# liberaltarian



## jim-henscheli (May 4, 2015)

Hey folks, as I prepare to relocate, to the southern command for winter, I remembered an issue I had last year, and wanted to bring up, but forgot. Its this, I encounter people who seem to be Libertarians, they want less State interferance, lower taxes, the right to keep and bare arms and the right to do what they want with there own bodies, as far as what they do recreationally... BUT they still VOTE liberal, they want open borders and welfare and obama care, the whole deal, al the while saying they DO NOT support higher taxes, even for the uber rich.
How do I approach these people? So far, frankly, I have treated them like confused, if not dim-whitted, children. But that limits greatly the extent of my relationship with them, and we agree on enough that, i want to socilize with them...but its hard when they are VOTING to crush our lives


----------



## Billy Roper (Oct 5, 2015)

So, they vote in direct opposition to their own stated values and principles? That particular kind of denial reeks of the breed of liberals that know who commits crime but won't admit it, who want laws to regulate others but not themselves, and who will make either passable breeding stock or stiff-necked thralls after the Zombie Apocalypse. Otherwise, hang out with them to find out where their caches are.


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

Billy Roper said:


> So, they vote in direct opposition to their own stated values and principles? That particular kind of denial reeks of the breed of liberals that know who commits crime but won't admit it, who want laws to regulate others but not themselves, and who will make either passable breeding stock or stiff-necked thralls after the Zombie Apocalypse. Otherwise, hang out with them to find out where their caches are.


What Billy said.


----------



## Camel923 (Aug 13, 2014)

I say they are not true libertarians. Welfare is not libertarian. You are enslaving others so you can be lazy by the force of law or a barrel of a gun. It is a socialist concept.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

I've never met such a person.
You've found an anomaly in humanity, an abomination I'd say.


----------



## dsdmmat (Nov 9, 2012)

I have never met a libertarian who voted for a liberal. I have met republicans who have voted for gun grabbing, anti freedom RINOs though.


----------



## RedLion (Sep 23, 2015)

jim-henscheli said:


> Hey folks, as I prepare to relocate, to the southern command for winter, I remembered an issue I had last year, and wanted to bring up, but forgot. Its this, I encounter people who seem to be Libertarians, they want less State interferance, lower taxes, the right to keep and bare arms and the right to do what they want with there own bodies, as far as what they do recreationally... BUT they still VOTE liberal, they want open borders and welfare and obama care, the whole deal, al the while saying they DO NOT support higher taxes, even for the uber rich.
> How do I approach these people? So far, frankly, I have treated them like confused, if not dim-whitted, children. But that limits greatly the extent of my relationship with them, and we agree on enough that, i want to socilize with them...but its hard when they are VOTING to crush our lives


They must be from the "have their cake and eat it too" fantasy club. Meaning, they want the feel good liberal emotional experience, but also the God given liberties outlined in the Consitution.


----------



## Suntzu (Sep 22, 2014)

dsdmmat said:


> I have never met a libertarian who voted for a liberal. I have met republicans who have voted for gun grabbing, anti freedom RINOs though.


Agree


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

jim-henscheli said:


> Hey folks, as I prepare to relocate, to the southern command for winter, I remembered an issue I had last year, and wanted to bring up, but forgot. Its this, I encounter people who seem to be Libertarians, they want less State interferance, lower taxes, the right to keep and bare arms and the right to do what they want with there own bodies, as far as what they do recreationally... BUT they still VOTE liberal, they want open borders and welfare and obama care, the whole deal, al the while saying they DO NOT support higher taxes, even for the uber rich.
> How do I approach these people? So far, frankly, I have treated them like confused, if not dim-whitted, children. But that limits greatly the extent of my relationship with them, and we agree on enough that, i want to socilize with them...but its hard when they are VOTING to crush our lives


It's simple. They feel their "right" to behave in manners long held in our society as immoral to be more important than true rights. Those are just a part of those who call themselves "Libertarian."


----------



## Gimble (Aug 14, 2015)

See if you can arrange a meeting between them and any of the welfare people they want to help.

I know of one welfare recipient that "cannot" work more than 20 hours a week or get a second job because he'll lose his benefits.

I know of another that has the latest iPhone, several pairs of fashion matched nike shoes and couldn't scratch a few bills together for the security deposit on his apartment. So worked very hard at making the payment. He made payment arrangements for installments... then searched out many organizations that will pay for his deposit... and his rent... and help with his electric.

That's right... I'm "that guy" that says that if you're on welfare, you shouldn't be smoking or talking on the latest $700 phone-toy. I'm so mean and cold hearted that I want these people to learn and grow and become what they want to become off the bootstraps of their own labor.


----------



## Gimble (Aug 14, 2015)

You know what... I take that back. Have him meet with those that serve small businesses and business owners in the area - the actual victims of this crime syndicate.

My accountant was the first to alert me to people that won't work more than 20 hours due to losing benefits.

Remember when obamacare first came out and people were against employers from reducing hours to 36 to avoid paying benefits? Where is the outcry for people that won't work more than 20?


----------



## Ripon (Dec 22, 2012)

Virginia 2014 Governors Race

The Libertarians' supported their candidate. A tea party Republican was defeated by BJ Clinton's former chief of staff by less than 1% of the vote. The Libertarian candidate got 4-5% I believe as they are strong in Virginia. There are a lot of reports of the Libertarian base there being liberal minded and not wanting the tea party conservative to win the election.



dsdmmat said:


> I have never met a libertarian who voted for a liberal. I have met republicans who have voted for gun grabbing, anti freedom RINOs though.


----------



## dsdmmat (Nov 9, 2012)

Ripon said:


> Virginia 2014 Governors Race
> 
> The Libertarians' supported their candidate. A tea party Republican was defeated by BJ Clinton's former chief of staff by less than 1% of the vote. The Libertarian candidate got 4-5% I believe as they are strong in Virginia. There are a lot of reports of the Libertarian base there being liberal minded and not wanting the tea party conservative to win the election.


So because they supported their candidate you are blaming them for the Republican loss? How many loyal republicans stayed home because the tea party candidate was on the republican line?


----------



## jim-henscheli (May 4, 2015)

Good stuff...sort of. What I really want to know though, is how do I explain to these people that the way they vote is not actually helping the poor bastards they claim to care about? I really do not think that they are idiots, just unknowing hippocrites. I think they really believe the liberal bullshitt, but cant see that the last twenty or so years of chaos in the u.s. are the result of liberal insanity, doing the same thing over and over aver, expecting differant results, as the real problem. NOT the conservatives, the conservatives who are the ones ACTUALY BELIVING in vague concepts like live and let live, i.e . Minding our own buissness.


----------



## dsdmmat (Nov 9, 2012)

H


jim-henscheli said:


> Good stuff...sort of. What I really want to know though, is how do I explain to these people that the way they vote is not actually helping the poor bastards they claim to care about? I really do not think that they are idiots, just unknowing hippocrites. I think they really believe the liberal bullshitt, but cant see that the last twenty or so years of chaos in the u.s. are the result of liberal insanity, doing the same thing over and over aver, expecting differant results, as the real problem. NOT the conservatives, the conservatives who are the ones ACTUALY BELIVING in vague concepts like live and let live, i.e . Minding our own buissness.


 The Republican Party in the last two presidential cycles McCain ( maverick = statist RINO) and Romney ( gun grabbing, socialist medicine model for Obamacare, RINO) before that they put up Bush Senior, Bob Dole and Bush junior, yet somehow the libertarians are guilty of hypocrisy? Both parties are different sides of the same corrupt coin. I think the people who vote liberatarian are the people are tired of the choice of Democrat or democrat light.

George Washington warned us if the political parties gained a hold of our political system they would destroy the country. I believe he was right.


----------



## Gimble (Aug 14, 2015)

Political parties are a by product of first past the post voting. Fix this and you've fixed the 2-party system. (Not nec. the corruption problem)






Re the VA governor race, it was the outgoing attorney general (R) vs terrible terry (D) for a very long time. The attorney general had a great platform (from a libertarian perspecitve) but was viewed as a little whacky in some of his personal beliefs... he was slated to win due to VA's strong conservative and libertarian base. Maybe a week or two before the vote took place, they announced a new candidate that had all the good parts of the AG and none of the bad parts, so people moved their votes to him. As a result terrible terry won the election.

Sound like what happen with Perot? Bush Sr. was one of the few sitting incumbents to not get re-elected as a result of Perot "stealing" away some of the votes that would have set Bush over the top.


