for.  I'm not saying he actually is a libertarian (He's not) but I feel like he might be coming around.  We'll need another Republican President and a year of that to know for sure, but Beck somehow seems a little more sincere than Hannity, Levin, or Limbaugh.

That said, he still defends his refusal to support Ron Paul IIRC, which does make me question his sincerity.

----------


## Brett85

> Would you vote for someone like Rubio?  I wouldn't.


I don't know.  I've basically decided that it's not necessarily good to make a committment one way or the other, that it's better to just take the approach that Ron always took.  Ron never pledged to support the GOP nominee regardless of who it was, but he also never pledged to not support the GOP nominee.  He just said that he would have to think about it and see what platform the GOP nominee ended up running on.  So whenever someone asks me whether I'll support the GOP nominee in 2016 if it isn't Rand, I just say "I don't know."  I just think it's better to keep your options open and not commit one way or the other.  

Except, I guess there probably are some GOP candidates that are so bad that I couldn't vote for under any circumstances.  I certainly couldn't vote for another Bush, or for Santorum or Bolton.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I don't know.  I've basically decided that it's not necessarily good to make a committment one way or the other, that it's better to just take the approach that Ron always took.  Ron never pledged to support the GOP nominee regardless of who it was, but he also never pledged to not support the GOP nominee.  He just said that he would have to think about it and see what platform the GOP nominee ended up running on.  So whenever someone asks me whether I'll support the GOP nominee in 2016 if it isn't Rand, I just say "I don't know."  I just think it's better to keep your options open and not commit one way or the other.  
> 
> Except, I guess there probably are some GOP candidates that are so bad that I couldn't vote for under any circumstances.  I certainly couldn't vote for another Bush, or for Santorum or Bolton.


Do you believe Rubio is any better?

The obvious assumption being that the platform is similar to what the candidate in question supports now.  I know its hypothetically possible that God gets ahold of Rubio tomorrow and he starts voting like a Rand Paul or Justin Amash.  That's not the kind of thing I'm talking about when I ask you if you'd vote for Rubio.

----------


## Brett85

> Do you believe Rubio is any better?


He's better domestically than the likes of Santorum or Bush.  Rubio actually has a fairly decent voting record when it comes to domestic spending and things of that nature.  His foreign policy is obviously pretty bad from our perspective.  It might be possible that he would change or moderate some of his foreign policy views if he realized what direction the political winds were blowing.  It just seems like these guys have to realize sooner or later that their foreign policy makes them virtually unelectable.  Romney's poll numbers went down significantly after the foreign policy debate last year.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> He's better domestically than the likes of Santorum or Bush.  Rubio actually has a fairly decent voting record when it comes to domestic spending and things of that nature.  His foreign policy is obviously pretty bad from our perspective.  It might be possible that he would change or moderate some of his foreign policy views if he realized what direction the political winds were blowing.  It just seems like these guys have to realize sooner or later that their foreign policy makes them virtually unelectable.  Romney's poll numbers went down significantly after the foreign policy debate last year.


From what I've heard from some people..*gay marriage* is apparently more important to the average voter than foreign policy.  It wouldn't surprise me if that was the case...

And then they'll have "libertarian Republicans" supporting gay marriage... and carpet bombing the Middle East.

I hope people care as much as you think they care: I don't think you do.

----------


## Brett85

> And then they'll have "libertarian Republicans" supporting gay marriage... and carpet bombing the Middle East.


Yeah, like Dick Cheney, Liz Cheney, John Bolton, Rudy Guliani, Jennifer Rubin, Laura Bush, Meghan McCain, Steve Schmidt, etc.  They're all "libertarian Republicans" since they support gay marriage.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Yeah, like Dick Cheney, Liz Cheney, John Bolton, Rudy Guliani, Jennifer Rubin, Laura Bush, Meghan McCain, Steve Schmidt, etc.  They're all "libertarian Republicans" since they support gay marriage.


Just making sure, but you are aware I was being sarcastic, right?  You know I don't define libertarianism that way...

Just making sure you're rolling my eyes at the establishment idiots and not at me

----------


## cajuncocoa

> From what I've heard from some people..*gay marriage* is apparently more important to the average voter than foreign policy.  It wouldn't surprise me if that was the case...


It most certainly is.  Ask around at your church if you want proof of that.  I know it's true at mine.

----------


## speciallyblend

Libertarians and Liberty Voters make and break elections. I am tired of hearing people saying lp or voting lp is a waste of time(that is total nonsense). bottom line the gop cannot win without us and will lose without us. The libertarian voter block is very powerful and makes or breaks every election!  The only waste of time is folks bashing the lp or the voter block in general. Your mistake and ignorance. Who spearheaded the recalls in colorado and challeged the status quo and won? THE COLORADO LP along with Conservative Libertarian Republicans such as myself. Libertarians, if they are lp or in the gop/dnc or not affilated is what can win or lose you an election. 
That is the bottom line. You cannot win with out US and THE gop will not win without us. keep trying to alienate or marginalize the lp and libertarians and you will find yourself on the losing end.

Yes the lp will run a candidate and win some local seats and make or break elections at the local,state and federal level. anyone denying this has their head in the sand or are in DENIAL. sincerely conservative libertarian republican for now.

----------


## FrankRep

> Libertarians and Liberty Voters make and break elections. I am tired of hearing peole saying lp or voting lp is a waste of time. bottom line the gop cannot win without us and will lose without us. The libertarian voter block is very powerful and makes or breaks every election! The only waste of time is folks bashing the lp or the voter block in general.


It appears that even Rand Paul is "too Big Government" by Libertarian standards so the GOP has no incentive to win over the Libertarians because they'll get "punished" by the LP no matter what. They view the LP as a vote stealing engine that allows left-progressive Democrats to win.

----------


## speciallyblend

> It appears that even Rand Paul is "too Big Government" by Libertarian standards so the GOP has no incentive to win over the Libertarians because they'll get "punished" by the LP no matter what. They view the LP as a vote stealing engine that allows left-progressive Democrats to win.


good try but no rand paul fails on the failed drug war by his pandering. He basically endorses state rights over individual rights when it comes to the failed drug war. That is rands problem not mine. I will not stand with rand on that position which he clearly has taken and made sure he reinforced  in his gop speeches. rand paul will not win if they cannot get the libertarian vote. Does it mean he will not win because i will not vote for him in the general or primary? no but he is less lilely to win since i am the voter he is trying to get and lost. Rand thinks he can win with pro drug war and right wingers then that is his plan. either way the gop cannot win without the libertarian vote inside the lp or outside the lp. 

if you beleive what you say ? Then the gop has to court libertarians or go back to the lame argument if you don't vote gop you make the dnc win BS. Give us a reason to vote republican and stop the BS fence sitting. 

Can rand paul win my vote and support? not sure unless he flip flops like romney, then trust is the issue and no i do not trust a republican who sucks up to pro-drug war and war mongering. Rand made his bed on his positions on the drug war. He clearly stated that states have a right to incarcerate,fine and remove kids from their parents for using a safer substance then aspirin or alcohol and many common foods. Rand clearly doesn't want my vote or need my vote, NOT MY PROBLEM if he loses because of his stances on the failed drug war. even if you are in denial. The libertraina vote outside/inside the lp will make or break the gop. If the gop wantsto ignore the libertarian vote. Then expect the gop to become fossils in the future.  The final percentages in any electiondo not even come close to showing you the actual number of libertarians voters inside the gop/dnc/lp. I can tell you gop zombies and dnc zombies will vote for their estblisment candidate which makes the 1% to 10% depending on state and local voters for lp which is just a lp number not an exact % of libertarian voters. If you want the gop to lose keep ignoring the lp and libertarian voter blocks. I have no problem making oil out of the gop if they fail to understand.  Libertarians make or break every election now.

rand has alot of flip flopping to do if he wants to win the swing state of colorado. Ignore the majority voter block in colorado see  what happens ask romney.  sorry for any typos/grammar got no time to fix them i suck at typing.

there is no if. if the gop doesn't win over libertarians the gop will lose. The gop lost the last election because they couldn't get republicans like me or libertarians to vote for them.

----------


## FrankRep

> *good try but no rand paul fails on the drug war.* He basically endorses state rights over individual rightswhen it comesthe failed drug war. That isrands problem not mine. I will not stand with rand on that postion which he clearly has taken and made sure he reinforced  in his gop speeched. rand paul will not win if they cannot get the libertarian vote. Does it mean he will not win because i will not vote for him in the general or primary? no but he is less lilely to winsince i am thevoter he is trying togert and lost. Rand thinks he can win with pro drug war and right wingersthen that is his plan. either way the gop cannot win without the libertarian vote inside the lp or outside the lp. 
> 
> Can rand paul win my vote and support? Rand made his bed on hispositions on the drug war. He clearly stated that states have a right to imprison,fine and remove kids from their parents for using a safer substance then aspirin or alcohol and many common foods. Rand clearly doesn't want my vote or need my vote, NOT MY PROBLEM if he loses because of his stances on the failed drug war. even if you are in denial. The libertraina vote outside/inside the lp will make or break the gop. If the gop wantsto ignore the libertarian vote. Then expect the gop to become fossils in the future.  The final percentages in any electiondo not even come close to showing you the actual number of libertarians voters inside the gop/dnc/lp. I can tell you gop zombies and dnc zombies will vote for their estblisment candidate which makes the 1% to 10% depending on state and local voters for lp which is just a lp number not an exact % of libertarian voters. If you want the gop to lose keep ignoring the lp and libertarian voter blocks. I have no problem making oil out of the gop if theyfail to understand.  Libertrains make or break every election now.


Good try, but no?

You just agreed with me. -- 

"It appears that even Rand Paul is 'too Big Government' by Libertarian standards ..."

----------


## speciallyblend

> Good try, but no?
> 
> You just agreed with me. -- 
> 
> "It appears that even Rand Paul is 'too Big Government' by Libertarian standards ..."


sorry misread, i thought you were trying to imply  the gop doesn't need libertariansto win sorry.   it is late and i am tired.

----------


## FrankRep

> sorry misread, i thought you were trying to imply  the gop doesn't need libertariansto win sorry.   it is late and i am tired.


And probably stoned too. :-p

----------


## speciallyblend

> And probably stoned too. :-p


actually no, i am at work doing audit and typing in between reports etc. not to mention i already suck at typing so my typos really get bad when i am tired oo well. I will not get stoned until i get off work. very busy this week just started closing on 4 houses and 15 acres ,lots of work and farming to come.

----------


## jkob

I don't think there is any question that they'll run a candidate. Hopefully they at least nominate a good candidate and not another Bob Barr because nobody is paying attention.

----------


## speciallyblend

sometunesfor the late nighters, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UrmN473LJw

----------


## speciallyblend

> I don't think there is any question that they'll run a candidate. Hopefully they at least nominate a good candidate and not another Bob Barr because nobody is paying attention.



if i am correct they got less votes then in recent past with bob barr, karma!! Chuck Baldwin 2008! i wanted to vote lp but bob barr forced me to vote CP!!

----------


## Chieppa1

Absolutely. I still roll my eyes over all the young libertarian backing Gary Johnson got last go around.

----------


## Carlybee

> good try but no rand paul fails on the failed drug war by his pandering. He basically endorses state rights over individual rights when it comes to the failed drug war. That is rands problem not mine. I will not stand with rand on that position which he clearly has taken and made sure he reinforced  in his gop speeches. rand paul will not win if they cannot get the libertarian vote. Does it mean he will not win because i will not vote for him in the general or primary? no but he is less lilely to win since i am the voter he is trying to get and lost. Rand thinks he can win with pro drug war and right wingers then that is his plan. either way the gop cannot win without the libertarian vote inside the lp or outside the lp. 
> 
> if you beleive what you say ? Then the gop has to court libertarians or go back to the lame argument if you don't vote gop you make the dnc win BS. Give us a reason to vote republican and stop the BS fence sitting. 
> 
> Can rand paul win my vote and support? not sure unless he flip flops like romney, then trust is the issue and no i do not trust a republican who sucks up to pro-drug war and war mongering. Rand made his bed on his positions on the drug war. He clearly stated that states have a right to incarcerate,fine and remove kids from their parents for using a safer substance then aspirin or alcohol and many common foods. Rand clearly doesn't want my vote or need my vote, NOT MY PROBLEM if he loses because of his stances on the failed drug war. even if you are in denial. The libertraina vote outside/inside the lp will make or break the gop. If the gop wantsto ignore the libertarian vote. Then expect the gop to become fossils in the future.  The final percentages in any electiondo not even come close to showing you the actual number of libertarians voters inside the gop/dnc/lp. I can tell you gop zombies and dnc zombies will vote for their estblisment candidate which makes the 1% to 10% depending on state and local voters for lp which is just a lp number not an exact % of libertarian voters. If you want the gop to lose keep ignoring the lp and libertarian voter blocks. I have no problem making oil out of the gop if they fail to understand.  Libertarians make or break every election now.
> 
> rand has alot of flip flopping to do if he wants to win the swing state of colorado. Ignore the majority voter block in colorado see  what happens ask romney.  sorry for any typos/grammar got no time to fix them i suck at typing.
> 
> there is no if. if the gop doesn't win over libertarians the gop will lose. The gop lost the last election because they couldn't get republicans like me or libertarians to vote for them.


I don't think he wants the libertarian vote and I get the impression his supporters would like it if libertarians stay far away from his campaign, so he can concentrate on wooing evangelicals and more conservative voters.  That's just an impression going by some of the comments I've seen anyway.  I'm not sure how one can reconcile libertarianism with theocratic conservatism so basically he will only be able to claim libertarian ideology on cherry picked issues.

----------


## LibertyEagle

ROFL.

Rand Paul wants to send the decision down to the states.  So did Ron.  Some of the same people who applauded Ron for his stance, are now denouncing Rand for the same.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I don't think he wants the libertarian vote and I get the impression his supporters would like it if libertarians stay far away from his campaign, so he can concentrate on wooing evangelicals and more conservative voters.  That's just an impression going by some of the comments I've seen anyway.  I'm not sure how one can reconcile libertarianism with theocratic conservatism so basically he will only be able to claim libertarian ideology on cherry picked issues.


Yet another inaccurate statement and smear about Rand.  Huge surprise.  

The neat thing is that you don't have the corner on what is libertarian and what is not.  Neat how that works, isn't it?

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> I don't think he wants the libertarian vote and I get the impression his supporters would like it if libertarians stay far away from his campaign, so he can concentrate on wooing evangelicals and more conservative voters.  That's just an impression going by some of the comments I've seen anyway.  I'm not sure how one can reconcile libertarianism with theocratic conservatism so basically he will only be able to claim libertarian ideology on cherry picked issues.


The "libertarian vote" that you reference, I believe would be referring to the hardcore libertarians.  The type that place every politician and pundit under a electron microscope to find their flaws and therefore disqualify them from being called "libertarian".  In all honesty, from a political standpoint that group is practically unreachable, and furthermore it is such a minuscule portion of the electorate that it is not worth courting.

----------


## PatriotOne

> I don't think he wants the libertarian vote and I get the impression his supporters would like it if libertarians stay far away from his campaign, so he can concentrate on wooing evangelicals and more conservative voters.  That's just an impression going by some of the comments I've seen anyway.  I'm not sure how one can reconcile libertarianism with theocratic conservatism so basically he will only be able to claim libertarian ideology on cherry picked issues.


Obviously he wants the libertarian vote.  And so do I.  He just doesn't want the "libertarians" who smoke a joint in one hand while holding a Rand Paul sign in the other.  Or like the one that lit up a joint at a Republican meeting while supporting Ron in 2011.  Basically he doesn't care about the ones who have an IQ below 80 or the common sense of a rock.

----------


## compromise

> Obviously he wants the libertarian vote.  And so do I.  He just doesn't want the "libertarians" who smoke a joint in one hand while holding a Rand Paul sign in the other.  *Or like the one that lit up a joint at a Republican meeting while supporting Ron in 2011.*  Basically he doesn't care about the ones who have an IQ below 80 or the common sense of a rock.


Can you link me a source for this? I wouldn't be surprised if it's true though.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> It most certainly is.  Ask around at your church if you want proof of that.  I know it's true at mine.


I have no doubt the same is mostly true at mine.  Nobody cares about the people being murdered.

I say give them what they want to hear socially, and focus on the murderous foreign policy.




> ROFL.
> 
> Rand Paul wants to send the decision down to the states.  So did Ron.  Some of the same people who applauded Ron for his stance, are now denouncing Rand for the same.


I can agree with this, although Ron makes it obvious to someone that is paying attention that he wants drugs to be legal... Rand makes it clear that he does not (He may secretly actually want drugs to be legal, but he says he doesn't.)  Its easy to tell a difference in rhetoric on the issue.  If Ron and Rand were running for state governor at the same time, their stances on drugs would likely look different.

That said, it really doesn't matter.  For a Federal level politician, being willing to repeal the Federal laws is all that I really need.

I'm a Rand supporter, but the issues I seriously have with him are foreign policy issues, not social issues.

Of course, I'll likely be called a hater despite defending Rand, but whatever.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Of course, I'll likely be called a hater despite defending Rand, but whatever.


Why do you put that at the bottom of so many of your posts?  It's almost like you are just trying to pick a fight.  It's weird.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Why do you put that at the bottom of so many of your posts?  It's almost like you are just trying to pick a fight.  It's weird.


Not sure.  But I feel like some people  will take ANY criticism of Rand as an attack, even if its in a post that is primarily positive.

When Ron Paul talked about heroin in South Carolina, he said it was a state's rights issue, but he seemed to imply, very clearly, that there was no need for any government regulation.

When Rand talks about drugs, he says its a state's rights issue, but he does obviously (Or at least, its obvious that his public position is) support state-level bans of drugs.  Which is pretty much the same position my dad takes.  My dad supports leaving pretty much every issue to the states, but he does support anti-drug laws at the state level.  Much like Rand does.

At the Federal level, it doesn't really matter which stance is taken for any pragmatic purpose, so I see nothing wrong with Rand taking the stance he's taking.  That said, when Ron Paul ran, he was trying to educate, not to win, so what he did in that instance made sense as well.

This isn't a big deal to me though.  Rand is clearly opposed to the "war" on drugs, and he's clearly in support of state's rights, so the fact that he may personally support some watered down drug laws at the state level isn't a huge deal to me.

----------


## PatriotOne

> Can you link me a source for this? I wouldn't be surprised if it's true though.


JK/SEA posted about it here and thought it was great.  It might of been 2012.  I can't remember if he was actually there at the Repub mtg or got it from a 2nd hand source.  They were electing Repub delegates for their district or precinct officers or something during that mtg.  I forget the details now as I was just more shocked that JK/SEA thought it was just fantastic .

JK/SEA would prob be glad to provide the details...he was quite proud of the guy .

Hmmmm....or maybe it was PhilforPaul who reported it.  Wish I could find the thread on it because I would love to use it as an example of people that we don't want being activists for Rand....lol.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Not sure.  But I feel like some people  will take ANY criticism of Rand as an attack, even if its in a post that is primarily positive.


I don't think that's true.  I think its primarily been directed at those who ran all over the forum twisting Rand's words and were quite gleeful about their intentions.




> When Ron Paul talked about heroin in South Carolina, he said it was a state's rights issue, but he seemed to imply, very clearly, that there was no need for any government regulation.
> 
> When Rand talks about drugs, he says its a state's rights issue, but he does obviously (Or at least, its obvious that his public position is) support state-level bans of drugs.  Which is pretty much the same position my dad takes.  My dad supports leaving pretty much every issue to the states, but he does support anti-drug laws at the state level.  Much like Rand does.
> 
> At the Federal level, it doesn't really matter which stance is taken for any pragmatic purpose, so I see nothing wrong with Rand taking the stance he's taking.  That said, when Ron Paul ran, he was trying to educate, not to win, so what he did in that instance made sense as well.
> 
> This isn't a big deal to me though.  Rand is clearly opposed to the "war" on drugs, and he's clearly in support of state's rights, so the fact that he may personally support some watered down drug laws at the state level isn't a huge deal to me.


Ron was a FEDERAL politician and so is Rand.  The only thing they could/can do is get it sent down to the states.  The Republicans largely misunderstood Ron and feared what he was suggesting.  They aren't with Rand and he is suggesting the same thing be done.  It's because of how he explains it, I'm pretty sure.  

This is all a good thing.

----------


## Carlybee

> Yet another inaccurate statement and smear about Rand.  Huge surprise.  
> 
> The neat thing is that you don't have the corner on what is libertarian and what is not.  Neat how that works, isn't it?


Not a smear..my perception. And since this thread is about the LP I was referring to those who might generally vote LP. Reign in your claws.

