Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You haven't the foggiest idea what I was talking about as evidenced by that statement. What exactly is it that the newbies are trying to change in the Libertarian party? most of them have no idea what other policies the LP supports besides drug laws. THAT's what I was complaining about.
You haven't the foggiest idea what I was talking about as evidenced by that statement. What exactly is it that the newbies are trying to change in the Libertarian party? most of them have no idea what other policies the LP supports besides drug laws. THAT's what I was complaining about.
You were complaining about young people calling themselves libertarians when they only like part of what the Libertarian Party campaigns on.
I think this would be a good time to remind you that the party does not own the term.
You keep ignoreing the fact that I'm not claiming Santorum is not a big government Republican SoCon. I'm saying that he's less of an enemy of liberty than Obama is. that doesn't mean he is not a threat to liberty.
That anyone would vote for him simply because he's "less" of a threat to liberty, is in itself a threat to liberty.
I'm not willing to give up one more tiny bit of liberty. I'm going to vote for the only person that I've ever known I could trust. At least I can say I didn't vote for totalitarianism.
Then you're helping Obama to get reelected.
This is how I see it...That anyone would vote for him simply because he's "less" of a threat to liberty, is in itself a threat to liberty.
I'm not willing to give up one more tiny bit of liberty. I'm going to vote for the only person that I've ever known I could trust. At least I can say I didn't vote for totalitarianism.
Then you're helping Obama to get reelected.
Wrong on many counts.
But the most important would be the GOP COULD NOT GAIN ENOUGH SUPPORT.
True story for the losing side in any election.
[
True, but terms have definitions. Otherwise they are useless. Anyone who supports Obamacare is not a libertarian, by definition.
[
True, but terms have definitions. Otherwise they are useless. Anyone who supports Obamacare is not a libertarian, by definition.
I have never seen a definition of "libertarian" that made any reference to Obamacare whatsoever.
This is how I see it...Then you're helping Obama to get reelected.
Wrong on many counts.
But the most important would be the GOP COULD NOT GAIN ENOUGH SUPPORT.
True story for the losing side in any election.
Paul supporters make up around ~20% of support the GOP is going to desperately need to have any chance at beating Obama. This may even be a conservative estimate when you factor in independents and Dem crossovers that can't necessarily be counted into that number. The GOP's mantra is "anyone but Obama", so we already know they'll vote overwhelmingly for Paul if he was the nominee. The problem is that the Paul supporters will only vote for Paul...so the GOP has a conundrum that they need to face. They're only going to get the maximum amount of support from all demographics in the electorate if they nominate Paul. Nominating Romney is knowingly and WILLINGLY shooting themselves in the foot.
That's not my fault, and it's not my problem. I know EXACTLY who I want to be my president, unlike the rest of the GOP who changes candidates like underwear. Maybe they should have gotten their act together and chosen none of the above this primary season instead of swallowing the choices they were given.
Santorum HATES libertarianism. He is a statist and an authoritarian. Romney is bought and paid for by the corporate elite the same as Obama and Gingrich.
The argument over which is a greater threat to liberty between the welfare state and the warfare state is like asking which is colder, Antartica or the North Pole? Who fucking cares they are both insanely cold.
The true threat to liberty is apathy and this is why I say the libertarian party needs to embrace the reuplican party instead of the other way around. The libertarians need to stand by their principles and get active within the GOP. We need to gain positions of power and set our own agenda. We can't change the paradigm of this two party system so we might as well subvert it with our own agenda.
I don't mean that Libertarians should vote for Republicans either. I mean that we should redefine what it means to be a republican and make it mean a libertarian.
You don't seem to get it.This is how I see it...Wrong on many counts.
But the most important would be the GOP COULD NOT GAIN ENOUGH SUPPORT.
True story for the losing side in any election.
Paul supporters make up around ~20% of support the GOP is going to desperately need to have any chance at beating Obama. This may even be a conservative estimate when you factor in independents and Dem crossovers that can't necessarily be counted into that number. The GOP's mantra is "anyone but Obama", so we already know they'll vote overwhelmingly for Paul if he was the nominee. The problem is that the Paul supporters will only vote for Paul...so the GOP has a conundrum that they need to face. They're only going to get the maximum amount of support from all demographics in the electorate if they nominate Paul. Nominating Romney is knowingly and WILLINGLY shooting themselves in the foot.
That's not my fault, and it's not my problem. I know EXACTLY who I want to be my president, unlike the rest of the GOP who changes candidates like underwear. Maybe they should have gotten their act together and chosen none of the above this primary season instead of swallowing the choices they were given.