----------



## jim-henscheli (May 4, 2015)

Dsdmmat, i did not mean All libertarians, just the questionable ones, about whom this thread was started...


----------



## Camel923 (Aug 13, 2014)

Gimble said:


> Political parties are a by product of first past the post voting. Fix this and you've fixed the 2-party system. (Not nec. the corruption problem)
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Interesting idea.


----------



## Ripon (Dec 22, 2012)

I nor you can prove that. I can prove 145,000 libertarians didn't vote R and terry mcalluef (sp) won by 50-60,000 and that is a fact which can be proven. So yes the libertarians voted their conscious and a liberal democrat is the result.



dsdmmat said:


> So because they supported their candidate you are blaming them for the Republican loss? How many loyal republicans stayed home because the tea party candidate was on the republican line?


----------



## dsdmmat (Nov 9, 2012)

Ripon said:


> I nor you can prove that. I can prove 145,000 libertarians didn't vote R and terry mcalluef (sp) won by 50-60,000 and that is a fact which can be proven. So yes the libertarians voted their conscious and a liberal democrat is the result.


So you are saying if they don't support one of the two parties it is their fault one of the two parties loses? Interesting, if they stayed home or voted democrat the results would have been the same right? When a voter shows up to the polls there is no certainty which lever they will pull. Convincing yourself that the libritarians lost the republican the election is living in a delusional world. The republican lost because he didn't get enough votes out or excite enough people willing to vote for him. The results show the republicans need to pick better candidates if they want to win elections.

In any case if you believe that people should only vote for the lesser of the two destructive forces you are part of the problem.


----------



## Gimble (Aug 14, 2015)

See my post about alternative voting. If you watched the VA gov election unfold, its pretty clear what happened.

If I told you that in the 2016 presidential election Trump would not get the R nomination, he would run I and it would be Paul (R) vs. Trump (I) vs. Hillary (D) you would see the election unfold like this:

People that want liberty vote for Paul 13%
People that want liberty but are easily swayed by media hype vote for Trump 14%
People that want socialism handed down by criminals vote for hillary 20%

hillary wins with 80% disapproval rating.

Yes I know those three numbers don't add up to 100%... not everybody votes, some write in candidates that will never win, etc, etc. But while you're adding up numbers take a look and see that less than "half" the vote was used to win the election and that then less than half of the half was all it took to win the election.

Aside from that, the fact is that (D) or (R) both sides are bought and paid for and run the same games while in office.

We've lost this war and need new battle tactics.


----------



## dsdmmat (Nov 9, 2012)

Gimble said:


> See my post about alternative voting. If you watched the VA gov election unfold, its pretty clear what happened.
> 
> If I told you that in the 2016 presidential election Trump would not get the R nomination, he would run I and it would be Paul (R) vs. Trump (I) vs. Hillary (D) you would see the election unfold like this:
> 
> ...


Unfortunately alternative voting is one of those things that is not going to happen until both parties lose enough elections due to 3 or more parties running candidates in every election cycle, where no one gets a majority. Only about 80% of Americans identify as R or D, that number is slowly decreasing due to the corruption in the political system. Neither of the 2 main parties care about their core voters because they are going to blindly vote (D) or (R), no matter if Hitler was running as a (R) Mao was running as a (D) and Regan was running as an (I). They cannot attract enough voters that are not wed or enslaved to the party, therefore they will continue to say third party people are wasting their vote or stealing their votes.

The republicans or democrats blaming a third party for their loss is like the used car salesman saying people who sell their car privately are stealing business from them, or Coca Cola blaming Budweiser for Pepsi taking over a large portion of their market share after they rolled out the New Coke formula. There is no 100% way to tell that the votes that went to a 3rd party were ever going to go for either of the undesirable big party candidates. I would submit if all of either the (R) or (D) voters would vote 3rd party once in a national election they jolt the party system to its core but, since people that vote strictly along party lines are just party zombies that will never happen and the corrupt system will continue.