----------


## Carlybee

> The "libertarian vote" that you reference, I believe would be referring to the hardcore libertarians.  The type that place every politician and pundit under a electron microscope to find their flaws and therefore disqualify them from being called "libertarian".  In all honesty, from a political standpoint that group is practically unreachable, and furthermore it is such a minuscule portion of the electorate that it is not worth courting.


there are many tenets of libertarianism...you don't get to define it to suit your sole purpose. But for the record and as I explained earlier I was referring to those who might normally vote LP in keeping on topic.

----------


## Carlybee

> Obviously he wants the libertarian vote.  And so do I.  He just doesn't want the "libertarians" who smoke a joint in one hand while holding a Rand Paul sign in the other.  Or like the one that lit up a joint at a Republican meeting while supporting Ron in 2011.  Basically he doesn't care about the ones who have an IQ below 80 or the common sense of a rock.


Your incindiary comments and predjucial viewpoints are rarely worth giving much thought to. Matter of fact I rarely neg rep but you just earned one with your ridiculous blanket interpretation.

----------


## PatriotOne

> Your incindiary comments and predjucial viewpoints are rarely worth giving much thought to. Matter of fact I rarely neg rep but you just earned one with your ridiculous blanket interpretation.


Weird because my post was just the opposite of what you claim you neg repped me for.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> there are many tenets of libertarianism...you don't get to define it to suit your sole purpose. But for the record and as I explained earlier I was referring to those who might normally vote LP in keeping on topic.


The majority of people who typically vote LP, will vote LP regardless of the GOP candidate.  On average, they make up less than 0.5% of the electorate.  It's not that large of a voting bloc to go after, particularly if Rand would have to compromise his principles to pander to that audience.

----------


## FrankRep

> Your incindiary comments and predjucial viewpoints are rarely worth giving much thought to. Matter of fact I rarely neg rep but you just earned one with your ridiculous blanket interpretation.


PatriotOne called out a certain type of libertarian so it wasn't a blanket statement.

----------


## Carlybee

> Weird because my post was just the opposite of what you claim you neg repped me for.


No, you are trying to paint any libertarian who doesn't fit into the box as a pot smoking cretin....thinly veiled.

----------


## BlondBeast

> Weird because my post was just the opposite of what you claim you neg repped me for.


Carlybee has an IQ below 80 and the common sense of a rock. In light of this, making a comment at odds with reality ought not seem so weird.

----------


## Carlybee

> The majority of people who typically vote LP, will vote LP regardless of the GOP candidate.  On average, they make up less than 0.5% of the electorate.  It's not that large of a voting bloc to go after, particularly if Rand would have to compromise his principles to pander to that audience.


He already compromised his principles when he endorsed Romney and McConnell but I understand those were political tactics...and I never said he should or shouldn't pander to LP libertarians..I said I doubt he wants to. Therefore not sure why you are tilting at windmills here.

----------


## FrankRep

> No, you are trying to paint any libertarian who doesn't fit into the box as a pot smoking cretin....thinly veiled.


That's lie.

----------


## Carlybee

> PatriotOne called out a certain type of libertarian so it wasn't a blanket statement.


Can you let her/him fight her/his own battles or is this going to be yet another tag team?

----------


## BlondBeast

> No, you are trying to paint any libertarian who doesn't fit into the box as a pot smoking cretin....thinly veiled.


lol, no, he simply said that "libertarians" who DO fit into the "pot smoking cretin" box are not people whose support Rand cares to attract.

----------


## BlondBeast

> He already compromised his principles when he endorsed Romney and McConnell but I understand those were political tactics...and I never said he should or shouldn't pander to LP libertarians..I said I doubt he wants to. Therefore not sure why you are tilting at windmills here.


So you know more about what Rand Paul's principles are than Rand Paul does? That's a pretty neat trick, how'd you turn it?

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> He already compromised his principles when he endorsed Romney and McConnell but I understand those were political tactics...and I never said he should or shouldn't pander to LP libertarians..I said I doubt he wants to. Therefore not sure why you are tilting at windmills here.


You said "I don't think he wants the libertarian vote".  I agree with you, and am showing the reason why.  It is an extremely small percentage of the electorate, and would require compromising of principles and/or pandering to get that vote.

----------


## FrankRep

> Can you let her/him fight her/his own battles or is this going to be yet another tag team?


What battle are you fighting exactly? I'm just calling out your inaccurate statements.

----------


## Carlybee

> Carlybee has an IQ below 80 and the common sense of a rock. In light of this, making a comment at odds with reality ought not seem so weird.


Reported...nice try Spladle.

----------


## BlondBeast

> Can you let her/him fight her/his own battles or is this going to be yet another tag team?


Witnessing people say stupid things is irritating. Verbally punishing people for saying stupid things is satisfying and alleviates some of that irritation.

You do not have the right to say retarded things without being called out for it by multiple people. If you'd prefer not to be the victim of a tag team, you should quit saying stupid $#@!. Easy game!

----------


## Carlybee

> That's lie.


No it's not

----------


## BlondBeast

> Reported...nice try Spladle.


Not only an idiot, but also a coward. What a despicable person you are.

----------


## Carlybee

> lol, no, he simply said that "libertarians" who DO fit into the "pot smoking cretin" box are not people whose support Rand cares to attract.


So it's a he? I thought he was a girl all this time. Anyway...it sounded like he was trying to characterize the libertarians I was referring to as all pot smokers and cretins.

----------


## PatriotOne

> Can you let her/him fight her/his own battles or is this going to be yet another tag team?


You tripped over the rope before you even got into the ring with me with that post.  Nothing to fight about there.

----------


## BlondBeast

> No it's not


So not only are you more familiar with Rand Paul's principles than Rand Paul, you also know better than FrankRep what FrankRep was trying to do! Wow, what an amazingly insightful person you must be!

----------


## Carlybee

> So you know more about what Rand Paul's principles are than Rand Paul does? That's a pretty neat trick, how'd you turn it?


Never said that.   You have 6 posts and are obviously either a troll or a sockpuppet so don't expect me to take much of anything you say seriously.

----------


## FrankRep

So the question is: Will the Libertarian Party "Stand With Rand" to get a liberty-minded candidate in office or not? If not, the true motivations of the Libertarian Party will be revealed.

----------


## BlondBeast

> So it's a he? I thought he was a girl all this time. Anyway...it sounded like he was trying to characterize the libertarians I was referring to as all pot smokers and cretins.


It didn't sound like that to intelligent and reasonable people. Only you.

----------


## FrankRep

> So it's a he? I thought he was a girl all this time. Anyway...it sounded like he was trying to characterize the libertarians I was referring to as all pot smokers and cretins.


Nope, he never said that. Will you admit you're wrong?

----------


## Carlybee

> Witnessing people say stupid things is irritating. Verbally punishing people for saying stupid things is satisfying and alleviates some of that irritation.
> 
> You do not have the right to say retarded things without being called out for it by multiple people. If you'd prefer not to be the victim of a tag team, you should quit saying stupid $#@!. Easy game!



And who are you with your whole 7 posts who just signed up today to tell me anything?  Buzz off.

----------


## BlondBeast

> So you know more about what Rand Paul's principles are than Rand Paul does? That's a pretty neat trick, how'd you turn it?





> Never said that.


You said:




> He already compromised his principles when he endorsed Romney and McConnell


Now, it seems to me that if endorsing Romney and McConnell compromised his principles, he wouldn't have done it. I certainly don't see how doing so compromised anything. And yet you made the claim that these endorsements represented a compromising of principles - something you could only know if you had direct knowledge of said principles.

From this exchange we see that you are too stupid to even understand the implications of your own words.

----------


## Carlybee

> It didn't sound like that to intelligent and reasonable people. Only you.



Reported twice and put on ignore so please stop bothering to comment

----------


## BlondBeast

> And who are you with your whole 7 posts who just signed up today to tell me anything?  Buzz off.

----------


## Carlybee

> Nope, he never said that. Will you admit you're wrong?


No

----------


## Carlybee

Okay since we have a lovely troll and obvious sockpuppet taking over the thread, I have things to do besides getting involved in this circle jerk.

----------


## LibertyEagle

Troll speaketh truth.

----------


## PatriotOne

> So it's a he? I thought he was a girl all this time. Anyway...it sounded like he was trying to characterize the libertarians I was referring to as all pot smokers and cretins.


I like most Libertarians.  Just not the cretins in the party.  I have lots of agreement with Libertarians, including the legalization of mj for practical purposes as opposed to those who think mj can save the world.  As I said earlier:




> Obviously he wants the libertarian vote. And so do I. He just doesn't want the "libertarians" who smoke a joint in one hand while holding a Rand Paul sign in the other. Or like the one that lit up a joint at a Republican meeting while supporting Ron in 2011. Basically he doesn't care about the ones who have an IQ below 80 or the common sense of a rock.

----------


## Carlybee

> Troll speaketh truth.




Bull$#@! LE.  I just $#@!ing converted a Bush Republican over to supporting Rand.  Does that $#@!ing sound like I'm trying to smear him?   Check yourself.  

Now I am out of here.  I almost feel sorry for Rand's campaign if some of you are who he is counting on carrying the water.  Good lord.  Learn how to have a conversation without accusing people of having an IQ of less than 80.

----------


## LibertyEagle

Look, Carlybee, up above you claimed that Rand sold out his principles and you also misconstrued what he said about pot smokers.  What's more, when called out about it, you refused to admit that you were wrong.

And you expect me to applaud that?  

The "troll" called you out on that and that part of what he said, I think was right-on.

----------


## FrankRep

> Bull$#@! LE.  I just $#@!ing converted a Bush Republican over to supporting Rand.  Does that $#@!ing sound like I'm trying to smear him?   Check yourself.  
> 
> Now I am out of here.  I almost feel sorry for Rand's campaign if some of you are who he is counting on carrying the water.  Good lord.  Learn how to have a conversation without accusing people of having an IQ of less than 80.


We caught you in a few Lies in this thread and now you magically converted "Bush Republican" to Rand Paul. Nice Try.

----------


## Carlybee

> We caught you in a few Lies in this thread and now you magically converted "Bush Republican" to Rand Paul. Nice Try.



Think what you want. I love how its okay for some to level personal insults on here and no one is supposed to respond to that. I haven't lied...I have simply posted my perception.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Why do you put that at the bottom of so many of your posts?  It's almost like you are just trying to pick a fight.  It's weird.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> So the question is: Will the Libertarian Party "Stand With Rand" to get a liberty-minded candidate in office or not? If not, the true motivations of the Libertarian Party will be revealed.


Uh, yeah.  They're true motivation is to continue to build their party.  Just like the GOP and Dems.  Whether the candidate is worthy of my consideration remains to be seen, but IMO, the more choices, the better.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Look, Carlybee, up above you claimed that *Rand sold out his principles and you also misconstrued what he said about pot smokers.*  What's more, when called out about it, you refused to admit that you were wrong.
> 
> And you expect me to applaud that?  
> 
> The "troll" called you out on that and that part of what he said, I think was right-on.


