Nonsense. You are letting your irrational hatred for libertarians to cloud your judgment...again.We completely and totally disagree. Ron Paul was a libertarian who ran for president under their banner. He lost of course. He wanted a career and a paycheck so he went to the costume shop and bought a republican outfit.
I remember Norman Thomas who ran for president six times as a Socialist. Near the end of his life he was asked if he had wasted his life losing one election after the other by huge margins and never really having a chance. He replied that his long career was wonderfully successful as many of the issues he had advocated had come to passage over his long lifetime.
Of course, he was not concerned about a job or paycheck.
Nonsense. You are letting your irrational hatred for libertarians to cloud your judgment...again.
There is absolutely no reason you cant have a libertarian wing of the republican party just as you could have a moderate wing, a conservative wing, a Tea Party wing or a liberal wing.
Ive never cried about a two party system. In fact, I think multi party systems are very damaging to democracy. A two party system at least maintains the idea of majority rule.Its rational.
And unless you actually are willing to build a third party and take the hit in the meantime until its viable, you will always be doomed to crying and moaning about the evils of a two party system that you yourself is helping to keep in place.
Ive never cried about a two party system. In fact, I think multi party systems are very damaging to democracy. A two party system at least maintains the idea of majority rule.
What the hell is that supposed to mean?spoken like someone who has been taught a lesson and knows not to step out of line.
The Libertarian Party is but a pimple on the ass of the body politic - a minor irritation that can be readily ignored as being of no real consequence.
It seems that a whole of people who proudly proclaim their libertarian ideology are more than willing to vote republican every election day. It reminds me of the cheapskate who claims they are a vegetarian but is willing to eat steak when somebody else is footing the bill. Elections are what counts in our political system and when the real stakes are on the line all these wanna-be pretend libertarians are more than happy to be right wing republicans.
oh - and yes, I know the difference in capital L and a small l. Apparently they do also as they constantly play that lame card instead of having the courage of their supposed convictions.
Everyone has their view. How many people get their news off the internet or check out all the candidates on the internet? Especially if they never heard of them and do not know they are running. Granted the internet is a helpful tool, but it can't compete against 70 million dollars of political advertising over TV and Radio, mailers, pamphlets, fliers and all the other stuff that comes with it.
Ron Paul has been known for 30 years or more, he has name recognition and he gets coverage by the national media, he is out there for people to see and and has been for a long, long time. Names like Hunt and Swafford has never been covered by the national media, names that mean nothing to no one. They are unknown whereas Paul is sort of a national icon and has been for many years.
Huge difference here. Give Hunt and Swafford 70 million and let the Republican Perdue and Democrat Nunn use only the internet and guess who wins? Nunn and Perdue also have the advantage of both party and name recognition.
What the hell is that supposed to mean?
Psst, Haymarket. Your hackery is showing.
Look man, this constant bitching that money is what makes a gigantic difference in politics simply doesn't hold up as well. It doesn't cost 70 million to make a viral video. It doesn't 70 million to make a start up app. It doesn't cost 70 million to create an internet campaign that attracts millions of voters. How do I know? I see people do it every single day on shoestring budgets. How do they do it? They have a product that attracts people. Obama's first campaign was heavily dependent on social media. Sure, he spent a ****load of money but it's entirely acknowledged that the youth vote he received came as a result of his savvy use of social media. Why is it that smaller parties can't seem to do the same thing? Instead of trying to push candidates down the throats of voters with halfass political stances, get 1-2 good candidates and focus money on them. That's how Canadian parties have done it and some have had great success.
Look man, this constant bitching that money is what makes a gigantic difference in politics simply doesn't hold up as well. It doesn't cost 70 million to make a viral video. It doesn't 70 million to make a start up app. It doesn't cost 70 million to create an internet campaign that attracts millions of voters. How do I know? I see people do it every single day on shoestring budgets. How do they do it? They have a product that attracts people. Obama's first campaign was heavily dependent on social media. Sure, he spent a ****load of money but it's entirely acknowledged that the youth vote he received came as a result of his savvy use of social media. Why is it that smaller parties can't seem to do the same thing? Instead of trying to push candidates down the throats of voters with halfass political stances, get 1-2 good candidates and focus money on them. That's how Canadian parties have done it and some have had great success.