----------



## Ripon (Dec 22, 2012)

Please read my post. I am speaking of ONE specific election. It has happened in more than one but it's not that common. In CA the libertarians can waste their votes all they want the Reoublicans are either RINOs or destined to get 30% of the vote. In the case I am pointing out the Libertarians gave the state a leftist governor when they could have helped elect a very conservative Republican that was far closer to their way of thinking.



dsdmmat said:


> So you are saying if they don't support one of the two parties it is their fault one of the two parties loses? Interesting, if they stayed home or voted democrat the results would have been the same right? When a voter shows up to the polls there is no certainty which lever they will pull. Convincing yourself that the libritarians lost the republican the election is living in a delusional world. The republican lost because he didn't get enough votes out or excite enough people willing to vote for him. The results show the republicans need to pick better candidates if they want to win elections.
> 
> In any case if you believe that people should only vote for the lesser of the two destructive forces you are part of the problem.


----------



## 1skrewsloose (Jun 3, 2013)

This reminds me of an email we all have received many times, If a liberal doesn't like meat, no one should be allowed to eat meat. If a liberal doesn't like guns, no one should be allowed to own one. You get the drift. They should crawl back under their rocks and leave the rest of us be.!!


----------



## dsdmmat (Nov 9, 2012)

Ripon said:


> Please read my post. I am speaking of ONE specific election. It has happened in more than one but it's not that common. In CA the libertarians can waste their votes all they want the Reoublicans are either RINOs or destined to get 30% of the vote. In the case I am pointing out the Libertarians gave the state a leftist governor when they could have helped elect a very conservative Republican that was far closer to their way of thinking.


In the same token if all the republicans voted Libertarian they would have had a Conservative Gov. It is the Republicans fault they lost that election, nobody else's.


----------



## dsdmmat (Nov 9, 2012)

1skrewsloose said:


> This reminds me of an email we all have received many times, If a liberal doesn't like meat, no one should be allowed to eat meat. If a liberal doesn't like guns, no one should be allowed to own one. You get the drift. They should crawl back under their rocks and leave the rest of us be.!!


 Liberal =/= Libertarian


----------



## Gimble (Aug 14, 2015)

dsdmmat said:


> ...where no one gets a majority...


No one has a majority now... the entire vote in my example only topped 47%... not a majority where I come from. Sure, terrible terry got 1 vote more... but not enough votes to show any confidence. That's another part of the problem... one that the alternative vote would fix. We are already in the no majority situation... and it doesn't matter... because both parties are bought and paid for by the same people.

In the case of the VA Gov election or the clinton, bush, perot election... its not that the R lost the vote because they just weren't as good as the D. terrible terry won because at the last moment a new, UNHEARD OF candidate was annouced out of nowhere, rigged the election and VA has a D in office. Ripon and I are talking about a different issue than you are.

I will agree that the candidates suck at running, providing a strong platform, motivating the people to vote. I'm right there with you on that front. But the VA election was lost for a completely different reason.


----------



## dsdmmat (Nov 9, 2012)

Gimble said:


> No one has a majority now... the entire vote in my example only topped 47%... not a majority where I come from. Sure, terrible terry got 1 vote more... but not enough votes to show any confidence. That's another part of the problem... one that the alternative vote would fix. We are already in the no majority situation... and it doesn't matter... because both parties are bought and paid for by the same people.
> 
> In the case of the VA Gov election or the clinton, bush, perot election... its not that the R lost the vote because they just weren't as good as the D. terrible terry won because at the last moment a new, UNHEARD OF candidate was annouced out of nowhere, rigged the election and VA has a D in office. Ripon and I are talking about a different issue than you are.
> 
> I will agree that the candidates suck at running, providing a strong platform, motivating the people to vote. I'm right there with you on that front. But the VA election was lost for a completely different reason.


I can see how the circumstances of the VA election supports your position about the election. However there is just as much of an argument to support that the voters for the 3rd party candidate would not have showed up to the polls to vote for the Republican, leaving the results the same. Nobody knows how many democrat voters also cast votes for the 3rd party. Voters are funny creatures, unless there is a true compelling reason to show up at the polls a lot won't bother and others will register republican (even tell you they vote republican) yet will vote democrat in the general election.

There have been several National elections in my congressional district that the third party candidate was seen as the spoiler (we have up to 6 parties on the ballot, a candidate can be listed on more than one party line), however the truth be told the Rep candidate would not have won the election if it was for dog catcher. Republicans out number Democrats in my district by 20% yet the Democrat candidate for congress won reelection 2 terms in a row and we only got a Republican congressman because the incumbent decided not to run.

