Libertarian Party Options

[cheapseats]

The Libertarian Party is ... just a party of statist...

+

Just put the R or D by your name...

=

Cognitive Disconnect.

 

[cheapseats]

If you are going to play politics, why not just do so in one of the main parties?

Because a DUOPOLY in Government Power is BAD.

AS WE CAN SEE AND FEEL.

 

[mport1]

+



=

Cognitive Disconnect.

I don't understand. I'm saying the LP is now statist, so what is the point of trying to take them over to run a principled libertarian campaign (which even then will never go anywhere)?

The point of the LP was for education, but they aren't doing an effective job of that. You might as well be a "Republican" like Ron Paul and educate people from that platform which has more exposure. Republicans and Democrats are obviously all statist as well though.

 

[mport1]

Because a DUOPOLY in Government Power is not good.

AS WE CAN SEE AND FEEL.

Nope, but the LP has done nothing since its inception in the 70s to stop it.

 

[cheapseats]

The Libertarian Party is now a joke and should be completely ignored. They are a waste of time and money. After the Barr/Root ticket and the likely Gary Johnson nomination, they are just a party of statist Republicans.

If you are going to play politics, why not just do so in one of the main parties? Who cares about their labels? Ron Paul has clearly never been a Republican but has been elected as one. Just put the R or D by your name and campaign on a libertarian message.

Sooo, yer sayin' SINCE EVERYONE IS A STATIST, BE A STATIST?

If you are going to play politics, why not just do so in one of the main parties?

If people will as you so aptly put it PLAY POLITICS, why not do so in the spirit of actually SHAKING THINGS UP & SETTING THINGS RIGHT?

So they can go wrong again, and another generation can step up to the plate or not?

STRONG argument can be mounted that rank-and-file Americans, beleaguered as they are, ARE SHIRKING THEIR DUTY.

 

[mport1]

Sooo, yer sayin' SINCE EVERYONE IS A STATIST, BE A STATIST?

No, I'm saying that you might as well just give yourself a label "Republican" just like Ron Paul did (in case people haven't realized this, Ron Paul is not a Republican, he is a libertarian). The positions advocated should be completely pro-liberty.

If people will as you so aptly put it PLAY POLITICS, why not do so in the spirit of actually SHAKING THINGS UP & SETTING THINGS RIGHT?

So they can go wrong again, and another generation can step up to the plate or not?

STRONG argument can be mounted that rank-and-file Americans, beleaguered as they are, ARE SHIRKING THEIR DUTY.

In general I think there are much better ways to advance liberty. I'd rather see millions of man hours spent on education which I think will have a much higher return on investment than politics, especially LP politics.

If people want to spend their time and money on the LP, they should go for it. I've just wasted too much of mine and I'm done with them.

 

[cheapseats]

Nope, but the LP has done nothing since its inception in the 70s to stop it.

C'mon. Ron Paul Supporters, of ALL people, know how long it can take for Good Ideas to gain traction.

This election is like NONE OTHER in my whole life. A remarkable opportunity exists, THIS YEAR.

Even I bought a ticket for that recent $640 mega-million jackpot, tho I did not expect to win.

If Government is not reined in SOON, I daresay those strategizing for 2016 and beyond will "find themselves" with ground conditions much changed from those they incorporated into their strategeries. Much changed, for the WORSE.

 

[cheapseats]

No, I'm saying that you might as well just give yourself a label "Republican" just like Ron Paul did (in case people haven't realized this, Ron Paul is not a Republican, he is a libertarian).

He is a "libertarian-leaning" REGISTERED REPUBLICAN.

Party of George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Michael Chertoff, Henry Paulson...

Republican is NOT "just" a label. It is a MACHINE. Broken, like the System.

 

[ProvincialPeasant]

Libertarian Party? Kucinich? REALLY?!

There are way too many liberals who have come to Ron Paul because they need to feel like they felt in 2008 when they fainted at the sight of Obama. Libertarians agree with Kucinich on a handful of things, and that is it. At least if you are going to run independent, choose a Democrat who agrees with your platform (it is budget-cutting for those who haven't read it).

I see the same moaning every time there is a primary; immature pundits forecasting Ron sweeping NY with 450% of the vote. When it doesn't happen, everyone threatens to go independent and not vote for Romney all-over-again, as if Romney actually needs the support of forum pundits.

I suppose my reaction to all this crap is GET OVER YOURSELVES.

 

[cheapseats]

Libertarian Party? Kucinich? REALLY?!

I have only heard his name bandied in connection with AMERICANS ELECT, which apparently requires a mixed-party ticket?

Ron sweeping NY with 450% of the vote.

Good one.