I read and re-read all of Carlybee's posts from this morning and I don't see any where she misconstrued anything that Rand said about pot-smokers (or even referenced anything that Rand said about pot-smokers).  Is this another reading comp issue?

----------


## FrankRep

> Uh, yeah.  They're true motivation is to continue to build their party.  Just like the GOP and Dems.  Whether the candidate is worthy of my consideration remains to be seen, but IMO, the more choices, the better.


So the Libertarian Party is choosing Party over Principle?

----------


## Carlybee

> I read and re-read all of Carlybee's posts from this morning and I don't see any where she misconstrued anything that Rand said about pot-smokers (or even referenced anything that Rand said about pot-smokers).  Is this another reading comp issue?



Thanks...I think they are just trying to derail the thread because they don't want any amount of credence given to the LP.  Now whether the LP earns the credence is another matter but wishing for only one party to exist seems almost totalitarian to me.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> So the Libertarian Party is choosing Party over Principle?


Newsflash:  all parties do.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> Uh, yeah.  *They're true motivation is to continue to build their party.*  Just like the GOP and Dems.  Whether the candidate is worthy of my consideration remains to be seen, but IMO, the more choices, the better.


You stating this made me think for a minute, and I think it is an interesting observation.  I have done tabling events at community events, county fairs, etc for the GOP more times than I can count in both NJ and SC. Just this year alone, we have done 5 events. As I sit here and think of it, I really can't recall many events where I have seen the LP out there.  I don't ever recall having anyone knock on my door from the LP either.

----------


## Carlybee

> You stating this made me think for a minute, and I think it is an interesting observation.  I have done tabling events at community events, county fairs, etc for the GOP more times than I can count in both NJ and SC. Just this year alone, we have done 5 events. As I sit here and think of it, I really can't recall many events where I have seen the LP out there.  I don't ever recall having anyone knock on my door from the LP either.


Maybe they don't have a big presence in those particular states?

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Thanks...I think they are just trying to derail the thread because they don't want any amount of credence given to the LP.  Now whether the LP earns the credence is another matter but wishing for only one party to exist seems almost totalitarian to me.


No one is advocating for one party.  You knew that though.  Personally, I wish there were no political parties at all.  But, here in the real world, as untasteful as it is, the only 2 that get news or in the debates are the Rs and the Ds.  If you want to get someone elected, pick one, and use them as a tool.

----------


## speciallyblend

> So the question is: Will the Libertarian Party "Stand With Rand" to get a liberty-minded candidate in office or not? If not, the true motivations of the Libertarian Party will be revealed.




no it justs means we will not support rand paul who ignores individual rights,liberty and freedom for state rights. 

If rand wanted our vote he wouldn't pander the right wings nuts and pro drug war mongers which he is clearly doing. Rand paul doesn't want my vote or need my vote by his stance for the faield drug war by dence sitting like romney. He clearly states that he supports state rightsover individualrights. Rand doesn't want my vote. frank rep you can try to twist it. i is like saying becuase you didn't vote d r r you are letting the gop lose. BS the gop clealry wants to lose.

----------


## speciallyblend

> Yet another inaccurate statement and smear about Rand.  Huge surprise.  
> 
> The neat thing is that you don't have the corner on what is libertarian and what is not.  Neat how that works, isn't it?


are you denying that rand paul supports state rights over individual rights? rand fence sitting on the drug war. He is basically saying he supports state rights and imprisoning,jailing and fining  individuals for choosing to use something safer then aspririn and many common foods by allowing states to do what they want. by supporting state rights over individual rights. he is doing exactly that. He would support the texas state gov taking kids from parents for using something safer then alcohol. he is saying states have a right to make folks criminals for using something safer then legal items. 

Clearly rand paul doesn't want me as a delegate or supporter. fine by me don't epxct me to vote for the lesser of 2 evils, rand still being an evil by his lip service.

sorry i call bs on rands position. i can no longer buy in to what he is saying on the drug war. Clearly rand paul is trying to bs fence sit on this and i am not buying along with many others. It will be my job to inform the majority voter base in colorado of these fence sitting bs positions.

I didn't put him there Rand Paul did himself. If you cannot see why folks are up in arms and i am not the only one. Then rand deserves to lose. Ron Paul 2016 more likely i willsupport Gary johnson or someone outside of the gopsince  rand was my only option and no longer will be.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> Maybe they don't have a big presence in those particular states?


What about in your area.  Do you see them out often at community events, malls, etc?  What about door knocking, have you ever had them come by?

----------


## Carlybee

> What about in your area.  Do you see them out often at community events, malls, etc?  What about door knocking, have you ever had them come by?


I live in a city of several million so yes I have seen them at various events and there were people from the LP who registered GOP for the 2008 RP run who came to some of the same events I went to.  I met a couple when I went to Debra Medina's delegate training.   I haven't seen them at the door but I don't get many solicitors here.  I wouldn't say I have noticed a huge presence but I haven't really looked for it either.  My point is that I wouldn't expect a huge LP presence in areas that are traditionally very conservative or more rural...but I could be wrong.

----------


## Smitty

> But, here in the real world,



"Here in the real world" is what we've got.

There's no reason to hope for improvement if you expectations are limited to what is available "here in the real world".

----------


## Carlybee

> No one is advocating for one party.  You knew that though.  Personally, I wish there were no political parties at all.  But, here in the real world, as untasteful as it is, the only 2 that get news or in the debates are the Rs and the Ds.  If you want to get someone elected, pick one, and use them as a tool.


I reject the 2 party paradigm, whether realistic or not. To me voting for the lesser of two evils, is still evil.  That could change if liberty candidates are actually able to bring the GOP around and I have been cautiously optimistic with some of Rand's stances and with Justin Amash. Whether that trend continues remains to be seen.  I am not much for compromising on important issues and I will not apologize for that. I also think that by pandering to certain groups you tend to alienate independents and swing voters.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> My point is that I wouldn't expect a huge LP presence in areas that are traditionally very conservative or more rural...but I could be wrong.


Well NJ is hardly conservative, most everyone knows that.  And my area in SC is probably one of the most libertarian districts in the country, surely in the South - we have Tom Davis as our State Senator and Mark Sanford as our Congressman.  I find it odd that if a party wants to grow and have some influence that they don't do a lot (if any) traditional means of growing a party.  I know they exist down here, as they do run candidates for office (as they did in NJ), but it's almost as they exist on paper more so than an actual physical presence.

I found a registration number of 330,811 from January 2013, according to Ballot Access News.  Does anyone know where we can find some historical data on their party registration.  I was actually surprised at how low that number is (there are around 177 million registered voters in the US, so the LP is about 0.01% of all registered voters). Sometimes I think folks like us spend more time talking about the LP than it is worth talking about.

----------


## Carlybee

> Well NJ is hardly conservative, most everyone knows that.  And my area in SC is probably one of the most libertarian districts in the country, surely in the South - we have Tom Davis as our State Senator and Mark Sanford as our Congressman.  I find it odd that if a party wants to grow and have some influence that they don't do a lot (if any) traditional means of growing a party.  I know they exist down here, as they do run candidates for office (as they did in NJ), but it's almost as they exist on paper more so than an actual physical presence.
> 
> I found a registration number of 330,811 from January 2013, according to Ballot Access News.  Does anyone know where we can find some historical data on their party registration.  I was actually surprised at how low that number is (there are around 177 million registered voters in the US, so the LP is about 0.01% of all registered voters). Sometimes I think folks like us spend more time talking about the LP than it is worth talking about.


Well you will have to consult with someone actually involved with the party.  Not my week to keep tabs on them.  However it does seem like you take pains to squash any talk about them.  It doesn't bother me..I've thought of joining them before but being independent is starting to sound more and more attractive to me than belonging to any party.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> I reject the 2 party paradigm, whether realistic or not. To me voting for the lesser of two evils, is still evil.


One does not equal the other.

We are a two party system, and with some rare exceptions we have always been a two party system going back to the founding of our country.  A lot of that has to do with how we hold our elections (winner take all) and the makeup of our legislative bodies (majority party control).  If we had a parliamentary system, things would be different I suppose.

But just because we have a two party system does not mean you are required to vote for the "lesser of two evils".  For one, the primary process gives people from all wings of the party the opportunity to compete for the ballot spot in the general election.  Massie, Rand, Amash and others have all got to where they are today by competing in and winning primary contests.  So the opportunities lie in the primaries.  Then when the general election comes, if one is not pleased with the choices, they can abstain.  Sure there may be minor party candidates on the ballot for emotional voters who need to "feel good" about their vote.  But personally, with very rare exceptions (only one in recent memory) I prefer to abstain rather than vote for a minor party candidate, as I believe that my vote for them is an endorsement of their folly.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> Well you will have to consult with someone actually involved with the party.  Not my week to keep tabs on them.  However it does seem like you take pains to squash any talk about them.  It doesn't bother me..I've thought of joining them before but being independent is starting to sound more and more attractive to me than belonging to any party.


Actually, I believe that talking about them is a good thing, because it gives people opportunity to see what a colossal failure they are as a political party. Hopefully, then people will be less likely to waste their valuable time and money on their efforts.

----------


## Carlybee

> One does not equal the other.
> 
> We are a two party system, and with some rare exceptions we have always been a two party system going back to the founding of our country.  A lot of that has to do with how we hold our elections (winner take all) and the makeup of our legislative bodies (majority party control).  If we had a parliamentary system, things would be different I suppose.
> 
> But just because we have a two party system does not mean you are required to vote for the "lesser of two evils".  For one, the primary process gives people from all wings of the party the opportunity to compete for the ballot spot in the general election.  Massie, Rand, Amash and others have all got to where they are today by competing in and winning primary contests.  So the opportunities lie in the primaries.  Then when the general election comes, if one is not pleased with the choices, they can abstain.  Sure there may be minor party candidates on the ballot for emotional voters who need to "feel good" about their vote.  But personally, with very rare exceptions (only one in recent memory) I prefer to abstain rather than vote for a minor party candidate, as I believe that my vote for them is an endorsement of their folly.


Yes I am aware of how the primary process works as well as being aware of how the GOP behaved in the last primary process.  Which is why I support a paradigm change, however, that certainly won't happen overnight.  It it were up to me the GOP would split into 2 parties...the one who respects and upholds the Constitution and the other one that would reflect the majority in there now who obviously do not.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> Yes I am aware of how the primary process works as well as being aware of how the GOP behaved in the last primary process.  Which is why I support a paradigm change, however, that certainly won't happen overnight.  It it were up to me the GOP would split into 2 parties...the one who respects and upholds the Constitution and the other one that would reflect the majority in there now who obviously do not.