I remember one election cycle (state assembly) where one of the republican candidates was forced out of the race (the party decided to put the other republican on the ticket) and she came out endorsing the Democrat candidate. She still ended up with about 1000 votes as a write in candidate and the Party line Republican still made out with the victory.

The last governors race in NY, some Republican gun owners kept saying if only all gun owns came out to vote we could have gotten rid of Cuomo. That mentality is definitely not the case either, gun owners do not /cannot be counted on to vote in blocks.

The only true thing that you can say about VA is the Republican lost, speculation about why he lost is just that, speculation, way too many variables in the equation to say for sure. What was the voter turnout % in that election?

Still all things considered I can see how you could put 2 and 2 together and come up with 4.

I like the idea of the alternate vote, I just think it is a pipe dream that will never come to fruition. I would also like to see the electoral college votes be divvied up by percentage of votes cast for each candidate instead of winner take all. I think there are two states that that do that but, it would make the system better if all the states would do that. Of course that leaves open the possibility of run off elections.

Edit: I see the voter turnout in VA was record breaking around 80%. That is pretty impressive turnout for the US.


----------



## Ripon (Dec 22, 2012)

You are in denial. You can't even acknowledge the failure of the libertarian party / movement in one state that is so blatantly obvious anyone can see it. Republicans are still a significant party with 33-40% of the electorate. Libertarians across the nation add up to 1.1% and in a few places like Virginia they have grown to 6.5% - which is the democrats wet dream made true thanks to Libertarians.

You see I could agree with you IF the Republican candidate had been a RINO, a moderate, or a big government guy. He was not. He was endorsed by each and every tea party Republican group there was and Republican turn out was normal not reduced as you tried to allude too in the first retort to this; the only reason he lost was because Libertarians chose their party line instead of an "R" and that enabled someone far to the left to win in a Republican state.

Pat yourself on the back you enabled a gun grabbing leftist in Virginia to win the governorship.



dsdmmat said:


> In the same token if all the republicans voted Libertarian they would have had a Conservative Gov. It is the Republicans fault they lost that election, nobody else's.


----------



## dsdmmat (Nov 9, 2012)

Ripon said:


> You are in denial...... Pat yourself on the back you enabled a gun grabbing leftist in Virginia to win the governorship.


I do not live in VA, I do not care how people in VA vote, nor would I pretend to tell people how they should vote. 
If my position of giving a flying crap less of how or why people vote for who they vote for is being an enabler I suppose your position would make you a statist?

The tyranny of the right looks just like the tyranny of the left.


----------



## Seneca (Nov 16, 2012)

Ripon said:


> You are in denial. You can't even acknowledge the failure of the libertarian party / movement in one state that is so blatantly obvious anyone can see it. Republicans are still a significant party with 33-40% of the electorate. Libertarians across the nation add up to 1.1% and in a few places like Virginia they have grown to 6.5% - which is the democrats wet dream made true thanks to Libertarians.
> 
> You see I could agree with you IF the Republican candidate had been a RINO, a moderate, or a big government guy. He was not. He was endorsed by each and every tea party Republican group there was and Republican turn out was normal not reduced as you tried to allude too in the first retort to this; the only reason he lost was because Libertarians chose their party line instead of an "R" and that enabled someone far to the left to win in a Republican state.
> 
> Pat yourself on the back you enabled a gun grabbing leftist in Virginia to win the governorship.


So it's the libertarians fault. Those pesky libertarians...they should have voted Republican. Shame on them


----------



## Ripon (Dec 22, 2012)

Seneca said:


> So it's the libertarians fault. Those pesky libertarians...they should have voted Republican. Shame on them


In this case. Look at the vote count. Had the libertarians voted for the conservative Republican an anti gun zealot would not be governor.


----------



## Ripon (Dec 22, 2012)

And thank you.

Now you see why you are 1.1% of the national equation. Enjoy being the irrelevant.



dsdmmat said:


> I do not live in VA, I do not care how people in VA vote, nor would I pretend to tell people how they should vote.
> If my position of giving a flying crap less of how or why people vote for who they vote for is being an enabler I suppose your position would make you a statist?
> 
> *The tyranny of the right looks just like the tyranny of the left.*


----------



## dsdmmat (Nov 9, 2012)

Ripon said:


> And thank you.
> 
> Now you see why you are 1.1% of the national equation. Enjoy being the irrelevant.


You assume a lot.


