Why don't "libertarians" support the libertarian candidate?

[dblack]

The rules would be simple. Set a qualifying standard, don't allow private contributions and give all qualifiers the same amount. Where's the room for corruption on the order of what we see with the present system? People will always try to finagle, but with this system the funding source would be out in the open and any additional funds collected from private sources would be hard to use, if all money used has to be reported.

And who sets the "qualifying standard"? You're just assuming that will be a simple call with no political shenanigans? Dream on...

Further, let's say hell freezes over and you manage to set up such a system with our current government (again, it's a hypothetical, let's assume it's possible). You've got a scheme that controls how much money candidates can spend. Assuming they don't find easy ways around these limits (again, hypothetical) will that really control the influence of money on the election? Will that prevent influential political pundits from endorsing candidates? Will it stop wealthy interests from lobbying for their favorite causes in a public forum? Will it stop the Limbaughs and the Maddows from "spinning" things? Or will it simply make them even more powerful since candidates can no longer spend as much money on ads?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

The rules would be simple. Set a qualifying standard, don't allow private contributions and give all qualifiers the same amount. Where's the room for corruption on the order of what we see with the present system? People will always try to finagle, but with this system the funding source would be out in the open and any additional funds collected from private sources would be hard to use, if all money used has to be reported.

And who sets the "qualifying standard"? You're just assuming that will be a simple call with no political shenanigans? Dream on...

Further, let's say hell freezes over and you manage to set up such a system with our current government (again, it's a hypothetical, let's assume it's possible). You've got a scheme that controls how much money candidates can spend. Assuming they don't find easy ways around these limits (again, hypothetical) will that really control the influence of money on the election? Will that prevent influential political pundits from endorsing candidates? Will it stop wealthy interests from lobbying for their favorite causes in a public forum? Will it stop the Limbaughs and the Maddows from "spinning" things? Or will it simply make them even more powerful since candidates can no longer spend as much money on ads?

You'll get something along the lines of "jail time".

 

[Oddball]

The rules would be simple. Set a qualifying standard, don't allow private contributions and give all qualifiers the same amount. Where's the room for corruption on the order of what we see with the present system? People will always try to finagle, but with this system the funding source would be out in the open and any additional funds collected from private sources would be hard to use, if all money used has to be reported.

And who sets the "qualifying standard"? You're just assuming that will be a simple call with no political shenanigans? Dream on...

Perzactly....Same old naïve collectivist authoritarian drivel.

All we have to do is turn the hen house over to the foxes and everything will be peace and love beads!

 

[MarcATL]

I've noticed that on this board that those who say they are Libertarian don't seem to support the Libertarian candidate, Gary Johnson. Watching him on Jon Stewart reminded me to ask why. It also reminded me that would make a much better candidate than the Crazy Uncle of the Republican Party.

It should be obvious but if you don't support him, there's not much chance he'll get anywhere close to winning. Of course, there's no chance he'll win if you do support him but why whine that you want a third party and then not actually support the candidate?

Its just a farce u see. something these ppl like to say b/c it makes them feel good.

 

[Oddball]

I've noticed that on this board that those who say they are Libertarian don't seem to support the Libertarian candidate, Gary Johnson. Watching him on Jon Stewart reminded me to ask why. It also reminded me that would make a much better candidate than the Crazy Uncle of the Republican Party.

It should be obvious but if you don't support him, there's not much chance he'll get anywhere close to winning. Of course, there's no chance he'll win if you do support him but why whine that you want a third party and then not actually support the candidate?

Its just a farce u see. something these ppl like to say b/c it makes them feel good.

I haven't voted for one single (R) since '94, and have supported the LP candidates in every election since, Chumlee.

Hate to bust another one of your lolberal bubbles.

 

[MuadDib]

I'm not a Republican, Democrat, or a member of the Libertarian Party; I'm an independent. Frankly, I don't believe in political parties. I'd like to see candidate have run on their own merit without the machinations and money of a party behind them.

Philosophically, I'm fiscally Conservative and socially Libertarian, something of a "Goldwater Conservative". I see Liberalism and a Progressivism as a cancer that should be excised or irradiated and killed. Liberals and Progressives are growing indistinguishable in their character and are the most destructive political force this nation faces.

I have always voted my conscience for candidates. Parties be damned.

This time, we have a president that is so damned bad that my conscience says to vote, not for it, but for the best chance of getting rid of the Obama.

I like Gary Johnson. I like his policies and ideas. I'd vote for him in a New Youk minute...except that the Obama is so damned bad that he has to be taken out in November even at the expense of my conscience.

I'm still undecided, but if I do for Mitt Romney, it will be a vote against Obama, not FOR Romney.

 

[teapartysamurai]

I've noticed that on this board that those who say they are Libertarian don't seem to support the Libertarian candidate, Gary Johnson. Watching him on Jon Stewart reminded me to ask why. It also reminded me that would make a much better candidate than the Crazy Uncle of the Republican Party.

It should be obvious but if you don't support him, there's not much chance he'll get anywhere close to winning. Of course, there's no chance he'll win if you do support him but why whine that you want a third party and then not actually support the candidate?

This is liberal for "WALKER WON!!!!!! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAH! WE HAVE TO FIND A WAY TO SPLIT THE VOTE FOR ROMNEY!"

I mean this is PURE DESPERATION on the lib side.

 

[teapartysamurai]

I've noticed that on this board that those who say they are Libertarian don't seem to support the Libertarian candidate, Gary Johnson. Watching him on Jon Stewart reminded me to ask why. It also reminded me that would make a much better candidate than the Crazy Uncle of the Republican Party.

It should be obvious but if you don't support him, there's not much chance he'll get anywhere close to winning. Of course, there's no chance he'll win if you do support him but why whine that you want a third party and then not actually support the candidate?

Its just a farce u see. something these ppl like to say b/c it makes them feel good.

I haven't voted for one single (R) since '94, and have supported the LP candidates in every election since, Chumlee.

Hate to bust another one of your lolberal bubbles.

Which means you NEVER voted for anyone that EVER won an election. What does that tell you???

Oh, I know, that the elections are fixed, right?

Good grief!

What do I tell you people. Third party candidates DON'T WIN AND DON'T WORK.

All, they do is split the vote and get the guy you don't want winning.

EVERY PRESIDENTIAL election where there has been a third party candidate, the very guy they DON'T WANT, wins!

Here's a little secret you may not want to know.

Why did the Weimar Republican turn from a Democracy to a Dictatorship?

The Nazi party was that "third party." The only won a third of the vote, but it was enough to lock up anything ever getting done. To the point, the Parliment voted itself out of business, especilly at the behest of their new Chancellor/President, Adolf Hitler.

Another example of how pure Democracies and third parties, don't work.

 

[konradv]

The rules would be simple. Set a qualifying standard, don't allow private contributions and give all qualifiers the same amount. Where's the room for corruption on the order of what we see with the present system? People will always try to finagle, but with this system the funding source would be out in the open and any additional funds collected from private sources would be hard to use, if all money used has to be reported.

And who sets the "qualifying standard"? You're just assuming that will be a simple call with no political shenanigans? Dream on...

Further, let's say hell freezes over and you manage to set up such a system with our current government (again, it's a hypothetical, let's assume it's possible). You've got a scheme that controls how much money candidates can spend. Assuming they don't find easy ways around these limits (again, hypothetical) will that really control the influence of money on the election? Will that prevent influential political pundits from endorsing candidates? Will it stop wealthy interests from lobbying for their favorite causes in a public forum? Will it stop the Limbaughs and the Maddows from "spinning" things? Or will it simply make them even more powerful since candidates can no longer spend as much money on ads?

I never intended it to interfere with freedom of speech. They aren't the ones promising things to donors. I'm not against lobbying, just the coupling of it to campaign donations.

Also, candidates could use free avenues of expression from the media, since their funds would be limited. The networks would have to be monitored, however, as to how much face time they gave to each candidate.

I'm afraid none of your objections resonate with me as much as the knowledge that candidates wouldn't have to make backroom deals to get campaign funds. After all, if we can't effectively monitor the spending and make sure qualifying sub-primaries are on the up and up, we've lost already and your talk of libertarianism is as foolish as you consider my idea.

 

[Oddball]

Its just a farce u see. something these ppl like to say b/c it makes them feel good.

I haven't voted for one single (R) since '94, and have supported the LP candidates in every election since, Chumlee.

Hate to bust another one of your lolberal bubbles.

Which means you NEVER voted for anyone that EVER won an election. What does that tell you???

Oh, I know, that the elections are fixed, right?

Good grief!

What do I tell you people. Third party candidates DON'T WIN AND DON'T WORK.

All, they do is split the vote and get the guy you don't want winning.

EVERY PRESIDENTIAL election where there has been a third party candidate, the very guy they DON'T WANT, wins!

Here's a little secret you may not want to know.

Why did the Weimar Republican turn from a Democracy to a Dictatorship?

The Nazi party was that "third party." The only won a third of the vote, but it was enough to lock up anything ever getting done. To the point, the Parliment voted itself out of business, especilly at the behest of their new Chancellor/President, Adolf Hitler.

Another example of how pure Democracies and third parties, don't work.

I was a loser voting for republicans who campaigned like libertarians then governed like socialists.

If republican sellout dickweeds want my vote, they can earn it (like Walker) rather than sitting around like socialist assholes saying "yeah, well at least we're not as socialistic as those other socialists".

Your lame attempt at trying to associate the LP with the NSDAP is seriously fucked up.

 

[PredFan]

I've noticed that on this board that those who say they are Libertarian don't seem to support the Libertarian candidate, Gary Johnson.

Because he doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of getting elected and getting rid of Obama is of the utmost importance.

It also reminded me that would make a much better candidate than the Crazy Uncle of the Republican Party.

How so?

It should be obvious but if you don't support him, there's not much chance he'll get anywhere close to winning.

I voted for Ron Paul in the GOP primaries, I vote for Libertarian candidates locally and wherever I can. Even if every Libertarian voted for Johnson, he wouldn't win.

Of course, there's no chance he'll win if you do support him but why whine that you want a third party and then not actually support the candidate?

I never whine about anything. There already IS a 3rd Party, and a fourth and fifth party.

 

[dblack]

I'm still undecided, but if I do for Mitt Romney, it will be a vote against Obama, not FOR Romney.

Unfortunately, that's impossible. Regardless of your intent, your vote will be an endorsement of Romney - nothing more, nothing less.

 

[PredFan]

Excuses. I'll be voting Johnson, and I really don't care that he has no chance the win.

Good for you.

I think if you don't vote for who you think is the best person to be president-that that's the real way to waste your vote.

Think what you want to. I'm voting for the best person for POTUS that actually has a chance. My vote is certainly not going to be wasted.

If anybody's a "real" Libertarian-they'd vote for somebody who has Libertarian beliefs-and not Romney.

Piss off. I'm a real libertarian. Not some new pseudo-libertarian who wants to vote for the L.P. just because they think that they will make drugs legal. (They won't btw.)

 

[dblack]

All, they do is split the vote and get the guy you don't want winning.

That assumes you think one of them is better than the other, that there's any important difference between them. If the "guy you don't want winning" is both major party candidates, voting write-in or third party is the only responsible choice.

EVERY PRESIDENTIAL election where there has been a third party candidate, the very guy they DON'T WANT, wins!

This is nonsense. How can you presume to know who third-party voters "don't want"?

 

[PredFan]

Oh, but in our hearts, we are. But people like myself had to vote for the most conservative candidate we feel can beat Obama. That's it. The country is not ready for radical change, such as with a true Libertarian....Maybe in a few years, depending upon how well "hopeful" president-elect Mitt Romney does, with his cost cutting and job creating policies.

Excuses. I'll be voting Johnson, and I really don't care that he has no chance the win. I think if you don't vote for who you think is the best person to be president-that that's the real way to waste your vote. If anybody's a "real" Libertarian-they'd vote for somebody who has Libertarian beliefs-and not Romney.

Exactly. The 'tell' in my opinion is the focus on "conservative" rather than "libertarian". Real libertarianism isn't "conservative" - it's radically liberal.

Garbage.

You are referring to the fact that Classical liberals are nearly identical in beliefs to Libertarians. What you fail to understand is that real conservatives, that is, conservatives who understand the Constitution and what their beliefs actually mean, are the same as Libertarian and Classical Liberal.

 

[Oddball]

Think what you want to. I'm voting for the best person for POTUS that actually has a chance. My vote is certainly not going to be wasted.

I got tired of wasting my vote on (R) butt pipes who talk like libertarians before the election and govern like socialist democratics (like Chimpola) after taking office.

You want to play the evil of two lessers, then you'll get the evil you deserve.

Besides that, your one, single (1) vote isn't going to tip the election one way or another, so why sell out?

 

[konradv]

The rules would be simple. Set a qualifying standard, don't allow private contributions and give all qualifiers the same amount. Where's the room for corruption on the order of what we see with the present system? People will always try to finagle, but with this system the funding source would be out in the open and any additional funds collected from private sources would be hard to use, if all money used has to be reported.

And who sets the "qualifying standard"? You're just assuming that will be a simple call with no political shenanigans? Dream on...

Perzactly....Same old naïve collectivist authoritarian drivel.

All we have to do is turn the hen house over to the foxes and everything will be peace and love beads!

You're misinterpreting my thesis. We'd be turning the process over to the people. The foxes ALREADY control the hen house!

I don't see how it's anymore "peace and love beads" than libertarianism. It's been around a lot longer than my idea, but no country has ever installed a libertarian government. Why is that?!?!

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Oh, but in our hearts, we are. But people like myself had to vote for the most conservative candidate we feel can beat Obama. That's it. The country is not ready for radical change, such as with a true Libertarian....Maybe in a few years, depending upon how well "hopeful" president-elect Mitt Romney does, with his cost cutting and job creating policies.

Excuses. I'll be voting Johnson, and I really don't care that he has no chance the win. I think if you don't vote for who you think is the best person to be president-that that's the real way to waste your vote. If anybody's a "real" Libertarian-they'd vote for somebody who has Libertarian beliefs-and not Romney.

Exactly. The 'tell' in my opinion is the focus on "conservative" rather than "libertarian". Real libertarianism isn't "conservative" - it's radically liberal.

Exactly.

The lame excuse that

But people like myself had to vote for the most conservative candidate we feel can beat Obama.

is just that. Lame.

As is the "lesser of two evils" excuse. If you for the lesser of two evils, you still end up with evil.

Obviously, spineless rw's will go whatever way the wind is blowing rather than stand up for the beliefs they say they hold.

Are there any rw's here who will stand up for their true beliefs?

BTW, not too hard to see why we will never have a third party.

 

[Oddball]

And who sets the "qualifying standard"? You're just assuming that will be a simple call with no political shenanigans? Dream on...

Perzactly....Same old naïve collectivist authoritarian drivel.

All we have to do is turn the hen house over to the foxes and everything will be peace and love beads!

You're misinterpreting my thesis. We'd be turning the process over to the people. The foxes ALREADY control the hen house!

No, I'm not...It's the same old garbage spewed by every collectivist central controller scam artist since day one....Just hand everything over to the politicians and bureaucrats and everything will be just peachy.

I don't see how it's anymore "peace and love beads" than libertarianism.

Second-grader straw man argument, not worth the effort to rebut.

It's been around a lot longer than my idea, but no country has ever installed a libertarian government. Why is that?!?!

Um, yes it has...In America from its inception until the onset of the Progressive Era.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

The GObP/pubs want to create the very nation that the pilgrims fled and the rw's are helping them to do that.