A split is something that has been considered in discussions by activists.  The problem with a split is that it would hand the Democrats the majority control of almost every legislative body in the country.

----------


## Carlybee

> A split is something that has been considered in discussions by activists.  The problem with a split is that it would hand the Democrats the majority control of almost every legislative body in the country.


I don't disagree...it just makes me throw up in my mouth a little to think I am in the same party as Lindsey Graham and John McCain among many others like them.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> I don't disagree...it just makes me throw up in my mouth a little to think I am in the same party as Lindsey Graham and John McCain among many others like them.


Understandable.  The funny thing is that they have better voting records (using an average of the JBS and Freedomworks scorecards) than every single Democrat.  So as bad as they are, it could be worse.

Just to illustrate, the JBS cumulative scorecard has McCain at 64% and Graham at 63% - not good scores at all.  But the highest Dem is Heitkamp at 40%, and she is an anomaly as most of the Dems are at 25% or less.

----------


## Carlybee

> Understandable.  The funny thing is that they have better voting records (using an average of the JBS and Freedomworks scorecards) than every single Democrat.  So as bad as they are, it could be worse.
> 
> Just to illustrate, the JBS cumulative scorecard has McCain at 64% and Graham at 63% - not good scores at all.  But the highest Dem is Heitkamp at 40%, and she is an anomaly as most of the Dems are at 25% or less.



Oh I don't defend Dems at all but it's not just their voting record that concerns me, it's their hawkish intent on foreign policy...then there are people like Santorum who would have us a theocracy.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Understandable.  The funny thing is that they have better voting records (using an average of the JBS and Freedomworks scorecards) than every single Democrat.  So as bad as they are, it could be worse.
> 
> Just to illustrate, the JBS cumulative scorecard has McCain at 64% and Graham at 63% - not good scores at all.  But the highest Dem is Heitkamp at 40%, and she is an anomaly as most of the Dems are at 25% or less.


I don't use either JBS or Freedomworks scorecards to assess political figures...I use my own criteria which includes checking on FP and civil liberties votes. If I recall, JBS and Freedomworks both ignore those issues.

----------


## Brett85

> I don't use either JBS or Freedomworks scorecards to assess political figures...I use my own criteria which includes checking on FP and civil liberties votes. *If I recall, JBS and Freedomworks both ignore those issues.*


I don't think so.  Freedomworks scored the Amash amendment that placed limits on NSA surveillance, and JBS regularly includes votes on the Patriot Act and foreign policy issues as part of their scorecard.

----------


## supermario21

The problem is I think some of us are far too generous with Democrats, assuming they're all like Kucinich and at least good on war and civil liberties. The House is decent, but the Senate Democrats with an exception of maybe Wyden and Udall are just absolutely terrible.

----------


## compromise

Based on Gary's frequent attacks on Rand, I think it's likely he's considering a 2016 LP presidential run.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> One does not equal the other.
> 
> We are a two party system, and with some rare exceptions we have always been a two party system going back to the founding of our country.  A lot of that has to do with how we hold our elections (winner take all) and the makeup of our legislative bodies (majority party control).  If we had a parliamentary system, things would be different I suppose.
> 
> But just because we have a two party system does not mean you are required to vote for the "lesser of two evils".  For one, the primary process gives people from all wings of the party the opportunity to compete for the ballot spot in the general election.  Massie, Rand, Amash and others have all got to where they are today by competing in and winning primary contests.  So the opportunities lie in the primaries.  Then when the general election comes, if one is not pleased with the choices, they can abstain.  Sure there may be minor party candidates on the ballot for emotional voters who need to "feel good" about their vote.  But personally, with very rare exceptions (only one in recent memory) I prefer to abstain rather than vote for a minor party candidate, as I believe that my vote for them is an endorsement of their folly.


If you've got McCain against Obama, what's wrong with someone like Chuck Baldiwn running and playing spoiler?  You say its "Folly" but why?

Granted, if they actually expect to win, I understand, but their goal could well be to make someone else lose and make a point, that not every conservative who cares will vote for a McCain.




> Understandable.  The funny thing is that they have better voting records (using an average of the JBS and Freedomworks scorecards) than every single Democrat.  So as bad as they are, it could be worse.
> 
> Just to illustrate, the JBS cumulative scorecard has McCain at 64% and Graham at 63% - not good scores at all.  But the highest Dem is Heitkamp at 40%, and she is an anomaly as most of the Dems are at 25% or less.


They weight all issues equally, IIRC.   Which I understand, anything else might be biased, but some of us don't view a vote on a tax increase and a vote to go to war in Iraq as being exactly the same.



> I don't think so.  Freedomworks scored the Amash amendment that placed limits on NSA surveillance, and JBS regularly includes votes on the Patriot Act and foreign policy issues as part of their scorecard.


I understand that, but there are numerically less of those votes, nonetheless they are the most important ones.

I'm no fan of Kucinich, but I think anyone who would prefer Lindsey Graham over him has too much faith in the GOP.  At least Kucinich tries to do the right thing, and doesn't want to spend American blood sweat and treasure in foreign wars.

----------


## FrankRep

> Based on Gary's frequent attacks on Rand, I think it's likely he's considering a 2016 LP presidential run.


How embarrassing for the Libertarian Party.

----------


## enoch150

> Understandable.  The funny thing is that they have better voting records (using an average of the JBS and Freedomworks scorecards) than every single Democrat.  So as bad as they are, it could be worse.
> 
> Just to illustrate, the JBS cumulative scorecard has McCain at 64% and Graham at 63% - not good scores at all.  But the highest Dem is Heitkamp at 40%, and she is an anomaly as most of the Dems are at 25% or less.


When a Democrat is President, JBS scores for Republicans go up and scores for Democrats go down. When a Republican is President, Republican scores go down and Democrat scores go up. On average, Republican scores are better, but when a Republican is President, the good Democrats score higher than the bad Republicans.

----------


## enoch150

> Well NJ is hardly conservative, most everyone knows that.  And my area in SC is probably one of the most libertarian districts in the country, surely in the South - we have Tom Davis as our State Senator and Mark Sanford as our Congressman.  I find it odd that if a party wants to grow and have some influence that they don't do a lot (if any) traditional means of growing a party.  I know they exist down here, as they do run candidates for office (as they did in NJ), but it's almost as they exist on paper more so than an actual physical presence.
> 
> I found a registration number of 330,811 from January 2013, according to Ballot Access News.  Does anyone know where we can find some historical data on their party registration.  I was actually surprised at how low that number is (there are around 177 million registered voters in the US, so the LP is about 0.01% of all registered voters). Sometimes I think folks like us spend more time talking about the LP than it is worth talking about.


That 330,811 number is for 30 states. The other states either only publish the total registration, but not the party breakdown, or in a few cases they don't have party registration at all. Also, there are, by my count, five different ways to register as a Libertarian in Connecticut, only one of which is public data. I could register as a Libertarian with the state or federal party, and as a Republican at the town hall. Many libertarians here did exactly that so that they could vote in the Republican primary.

That being said, most libertarian candidates only run paper candidacies and in places like Connecticut, they usually only run a handful every other year. Very few actually put time and money into it beyond ballot access. But even here in Connecticut, which is almost as anti-libertarian as it gets, a few libertarians have come close to winning an election for state rep, when they put time and money into it. I know of one occasion where they had more votes than the Democratic candidate, and another where they had more votes than both the Republican and Democratic candidates in one town of a multi-town district. No one that I know of has put in the time serving on local boards and commissions and tried to work their way up.

But in a state like Connecticut, even the Republican party barely treads water, and often doesn't run candidates in certain areas. For example, my state rep district has had a Democrat for about 35 years now and on 5 occasions there was no Republican opposition. When they do run, they usually lose by 25%. In a district like that, it might actually benefit the Republican if a Libertarian were on the ballot and ran to the left of the Democrat. It couldn't hurt. The Republicans have already demonstrated that they can't win.

----------


## FrankRep

> I don't use either JBS or Freedomworks scorecards to assess political figures...I use my own criteria which includes checking on FP and civil liberties votes. If I recall, JBS and Freedomworks both ignore those issues.


You recall falsely. The John Birch Society supports non-interventionism and obeying the Constitution.

Ron Paul supports the JBS.


*Ron Paul on the Importance of the John Birch Society*

----------


## philipped

I look at it like this, in 2012 a liberty-minded candidate on the national level wouldn't even get remotely close to a fair amount of attention (Ron Paul), here we are in 2013 and I literally see a new article about Rand Paul and mentioning his "potential 2016 presidential run" every week. Some people may not agree with his social conservatism, him leaning toward evangelicals or his stance on the drug war, but in my opinion, he is the best thing the Liberty movement has for the national level so far. I hope that Rand is reaching out to all these other groups besides the Libertarian-wing of the GOP and Independents to strengthen his party influence in a large amount.

When he has a good amount of his party solidly with him, I believe he will take his "libertarian-leaning" views and sprinkle them into the minds of the social cons, evangelicals and such. It may not work all together but it could lighten up the mood for them and allow them to make some space for us in the Rand circle. AS FOR THE LP, they are there own party with their own rules and own situations. I personally DO NOT wanna see them compromise to assist Rand Paul in anyway, if they know what's good for them they should actually pick a candidate that makes Gary Johnson look like a joke to better increase their chances of dominance toward 2016.

Something like this would just solidify my voting plans for 2016. If either Rand just goes too much toward social cons & such, i'll jump his ship and land on the much smaller LP candidate's boat. If he keeps the Libertarians and the young libertarian-minded people close to him during his campaigning then I'll stick with him till the party nominates someone. If the RNC decides to NOT go with Rand, I still have that same LP candidate. I refuse to do what a lot of people did last year and just vote R because he's a RINO.

And I also agree with whomever posted that the LP should seriously focus on getting somebody in atleast 1 state level position in every state. But learning quickly thanks to this site, I don't see that happening. I convinced a friend of mine to register Libertarian, I never did it but now that Rand is getting this much attention in 2013, I registered Republican and will be doing whatever I can to assist in the primaries in Florida where he might have a chance if Rubio doesn't run, $#@! JEB BUSH.

----------


## milgram

I really like what Rand has accomplished within the GOP, but since I'm not in a battleground state I'll be supporting the LP in 2016 (and beyond).

