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.
I guess that depends on what you see as the purpose of voting. I see it as a tool to move policy in my favored direction. You seem to view it as more of a moral exercise.
No, I agree with you. I just believe I'll do more to move policy in my direction by honestly expressing my values than muting them via a dishonest vote. Look at this way - if and when a national Libertarian candidate gets more than, say, 10% of the vote (and if the Republicans nominate Christie it's a distinct possibility) you'll see real attention paid to libertarian issues, whether we win an election or not.
I agree, but it's not voting now that will get you there. It's some sort of huge event that jolts the system. I am certainly not saying to give up advocating for your preferred policies, only that the ballot box is not the best venue for purism.
Libertarians, and conservatives are essentially one and the same.
For example...
Do you love freedom?
Do you love Liberty?
Do you love the free market?
Do you hate Obama's tax and spend failonomics?
Do you despise abortion as the aberration it is?
Do you love capitalism?
Do you want to decrease the size of the federal government?
Do you believe in reasonably equal opportunity, instead of equal outcome?
If you agree with any of these, you should vote for GoP!
The "Libertarian" party has been taken over by the pot heads who rely on the hope that progressives are more likely to legalize the manufacture and sale of marijuana.
Note the word "should" not "must".
Narco-libertarians are actually closer to liberals than they are conservatives. Listen to them on foreign policy, if you can stomache it.
They are bedwetters and simps. Notice how the Dems managed to win by fronting a libertarian candidate in the VA race and siphoning off votes from the Republican.
Show us the numbers stating that he took more from the Republican than the Democrat.
A Quinnipiac poll from yesterday shows that Sarvis is actually taking slightly more of the vote from Democrat Terry McAuliffe (47 percent) than from Cuccinelli (45 percent).
Sarvis a Libertarian? Nope | National Review Online
Cuccinelli lost by 2.5% of the vote. Sarvis got 6% of the vote. Had Sarvis not been in the race Cuccinelli would have won.
Oops.
No, I agree with you. I just believe I'll do more to move policy in my direction by honestly expressing my values than muting them via a dishonest vote. Look at this way - if and when a national Libertarian candidate gets more than, say, 10% of the vote (and if the Republicans nominate Christie it's a distinct possibility) you'll see real attention paid to libertarian issues, whether we win an election or not.
I agree, but it's not voting now that will get you there. It's some sort of huge event that jolts the system. I am certainly not saying to give up advocating for your preferred policies, only that the ballot box is not the best venue for purism.
The more we "hurt," so to speak, the Republicans by not voting for them the more prominent we become, at least as far as I can tell. Before 2008 how often was libertarianism discussed in the mainstream? How about now? If we fall in line and do what we're told because a Republican might be half of a percentage better than a Democrat, by our standards, on economic issues then they have no reason to ever listen to us because we're a lock regardless. It's only by refusing to go along to get along that we make any traction.
The more we "hurt," so to speak, the Republicans by not voting for them the more prominent we become, at least as far as I can tell. Before 2008 how often was libertarianism discussed in the mainstream? How about now? If we fall in line and do what we're told because a Republican might be half of a percentage better than a Democrat, by our standards, on economic issues then they have no reason to ever listen to us because we're a lock regardless. It's only by refusing to go along to get along that we make any traction.
I agree, but it's not voting now that will get you there. It's some sort of huge event that jolts the system. I am certainly not saying to give up advocating for your preferred policies, only that the ballot box is not the best venue for purism.
The more we "hurt," so to speak, the Republicans by not voting for them the more prominent we become, at least as far as I can tell. Before 2008 how often was libertarianism discussed in the mainstream? How about now? If we fall in line and do what we're told because a Republican might be half of a percentage better than a Democrat, by our standards, on economic issues then they have no reason to ever listen to us because we're a lock regardless. It's only by refusing to go along to get along that we make any traction.
Libertarianism is discussed more in the mainstream now, but I don't think that has to do with libertarians sitting at home in 2008. I think it has to do with a pretty large system shock (the financial crisis) and politicians on the mainstream right needing to find a way to rebrand.
Why would the media be afraid of Rand Paul? Then again, you're also arguing that the "Tea Party" is made up of people who don't belong to either party, when it's really just placing the old Moral Majority wine in a new skin.
The more we "hurt," so to speak, the Republicans by not voting for them the more prominent we become, at least as far as I can tell. Before 2008 how often was libertarianism discussed in the mainstream? How about now? If we fall in line and do what we're told because a Republican might be half of a percentage better than a Democrat, by our standards, on economic issues then they have no reason to ever listen to us because we're a lock regardless. It's only by refusing to go along to get along that we make any traction.
I don't think the coverage Libertarianism is getting right now has anything at all to do with what Libertarians do or don't do. The only reason Libertarianism is getting any coverage is because for some reason the MSM is afraid of Rand Paul. The MSM is not smart enough to confront Paul directly so they have assigned "libertarianism" as the euphemism to describe Paul's belief system much like "Tea Party" was originally assigned to those who don't care for either Party and think the federal government has overreached. Our MSM is very good at assigning beliefs to people and then attacking them based on those beliefs, whether the tag is earned or not doesn't matter.
I read a column in one of the New York papers a couple of months ago where a columnist actually tried to compare Rand Paul to Josef Stalin by claiming that Libertarianism inevitably leads to a Stalinist style dictatorship. Get used to seeing more of that, Libertarian is going to be smeared over the next couple of years the same way Liberal was smeared in the '90's but it has nothing to do with actual Libertarians.
Why would the media be afraid of Rand Paul? Then again, you're also arguing that the "Tea Party" is made up of people who don't belong to either party, when it's really just placing the old Moral Majority wine in a new skin.
Regarding Paul, you tell me why because I don't know why, all I know is that they are. They are going out of their way to attach Paul to their definition of "Libertarian" and then smearing that definition. It is what it is.
The Tea Party. How soon some people forget. When it first gained prominence it was a non-partisan movement made up of people who felt that Washington DC was out of touch and out of control (which by the way is a pretty good description for about 60% of the electorate) . It is now seen as the whack-job wing of the GOP due mainly to the constant smear-job given to it by the MSM. I don't like the TP but even I can admit that they aren't anything close to what the MSM claims they are.
Except that libertarians mean it and republicans just say those things to fool their constituents into voting for them.Libertarians, and conservatives are essentially one and the same.
For example...
Do you love freedom?
Do you love Liberty?
Do you love the free market?
Do you hate Obama's tax and spend failonomics?
Do you despise abortion as the aberration it is?
Do you love capitalism?
Do you want to decrease the size of the federal government?
Do you believe in reasonably equal opportunity, instead of equal outcome?
If you agree with any of these, you should vote for GoP!
Note the word "should" not "must".
Narco-libertarians are actually closer to liberals than they are conservatives. Listen to them on foreign policy, if you can stomache it.
They are bedwetters and simps. Notice how the Dems managed to win by fronting a libertarian candidate in the VA race and siphoning off votes from the Republican.
Show us the numbers stating that he took more from the Republican than the Democrat.
A Quinnipiac poll from yesterday shows that Sarvis is actually taking slightly more of the vote from Democrat Terry McAuliffe (47 percent) than from Cuccinelli (45 percent).
Sarvis a Libertarian? Nope | National Review Online
Cuccinelli lost by 2.5% of the vote. Sarvis got 6% of the vote. Had Sarvis not been in the race Cuccinelli would have won.
Oops.
Had Obama and Clinton bundlers not sandbagged the race with a fake libertarian, Sarvis wouldn't have garnered 1%.Note the word "should" not "must".
Narco-libertarians are actually closer to liberals than they are conservatives. Listen to them on foreign policy, if you can stomache it.
They are bedwetters and simps. Notice how the Dems managed to win by fronting a libertarian candidate in the VA race and siphoning off votes from the Republican.
Show us the numbers stating that he took more from the Republican than the Democrat.
A Quinnipiac poll from yesterday shows that Sarvis is actually taking slightly more of the vote from Democrat Terry McAuliffe (47 percent) than from Cuccinelli (45 percent).
Cuccinelli lost by 2.5% of the vote. Sarvis got 6% of the vote. Had Sarvis not been in the race Cuccinelli would have won.
Oops.
Libertarians, and conservatives are essentially one and the same.!
Had Obama and Clinton bundlers not sandbagged the race with a fake libertarian, Sarvis wouldn't have garnered 1%.Show us the numbers stating that he took more from the Republican than the Democrat.
Cuccinelli lost by 2.5% of the vote. Sarvis got 6% of the vote. Had Sarvis not been in the race Cuccinelli would have won.
Oops.
Other than existing, the LP had almost nothing to do with the result.
Time for you to be gobsmacked with the truth.
Libertarians, and conservatives are essentially one and the same.
For example...
Do you love freedom?
Do you love Liberty?
Do you love the free market?
The GoP routinely supports polices that restrict freedom and the free market. A good example would be the Republicans support for tax loopholes that are designed to favor specific companies over their competition. If you don't support closing tax loopholes, which Grover Norquist dismisses as a tax increase, you are anti free market.
Like TARP and bailouts of favored companies that was proposed by Bush?
I don't despise anything, I oppose abortion because I see it is taking a human life, but I see no reason to use the government to impose my views on others. After all, I might be wrong.
If the GOP wanted to decrease the size of the federal government they wouldn't keep putting up budget plans that expanded it every year, they would actually cut it.
I have no idea what the fuck reasonably equal opportunity is.
If you agree with any of these, you should vote for GoP!
It is precisely because I believe in those things that I will never vote for a party that has repeatedly demonstrated their contempt for them.
Remind me what effective opposition narco-libertarians have ever mounted to any of those things. Yeah, thought so. Oops.
The GOP has blocked some of the worst crap out of the Obama Administration. But the party is a big party. Saying "The GOP supported this or that" is a canard. Yes, some did. But others didnt. Jeff Flake consistently opposed Bush's bailouts under TARP and other gov't intrusions.
Of course if the narcos would work within the party to elect conservative candidates instead of running their mouths about free dope and unilateral disarmament the GOP would look a whole lot different.
Although, by not voting for the GoP, you are an effective detriment to your ideology, if you are a libertarian.
I see it as exactly the opposite.
Assuming you put the most weight on the economic questions (which I feel is generally true of libertarians; certainly true of the ones I know in real life), wouldn't his statement be true? Is it really reasonable to believe the Democrats are more likely to enact policies you prefer?
Except, as pointed out by others, this has no resemblance to what republicans actually do. The truth is that they simply no longer represent anything that libertarians actually stand for and this is completely flushed out by their ACTIONS rather than their words. I asked a simple question here on 2 threads I created that addressed this: Republicans, can you give me a reason to vote GOP. Both threads (one in the CDZ and on in politics) were closed within a few days for vitriolic trolling. The one thing lacking on both was a single reason why to vote GOP. ALL that was managed was lame finger pointing at the democrats. I am NOT going to vote for republican candidates because they demonize the other side. I want some actual poitions that I support something wholly lacking in the big government morality imposing GOP style government. I will NOT trade democrat big government for republican big government. It is not a choice. Obama actually said something that was very true today:Libertarians, and conservatives are essentially one and the same.
For example...
Do you love freedom?
Do you love Liberty?
Do you love the free market?
Do you hate Obama's tax and spend failonomics?
Do you despise abortion as the aberration it is?
Do you love capitalism?
Do you want to decrease the size of the federal government?
Do you believe in reasonably equal opportunity, instead of equal outcome?
If you agree with any of these, you should vote for GoP!
Don't bother, members of the libertarian party are probably too stupid to understand this.
So why should I vote for a party that continually (as these are just examples from this thread but those opinions are coming from a widespread theme in the GOP) frames the libertarians as whinny, stupid and childlike? Would you vote for a party that basically called you a moron? Do you really think that someone with an opinion of you in that realm would represent your interests? Of course not. Instead, these useless and pointless demands that the GOP somehow represents libertarians (even though not a single action they take plays that out) are nothing more than whinny republicans realizing that they are losing and NEED more people to vote for them. We have Rabbi in this very thread whinning about how the republican LOST because libertarians didnt vote for him.Note the word "should" not "must".
Narco-libertarians are actually closer to liberals than they are conservatives. Listen to them on foreign policy, if you can stomache it.
They are bedwetters and simps. Notice how the Dems managed to win by fronting a libertarian candidate in the VA race and siphoning off votes from the Republican.