When it doesn't happen, everyone threatens to go independent and not vote for Romney all-over-again, as if Romney actually needs the support of forum pundits.

True enough.

But this year IS different. And Romney is NOT beloved. And Obama is much LESS beloved than in 2008.

GET OVER YOURSELVES.

Ron Paul is CLEARLY influenced by his "enthusiastic" Supporters, or he wouldn't even be RUNNING.

D'ya reckon he'd be IMPERVIOUS if he was flooded by Supporter pleas to RUN THIRD PARTY?

 

[cheapseats]

Romney has been claiming the win since before the race even began.

I draw attention to the CNN dateline. It makes a big difference if Mainstream Media PICKS UP one's remarks, as you know so well from the Media Blackout.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/24/politics/april-24-primaries/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

Romney sweeps Tuesday primaries, declares race is on with Obama

From The CNN Political Unit
updated 10:23 PM EDT, Tue April 24, 2012

(CNN) -- Mitt Romney swept the five Republican primaries being contested Tuesday, and he turned from securing the Republican nomination and toward the general election against President Barack Obama...

I am, of course, aware of and horrified by MEDIA BIAS = MODERATION SLANT.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-17835742

24 April 2012 Last updated at 23:33 ET

Mitt Romney vows to oust Obama after primary sweep

Speaking while racking up a series of primary night victories, he said a "new campaign" was beginning, heralding the start of the road to November's vote.

"Hold on a little longer. A better America begins tonight," he said.

The presumptive nominee easily won primaries in Connecticut, Delaware, New York, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island.

His claim to the Republican nomination is now unrivalled, with no serious challengers remaining in the contest.

With 14 primaries remaining, Mr Romney has amassed an unbeatable lead in the race for the delegates who will formally crown him the Republican nominee at the party's convention in November.

Without competition in the remaining contests he is expected to cruise past the 1,144 delegates he needs to take the nomination...

 

[driller80545]

I have read this whole thread and I have to say that Cheapseats is right. My personal feeling is that RP has degraded himself by associating himself with the GOP. This country needs and wants sweeping changes, and they will not happen inside either of the establishment institutions. The times may be now for a third party. Maybe not, too, but this strategy is going nowhere.

 

[cheapseats]

I have read this whole thread and I have to say that Cheapseats is right. My personal feeling is that RP has degraded himself by associating himself with the GOP. This country needs and wants sweeping changes, and they will not happen inside either of the establishment institutions. The times may be now for a third party. Maybe not, too, but this strategy is going nowhere.

What's THIS?? I am making note of the date. Perhaps also a screenshot.


Rick Santorum is on Piers Morgan as I type. He says he will support the Republican nominee, who he expects to be Romney. Obviously he thought HE was the better candidate but, since he is no longer in the race, "YEAH," Romney is next best. Something about "do all I can."

"I'm meeting with the Governor tomorrow..." Something about trying to "work something out."

To his credit, Piers Morgan DID raise the issue of a campaign debt deal-io, maybe a cabinet post.

DEFINITELY NOT ABOUT THAT, chorused both husband and wife.

Of course not. Catholics don't make back-room deals, lol.

Would he/they accept the v.p. slot? Something about "there's a lot to talk about."

 

[cheapseats]

I posted in another thread about my similar concerns - and apparently it is Johnson's prerogative to drop down to VP and allow Paul into the Presidential slot if he so desires it (so long as GJ's VP goes quietly). At least that's the answer I got from the thread chat.

[I apologize in advance for offending gung-ho Ron Paulers. I appreciate the CONVICTION, I do. But I KNOW up close and personal the "terrible swift sword" of #BigMoney and, from where I sit, Ron Paul is NOT going to prevail ON THE GOP PATH.]

I have heard/read nothing about Gary Johnson being able to "rearrange" the ticket. But I HAVE heard/read him say that he would not PROCEED with a Libertarian challenge if Ron Paul snags the GOP nod.

Even if Ron Paul could win the Republican nomination and then the presidency, I don't think his Supporters "watch the whole movie" -- as they say on the Recovery Circuit. LOOK at the gray in Obama's hair. IF Ron Paul could sneak past Romney in Tampa, HE LACKS THE POPULARITY THAT WOULD FACILITATE HIS INTENTIONS.

Shall he rule by Executive Order?

Obama did not CAUSE the Financial Crisis, but LOOK how willing Republicans are to lay ALL blame at his feet.

We ain't comin' outta these woods in the next four years. WHOEVER sits at that THE BUCK STOPS HERE desk is in for a BOATLOAD of vilification. INCLUDING Ron Paul, who does not seem to me to be WIRED to not give a shit what people think and say.

