GOP should nominate Libertarian candidate in 2016

[RabidAlpaca]

Having a big stick does no good without the ability and guts to use it.

What does that have to do with bullying people into doing what we want them to?

 

[Henrin]

If the GOP nominates a libertarian then I will be voting Democrat.

Are you closer to democrats than libertarians? If not, wouldn't that counterproductive?

 

[Rainman05]

Actually.. Huntsman seemed the 2nd best candidate the GOP had to throw this year. Too bad he had to drop out.

 

[Rainman05]

Last time I checked, Iran hasn't attacked another country in over 200 years. We're sitting at about just over a year and we still have several occupations. Who's the violent aggressor in this situation?

There's a big difference between "speak softly but carry a big stick" and the aggressive imperialism we've got.

Iran-Iraq war -> 30 years ago. Also known as the last "modern war" because it was the last war that took on ww2 like aspects: mass infantry and tanks, airforce, huge loss of life.

The wars we (civilized nations) conduct today are of a totally different method.

 

[Jarhead]

What does that have to do with bullying people into doing what we want them to?

Nevermind. I should never have gotten into a discussion with a Libertarian about the Military.

 

[Jerry]

They don't have a chance otherwise imo. Chris Christie, Rick Santorum, Huntsman, or Jeb Bush or whatever, wouldn't stand a chance against Clinton or Biden (if things improve). IMO a large part of why they lost this time is because once again, they felt that a moderate candidate gave them the best chance. Ron Paul polled better against Obama than other candidates in the primaries and he's consistent. Gary Johnson, Rand Paul too. Libertarians are more appealing to women, certain minority groups, and some Democrats. Unfortunately Republicans are still full of hawks and religious cons so a Libertarian candidate getting nominated next time is very unlikely, but luckily hawks/religious cons are dying breed whereas fiscal conservatism is not.

In any case, everything is bound to get slightly better in 4 years (can't really get any worse), Clinton's name is still strong and Biden can make a case if the Obama administration leaves with positive approval. Another moderate like McCain and Romney won't cut it.

Most Conservatives won't take this seriously and will likely scoff at the notion, while liberals will probably laugh, but to me it seems undeniable that a more libertarian candidate gives the Republican party the better chance. The libertarian candidate doesn't necessarily have to be as extreme as Ron Paul/Johnson, heck Rand Paul has some appealing Libertarian policies to some degree.

So the Loosertarin party, unable to field a POTUS candidate on their own, now want to piggy-back the GOP and become part of the 2-party system the claim to hate so much :lol:

 

[RabidAlpaca]

Iran-Iraq war -> 30 years ago. Also known as the last "modern war" because it was the last war that took on ww2 like aspects: mass infantry and tanks, airforce, huge loss of life.

The wars we (civilized nations) conduct today are of a totally different method.

Iraq attacked Iran, chief. Way to make a fool of yourself.

Nevermind. I should never have gotten into a discussion with a Libertarian about the Military.

Yeah, I'll never understand invading countries, killing people, and sacrificing our soldiers, all for a global imperialistic dream. I've got this crazy notion that we should protect our citizens with a strong military and focus on our failing economy.

 

[digsbe]

Are you closer to democrats than libertarians? If not, wouldn't that counterproductive?

Maybe not closer to the far left within the Democrat party, but I'm closer to most Democrats politically than I am to most libertarians. I'm not quite sure I understand, but how would that be counter productive?

 

[joko104]

They don't have a chance otherwise imo. Chris Christie, Rick Santorum, Huntsman, or Jeb Bush or whatever, wouldn't stand a chance against Clinton or Biden (if things improve). IMO a large part of why they lost this time is because once again, they felt that a moderate candidate gave them the best chance. Ron Paul polled better against Obama than other candidates in the primaries and he's consistent. Gary Johnson, Rand Paul too. Libertarians are more appealing to women, certain minority groups, and some Democrats. Unfortunately Republicans are still full of hawks and religious cons so a Libertarian candidate getting nominated next time is very unlikely, but luckily hawks/religious cons are dying breed whereas fiscal conservatism is not.

In any case, everything is bound to get slightly better in 4 years (can't really get any worse), Clinton's name is still strong and Biden can make a case if the Obama administration leaves with positive approval. Another moderate like McCain and Romney won't cut it.

Most Conservatives won't take this seriously and will likely scoff at the notion, while liberals will probably laugh, but to me it seems undeniable that a more libertarian candidate gives the Republican party the better chance. The libertarian candidate doesn't necessarily have to be as extreme as Ron Paul/Johnson, heck Rand Paul has some appealing Libertarian policies to some degree.

