• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Who won the Libertarian Primary?

johnny_rebson said:
People will no longer be worried about throwing their vote away if they vote third party in a runoff system where the top two would face off in the final contest.

I would also assume that some of the "third parties" would evolve over time to attract more voters.
Click to expand...
A real example, something which actually occurred. Pleases link to the real, actual historical example you're basing your 'assumption' on. What *data* is dyrecting your view here?

I'm sure a LOT of Republicans thought all the same teen-aged dreamy bull**** you're spouting off here, only to watch their 3rd party be absorbed into the fold once it took power.

So, prove it. Link to your data.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
A real example, something which actually occurred. Pleases link to the real, actual historical example you're basing your 'assumption' on. What *data* is dyrecting your view here?
Click to expand...

You'd have to look to European nations for an example of how runoff elections work.
 
johnny_rebson said:
How did you get from point A to point B?

Have you been smoking something that's currently illegal? Are you partying with Lucy in a sky filled with diamonds?
Click to expand...
New people come here and think they're original, when in truth everything they're about to say on this thread, has been said on other identical threads over the years already. Nothing is new under the sun. You're not unique. You're not original. You conform to a personality which expresses through predictable behavioral patterns.

This isn't the first time I've had this discussion, nore will be the last.
 
johnny_rebson said:
You'd have to look to European nations.....
Click to expand...
I will look to this thread and await your well written, structured and thought-out argument, complete with quotes of relevant portion from sources you have already viewed and have at the ready.
 
Jerry said:
This isn't the first time I've had this discussion, nore will be the last.
Click to expand...


You are probably right. Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. There will always be another Vietnam.
 
Thrilla said:
it's fine to oppose the Libertarian party... but at least be truthful about them while doing so.
the LP does not endorse total isolationism, nor do they endorse legalizing all hard drugs... those claims are false, Jerry.

Gary Johnson won the primary.. a very successful former New Mexico governor... he's a candidate worth checking out.


i'm often amazed as to why folks would actively seek to maintain a 2 party stranglehold on elections
just get it over with already... declare 3rd parties illegal and be done with it... stop with the pretenses.
Click to expand...

Why would anyone want to declare the Libertarian Party as illegal? They cannot even get a percent of the vote for President of the USA. As such, they do not even rise to the level of a simple pimple on the ass of the body politic.

Make them illegal!?!?!?! It would be like using an atomic bomb to kill a simple mosquito that is not even bothering anybody.
 
johnny_rebson said:
You are probably right. Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. There will always be another Vietnam.
Click to expand...
Beginning with this post, I'm ignoring everything you type until I see hyperlinks embedded in the texts and quote boxes containing your reference material.

You wanted my ear to hear your cause, and now you have it, but I filter out the static.
 
Jerry said:
I will look to this thread and await your well written, structured and thought-out argument, complete with quotes of relevant portion from sources you have already viewed and have at the ready.
Click to expand...

I don't belong to the Libertarian Party (or any other third party) so I'm not going to waste my time looking for links for you.

If you want to find more information put "France runoff election" in an internet search engine.

You can also look up "two round system" on Wikipedia.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
If loosertarians can do a better job, then instead of 'influencing which policies candidates address', they should get off their ass and actually take office like the Republicans did.
Click to expand...

Not all that easy when the two parties have to game the system in order to stay in power. Like purposeful gerrymandering of congressional districts in order to keep seats safe for their parties. Or disallowing third party candidates in the presidential debates by putting up prohibitive standards and then increasing them every time a third-party candidate meets the criteria.

So Libertarian candidates do, indeed, get off their ass, but the Republicans and Democrats always push the goalposts further.

Which doesn't really say much for the Republicans or Democrats...

Jerry said:
Until then, you're just armchair quarterbacking and nothing you have to say is of any consequence.
Click to expand...

"Armchair quarterbacking" denotes a reluctance to get into the game. Quite unfair when the Republicans and Democrats do everything they can to keep third parties from doing just that despite their enthusiasm.

Jerry said:
Aww you disagree with, what, the war or terror? Well, you aren't doing anything about it, you aren't trying to manage it any better, you can't even be bothered to win an election.
Click to expand...

No, libertarians have plenty of ideas to manage it better. Like ending drone strikes at terrorist suspects. Not even people who have been convicted of committing acts of terrorism - people merely suspected of terrorism. And ending support of dictatorial regimes in the Middle East such as in Saudi Arabia where their holy land is. And actually listening to the needs and concerns of people rather than dismiss them simply for being Muslim.

We could try that, and I'm sure it'll work better than, you know, try to kill everybody on Earth we don't like just so we can keep taking their stuff.
 
johnny_rebson said:
We can win the war on drugs, law enforcement just needs to adopt the techniques that were so successful during prohibition.
Click to expand...

You mean ending prohibition on these goods so legitimate businesses can provide them and can be regulated by the government rather than having criminal organizations be in control of it and profit from them?
 
haymarket said:
Why would anyone want to declare the Libertarian Party as illegal? They cannot even get a percent of the vote for President of the USA. As such, they do not even rise to the level of a simple pimple on the ass of the body politic.

Make them illegal!?!?!?! It would be like using an atomic bomb to kill a simple mosquito that is not even bothering anybody.
Click to expand...

that's true, it would be an overreaction.

it's easier to do as we do now... have the 2 major parties do what they can to exclude 3rd parties from the game.

I have faith that one day an alternative party will rise up and smash the game to bits.. it might not be the LP, but it'll happen.

for now, enjoy the monopoly you adore....and i'll enjoy voting against it.
 