Once the Republican nominee is selected, you only help the Democrat by not voting Republican. Voting for a third party candidate is throwing your vote away. Fighting for a libertarian during the primaries is fine. That's where it needs to be done. After that, you if you don't vote for the Republican nominee, you are as good as supporting the Democrat.
True, but terms have definitions. Otherwise they are useless. Anyone who supports Obamacare is not a libertarian, by definition.
I have never seen a definition of "libertarian" that made any reference to Obamacare whatsoever.
I also have my doubts that Millennial libertarians actually do support Obamacare. I suspect you mean that they support universal health care of some kind. Obamacare leaves much to be desired, though.
Santorum HATES libertarianism. He is a statist and an authoritarian. Romney is bought and paid for by the corporate elite the same as Obama and Gingrich.
The argument over which is a greater threat to liberty between the welfare state and the warfare state is like asking which is colder, Antartica or the North Pole? Who fucking cares they are both insanely cold.
The true threat to liberty is apathy and this is why I say the libertarian party needs to embrace the reuplican party instead of the other way around. The libertarians need to stand by their principles and get active within the GOP. We need to gain positions of power and set our own agenda. We can't change the paradigm of this two party system so we might as well subvert it with our own agenda.
I don't mean that Libertarians should vote for Republicans either. I mean that we should redefine what it means to be a republican and make it mean a libertarian.
You don't seem to get it.
Romney can't beat Obama. He isn't going to have enough support in the general.
Santorum HATES libertarianism. He is a statist and an authoritarian. Romney is bought and paid for by the corporate elite the same as Obama and Gingrich.
The argument over which is a greater threat to liberty between the welfare state and the warfare state is like asking which is colder, Antartica or the North Pole? Who fucking cares they are both insanely cold.
The true threat to liberty is apathy and this is why I say the libertarian party needs to embrace the reuplican party instead of the other way around. The libertarians need to stand by their principles and get active within the GOP. We need to gain positions of power and set our own agenda. We can't change the paradigm of this two party system so we might as well subvert it with our own agenda.
I don't mean that Libertarians should vote for Republicans either. I mean that we should redefine what it means to be a republican and make it mean a libertarian.
We are.
There's a huge civil war going on within the GOP at the local levels, where libertarians are getting actively involved in the party and working to build membership within the ranks. Go to DailyPaul.com and you can read all about it. There's a video posted of a Denver County convention where Paul delegates are busting their ass to keep the establishment from breaking their own rules and shutting them out.
Interesting times.
You don't seem to get it.
Romney can't beat Obama. He isn't going to have enough support in the general.
You think the Libertarian Party candidate can beat Obama?
In 10 of the 14 Republican primary or caucus states, one or more of Romneys GOP rivals has beaten him among independent voters -- at times significantly.
In Virginia on Super Tuesday, Ron Paul clobbered Romney, 64 percent to 36 percent, among the 32 percent of the electorate who described themselves as independents. In Ohio (37 percent to 31 percent) and Tennessee (38 percent to 25 percent) Romney lost the independent vote to Rick Santorum. Newt Gingrich carried independent voters by healthy margins in South Carolina and Georgia.
You don't seem to get it.
Romney can't beat Obama. He isn't going to have enough support in the general.
You think the Libertarian Party candidate can beat Obama?
Obama has not stopped nation-building.
Obama did not close Gittmo.
Obama did not reduce our military presence.
Obama did not reverse the Patriot Act.
Obama did not stop the subsidizing of businesses and industries.
Obama has increased the size of government.
Obama does end-arounds of the Constitution.
This is how I see it...Wrong on many counts.
But the most important would be the GOP COULD NOT GAIN ENOUGH SUPPORT.
True story for the losing side in any election.
Paul supporters make up around ~20% of support the GOP is going to desperately need to have any chance at beating Obama. This may even be a conservative estimate when you factor in independents and Dem crossovers that can't necessarily be counted into that number. The GOP's mantra is "anyone but Obama", so we already know they'll vote overwhelmingly for Paul if he was the nominee. The problem is that the Paul supporters will only vote for Paul...so the GOP has a conundrum that they need to face. They're only going to get the maximum amount of support from all demographics in the electorate if they nominate Paul. Nominating Romney is knowingly and WILLINGLY shooting themselves in the foot.
That's not my fault, and it's not my problem. I know EXACTLY who I want to be my president, unlike the rest of the GOP who changes candidates like underwear. Maybe they should have gotten their act together and chosen none of the above this primary season instead of swallowing the choices they were given.
Once the Republican nominee is selected, you only help the Democrat by not voting Republican. Voting for a third party candidate is throwing your vote away. Fighting for a libertarian during the primaries is fine. That's where it needs to be done. After that, you if you don't vote for the Republican nominee, you are as good as supporting the Democrat.