IF he could win the GOP nomination and then the Presidency, I do NOT think he could take a second term (even if he is willing to be President rather than Granddad in the denouement of his life).

What about a NOVELTY vice president...not someone famous-for-being-famous, but someone famous-for-getting-stuff-done? (Which is NOT Ron Paul's claim to fame, it bears mention.) As one example: T. BOONE PICKENS. People DIG the ideas of #AlternativeEnergy and #EnergyIndependence. T. Boone Pickens actually knows something about Energy, and he LOOKS like he's got another four years in him.

Triathlete Gary Johnson could DEFINITELY do the broad-shouldered SUCK IT UP thing for eight years.

Gary Johnson can take the "blame" for the INEVITABLE decriminalization of #Marijuana. "Smaller Government Lower Taxes" people seem IGNORANT of the immediate and substantial savings AND the immediate and substantial REVENUES. (Notice that I leave mamby-pamby JUSTICE outta the equation, just like America and American Officials and American Executives do.)

Ron Paul as Secretary of the Treasury or, even better, CHAIRMAN OF THE FED . . . y'know, to oversee its HAIRCUT.

OUR COUNTRY, OUR RULES . . . only if we MEAN it enough to go to the wall on things. To the Victors go the spoils, it was ever thus. No different than back when Financial Kingpins played CHICKEN with America, over who would get stuck with the Toxic Assets. Congress flinched >> TARP.

In fights, one side or the other WINS, or it goes on & on & on . . . unless BOTH parties/sides REACH CONSENSUS on ENDING the fight.

TPTB are NOT gonna reach consensus with DEMANDING Freedom Fighters. Why WOULD they, unless they HAVE to? They're holding all the cards . . . EXCEPT FOR THE WARM BODIES. They are oh-so-few in number.

I don't know the (capricious and self-serving) Rules, but I recollect something about NOT being able to run (in some states) on ANOTHER ticket in the General if one ran in the Primary on a DIFFERENT ticket? True, or false? If true, how much of a handicap does it establish?

OBVIOUSLY, a third-party run has more momentum WITH Ron Paul (and especially his "enthusiastic" Supporters), but he has REPEATEDLY said he does not want to go that route.

Ron Paul endorsed someone OTHER than the Republican nominee in 2008, right? RIGHT.

If Ron Paul LOSES the Republican nomination (as seems likely), AND Gary Johnson wins the Libertarian Party nomination (as seems likely), AND Ron Paul endorses Gary Johnson, where stand THEN the No One But Paul people on voting for Gary (doesn't fill Ron's shoes) Johnson?

Has the question been asked and answered, whether Gary Johnson would do an unglamorous stint as v.p. on a Paul/Johnson ticket? I have said (not in a mean way) that I don't think Ron Paul would be "good for" a second term even IF he could win a first. But it's either one or two, we know THAT about Presidencies.

Paul/Johnson portends 4 to 16 years in the White House. (Or zero, obviously.)

EIGHT years of Obama portends 8 to 16 years of Republican control of the White House. But FOUR years of Obama portends some bitchy tit-for-tat. Four for US, four for YOU, four for US, four for YOU...'cuz we BOTH suck.

LOOK TO JAPAN to get an idea of our "Recovery" timeline.

 

[cheapseats]

Santorum was with Piers Morgan last night.

Bachmann was with Greta Van Susteren.

BOTH answered WILL/DO YOU ENDORSE ROMNEY in the exact same coy way.

BOTH were pressed to specify whether their words constitute ENDORSEMENT, and both declined to do that. Both repeatedly "clarified" that 1.) they WILL SUPPORT THE REPUBLICAN NOMINEE, and 2.) they EXPECT ROMNEY TO BE THE NOMINEE.

Now. Are they covering their backs in case Romney gets mired and underperforms, JUST LIKE OBAMA? Are they making a less glaring transition from ATTACKING Romney to BACKING Romney, so THEY aren't charged with flip-flopping, JUST LIKE ROMNEY? Are there back-room talks underway for who SHALL be the nominee, if those pesky Paulers manage to flick a fly into the ointment?

Recollect that Gingrich called Ron Paul DANGEROUS.

If an uber-establishment "Wild" Card "suddenly" manifests in Tampa, career politicians Santorum and Bachmann would not want to "find themselves" in league with the Loser.

 

[The Free Hornet]

No, I'm saying that you might as well just give yourself a label "Republican" just like Ron Paul did (in case people haven't realized this, Ron Paul is not a Republican, he is a libertarian). The positions advocated should be completely pro-liberty.

You understate the case. Ron Paul believes in a republican form of government, not a democracy. More so, he is a member of the Republican Party (and an elected one at that). These facts more than qualify him to honestly call himself a Republican. It has been an MSM talking point to smear Ron Paul as not a Republican or to call him a Libertarian.

The issue is differentiation from the non-republican Republicans (or RINOs or neocons). "Constitutional Conservative" works (used well by Rand Paul it has been co-opted somewhat by Bachmann and others).

No label will ever be perfect. As such, it is best to not worry too much about it and gravitate to where we can influence power. The strategy of running as a Republican while being a "small l" libertarian works great.

I'd rather be a libertarian Republican in a primary than a Libertarian running against a Republican in a general.

I have read this whole thread and I have to say that Cheapseats is right. My personal feeling is that RP has degraded himself by associating himself with the GOP.

Ron Paul elevates the Republican Party, their reputation doesn't tarnish him. Some neocon soot may rub onto Rand Paul but that his choice.

 

[cheapseats]

Ron Paul believes in a republican form of government, not a democracy.

REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT does not explicitly or implicitly extrapolate to REPUBLICAN PARTY MACHINE.

More so, he is a member of the Republican Party (and an elected one at that). These facts more than qualify him to honestly call himself a Republican. It has been an MSM talking point to smear Ron Paul as not a Republican or to call him a Libertarian.

MSM IS WINNING. Even more than Charlie Sheen.

Ron Paul DID endorse someone OTHER than the Republican nominee in 2008, did he not?

The issue is differentiation from the non-republican Republicans (or RINOs or neocons). "Constitutional Conservative" works (used well by Rand Paul it has been co-opted somewhat by Bachmann and others).

MENTAL MASTURBATION within the bubble. CLEAR AS MUD AND IRRITATING, TO BOOT for the Voting Public.

No label will ever be perfect.

REPUBLICAN is not a simple label. It is an OUTTA CONTROL MACHINE, WITH DASTARDLY OPERATORS.

As such, it is best to not worry too much about it and gravitate to where we can influence power. The strategy of running as a Republican while being a "small l" libertarian works great.

If it "works great" for a small-l libertarian to run as a Republican, Ron Paul would be LEADING. Unless y'all wanna cop to him being NOT WELL ENOUGH LIKED BY ENOUGH PEOPLE TO PRESUME TO LEAD.

I'd rather be a libertarian Republican in a primary than a Libertarian running against a Republican in a general.

What if the choice is LIBERTARIAN against Democrat AND Republican vs. NOT IN THE GENERAL ELECTION AT ALL?

Ron Paul elevates the Republican Party, their reputation doesn't tarnish him.

He does NOT elevate the "party"...public discontent with BOTH parties is PRONOUNCED. Their reputation does NOT tarnish him? Then why must resources be expended on "differentiation from the non-republican Republicans (or RINOs or neocons)"?

Some neocon soot may rub onto Rand Paul but that his choice.

"Some neocon soot" rather trivializes fallout from Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz/Paulson/Chertoff/et al.

Shall he stick with that choice in the face of NEARLY INSURMOUNTABLE ODDS? Curiously, he DID say he'd ride it out to Tampa EVEN IF ROMNEY SECURES 1144 DELEGATES. What's THAT all about?

Education? It would be cheaper AND fairer AND more productive for Universities (with endowment funds) to pay Ron Paul's expenses to SPREAD THE MESSAGE. Less divisive, less threatening . . .

 

[Nathan Hale]

The LP was founded as a protest party, to show the joke that is the two party system (and attempt to educate while at it) and has lost its purpose as it has attempted to be politically viable.

I totally disagree. I've been involved in the LP since its early years, and believe me it wasn't some witty attempt to parody the system. It was simply staffed by ideologically-sound but politically-retarded operatives. And it has remained that way. If you ask me, the best thing to happen to the LP has been the internal reform movement to turn it into a functioning political party. Alas, the Randroid tip-of-the-diamond cohort that runs the show (and pushes out the brilliant thinkers like Carl Milsted), undermines the party at every turn.

 

[Nathan Hale]

The Libertarian Party is now a joke and should be completely ignored. They are a waste of time and money. After the Barr/Root ticket and the likely Gary Johnson nomination, they are just a party of statist Republicans.

If you are going to play politics, why not just do so in one of the main parties? Who cares about their labels? Ron Paul has clearly never been a Republican but has been elected as one. Just put the R or D by your name and campaign on a libertarian message.

Thank you, self-identified anarchist, for your moral appraisal of the situation.

 

[Nathan Hale]

I have only heard his name bandied in connection with AMERICANS ELECT, which apparently requires a mixed-party ticket?

Paul currently polls first on AE, and Gary Johnson just happens to conveniently no longer be a Republican.