Why do libertarians aid, and abet Obama?

[TakeAStepBack]

I see Rabbi showed up to bring up dope. We just need Corky and Rightwinger and we've got us the usual turd sandwich regarding any thread with libertarian in it. What's the big hard on you guys have over libertarians. Do they make you feel intellectually inferior? So you must come to every thread and rattle off the biggest bunch of nonsense you can muster?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

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.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

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!

Since when are republicans actually for any of those things? You mean the rhetoric they spew that never materializes into anything except the exact opposite?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

No, the Libertarian Party has been taken over by Republicans with sour grapes who have some kind of gripe against the Republican Party, for the most part. Bob Barr, Gary Johnson, etc...

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

Ok you saying that doesn't actually prove it. What percentage of Sarvis's vote would have gone to Cuccinelli had he not been in the race? I already provided a link stating that more of it would have gone to the Democrat, rather than the Republican.

Oops.

 

[Polk]

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.

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.

 

[lakeview]

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.

 

[Polk]

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.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

Those things certainly had an effect, but it's also largely because of Ron Paul and the fact that many libertarians refuse to play nice with the GOP. You see it played out on this board all the time. In the run up to the elections we're openly mocked and told how little we're needed the Rabbi's of the world, and then after they lose the election well if only we hadn't been such stubborn pot-heads we'd have a Republican politician in office who might throw us a bone here and there. So until Republicans understand that they need us, and therefore must come our way on some issues, we can continually hurt them by not voting for them. So it is essentially an electoral strategy. We're simply forgoing any perceived benefits of Republican office holders now, which I would say would be nonexistent anyways, for potentially bigger gains in the future.

 

[lakeview]

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.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

Yes, but they feel the need to attack libertarianism, whereas before they didn't. And I would argue that it's not necessarily because of Rand Paul, who did not come on the scene until 2010, whereas libertarianism started to become more popular in 2007-2008.

 

[Polk]

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.

How, exactly, do you feel the media has smeared Rand Paul for libertarianism?

As for the Tea Party, it was never a non-partisan movement except in some elemental stage when it had no supporters and was a calling card for Ron Paul supporters and the like. By the time it actually hit the scene in early 2009, it was just a megaphone for typical Republican policies.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

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!

Except that libertarians mean it and republicans just say those things to fool their constituents into voting for them.

If the first six years of Bush doesn't make that obvious, nothing will.

 

[asterism]

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.

That's the fault of the GOP and Cuccinelli, not the voters who didn't want him.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

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.

Had Obama and Clinton bundlers not sandbagged the race with a fake libertarian, Sarvis wouldn't have garnered 1%.

Other than existing, the LP had almost nothing to do with the result.

 

[Contumacious]

Libertarians, and conservatives are essentially one and the same.!

Really?

Libertarians support Freedom 100% across the board. No if, buts or however.


We don't want to stop you from using heroin, pot, cocaine, We support prostitution. We do not give a shit if Iran has nuclear energy . We don't want to invade any country, We want to be neutral. We do not give a shit if Canadians and Mexican cross the border "ilegally".

Live and Let Live.

So tell me again why "conservatives and Libertarians are essentially the same.

.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

Had Obama and Clinton bundlers not sandbagged the race with a fake libertarian, Sarvis wouldn't have garnered 1%.

Other than existing, the LP had almost nothing to do with the result.

Well, presumably, the LP had a hand in nominating him. It's just another example of why the Libertarian Party really has nothing to do with libertarianism in general.

 

[FA_Q2]

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 **** 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.

Yes it would. It would be holding onto ever increasing governmental policies that increased the size of government, decreased freedoms and overall were the exact opposite of libertarian ideals. That is what politicians do when you vote for them. They (and rightly so) think that their actions and platforms are what their constituents actually want. As long as we vote for someone that does not represent our interests we are not going to change policy. You seem to think that libertarians view the democrats as something worse than the current republican platforms. You could not be further from reality – the republicans are just as bad as they pass the patriot act, the bank bail outs, tax cuts for their corporate friends while hosing all others and outlawing anything that they don’t like. The exact same shit that the dems do just with different issues.

 

[FA_Q2]

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?

No it wouldn’t. Why don’t you point out what economic issues are the republicans aligned closer to the libertarians than the democrats? Actions btw, not slogans. Current politicians do NOT mirror their slogans anymore.

 

[FA_Q2]

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!

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:
Video - Obama: 'We're Fighting Inside the 40 Yard Line,' Stated at WSJ's CEO Council - WSJ.com

He said that there was very little difference in the republican and democrat parties. Something that we have been trying to tell the partisan hacks here for a LONG time. Obama just let that little secrete out of the bag. Almost every policy that Bush created, Obama continued. Then, we have to add these two shining gems to the pile of reasons that we should vote for ‘your’ party:

Don't bother, members of the libertarian party are probably too stupid to understand this.

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.

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 didn’t vote for him.

Which is it? Do you need us or don’t you because if you actually did then it is time to nut up and actually represent us. You are not getting that vote without it.