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> Based on Gary's frequent attacks on Rand, I think it's likely he's considering a 2016 LP presidential run.


Gary is such a petty man.  He could be in the Senate right now doing some actual good if he swallowed his ego.

----------


## economics102

I admit I didn't read all 18 pages of this thread, but have you guys considered that the LP running a candidate might actually help Rand?

If they ran a candidate, that candidate would probably get a record low vote total. Meanwhile, as you may recall, Rand has established himself as a mainstream conservative. A Libertarian Party candidate in the mix would only add to that contrast. Imagine Rand saying, "I'm not a Libertarian. If you want a libertarian candidate, there's a party for that."

----------


## speciallyblend

Yes, i will be supporting the LP Candidate!

----------


## IndianaPolitico

If the LP ran a candidate against Rand Paul, I really think it would look ridiculous. They would be better off attempting to connect themselves with Rand, thus giving them a general election "victory" they could tout.

----------


## radiofriendly

> If the LP ran a candidate against Rand Paul, I really think it would look ridiculous. They would be better off attempting to connect themselves with Rand, thus giving them a general election "victory" they could tout.


Let them run Bob Barr against Rand Paul...lol!
I'm of the opinion that more candidates will make Paul stronger. It will also give the Adam Kokesh voters somewhere to go.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Let them run Bob Barr against Rand Paul...lol!
> I'm of the opinion that more candidates will make Paul stronger. It will also give the Adam Kokesh voters somewhere to go.


Ridiculous comment on so many levels.

----------


## radiofriendly

> Ridiculous comment on so many levels.


That was the idea...

----------


## cajuncocoa

> That was the idea...

----------


## Glenn_Durham

Hey you Repbublicans, You all sound so angry about the LP.  I am a member of the LP. And very proud.  Don't lump me in with all the people you met from the LP in the past.  I am in agreement with you.  Sure the LP may have fouled in the past, but forgive them.  I have.  You see...

I never voted for a Rupublican because they have had way more than 40 years of failure, like many on this thread are pointing out about the LP.  '40 years of failure" "Put that horse down", Etc.

The Republican party has failed us utterly 100% of the time for 100 years.  Look at our National Debt.  Look at our War Racket.  Look at our Civil Liberties.  All this after Republicans were in the presidency and had high % of people in national offices.  Talk about failure!

Every one of you who vote republican now are complicit in this, if you are gonna hold me complicit for Bob Barr.  Lets put Harry Brown up against Reagan, lets Put Ron Paul up against either George Bush.  Man for Man, the LP has put up a much better overal list of candidates than the Republicans.  Lets be honest here, the only Republicans that were ever worth voting for has been Ron Paul and like maybe 4 other people.

So, sure I may vote with a loser team(due to unfair circumstances of the 2 party monopoly), but at least when I walk away from the voting booth, I know I voted for the person who most represents me.  I know I didn't compromise.  I feel in my heart that I did the right thing.  See if you get that feeling the next time you vote for any Republican.  I doubt you will.




> They ran a candidate against Amash, so they certainly will against Rand. 
> 
> The LP are a bunch of loser douchebags who are more interested in 'ideologically pure' circlejerks than doing anything of significance.

----------


## Xenliad

> I admit I didn't read all 18 pages of this thread, but have you guys considered that the LP running a candidate might actually help Rand?
> 
> If they ran a candidate, that candidate would probably get a record low vote total. Meanwhile, as you may recall, Rand has established himself as a mainstream conservative. A Libertarian Party candidate in the mix would only add to that contrast. Imagine Rand saying, "I'm not a Libertarian. If you want a libertarian candidate, there's a party for that."





> Let them run Bob Barr against Rand Paul...lol!


Put these together and I think we have a perfect solution!

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

The LP will probably run a candidate for President who just whines about abortion and gay marriage.

----------


## philipped

> When Rand is the GOP nominee, I fully expect the LP candidate to be invited to all the debates.


He has to ask for it. And still win the argument with Clinton and Johnson there.

----------


## specsaregood

> He has to ask for it. And still win the argument with Clinton and Johnson there.


If it looks like Randal is going to get the GOP nomination I can't imagine why the LP would waste their time with somebody like Johnson.  I'd think they would want to go with somebody more hardcore Libertarian somebody with more of an ideological core than just a balance sheet core.

----------


## idiom

> If it looks like Randal is going to get the GOP nomination I can't imagine why the LP would waste their time with somebody like Johnson.  I'd think they would want to go with somebody more hardcore Libertarian somebody with more of an ideological core than just a balance sheet core.


What's great about the LP is that they take 300,000 of the most enthusiastic political activists and sideline them completely.

Imagine if all those people were part of the Rand Paul campaign, and active in their local GOP. It would completely change the nature of the GOP by sheer weight of numbers.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

I have found it ironic that Ron Paul and Rand Paul are both more libertarian than Gary Johnson and Bob Barr.  Ironic because Ron and Rand were running to win, while Barr and Johnson were running to educate.

----------


## idiom

> I have found it ironic that Ron Paul and Rand Paul are both more libertarian than Gary Johnson and Bob Barr.  Ironic because Ron and Rand were running to win, while Barr and Johnson were running to educate.


The Tinfoiler in me reckons they were running to sideline activists.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> I have found it ironic that Ron Paul and Rand Paul are both more libertarian than Gary Johnson and Bob Barr.  Ironic because Ron and Rand were running to win, while Barr and Johnson were running to educate.


Barr couldn't educate a hammer.  

Gary was learning Austrian economics on the fly after getting demolished in interviews by the hardcores.

----------


## CPUd

> What's great about the LP is that they take 300,000 of the most enthusiastic political activists and sideline them completely.
> 
> Imagine if all those people were part of the Rand Paul campaign, and active in their local GOP. It would completely change the nature of the GOP by sheer weight of numbers.


They were pissed off in 2012 because a lot of their door knockers and phone bankers went over to Ron Paul's primary campaign and didn't come back for the general election.

----------


## Vanguard101

> I have found it ironic that Ron Paul and Rand Paul are both more libertarian than Gary Johnson and Bob Barr.  Ironic because Ron and Rand were running to win, while Barr and Johnson were running to educate.


And they still educate more

----------


## Peace&Freedom

> What's great about the LP is that they take 300,000 of the most enthusiastic political activists and sideline them completely.
> 
> Imagine if all those people were part of the Rand Paul campaign, and active in their local GOP. It would completely change the nature of the GOP by sheer weight of numbers.


No, it wouldn't, as demonstrated by 80 years of non-change in the GOP. Republican defenders always act as if there is no *track record* as to what happens to alternative factions in that party---they get co-opted. What would happen to the 300,000 LP 'enthusiastic' activists is they would turn into 300 neutered GOP activists, like the last 20 movements before them. Indeed, the very purpose of the two party system is to co-opt alternative movements from within, or to marginalize them from without, for the benefit of the statist special interests who control the leadership of both parties.

So well-neutralized and sedated this current alternative Republican faction is at Presidential election time is measured by how, in both '08 and '12, _after Ron Paul had withdrawn both times_, this "dedicated" liberty group could not bring themselves to vote for the remaining liberty candidate in the race (Barr and Johnson). So at crunch time, is it a true liberty movement, or just a loyalty to the GOP movement?

----------


## idiom

> No, it wouldn't, as demonstrated by 80 years of non-change in the GOP. Republican defenders always act as if there is no *track record* as to what happens to alternative factions in that party---they get co-opted. What would happen to the 300,000 LP 'enthusiastic' activists is they would turn into 300 neutered GOP activists, like the last 20 movements before them. Indeed, the very purpose of the two party system is to co-opt alternative movements from within, or to marginalize them from without, for the benefit of the statist special interests who control the leadership of both parties.
> 
> So well-neutralized and sedated this current alternative Republican faction is at Presidential election time is measured by how, in both '08 and '12, _after Ron Paul had withdrawn both times_, this "dedicated" liberty group could not bring themselves to vote for the remaining liberty candidate in the race (Barr and Johnson). So at crunch time, is it a true liberty movement, or just a loyalty to the GOP movement?


That faction of the GOP has never died, its just never been organised into a majority or even a plurality within the party.

Hell even within the LP its never been wielded into getting momentum a singular vision.

It has always been 300,000 separate parties.

Even now the goal isn't something simple like ending mandatory minimums, its:

Step 1: Win the Presidency
Step 2: ????
Step 3: Profits

Or even a goal like capturing the house in NH, the 'free state' target is seemingly too pedestrian.

Maybe its just people to many people who are hipsters, and get off on being political outsiders.

----------


## fr33

> What's great about the LP is that they take 300,000 of the most enthusiastic political activists and sideline them completely.
> 
> Imagine if all those people were part of the Rand Paul campaign, and active in their local GOP. It would completely change the nature of the GOP by sheer weight of numbers.


The LP isn't some godlike being. The LP _is_ those activists that you mention. Those individuals "sideline" themselves. Republicans, even Rand Paul, are not entitled to their support. Please don't be like many in the GOP have been before by acting like the GOP somehow owns the support of Libertarian Party voters.

----------


## Peace&Freedom

> That faction of the GOP has never died, its just never been organised into a majority or even a plurality within the party.
> 
> Hell even within the LP its never been wielded into getting momentum a singular vision.
> 
> It has always been 300,000 separate parties.
> 
> Even now the goal isn't something simple like ending mandatory minimums, its:
> 
> Step 1: Win the Presidency
> ...


Or perhaps many of them been on the "work within the GOP side," seen it *not* work repeatedly, for decades and decades, and so switched to activism that expresses the liberty view consistently. The above approach of criticizing the LP's lack of success with regard to policy goals, while NOT subjecting the Republican party to an OUNCE of accountability for the same lack of success, says more about the bankruptcy of "reform the GOP" than I could possibly add.

The major party structures exist to systematically contain and defeat alternatives, whether active within or outside the main parties ("main" because they are funded and controlled by the elite, and for the elite). Note that all the _other_ third parties have the _same exact difficulties_ with ballot access, getting vote totals above 1%, getting media time, etc, in every state and region, cycle after cycle. Are all of the other parties equally staffed by activists and candidates who are equally incompetent in every area, in every state, across every decade---or, are they all being structurally suppressed by the same establishment? My money is on the latter.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> No, it wouldn't, as demonstrated by 80 years of non-change in the GOP. Republican defenders always act as if there is no *track record* as to what happens to alternative factions in that party---they get co-opted. What would happen to the 300,000 LP 'enthusiastic' activists is they would turn into 300 neutered GOP activists, like the last 20 movements before them. Indeed, the very purpose of the two party system is to co-opt alternative movements from within, or to marginalize them from without, for the benefit of the statist special interests who control the leadership of both parties.
> 
> So well-neutralized and sedated this current alternative Republican faction is at Presidential election time is measured by how, in both '08 and '12, _after Ron Paul had withdrawn both times_, this "dedicated" liberty group could not bring themselves to vote for the remaining liberty candidate in the race (Barr and Johnson). So at crunch time, is it a true liberty movement, or just a loyalty to the GOP movement?


