So you wanna claim to be a Libertarian do ya?

[Dragon]

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.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

True, but terms have definitions. Otherwise they are useless. Anyone who supports Obamacare is not a libertarian, by definition.

 

[Full-Auto]

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.

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.

 

[Paulie]

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.

This is how I see it...

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.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

True, Paulie,. Especially since the GOP will have a much, much harder go at blatant cheating in the GE vs. the bang up job they have done so far (and will continue) cheating in the GOP primary/caucus.

To me, it doesn't matter who the republican nomination is, Romney, Santorum or Gingrich. They are all phonies, flip floppers and liars. None have submitted deficit reducing budget plans, none will address the monetary problems we have and they will not change the foreign policy.

At least with Obama, while he wrecks our economy, he's a bit more ***** footed on foreign policy and war. As in, he'll side step congress in favor of international "legal grouunds" for approval.

In other words, the entire 2012 election is a wash. More socialism or more coporatism as options do not gain me any favor from one candidate to the next. These economic policies and central business/government planning ideologies both suck, do not work and will wreck the country.

 

[Avatar4321]

nope. Not going to claim to be a libertarian. But then im not big on labelling myself.

 

[Dragon]

[
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.

 

[Paulie]

[
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.

Centralized control over the nation's healthcare is the antithesis of libertarian ideology.

 

[LibertyForAll]

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 ******* 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.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

This is how I see it...

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.

 

[Paulie]

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 ******* 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.

 

[Paulie]

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.

This is how I see it...

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.

You don't seem to get it.

Romney can't beat Obama. He isn't going to have enough support in the general.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

If they support government healthcare of any stripe, they aren't libertarians. Nothing could be more anti-libertarian than some massive healthcare bureaucracy. Obama is the exact opposite of a libertarian. Anyone who believes Obama is preferable to any Republican simply isn't a libertarian.

 

[bripat9643]

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 ******* 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.

That's exactly what communists have done with the Democrat Party.

 

[bripat9643]

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?

 

[LibertyForAll]

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 ******* 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.

I agree I was just calling for more of it. I am one of the many getting involved and I wanted to promote the idea. I will be caucusing on Saturday and adding my name to the slate of delegates.

 

[Paulie]

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?

Not if he's running in the LP.

But that's beside the point. Paul does better with independents than Romney does:

Does Romney Need a Sister Souljah Moment? - John Aloysius Farrell - NationalJournal.com

In 10 of the 14 Republican primary or caucus states, one or more of Romney’s 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.

In fact, EVERYONE does better with independents than Romney.

Santorum CERTAINLY can't beat Obama, I think you're crazy if you think he can. He would get beaten so bad it would make Guiness book.

The fact is it's going to be Romney v. Obama. And Romney is going to lose. He's not going to win the independents and he's not going to have the Paul vote which is make or break for the GOP.

If the mantra truly is anyone but Obama, then Paul is the best of the 4 candidates. He's the only one besides Romney that polls close to or beating Obama in head to head polls.

 

[dblack]

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?

Probably not. But I don't CARE if the Republican candidate can beat Obama. If all the Republicans can offer is to change the name of the corporatist/neo-con/statist asshat in the White House from Obama to Romney (or Gingrich or Santorum), then I'm not going to reward them with a vote.

 

[amrchaos]

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.

Are you saying that Santorum would?

As a Libertarian, you know that neither would!!

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

This is how I see it...

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.

A libertarian would understand that it doesn't matter either way. It's a false choice.