livendive 8 #51 January 22, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuotedespite my personal leanings i wont vote libertarian (in national elections, i always do i local) until they have a reasonable chance of winning.. it is unfortunate, but if you do not vote for one of the major players you are effectively giving up your say in who will lead the country for the next 4 years... In a strict sense, I agree - and I count "spoiler votes" in there as well - the "I can't stomach either of the main candidates, so I'm going to vote for 'x' guy". I still feel it's important for me to vote for the candidate that most closely matches my views, though. It's how everyone SHOULD be voting, IMO - fuck the party affiliation. Sooner or later, there will be a Libertarian candidate that will get enough votes to get on the ballot AS a Libertarian and not a 'stealth' candidate - I predict things are going to get REALLY interesting, then. well, that has happened several times before. The Libertarian party candidate DOES get on the ballot, but not many people voter for him/her. I think that's at least partially due to the disenfranchisement concern that Zenister related. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #52 January 22, 2007 I'm beginning to wonder: Would it really be ALL THAT BAD if our next President WAS a sock monkey?? Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #53 January 22, 2007 I think that since Kerry isn't running, you should put John Edwards in the poll. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #54 January 22, 2007 Quote Would it really be ALL THAT BAD if our next President WAS a sock monkey?? I don't know if it would be THAT bad, but it almost assuredly wouldn't be THIS bad. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #55 January 22, 2007 Last week I saw P.J. O'Rourke on C-Span2. He was talking about the absurdity of having a Libertarian candidate for President. The gist of it was "who the hell is going to vote for a person who's whole campaign is about all the benefits he's going to take away from the American public". Libertarianism - great ideology, but don't expect your guy to win any national elections. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #56 January 22, 2007 Quote "who the hell is going to vote for a person who's whole campaign is about all the benefits he's going to take away from the American public".. it's sad that so many think that ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #57 January 22, 2007 QuoteQuote "who the hell is going to vote for a person who's whole campaign is about all the benefits he's going to take away from the American public".. it's sad that so many think that Oops. I forgot to add: "and legalize pot" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,116 #58 January 22, 2007 >The gist of it was "who the hell is going to vote for a person who's > whole campaign is about all the benefits he's going to take away > from the American public". I think that misses the point slightly. If a libertarian candidate gets even 5% of the vote, and the vote is close (as it usually is) the losing party is going to say "holy cow, if we adopt X and Y platforms to woo the libertarians, we could win this thing next time." So you'd see libertarian principles adopted by both sides over time. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #59 January 22, 2007 QuoteThe gist of it was "who the hell is going to vote for a person who's whole campaign is about all the benefits he's going to take away from the American public". The people who pay for more of those benefits than they use? Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #60 January 22, 2007 Quote>So you'd see libertarian principles adopted by both sides over time. and absorbed, and then misplaced, and finally set completely aside and ignored - once the third party threat is gone and then the return to tax and borrow and spend, speND, SPEND, SPEND!!! ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,116 #61 January 22, 2007 >once the third party threat is gone and then the return to tax and >borrow and spend, speND, SPEND, SPEND!!! Probably. Of course exactly the same thing would happen to the libertarian party if it became a dominant power. "Our libertarian platform requires drastic cuts in spending! Except for this contributor, of course. We can't screw him. And we might need support from these states, so keep those military contracts. And we have to Support American Workers so we have to keep those farm and wal-mart subsidies. But other than that - drastic cuts!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #62 January 22, 2007 Quote>The gist of it was "who the hell is going to vote for a person who's > whole campaign is about all the benefits he's going to take away > from the American public". I think that misses the point slightly. If a libertarian candidate gets even 5% of the vote, and the vote is close (as it usually is) the losing party is going to say "holy cow, if we adopt X and Y platforms to woo the libertarians, we could win this thing next time." So you'd see libertarian principles adopted by both sides over time. At the same time, they run the risk of alienating their existing base. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #63 January 22, 2007 Quote>The gist of it was "who the hell is going to vote for a person who's > whole campaign is about all the benefits he's going to take away > from the American public". I think that misses the point slightly. If a libertarian candidate gets even 5% of the vote, and the vote is close (as it usually is) the losing party is going to say "holy cow, if we adopt X and Y platforms to woo the libertarians, we could win this thing next time." So you'd see libertarian principles adopted by both sides over time. What he said. I think some of the Libertarian platform is a bit whacked, but a decent percentage of the vote would encourage the DNC and GOP to take notice and perhaps adopt the less wacky parts (e.g. get completely out of marriage, and drugs, and abortion). And I think it's perfectly reasonable for the federal government to transfer some of the social welfare stuff to the states (as long as they relinquish the associated taxes for the states to collect as well). Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #64 January 22, 2007 QuoteQuote>So you'd see libertarian principles adopted by both sides over time. and absorbed, and then misplaced, and finally set completely aside and ignored - once the third party threat is gone and then the return to tax and borrow and spend, speND, SPEND, SPEND!!! In our last election, there was a Libertarian candidate on the ballot for some position in the "Parks and Recreation Department". Do you think they realized the irony? Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #65 January 22, 2007 Speaking of letting the two dominant parties know about voter discontent - how about adding a "none of the above" option for all Presidential and US Congress races. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jib 0 #66 January 22, 2007 I think McCain followed by John Edwards would have the best chance. But, McCain has screwed around with the right on some issues and may not easily get the nod from them. As far as the left, I think Obama would be a VP candidate but even with the housecleaning in Congress, I'm not sure that any of the above can get the moderate, mid-west swing votes for Pres. -------------------------------------------------- the depth of his depravity sickens me. -- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #67 January 22, 2007 QuoteSpeaking of letting the two dominant parties know about voter discontent - how about adding a "none of the above" option for all Presidential and US Congress races. That's what write-ins are for. I've run against my otherwise unopposed congressman in the last couple elections (and gotten double-digit votes! ). I also write-in friends who are better suited for some positions. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,116 #68 January 22, 2007 >At the same time, they run the risk of alienating their existing base. Right. But the more people vote for the libertarian, the less they will care. If they lose 10% of the more extreme part of their base, but pick up 15% of the libertarian vote, then it's worth it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #69 January 23, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuotedespite my personal leanings i wont vote libertarian (in national elections, i always do i local) until they have a reasonable chance of winning.. it is unfortunate, but if you do not vote for one of the major players you are effectively giving up your say in who will lead the country for the next 4 years... In a strict sense, I agree - and I count "spoiler votes" in there as well - the "I can't stomach either of the main candidates, so I'm going to vote for 'x' guy". I still feel it's important for me to vote for the candidate that most closely matches my views, though. It's how everyone SHOULD be voting, IMO - fuck the party affiliation. Sooner or later, there will be a Libertarian candidate that will get enough votes to get on the ballot AS a Libertarian and not a 'stealth' candidate - I predict things are going to get REALLY interesting, then. well, that has happened several times before. The Libertarian party candidate DOES get on the ballot, but not many people voter for him/her. There's been a few at state level... but I don't recall there ever being one at a Presidential level.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crwtom 0 #70 January 23, 2007 QuoteI think McCain McCain might be in a world of trouble. He was one of the very few to openly endores troop surges. The dangerous thing for him - he got them now. So if the surge goes south and many more body bags come home it will not only GWB's head in the noose but also McCain's. Cheers, T ******************************************************************* Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #71 January 23, 2007 QuoteQuotedespite my personal leanings i wont vote libertarian (in national elections, i always do i local) until they have a reasonable chance of winning.. it is unfortunate, but if you do not vote for one of the major players you are effectively giving up your say in who will lead the country for the next 4 years... Thinking like that certainly helps a lot. i chose to have my opinion count NOW in National Elections, in local elections i help the Libertarians make small gains that may eventually allow one to be elected. but the fact remains if you do not vote for one of the major players in any National election your vote has NO EFFECT on who runs the country for the next 4 years...____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #72 January 23, 2007 QuoteQuote it is unfortunate, but if you do not vote for one of the major players you are effectively giving up your say in who will lead the country for the next 4 years... Longer sight would say.... disagree completely.. the only way a Libertarian will EVER be elected is after one has proven them selfes (and proven the party's principles) at a LOCAL level. Real change rarely occurs from the top it starts at the bottom of the political process..____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #73 January 23, 2007 Quote>At the same time, they run the risk of alienating their existing base. Right. But the more people vote for the libertarian, the less they will care. If they lose 10% of the more extreme part of their base, but pick up 15% of the libertarian vote, then it's worth it. Considering registerd Dems and Repubs both outnumber registered Libertarians, something like 200 to 1, I doubt either party is interested in such a small piece of the pie, if it means losing some of their base. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites