Libertarians and the GOP

[Dot Com]

most people outgrow thinking that libertarianism is a workable idea on a large scale.

 

[bripat9643]

The next national election is eons away in political time. Much like picking the winner of the 2014 Super Bowl and not knowing what injury(s) each team might encounter - predicting how a future election will go is nearly impossible.

True.

But one fact is known, if the GOP runs TPM candidates again, it will cost them the Senate in 2014, just as it did in 2010 and 2012.

A Senate populated with Republicans like John McCain and Lindsey Graham is effectively under Democrat control anyway, so we've got nothing to lose by replacing them.

Lindsey Graham should be on the top of every true conservative's list of Senators to be primaried.

 

[bripat9643]

most people outgrow thinking that libertarianism is a workable idea on a large scale.

You mean most dolts and morons. How can 20% of the Republican Party be composed of libertarians if your claim was true?

 

[rightwinger]

The next national election is eons away in political time. Much like picking the winner of the 2014 Super Bowl and not knowing what injury(s) each team might encounter - predicting how a future election will go is nearly impossible.

True.

But one fact is known, if the GOP runs TPM candidates again, it will cost them the Senate in 2014, just as it did in 2010 and 2012.

A Senate populated with Republicans like John McCain and Lindsey Graham is effectively under Democrat control anyway, so we've got nothing to lose by replacing them.

Lindsey Graham should be on the top of every true conservative's list of Senators to be primaried.

Ted Cruz

 

[bripat9643]

Is kaz being deliberately obtuse?

Libertarianism is an amorphous concept that is defined in many different ways.

It won't work, and we in the mainstream GOP are in no danger of a libert take over.

There isn't the slightest thing "amorphous" about it. The fact that you believe that only shows, once again, that you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

 

[bripat9643]

True.

But one fact is known, if the GOP runs TPM candidates again, it will cost them the Senate in 2014, just as it did in 2010 and 2012.

A Senate populated with Republicans like John McCain and Lindsey Graham is effectively under Democrat control anyway, so we've got nothing to lose by replacing them.

Lindsey Graham should be on the top of every true conservative's list of Senators to be primaried.

Ted Cruz

If the purpose of eliminating sitting Republicans was to help the Democrats, then Ted Cruz would be on top of the list.

 

[bripat9643]

Everyone has parents who can help get them into college
Everyone has an uncle who helps them get that first job
Everyone lives in a community where great paying jobs are abundant

I just re-read this part. What a pack of pathetic excuses for being a failure in life. Seriously, you think that getting good jobs should have been easy? That you only get one if they are abundant or you get one from your uncle? That's how you copped out and alibied being a loser who doesn't try?

I paid my own way through college and two masters degrees, but then I'm not a whining loser looking for excuses for being a failure in life like you are. These may be the lamest excuses for sucking at life in the greatest economic power in the history of mankind that I've ever read. And superlatives are not my thing.

But I get it. You will not and can not take care of yourself. You don't have skill, intelligence or a sense of personal responsibility. There are people we just have to take care of so they don't starve. You are now recognized as such.

Spoken like a true Libertarian

As with most things, they have this vision of....I did it all on my own
Your parents did not help you, your community did not help you and god forbid....The Gubmint did not help you

That is why I keep calling you a moron

In other words, you know you're a loser who can't make it without someone paving the way for you.

 

[bripat9643]

An interesting article from the Brookings Institute that includes this:

First, according to the PRRI poll, libertarians represent only 12% of the Republican Party. This number is consistent with the findings of other studies by the Pew Research Center and the American National Election Study. This libertarian constituency is dwarfed by other key Republican groups, including white evangelicals (37%) and those who identify with the Tea Party (20%).

Is the GOP going to be so split that they will cede elections to Dems?

Read the article @ The Libertarian Challenge within the GOP | Brookings Institution

IF they had shame they would immediately seperate from Boehner's House. You see the new book written by a Repub documenting Boehner's wining & dining while tabling the people's business? http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...ewers-establ-repubs-especially-boehner-r.html

What does it mean to "split from Boehner's House?"

 

[emilynghiem]

An interesting article from the Brookings Institute that includes this:

First, according to the PRRI poll, libertarians represent only 12% of the Republican Party. This number is consistent with the findings of other studies by the Pew Research Center and the American National Election Study. This libertarian constituency is dwarfed by other key Republican groups, including white evangelicals (37%) and those who identify with the Tea Party (20%).

Is the GOP going to be so split that they will cede elections to Dems?

Read the article @ The Libertarian Challenge within the GOP | Brookings Institution

That horse is out of the barn already. The Democrats are monolithic, the only way to oppose them is support the Republicans, and the Republicans as you pointed out are too split to effectively agree on anything.

Third parties only work when no one party has control of a majority. The Democrats being a majority and having zero diversity of thought are no longer beatable whether the rest of us join together or not.

Dear Kaz:
What if dissenting members of the GOP and all these third parties unite together in demanding equal credits and exemptions for investing in other alternatives besides insurance, claiming equal Constitutional representation and inclusion?

So what if the groups are different and do not agree on "the same" alternatives, but just agree there should be FREE CHOICE left to the people or states as opposed to ACA?

For example, the people who want single payer health care DO NOT support ACA and the insurance mandates inserting corporate interests into the equation.

Why not have reps from ALL the groups opposed to ACA agree to set up networks where people can sign up for the programs of their choice -- instead of choices limited by ACA?

 

[Dot Com]

most people outgrow thinking that libertarianism is a workable idea on a large scale.

You mean most dolts and morons. How can 20% of the Republican Party be composed of libertarians if your claim was true?

and lose the Senate & the Presidency hence, my point son.

 

[bripat9643]

most people outgrow thinking that libertarianism is a workable idea on a large scale.

You mean most dolts and morons. How can 20% of the Republican Party be composed of libertarians if your claim was true?

and lose the Senate & the Presidency hence, my point son.

Was that supposed to be a retort to my post?

There's no point in winning the Senate or the Presidency just so we can pass more libturd policies.

 

[bripat9643]

An interesting article from the Brookings Institute that includes this:


Is the GOP going to be so split that they will cede elections to Dems?

Read the article @ The Libertarian Challenge within the GOP | Brookings Institution

That horse is out of the barn already. The Democrats are monolithic, the only way to oppose them is support the Republicans, and the Republicans as you pointed out are too split to effectively agree on anything.

Third parties only work when no one party has control of a majority. The Democrats being a majority and having zero diversity of thought are no longer beatable whether the rest of us join together or not.

Dear Kaz:
What if dissenting members of the GOP and all these third parties unite together in demanding equal credits and exemptions for investing in other alternatives besides insurance, claiming equal Constitutional representation and inclusion?

So what if the groups are different and do not agree on "the same" alternatives, but just agree there should be FREE CHOICE left to the people or states as opposed to ACA?

For example, the people who want single payer health care DO NOT support ACA and the insurance mandates inserting corporate interests into the equation.

Why not have reps from ALL the groups opposed to ACA agree to set up networks where people can sign up for the programs of their choice -- instead of choices limited by ACA?

Simple: just repeal the ACA. Also repeal the law that allows states to exclude out-of-state carriers from doing business in the state.

 

[Dot Com]

bripat solved healthcare in 2 seconds

Why libertarians allow themselves to be led around by the nose by Establ Repubs is beyond me. Oh yeah, both wouldn't be able to win national elections w/o their awkward alliance. Same goes for the SOCONs

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

bripat solved healthcare in 2 seconds

Why libertarians allow themselves to be led around by the nose by Establ Repubs is beyond me. Oh yeah, both wouldn't be able to win national elections w/o their awkward alliance. Same goes for the SOCONs

Can you give us an example of this?

 

[Dot Com]

bripat says 20% of Repubs are libertarians. Take those out, if they had any self respect they'd disassociate themselves from Repubs, and both would be permanent minority parties. Take the SOCONs out and the same result.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

bripat says 20% of Repubs are libertarians. Take those out, if they had any self respect they'd disassociate themselves from Repubs, and both would be permanent minority parties. Take the SOCONs out and the same result.

Does that mean they're being "led around by the nose" or that there's some kind of alliance? Judging from the 2012 primary and election I'd say both of those claims are false.

 

[kaz]

Everyone has parents who can help get them into college
Everyone has an uncle who helps them get that first job
Everyone lives in a community where great paying jobs are abundant

I just re-read this part. What a pack of pathetic excuses for being a failure in life. Seriously, you think that getting good jobs should have been easy? That you only get one if they are abundant or you get one from your uncle? That's how you copped out and alibied being a loser who doesn't try?

I paid my own way through college and two masters degrees, but then I'm not a whining loser looking for excuses for being a failure in life like you are. These may be the lamest excuses for sucking at life in the greatest economic power in the history of mankind that I've ever read. And superlatives are not my thing.

But I get it. You will not and can not take care of yourself. You don't have skill, intelligence or a sense of personal responsibility. There are people we just have to take care of so they don't starve. You are now recognized as such.

Spoken like a true Libertarian

As with most things, they have this vision of....I did it all on my own
Your parents did not help you, your community did not help you and god forbid....The Gubmint did not help you

That is why I keep calling you a moron

Your logic is that all you have to defend is that if government can do one thing, then it can do anything. If I claim to have taken responsibility for my own life, then I am saying no one helped me at all in any way. And no, government does nothing for me. They just suck me dry. And you're pathetic making excuses for being a failure in this country. You have to be a serious loser to not be able to make it here.

That's why you ARE a moron.

 

[kaz]

An interesting article from the Brookings Institute that includes this:


Is the GOP going to be so split that they will cede elections to Dems?

Read the article @ The Libertarian Challenge within the GOP | Brookings Institution

That horse is out of the barn already. The Democrats are monolithic, the only way to oppose them is support the Republicans, and the Republicans as you pointed out are too split to effectively agree on anything.

Third parties only work when no one party has control of a majority. The Democrats being a majority and having zero diversity of thought are no longer beatable whether the rest of us join together or not.

Dear Kaz:
What if dissenting members of the GOP and all these third parties unite together in demanding equal credits and exemptions for investing in other alternatives besides insurance, claiming equal Constitutional representation and inclusion?

So what if the groups are different and do not agree on "the same" alternatives, but just agree there should be FREE CHOICE left to the people or states as opposed to ACA?

For example, the people who want single payer health care DO NOT support ACA and the insurance mandates inserting corporate interests into the equation.

Why not have reps from ALL the groups opposed to ACA agree to set up networks where people can sign up for the programs of their choice -- instead of choices limited by ACA?

I don't see how having two networks of restricted choice is better than one. We just need to repeal the ACA. Though that won't happen because the Left is a Juggernaut driving us towards socialism. The GOP actually controlled the house, and they were just road kill to the left. It's not going to happen.

 

[rightwinger]

I just re-read this part. What a pack of pathetic excuses for being a failure in life. Seriously, you think that getting good jobs should have been easy? That you only get one if they are abundant or you get one from your uncle? That's how you copped out and alibied being a loser who doesn't try?

I paid my own way through college and two masters degrees, but then I'm not a whining loser looking for excuses for being a failure in life like you are. These may be the lamest excuses for sucking at life in the greatest economic power in the history of mankind that I've ever read. And superlatives are not my thing.

But I get it. You will not and can not take care of yourself. You don't have skill, intelligence or a sense of personal responsibility. There are people we just have to take care of so they don't starve. You are now recognized as such.

Spoken like a true Libertarian

As with most things, they have this vision of....I did it all on my own
Your parents did not help you, your community did not help you and god forbid....The Gubmint did not help you

That is why I keep calling you a moron

Your logic is that all you have to defend is that if government can do one thing, then it can do anything. If I claim to have taken responsibility for my own life, then I am saying no one helped me at all in any way. And no, government does nothing for me. They just suck me dry. And you're pathetic making excuses for being a failure in this country. You have to be a serious loser to not be able to make it here.

That's why you ARE a moron.

There you have it

Life in a Libertarian world. Nobody ever helped me. No parent, no teacher, no school, not a penny of government support

I did it ALL myself

That is why I keep calling you a moron

 

[Dot Com]

bripat says 20% of Repubs are libertarians. Take those out, if they had any self respect they'd disassociate themselves from Repubs, and both would be permanent minority parties. Take the SOCONs out and the same result.

Does that mean they're being "led around by the nose" or that there's some kind of alliance? Judging from the 2012 primary and election I'd say both of those claims are false.

last I checked, The Speaker isn't a libertarian, far from it. He's a corporatist. BTW- what % of those primary/elections were won by libertarians?