Ron Paul would have gotten slaughtered, just like Trump would - though Trump was "high it the polls" momentarily too.

Ron Paul is the WORST example of a "libertarian." He wasn't. He is a cult figure for angry white men.
However, Republicans do have to drop the social issues and get immigration reform behind them.

 

[joko104]

Iraq attacked Iran, chief. Way to make a fool of yourself.



Yeah, I'll never understand invading countries, killing people, and sacrificing our soldiers, all for a global imperialistic dream. I've got this crazy notion that we should protect our citizens with a strong military and focus on our failing economy.

That global imperialist dream is why the USA is the wealthiest nation on earth. Were it not for imperialist dreams, this country would still be the lands of Native Americans. Ethical purity comes at great economic prices, something few Americans realize anymore as they fantasize of the perfect world and what to build government and society around that academia zipppy pinheadism - while at the same time believing that we somehow also get to keep our king-of-the-hill economic status personally and as a nation.

 

[joko104]

So the Loosertarin party, unable to field a POTUS candidate on their own, now want to piggy-back the GOP and become part of the 2-party system the claim to hate so much :lol:

^ That's it. Damn, Jerry, sometimes you really get it right.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

That global imperialist dream is why the USA is the wealthiest nation on earth. Were it not for imperialist dreams, this country would still be the lands of Native Americans. Ethical purity comes at great economic prices, something few Americans realize anymore as they fantasize of the perfect world - while at the same time we somehow also get to keep our king-of-the-hill economic status personally and as a nation.

We are the wealthiest nation on earth because we favored ingenuity and economic growth for centuries. We opened our doors of freedom to some of the greatest minds on earth, and in turn America boomed. If you really think that invading Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Korea, Vietnam, etc. are the reasons why we're wealthy, you need serious help.

A nation's wealth is not built by war, only diminished.

 

[waas]

How would that affect our military? Would we still flex our muscle when necessary?

Would a Libertarian president do nothing while leaders from nations like Iran mocked us?

Who cares if they "mock us", as long as they don't bomb us. IMO, a libertarian POTUS would be ideal in times of war.

 

[donsutherland1]

IMO a large part of why they lost this time is because once again, they felt that a moderate candidate gave them the best chance. Ron Paul polled better against Obama than other candidates in the primaries and he's consistent. Gary Johnson, Rand Paul too. Libertarians are more appealing to women, certain minority groups, and some Democrats.

I'm not aware of Gary Johnson's receiving more than a tiny fraction of the popular vote or any electoral votes. His candidacy was tested and he was not a factor in the GOP primaries and later the general election. Had the GOP nominee been Ron Paul or Gary Johnson, one would very likely have witnessed a landslide Obama victory along the lines of Nixon's in 1972 or Reagan's in 1984.

Governor Romney did not lose because he was not conservative enough. He lost because certain conservative positions were out-of-step with the electorate's needs, aspirations, and interests.

 

[duhu]

During the primaries, Ron Paul polled better against Obama than any other candidate did.

 

[lizzie]

Most Conservatives won't take this seriously and will likely scoff at the notion, while liberals will probably laugh, but to me it seems undeniable that a more libertarian candidate gives the Republican party the better chance. The libertarian candidate doesn't necessarily have to be as extreme as Ron Paul/Johnson, heck Rand Paul has some appealing Libertarian policies to some degree.

Libertarians will always be marginalized, because we strongly favor personal responsibility, liberal social policies, but conservative fiscal policies and strict limits on government. Most people, in today's world, seem to like a large intrusive government to be their security blanket. We have less of a chance than republicans. Much less.

 

[donsutherland1]

During the primaries, Ron Paul polled better against Obama than any other candidate did.

That's not really relevant, as he never went head-to-head against the President. In a general election campaign, he would have fared badly. First, he did not do well in the debates during the GOP primaries. Second, he opposed TARP but offered no alternative during the nation's financial crisis. Rather than arguing that Governor Romeny would have let Detroit fail (Romney's position was actually more nuanced), he would have argued that Paul would have led the country's financial system collapse (and the absence of an alternative to TARP left Paul no defense). Third, on foreign policy, the President would have pointed to Paul's declaring that he would not use military force were Iran to blockade the Strait of Hormuz. That more than a third of the region's oil passes through that waterway and both Democratic and Republican Presidents have recognized it as a vital U.S. interest given its importance to the U.S. economy and those of U.S. allies, he would have been able to argue that Paul would let Iran strangle the world's economy.

In 1972, Senator McGovern won a handful of states. In 1984, Vice President Mondale won his home state of Minnesota. There would have been a distinct possibility that Paul would have lost all States and the District of Columbia.