Where does the Constitution give the Federal government the power to decide which drugs are OK, and which are not?

Is it the same place where it says that taking property without due process, keeping people in indefinite detention without trial and warrantless wiretaps are OK?
 
Dittohead not! said:
Where does the Constitution give the Federal government the power to decide which drugs are OK, and which are not?

Is it the same place where it says that taking property without due process, keeping people in indefinite detention without trial and warrantless wiretaps are OK?
Click to expand...

Well, to be fair, the federal government does have the power to prohibit the sale of recreational drugs under it power to regulate interstate commerce.

The thing is it shouldn't use this power to prohibit it but rather hand it over to the states, and help in the interstate enforcement of such laws for those states that don't want certain recreational drugs.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Given a choice between Tweedledee and Tweedledum, each a big government party in its own way, and a third party that actually advocates cutting back the federal bureaucracy, returning to Constitutional restrictions on the power of the federal government, and promoting individual liberty, of course the voters will opt for one of the twins. It must be because we like seeing the Bill of Rights trampled underfoot, we want the feds to have the power to take property without due process, lock people up without trial, kill anyone the president says needs to be killed, and listen in on private conversations without a warrant.

The war on drugs and the war on terror must be won, even if the war for liberty is lost in the process.
Click to expand...


I know you were kidding my friend but I think you hit the nail on the head. It is us, not those that represent what we want, that are to blame. I don't think it is a party issue, I think we are just not very socially evolved as people. I can hardly expect people to get the economy right when they ignore that the fouling of our own nest as the biggest problem the world faces.
 
Catawba said:
I know you were kidding my friend but I think you hit the nail on the head. It is us, not those that represent what we want, that are to blame. I don't think it is a party issue, I think we are just not very socially evolved as people. I can hardly expect people to get the economy right when they ignore that the fouling of our own nest as the biggest problem the world faces.
Click to expand...

I'm kidding when I say, "The war on drugs and the war on terror must be won, even if the war for liberty is lost in the process", yet it seems as if a significant portion of voters would take those words at face value and would agree with them.
 
Thrilla said:
Gary Johnson won the primary.. a very successful former New Mexico governor... he's a candidate worth checking out.
Click to expand...

I really like him too, I think he's a good candidate. Of course he's not really allowed to keep since he isn't part of the single main party, but his platform is solid I think.
 
I've read where Gary Johnson will be on the ballot in all 50 states. That is something a few of the Republican nominees couldn't manage. Does anyone know if all the past Libertarian candidates have been able to get on the ballot in all 50 states, or is this a new accomplishment for the Libertarian party?
 
Catawba said:
I've read where Gary Johnson will be on the ballot in all 50 states. That is something a few of the Republican nominees couldn't manage. Does anyone know if all the past Libertarian candidates have been able to get on the ballot in all 50 states, or is this a new accomplishment for the Libertarian party?
Click to expand...

Is not new. I think a lot of the candidates have been on all 50. Badnarik was, I liked that guy, but he was arrested trying to attend the Presidential Debates. Which I always kinda felt was anti-American, anti-Choice, and anti-Freedom.
 
Ikari said:
Is not new. I think a lot of the candidates have been on all 50. Badnarik was, I liked that guy, but he was arrested trying to attend the Presidential Debates. Which I always kinda felt was anti-American, anti-Choice, and anti-Freedom.
Click to expand...

Thanks, I was just curious.
 
Jerry said:
And "throw it away" you shall.
Click to expand...

I know full well what effect my vote will have. Gary Johnson will not be President. However, I have looked and looked, and I cannot see a substantial difference between Obama and Romney. It's not that I will never vote for a Republican or Democrat. Sometimes I actually like one of the two major candidates or think that one is substantially less bad than the other. In this particular election I cannot see one of the two terrible candidates as being substantially better than the other. I feel that no matter who I vote for, it will not help to change the country that much. Yes, for me voting third-party means throwing away my vote, but voting for a major candidate would constitute an even bigger waste of my vote. At least when I throw away my vote this November, I will be retaining my principles.
 
The Libertarians are failing by coming in as a third party. What is required is subterfuge. Running as Republicans on fiscal issues, and running as Democrats on social ones. Once we're inside, then we'll be free to guide either party in the right direction. The main issue I have with the Libertarian party is that they have allowed the very name of the party to become a caricature of what it actually represents. As Jerry above is pointing out, the Libertarians are seen as isolationists for example when that's totally untrue.

The Libertarians need a charismatic leader to step forward and bring a strong Libertarian message to the masses from within either of the two parties that now exist. Dr. Paul is a good start, but he's just not that dynamic.
 
Howler63 said:
The Libertarians are failing by coming in as a third party. What is required is subterfuge. Running as Republicans on fiscal issues, and running as Democrats on social ones. Once we're inside, then we'll be free to guide either party in the right direction. The main issue I have with the Libertarian party is that they have allowed the very name of the party to become a caricature of what it actually represents. As Jerry above is pointing out, the Libertarians are seen as isolationists for example when that's totally untrue.

The Libertarians need a charismatic leader to step forward and bring a strong Libertarian message to the masses from within either of the two parties that now exist. Dr. Paul is a good start, but he's just not that dynamic.
Click to expand...

How will you deal with the reality that US voters don't usually pick candidates with extreme positions, such as the Green Party positions or the Libertarian Party positions?

Yeah, a charismatic leader might help, but I think the message is a much bigger stumbling block for the Libertarian Party. If it were modified so as to make it less extreme, I bet it would have wider approval.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom