JCDenton0451
Banned
- Joined
- May 13, 2013
- Messages
- 1,521
What do you think their main line of attack will be?
Will the Libertarian Party Field A Candidate Against Presidential Candidate Rand Paul?
- Thread starter AuH20
- Start date
What do you think their main line of attack will be?
So did Peter King and John Boehner. What's your point?
radiofriendly
Member
- Joined
- May 15, 2007
- Messages
- 1,107
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!"
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!"
Last edited:
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
Account Restricted. Admin to review account standing
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2009
- Messages
- 28,739
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
Member
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2007
- Messages
- 8,262
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
Banned
- Joined
- May 13, 2013
- Messages
- 1,521
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.
Of which only the Christian thing might connect because it is true.
Last edited:
PatriotOne
Member
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2007
- Messages
- 10,722
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.
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
Member
- Joined
- May 15, 2007
- Messages
- 1,107
Agree.
Abortion is murder and I support laws against murder.
neoreactionary
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2013
- Messages
- 170
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.
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
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2013
- Messages
- 170
cjm
Member
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2010
- Messages
- 2,956
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.
amy31416
Member
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2007
- Messages
- 22,978
If you were around in 07-08, you probably would. They're douchebags.
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.
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.
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
Member
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2007
- Messages
- 10,722
And I invite you to stay in the Libertarian Party also for the same reason Vitamix doesn't hire this gal as their spokesman:
Similar threads