Bob Barr was never the liberty candidate, IMO.  Chuck Baldwin was.  Gary Johnson wasn't great, but he was admittedly better than Barr or Virgil Goode.  But Chuck Baldwin is better than any of those three.

----------


## specsaregood

> So well-neutralized and sedated this current alternative Republican faction is at Presidential election time is measured by how, in both '08 and '12, _after Ron Paul had withdrawn both times_, this "dedicated" liberty group could not bring themselves to vote for the remaining liberty candidate in the race (Barr and Johnson). So at crunch time, is it a true liberty movement, or just a loyalty to the GOP movement?


Uhm, I reject the notion that Barr and Johnson were the only remaining liberty candidates in the race.  I much preferred the Constitution Party's candidate both years and voted such.

----------


## idiom

> Or perhaps many of them been on the "work within the GOP side," seen it *not* work repeatedly, for decades and decades, and so switched to activism that expresses the liberty view consistently. The above approach of criticizing the LP's lack of success with regard to policy goals, while NOT subjecting the Republican party to an OUNCE of accountability for the same lack of success, says more about the bankruptcy of "reform the GOP" than I could possibly add.
> 
> The major party structures exist to systematically contain and defeat alternatives, whether active within or outside the main parties ("main" because they are funded and controlled by the elite, and for the elite). Note that all the _other_ third parties have the _same exact difficulties_ with ballot access, getting vote totals above 1%, getting media time, etc, in every state and region, cycle after cycle. Are all of the other parties equally staffed by activists and candidates who are equally incompetent in every area, in every state, across every decade---or, are they all being structurally suppressed by the same establishment? My money is on the latter.


For some of the other parties, I tend to think they are basically just as fragmented as the LP. Greens pop into my head. The exception is generally communists who have a pretty good idea of what they want but they are to insane to get serious numbers.

Structural suppression start to hit after you have 3% support I think...

It takes great timing, great leaders, and great organisation all at the same time for a movement to become popular enough to overturn major paradigms.

Structural suppression is generally a good thing. The whole point of federalization is to suppress crazy minorities or even majorities from moving the whole country in a given direction too quickly. Its not aimed at libertarians, its aimed at all up and comers. If libertarians ever gain power and right the ship, the same mechanisms will slow the drift into the next 'big' idea.

We just keeping trying. This cycle we may be able to roll enough of the momentum from the last to cycles into Rand to really get somewhere.

We should abandon 8 years of work that is showing real results because Rand is not a libertarian ideologue? For what? Bob Barr again?

----------


## fr33

In the last 2 presidential primaries Ron Paul conceded defeat before I had a chance to vote in his home state. I hope that is not the case with Rand. But it's not logical to expect the LP to base their party's choice on whether another party nominates someone decent. History shows that the other parties won't do that. From their perspective, if Rand fails then that was 12 years of wasted time and effort. They are operating on the well-supported idea that Republicans and Democrats are anti-libertarian.

----------


## Vanguard101

Face it, the LP is a joke and a burden on liberty

----------


## idiom

> In the last 2 presidential primaries Ron Paul conceded defeat before I had a chance to vote in his home state. I hope that is not the case with Rand. But it's not logical to expect the LP to base their party's choice on whether another party nominates someone decent. History shows that the other parties won't do that. From their perspective, if Rand fails then that was 12 years of wasted time and effort. They are operating on the well-supported idea that Republicans and Democrats are anti-libertarian.


If Rand fails, but wins more support than liberty has ever had, how is that 12 years wasted?

When in history has liberty ever had as much momentum as it has now? Or as easy a target?

----------


## FriedChicken

The Libertarian party is loyal to its party just as much or more so than its philosophy. 
They will run a candidate against anyone that isn't waving the LP flag regardless of their position on the issues.

They will come up with whatever reason they think sounds the best to do so. 

... I'm talking about the national party leaders, not the entire membership/voter base.

----------


## philipped

Rand will be the better pick between Clinton and more than likely whoever the LP picks. I'm not a GOP loyalist, y'all can check my post history, but unless Rand goes full blown neocon with foreign policy or switches up completely come 2016...I'm pretty sure he's rooting for a GOP congress to make the potential loss of his senate seat in 2016 no problem, and he'll be smooth sailing to the official announcement as of then.

----------


## Peace&Freedom

> Bob Barr was never the liberty candidate, IMO.  Chuck Baldwin was.  Gary Johnson wasn't great, but he was admittedly better than Barr or Virgil Goode.  But Chuck Baldwin is better than any of those three.





> Uhm, I reject the notion that Barr and Johnson were the only remaining liberty candidates in the race. I much preferred the Constitution Party's candidate both years and voted such.


I could concede this, but it only reinforces my point. Even though there were arguably TWO pro-liberty alternatives in both fall elections, very few Paul supporters transferred over to vote for the better candidate. The Republican loyalty trappings co-opted the alternative movement's stated preference for voting for liberty people, on both occasions.

----------


## Peace&Freedom

> Structural suppression is generally a good thing. The whole point of federalization is to suppress crazy minorities or even majorities from moving the whole country in a given direction too quickly. Its not aimed at libertarians, its aimed at all up and comers. If libertarians ever gain power and right the ship, the same mechanisms will slow the drift into the next 'big' idea.
> 
> We just keeping trying. This cycle we may be able to roll enough of the momentum from the last to cycles into Rand to really get somewhere.
> 
> We should abandon 8 years of work that is showing real results because Rand is not a libertarian ideologue? For what? Bob Barr again?


We have not one a single presidential primary. And we would have had a lot more liberty people in office had we concentrated on open seat races, instead of latching on to every hopelessly out-gunned GOP sort-of liberty candidate who was trying to defeat an entrenched statist incumbent. And if Rand fails in 2016, as may be likely, will there be a reconsideration of strategy? Or will the "we've got to stick together, and stay focused, using the GOP" mantra keep being sung, even then?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I could concede this, but it only reinforces my point. Even though there were arguably TWO pro-liberty alternatives in both fall elections, very few Paul supporters transferred over to vote for the better candidate. The Republican loyalty trappings co-opted the alternative movement's stated preference for voting for liberty people, on both occasions.


Fair point.  I wish Ron had actually campaigned for Baldwin in '08 and actively tried to convince his supporters to support him.  And really, its unacceptable that any Ron Paul supporter tricked themselves into voting for McCain for any reason.  That's the sad thing here, IMO.

----------


## Wolfgang Bohringer

The LP missed their big chance in 2008 and 2012 to make giant progress.

One of the most important things that Ron Paul did after he lost the 2008 nomination was to try to call the Libertarian, Constitution, Green, and Nader parties together and unite them on the 4 top issues that Ron had prioritized in his own campaign.

The RP Love-o-lution happened for only one reason: Those 300,000 quality activists mentioned above realized that they had an opportunity to get their ideas on TV and into the culture like they never had before.  

In 2008 the New Hampshire Libertarian Party nominated (drafted) Lt. Col. Karen Kwiaktowski for Vice President. She declined the nomination, but it made me realize that by far the best thing that the Libertarian Party could have done in 2012 was to change their rules to allow drafting a candidate running for another party's nomination (even without his consent ala Karen K) with a provisional candidate should the draftee decline.  They then could have nominated Ron Paul and leveraged massive amounts of Love-o-lutionary publicity for the LP provisional candidate.

The LP could still do this in 2016 if there was a Ron Paul caliber candidate running which there isn't.  

The 300,000 activists know that a candidate that will actually say no to the generals and the bankers will never be allowed to run.  The whole point of such a campaign is to shine a light on the extremes they will go to and crimes they will commit in order to stop genuine opposition.

Its true that despite Rand's assurances to the generals and bankers that he will continue to be frightened by TV and do whatever they say in the end, the generals and bankers would resist Rand every bit as much as a Ron Paul caliber candidate just for the practice.  But, the enemy of the generals and bankers is not necessarily the friend of the 300,000 activists and will not inspire them to activate like they would for a genuine Ron Paul caliber candidate.

So, with a Ron Paul caliber candidate running for the republican nomination in 2016, some historical insight, and a little imagination, the LP could join and help revive the now dormant Ron Paul Love-o-lution.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

The LP is small, and the LP is also decentralized.

If you were to join the LP and start attending meetings, taking an active interest, and being a productive and helpful member of the group, you would soon have a significant amount of control of your state's LP.  There is a leadership vacuum in the LP.  The LP, like most clubs and organizations, has a dire need for _doers_.

Do this now, and you would be well-positioned by the time of your state party's state convention and then the national convention May 26-30, 2016 in Orlando.  None of the above is always an option on the ballot.  What's more, it often gets significant support (10% in 1996, 4% in 2008).  In 2012 NOTA actually won against Rutherford for National Chairman in one round.  Now because someone had to be chosen for chair the NOTA votes switched their votes eventually someone was chosen.  But my understanding is that if none of the above wins because the majority of delegates actually do want none of the above, as would be evidenced by a majority vote for closure as opposed to taking new nominations from the floor, then NOTA wins and the position -- candidate for president, national chairman, whatever it may be -- would go unfilled.  For None of The Above to win for presidential nominee would take a lot of organization and effort, but it _could_ happen.  Some people would feel sour having spent tons of time and money collecting sigs and getting on their state's ballot, and now that's all in a way wasted.

More realistic -- as in _very_ realistic, for many states -- would be to nominate someone different than the national party on your own state's ballot.  This could be a different person, or I believe it could be none of the above.  This is not theoretical.  Arizona's LP ran L. Neil Smith and Vin in 2000 even though the national LP had nominated Harry Browne and Art Olivier.  This is very doable.  If you and your friends control your state's LP (not a hard thing to do in most states) and you like Rand Paul you can either nominate no one (as long as your state's laws allow that) or you can just nominate Rand Paul.  The Constitution Party in Montana nominated Ron Paul in 2008 in just this way.  Rand's name would then appear twice on the ballot for the GOP and for the LP.

So if anyone is actually concerned about this and would like to do something useful -- *be a doer!* -- rather than just complain, that is my advice.  Become active in your state party, thus quickly become important and influential in your state party, and then work to make sure that your state party nominates Rand or leaves that ballot slot blank.  