 

[AdamT]

That's not really relevant, as he never went head-to-head against the President. In a general election campaign, he would have fared badly. First, he did not do well in the debates during the GOP primaries. Second, he opposed TARP but offered no alternative during the nation's financial crisis. Rather than arguing that Governor Romeny would have let Detroit fail (Romney's position was actually more nuanced), he would have argued that Paul would have led the country's financial system collapse (and the absence of an alternative to TARP left Paul no defense). Third, on foreign policy, the President would have pointed to Paul's declaring that he would not use military force were Iran to blockade the Strait of Hormuz. That more than a third of the region's oil passes through that waterway and both Democratic and Republican Presidents have recognized it as a vital U.S. interest given its importance to the U.S. economy and those of U.S. allies, he would have been able to argue that Paul would let Iran strangle the world's economy.

In 1972, Senator McGovern won a handful of states. In 1984, Vice President Mondale won his home state of Minnesota. There would have been a distinct possibility that Paul would have lost all States and the District of Columbia.

True. Paul scores well in these big fields because he does a good job of coming across as the truth teller in a pack of politicians, but if the focus ever fell on him as a serious candidate he would be obliterated. It's notable that he was one of the few out of the cabal of crazies the Republicans put up who never challenged as the next "not Romney". It should tell you something when he comes in fourth behind a nutter like Michelle Bachman, an extremist like Rick Santorum, a guy like Herman Caine who has never held elective office, and a damaged has-been like Newt Gingrich.

 

[Sherman123]

I'd personally be hard pressed if the Republican party nominated a true fully fledged libertarian candidate, it might force me to vote Democrat depending on the candidate. If Ron Paul won the nomination for example I'd almost certainly vote for Clinton or whomever the candidate may be, or perhaps abstain. Moreover I think supporters of these candidates vastly overestimate their staying power and widespread appeal in large part because they are usually minority candidates who's positions gain little exposure and even less challenge.

 

[Paul Austin]

During the primaries, Ron Paul polled better against Obama than any other candidate did.

It should be noted that in the same polls Romney beat Obama, & how did that work out?

Those polls dont actually mean a lot

 

[haymarket]

Ron Paul polled better against Obama than other candidates in the primaries and he's consistent. Gary Johnson, Rand Paul too. Libertarians are more appealing to women, certain minority groups, and some Democrats. The libertarian candidate doesn't necessarily have to be as extreme as Ron Paul/Johnson, heck Rand Paul has some appealing Libertarian policies to some degree.

Right libertarianism is a disease that would kill the GOP ticket from top to bottom the way a virulent cancer destroys its host. Ron Paul would have lost by a landslide along the scale of 64 or 72. Libertarianism on the ballot is akin to the skull and crossbones on a medicine bottle. The American people do not want it and they will not buy it.

My wish is that you and the Republican party ignore my words and proceed full steam ahead with even more libertarian take over of the official Republican Party over the next four years. Nominate a libertarian who will run on libertarian ideas. be loud and be proud and do not try to hide it or put lipstick on the pig.

 

[haymarket]

So the Loosertarin party, unable to field a POTUS candidate on their own, now want to piggy-back the GOP and become part of the 2-party system the claim to hate so much :lol:

That is the plan. The Libertarians realize that they cannot draw flies running under their own party label. Look at the career of their pin up boy Ron Paul. He runs for President in 88 on their ticket, is a total and complete disaster failing to even get 1% of the vote, so he wraps himself in the Halloween costume of a Republican and has a two decade run in the House of Representatives from Texas.

Now we have his son Rand who is following the same path wearing the disguise of the Republican to get elected and get a paycheck.

Libertarians well know they have no chance of getting any power without these stealth campaigns using candidates pretending to be something they are not.

 

[waas]

Libertarians will always be marginalized, because we strongly favor personal responsibility, liberal social policies, but conservative fiscal policies and strict limits on government. Most people, in today's world, seem to like a large intrusive government to be their security blanket. We have less of a chance than republicans. Much less.

No, you'll be marginalized due to what happens when folks aren't, as you say, "responsible" - or in the real world's definition, successful.

What libertarians fail to account for is this: Folks aren't born with equal circumstances - treating them as if they were is not a valid platform.

 

[Paul Austin]

Look at the career of their pin up boy Ron Paul.

Id be very surprised if no ones pointed it out to you before but a lot of people dont actually consider Ron Paul to be libertarian*, so whilst he does have a libertarian following, amongst his supporters, he's hardly the libertarian pin up boy.



*A number of articles have been published on the subject

 

[Slartibartfast]

Because then someone might find out about our tiny penis.

My friend, may I introduce you to florida?