Will the Libertarian Party Field A Candidate Against Presidential Candidate Rand Paul?

[Glenn_Durham]

Sorry, you Republicans are the loser's, not the LP.

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
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.

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