I do not understand this blind romance with the Libertarian Party.Libertarian Election Results 2014
Link shows their numbers.
Clearly noone expected them to win any major races but they did ok in a few. Based on your expectations for the Libertarian party how do you think they did?
I do not understand this blind romance with the Libertarian Party.
The facts clearly show it's not a player.
The facts clearly show it appeals almost exclusively to the single, white, young, childless male attitudinal "philosophy".
Yes, Hugh Hefner's philosophy would most certainly be aligned with the Libertarian Party.
Indeed, the Libertarian Party is composed of more than 90 percent males.
It doesn't appeal to women in general, as it's "freedom, freedom, freedom!" mantra conflicts with the great majority of women's desire for safety and security in the child-raising environment, a desire that is in oppositional conflict with the Libertarian mantra.
Keeping an "eye" on how the Libertarian Party does each election, as if they are suddenly going to start winning, is the generally sarcastic definition of crazy: doing the same thing, over and over, expecting different results.
It's not going to happen.
The Libertarian Party will never be anything more than it already is: a bastion for the single, white, young, childless, male attitudinal "philosophy".
It's the party of the playboy.
They did worse than expected in nearly every race. That's not to say the Libertarians have not had a great year, because they certainly have, but Libertarians did significantly worse than polls projected because of last minute fear tactics employed by the two major parties.
Overall, not too shabby this year as a whole. Many LP candidates got into nationally televised debates, a big win for any third party. Lucas Overby (FL-13) got 25% of the vote...a record for the LP. No candidate (that I know of) got below 2% and many got above 5%. Party registration for the LP is also way up. They are doing pretty good and I think we can expect great things in the future.
That is how it should be in a two party system.
While thats a good sign I personally believe the mainstream media is purposely trying to exclude libertarians from having more exposure in the news, many articles have been written that portrays libertarianism in not very flattering terms and at the same time very few articles are being written about LP candidates during elections. Its a conspiracy that I truly believe is happening.
We completely and totally disagree. Ron Paul was a libertarian who ran for president under their banner. He lost of course. He wanted a career and a paycheck so he went to the costume shop and bought a republican outfit.
It doesn't matter how many parties there are, only that the parties that exist are actually relevant to a sizeable percentage of the American public. American third parties have demonstrated that their message and platform simply doesn't appeal to any worthwhile number of voters. Even after 40 years, the Libertarians can't even get 5% of the vote in a Presidential election. That's pretty pathetic. Of course, I'm sure you'll try to find an excuse, some conspiracy theory for why your party's views simply do not resonate with the American people, but at the end of the day, it's who gets elected that matters and American third parties clearly don't.
People are caught up in lesser evils, not principles. Congress had an 11% approval rating but 97% of representatives got re-elected. It's not that the two parties represent America better than third parties, it's that fear tactics are used to keep people voting for the same two parties every year.
:lol: :lol: :lol::yawn:
The first woman to ever get an electoral vote for VP was, in fact, a Libertarian. Fail some more.
And that's just conspiracy theorist nonsense common among Koolade drinking Libertarians. The fact is, Libertarian politics doesn't appeal to most American voters. It isn't money, it isn't fear, it's facts. Most people don't want libertarians in office. Most people see them as fanatics. You're welcome to disagree, of course, but that is the public perception in most cases. And when it comes to money complaints, isn't the Libertarian Party portraying itself as the party of business? Why can it get no business contributions then? Oh yeah, it's all a bunch of BS.
And even then, he couldn't get elected, or even get serious consideration from most Americans because his ideas were really out there. When you have a failed political philosophy, it doesn't matter what letter you put next to your name, you still lose.
So how do you explain an 11% approval rating yet a 97% re-election rate?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?