----------



## Ripon (Dec 22, 2012)

There are no assumptions in my post. My opinion of the facts as I see them. Libertarians that need to toss out "tyranny" will continue to enjoy a following of about 1.1% of the national vote - hey maybe if you try really hard you might get 1.2%.

Libertarian Party
0 - Presidents
0 - Senators
0 - Congressmen
0 - Governors

Ever wonder why? 1.1% might tell you something.



dsdmmat said:


> You assume a lot.


----------



## dsdmmat (Nov 9, 2012)

Ripon said:


> There are no assumptions in my post. My opinion of the facts as I see them. Libertarians that need to toss out "tyranny" will continue to enjoy a following of about 1.1% of the national vote - hey maybe if you try really hard you might get 1.2%.
> 
> Libertarian Party
> 0 - Presidents
> ...


You assume I am a libritarian. I have never made that claim, nor registered with that political affiliation. I have voted for 4 winners of presidential elections and 4 losing presidential candidates. I don't see anyone's choice of candidate other than my own any of my business. I find you have to put people in a box so it is easier for you to deal with them , have fun with that, just know you have me in the wrong box.


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

We have Obama thanks to so called libertarians and other 3rd parties and they will also deliver Hillary a win. They just refuse to admit they are liberals


----------



## Ripon (Dec 22, 2012)

Good because when it matters I hate seeing libertarians waste their vote....Like VA



dsdmmat said:


> You assume I am a libritarian. I have never made that claim, nor registered with that political affiliation. I have voted for 4 winners of presidential elections and 4 losing presidential candidates. I don't see anyone's choice of candidate other than my own any of my business. I find you have to put people in a box so it is easier for you to deal with them , have fun with that, just know you have me in the wrong box.


----------



## jim-henscheli (May 4, 2015)

-Vomits- folks, I....-vomits again- we nee-vomits get again- what is this? Either we want individual liberty or we dont. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness or...tyrrany and totalitarianism. Parties are a joke at this point, either those us who hold the constitution as sacred, rally around the best candidate, regardles of party, republican, democrat, libertatian, green party...whatever, OR we complain abour partisan politics, as we bend over and take it up ass.
The fact that we are arguing over party, and pragmatic choice of party, proves we lost our balls long ago. If we are not in agreement, 80 percent, on which candidates best uphold the ideals laid out by our founding fathers, then someone is way off, and we should just go back to the einstein blocks.


----------



## beach23bum (Jan 27, 2015)

I know I'm putting my self out there, but I'm a libertarian. I was a Republican when I was younger, but they haven't moved so far away from me, and have become to hypocritical for me to keep voting for them anymore. I will not even be a Derm, do to their stance on guns and the nanny state, but I almost feel the Republican party have they own form of Big Government too.


----------



## dsdmmat (Nov 9, 2012)

Ripon said:


> Good because when it matters I hate seeing libertarians waste their vote....Like VA


Where I live, the only votes that really matter are the local elections, everything else is pretty much predetermined by the rotten apple.

I don't see anyone's vote as a waste unless they stayed home. The less people participating the closer we get to tyranny. Every election has concequences, sometimes the only way to learn is to suffer for a few years.


----------



## dsdmmat (Nov 9, 2012)

beach23bum said:


> I know I'm putting my self out there, but I'm a libertarian. I was a Republican when I was younger, but they haven't moved so far away from me, and have become to hypocritical for me to keep voting for them anymore. I will not even be a Derm, do to their stance on guns and the nanny state, but I almost feel the Republican party have they own form of Big Government too.


Don't feel bad, The Republican Party has become as corrupt as the Democrat party. The Republican presidents of the past 30 years have given us, Amnesty for illegal aliens, the 1986 machine gun sale ban, the patriot act and a whole lot of other fiascos. They are not what they were 40 years ago. The candidates only say what they need to get elected/reelected. They no longer care about anything but political power. Neither party cares about the voters or the country.


----------



## jim-henscheli (May 4, 2015)

Beachbum, your english aside....... are you saying that you voted repuplican at one pount, but since that point, thr G.O.P. has taken a big ole' step to the left? Or you have moved right?


----------



## Seneca (Nov 16, 2012)

Ripon said:


> In this case. Look at the vote count. Had the libertarians voted for the conservative Republican an anti gun zealot would not be governor.