The LP is small, and the LP is also decentralized.  The problem is thus very solvable.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> The LP missed their big chance in 2008 and 2012 to make giant progress.
> 
> One of the most important things that Ron Paul did after he lost the 2008 nomination was to try to call the Libertarian, Constitution, Green, and Nader parties together and unite them on the 4 top issues that Ron had prioritized in his own campaign.
> 
> The RP Love-o-lution happened for only one reason: Those 300,000 quality activists mentioned above realized that they had an opportunity to get their ideas on TV and into the culture like they never had before.  
> 
> In 2008 the New Hampshire Libertarian Party nominated (drafted) Lt. Col. Karen Kwiaktowski for Vice President. She declined the nomination, but it made me realize that by far the best thing that the Libertarian Party could have done in 2012 was to change their rules to allow drafting a candidate running for another party's nomination (even without his consent ala Karen K) with a provisional candidate should the draftee decline.  They then could have nominated Ron Paul and leveraged massive amounts of Love-o-lutionary publicity for the LP provisional candidate.
> 
> The LP could still do this in 2016 if there was a Ron Paul caliber candidate running which there isn't.  
> ...


Very good post, showing deep understanding of the events and people.  Very insightful.  Thanks.

----------


## Peace&Freedom

> The LP missed their big chance in 2008 and 2012 to make giant progress.
> 
> One of the most important things that Ron Paul did after he lost the 2008 nomination was to try to call the Libertarian, Constitution, Green, and Nader parties together and unite them on the 4 top issues that Ron had prioritized in his own campaign.
> 
> The RP Love-o-lution happened for only one reason: Those 300,000 quality activists mentioned above realized that they had an opportunity to get their ideas on TV and into the culture like they never had before.  
> 
> In 2008 the New Hampshire Libertarian Party nominated (drafted) Lt. Col. Karen Kwiaktowski for Vice President. She declined the nomination, but it made me realize that by far the best thing that the Libertarian Party could have done in 2012 was to change their rules to allow drafting a candidate running for another party's nomination (even without his consent ala Karen K) with a provisional candidate should the draftee decline.  They then could have nominated Ron Paul and leveraged massive amounts of Love-o-lutionary publicity for the LP provisional candidate.
> 
> The LP could still do this in 2016 if there was a Ron Paul caliber candidate running which there isn't.  
> ...


What I imagine is that no party or movement should be a cult for a personality. The no-draft provision is there to protect the LP from being raided by Republicans or Democrats creating a phony groundswell for their candidate. If that were the case, McCain people could have joined the LP en masse and drafted McCain the LP candidate. The candidate that wants the LP nomination needs to _show up and ask for it_, and get voted up (or down). If Paul had sought the LP nomination in '08 and '12 prior to the LP convention, he would have gotten it hands down. But it wasn't there for him or anybody to hold up a party all year, waiting for an answer.

----------


## Wolfgang Bohringer

> What I imagine is that no party or movement should be a cult for a personality. The no-draft provision is there to protect the LP from being raided by Republicans or Democrats creating a phony groundswell for their candidate. If that were the case, McCain people could have joined the LP en masse and drafted McCain the LP candidate...


Ironically, a self-confessed McCain person raided the convention in 2008 and won the VP nomination.

As the poster Helmuth above points out, these things are really there for the taking.  All that has to happen is for a very small number of QUALITY people to be inspired.

I first saw it in 1998 in Clark County Nevada when all we needed was about 300 people to take over the county and state republican parties to try to nominate Aaron Russo for Governor.  They canceled votes, cheated, bussed in ringers, and committed all the crimes we saw them do against Ron.

Of course it would be better to have somebody actually seek the minor party's nomination rather than have to draft him.  But when you got somebody like Ron Paul on TV promising to say No to the generals and bankers, it was a once in a lifetime opportunity and would have been a way to tell the provisional candidate that his inspirational qualities were lacking.  If Gary Johnson was as good or better than Ron, he could have been a better candidate than Ron Paul.  He's like Rand and just about every Libertarian that ever ran for anything--still a little scared of what people will think and what might happen if the fed doesn't bail out the banks and the generals don't get their money. 

By having a guy running for a major party presidential nomination talking hardcore libertarianism on national TV, 100 times more progress was made toward the cultural advancement of libertarianism than the LP and any other project that I've seen in 50 years.

----------


## Peace&Freedom

Whatever, third parties exist in order to ensure that there is a _legitimate_ choice C on the ballot, and not to give two party choices A and B an extra line. I can live with a faulty nomination on line C now and then, just knowing that a fair process free of A and B exists is a superior situation than a standby coronation. Ron Paul's campaign advanced the movement, no doubt, but it's mainly because the educational efforts of the LP and grassroots over the last few decades set up and seeded the harvest that has come post 2007.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Whatever, third parties exist in order to ensure that there is a _legitimate_ choice C on the ballot, and not to give two party choices A and B an extra line. I can live with a faulty nomination on line C now and then, just knowing that a fair process free of A and B exists is a superior situation than a standby coronation. Ron Paul's campaign advanced the movement, no doubt, but it's mainly because the educational efforts of the LP and grassroots over the last few decades set up and seeded the harvest that has come post 2007.


So for you being a third party has value in and of itself.  And it probably does.

But for many of us, the main motivation is liberty.  The whole point of having an LP (for us) is to advance our ideas of liberty.  If it's not doing that, then, to us, it's not doing anything for us.  It's not a useful tool.  It's just junk and a waste of time.

So for us, this third party exists not, as you say, to ensure choice on ballots, but instead to advance the cause of libertarianism.  _That_ is why it exists.  If it doesn't do that, it might as well not exist.

----------


## Peace&Freedom

That's exactly what I said in the last sentence of my above comment. The cause of libertarianism was advanced _precisely because_ it proceeded _independent_ of the statist controlled establishment parties, which is what set the stage for Paul to break through in the first place. I have advocated for a grassroots based infrastructure for the liberty movement, dependent on neither the major of minor party apparatus, to avoid the pitfalls of both. 

The value a third party has in itself is largely as a principled vetting system for real liberty activists, not neutered sort-of liberty people in a major party, who will cave to the special interests as soon as elected. But in order for the LP to serve that function, it has to exist truly separate from the two party universe.

----------


## philipped

> That's exactly what I said in the last sentence of my above comment. The cause of libertarianism was advanced _precisely because_ it proceeded _independent_ of the statist controlled establishment parties, which is what set the stage for Paul to break through in the first place. I have advocated for a grassroots based infrastructure for the liberty movement, dependent on neither the major of minor party apparatus, to avoid the pitfalls of both. 
> 
> The value a third party has in itself is largely as a principled vetting system for real liberty activists, not neutered sort-of liberty people in a major party, who will cave to the special interests as soon as elected. But in order for the LP to serve that function, it has to exist truly separate from the two party universe.


So what you're basically saying is I should tell some of my registered DEM young friends to become active in the county DEM party and push the philosophy of liberty there, and in the GOP as well?

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> The value a third party has in itself is largely as a principled vetting system for real liberty activists, not neutered sort-of liberty people in a major party, who will cave to the special interests as soon as elected.


So did you push for the LP-NY to put someone on the ballot other than Bob Barr?  Or did you just go along with that?

----------


## RandallFan

The Libertarian Party peaked in 1980 (with Koch as VP) with 1.00% of the vote. Gary Johnson got 0.99% against the biggest of big government candidates Romney and Obama.

The Libertarian Party also won't get any surge in third party votes because the main issue that could drive third party voting into 2%-10% is amnesty or free trade agreements at the moment, depending on how the war on ISIS expands.

----------


## fr33

> *If Rand fails, but wins more support than liberty has ever had*, how is that 12 years wasted?
> 
> When in history has liberty ever had as much momentum as it has now? Or as easy a target?


He'll have done what his father did. Meanwhile the party he is in, is still a fascist freedom hating party.

As far as your historical question goes, statism is probably a relatively new thing for humans. The anti-statism folks of history mostly didn't have the benefit of recorded history.

----------


## fr33

> Face it, the LP is a joke and a burden on liberty


I have to disagree with the burden. Aside from from only 1 or 2 local elections, Democrats and Republicans are the face of injustice in the next election. There isn't a Republican or Democrat running in state and national offices that is worth a $#@!. I'm going to vote for every Libertarian on the ballot.

----------


## TheTexan

This issue definitely has important strategic voting considerations.  We definitely need to discuss this further, so that our very important votes are not wasted.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> apparently, libertarians aren't as superficial as you are.
> they don't care what you do for a living, they care what your ideas are.
> You are an example of the general populations superficiality. 
> An example why the LP will never win. the problem is the superficiality of the minds of people, not the LP running waitresses.


There's nothing wrong with my plan to jump off a cliff; the only problem is that gravity is in effect. 

The superficiality of voters is, like gravity, a fact of nature; it will never change. 

Any plan which refuses to recognize this fact of nature is a bad plan.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> So did you push for the LP-NY to put someone on the ballot other than Bob Barr?  Or did you just go along with that?


I didn't know anything about politics back then, but thinking back on it...  Bob Barr was terrible.  And while Mary Ruwart was objectively good on 99.9% of issues, getting her into a national debate of any kind would be one of the stupidest things the liberty movement could do, IMO.  So stupid that I'm surprised nobody in the mainstream parties made sure it happened.  Ruwart has defended the legality of *child porn* which is NOT something we want stupid people to be able to identify libertarianism with.

----------


## Peace&Freedom

> So what you're basically saying is I should tell some of my registered DEM young friends to become active in the county DEM party and push the philosophy of liberty there, and in the GOP as well?


I'm suggesting one have liberty people be prepared to run as either a Republican or Democrat in an open seat situation, as the best solution to getting more liberty people into office. If a seat in a Democratic district opens up, run a Ron Paul Democrat in the primary, and if a seat in a Republican district opens up, run a Ron Paul Republican in the primary. 

If you can't find either in a given race, go to the LP and fund a candidate to run in the major party primary (perhaps in addition to their running third party). Use the local LP, CP, TP and CFL universe as the vetting system for new candidates, and as a coalition base for liberty activists. Our support infrastructure should be grassroots based, outside the trappings of either major or minor parties, so we can use the strengths of both, without being bogged down by the disadvantages of both. We don't have to necessarily nest in or be dependent on a major party structure, just opportunistically seize upon each open seat primary and election case where victory is more probable.




> So did you push for the LP-NY to put someone on the ballot other than Bob Barr? Or did you just go along with that?


The problems with Barr did not fully emerge until over the course of his campaign, at which point we were stuck with the nominee.

----------