But Libertarians are not Republicans nor are they Democrats. Why should Libertarians side with one party or the other when it is clearly not in their interest to do so?


----------



## Ripon (Dec 22, 2012)

Which do they lean closer too? If libertarians want more govt control, more redistribution, and social engineering they can continue wasting their votes for themselves or try and change the party which more closely represents them.



Seneca said:


> But Libertarians are not Republicans nor are they Democrats. Why should Libertarians side with one party or the other when it is clearly not in their interest to do so?


----------



## dsdmmat (Nov 9, 2012)

Ripon said:


> Which do they lean closer too? If libertarians want more govt control, more redistribution, and social engineering they can continue wasting their votes for themselves or try and change the party which more closely represents them.


That is the lesser of two evils approach, which will never change the system as it sits. This is why a lot of people either sit at home or vote for mickey mouse. Many voters who sit out elections or vote for mickey see their actions as a protest vote. A person who wins with only 30 percent of the vote can never legitimately claim a mandate for anything.

The wasting a vote argument will and always has fallen of deaf ears. So will/does the argument of a vote for "x" is like two votes for "y." The people who are voting for an alternative to the current status quo are always going to be suspect of this type of argument and your only hope to bring them along to your way of thinking is to adapt the party to include their line of thinking. Any other approach will not work.

A choice between bad and worse is not a choice for people who are tired of or mistrust the two party system. People using two arguments listed above will only further alienate the people they are trying to convince. The parties will either adapt or die.

Just an observation.


----------



## A Watchman (Sep 14, 2015)

Ripon said:


> Which do they lean closer too? If libertarians want more govt control, more redistribution, and social engineering they can continue wasting their votes for themselves or try and change the party which more closely represents them.


Ripon, here is what I believe you are missing ........ at first glance your method appears to make sense, instead of potentially splitting the vote, but you are overlooking the predominate mistrust factor with the status quo in both parties by voters. This feeling is rampant and can not be tamed. Donald Trump is a result of such misalignment with either parties past and proposed agenda/solutions.


----------



## Seneca (Nov 16, 2012)

Ripon said:


> Which do they lean closer too? If libertarians want more govt control, more redistribution, and social engineering they can continue wasting their votes for themselves or try and change the party which more closely represents them.


I don't think they lean close to either party. Their take on government is it should be small and fiscally responsible with the peoples money. Their take on society is that people should be as free as possible and yet responsible for their own actions.

What doesn't make sense is the notion that for three years 364 days they can be libertarians with their own political party and candidates, but on election day be expected to vote Republican or Democrat.


----------



## Ripon (Dec 22, 2012)

Seneca said:


> I don't think they lean close to either party. Their take on government is it should be small and fiscally responsible with the peoples money. Their take on society is that people should be as free as possible and yet responsible for their own actions.
> 
> What doesn't make sense is the notion that for three years 364 days they can be libertarians with their own political party and candidates, but on election day be expected to vote Republican or Democrat.


I don't expect them too, but I'd like them too if they want to be relevant. Generally I know most are pro gun rights, most are for less government, and with the exception of so called "Christian Right Republicans" they tend to allign with tea party like Republicans. That is why VA's election so bugged me. (not too mention McCaulliff is such a lunatic fringe leftist). VA's Republican opposition was as close to their way of thinking as they'll ever find without being a Libertarian. Its spilt milk now but its also a blue print for the left to keep the right divided.


----------



## Ripon (Dec 22, 2012)

A Watchman said:


> Ripon, here is what I believe you are missing ........ at first glance your method appears to make sense, instead of potentially splitting the vote, but you are overlooking the predominate mistrust factor with the status quo in both parties by voters. This feeling is rampant and can not be tamed. Donald Trump is a result of such misalignment with either parties past and proposed agenda/solutions.


I hear you, understand and do not disagree. Though I will ask; is the Republican party to be fixed by the Libertarian party or by Republican members? If people leave and vote with 1 to 6.5% of the electorate they hurt the Republican's that have failed them, but they empower the democrats to do even worse.

This topic gets played out a lot. I heard a Libertarian note the Republican's did nothing to stop obama. Yet we don't have more federal gun control, we don't have a dream act in place, we don't have tax increases he's advocated for. These are small gains. They are however gains. They are often forgotten since they haven't happened. Had obama enjoyed a majority of congress / senate critters there is no telling what he might have gotten across.


----------

