The Problem with Third Party Candidates

[Councilor Ed Coleman]

dburkhead, I was just messing with you. That is what the smiley face was for. We are good. I disagree with your 3rd party stance. Otherwise we are good.

 

[dburkhead]

So...even if I vote for someone who cherishes liberty & our constitution in YOUR primary, I'm throwing THAT vote away? WTF?

Did I say that one would always win? Nope. But

It sounds like you're saying if I didn't vote for the 'winning team' that I threw my vote away. If that's the case, then why the !@#$ even vote? You really did take the "us versus them" bait...hook, line, and sinker. I think you even got bits of the rod in there.

Try again. I'm saying that voting for someone who cannot win, even if that ensures that the worst candidate gets elected is unwise.

The other thing I'm saying is that if you can beat the individual in November you should also be able to beat them in May. And if who you'd like to put in can't win in May then maybe you might want to think more about who you want to keep out in November.

As I've said before, Ds or Rs...it typically doesn't matter. Neither, on the whole, has done much to safeguard my liberties. Instead, BOTH continue to steal my money while crapping upon my liberties. On the whole...

So if you're going to be mugged it doesn't matter whether someone hits you with a fist or with a tire iron right? Both want to harm you and take your money so there's no difference at all. A fist in the mouth or a tire iron upside the temple. All the same.

Or you could look up in the sky hoping for Superman or Batman to swoop down and save you so you can feel smug that you chose the superhero rather than chosing which mugger to deal with. Pity the superhero never showed up. And that tire iron? Well, you might have been able to stop it and go with lesser damage but at least you never compromised by holding out for a hero.

I'll be sure to check with you this November to see which of our candidates you've deemed to be "the favored horse" so I can start asking stupid questions like "what did is your candidate doing?"

.

To be fair the question should be "what have my favored candidates ever done." And I've already given some sample answers.

Always winning is a straw man. Accomplishing every goal is a straw man. But is it too much to expect these folk to have accomplished something on the national level if I'm to be asked to gamble on them?

 

[PatriotPride]

It's not about being on the winning team, it's that you have to win to advance your agenda. And worse (and I get that you don't think it's a worse, but I do) you will be helping elect the furthest agenda away from yours.

So, it IS about being on the winning team. Let's not play semantics here. So if I understand you correctly, we should compromise and choose not the politician/party who we agree with the most...but the one who we think has the greatest chance of winning. AND we'll justify our thinking by saying "at least the party we agree with LESS wasn't elected".

 

[dross]

Ask yourselves how your strategy will work if you are so marginalized that even people who share your libertarian principles won't go along with your strategy. You have reduced yourself to the fringes where you can be ignored. You are ideologically pure, bu you have no say in the process.

 

[mrjarrell]

If that's true then there is no hope. You win by getting out votes. I'm still waiting for anyone to offer a credible explanation how a Libertarian candidate can't get the votes in May to beat someone like Carlos May but expect to be able to get out the votes in November to beat May and Carson.

We've got lots of third-party supporters here. Can't someone explain that to me?

No-one's going to beat Carson. Libertarian or gop. You need to stop pulling him out. The gop runs losers against him so they don't rock the boat. As for May, we'll have to see who, if anyone the Marion County LP runs. That will be known after their convention, not the primaries.

 

[PatriotPride]

Ask yourselves how your strategy will work if you are so marginalized that even people who share your libertarian principles won't go along with your strategy. You have reduced yourself to the fringes where you can be ignored. You are ideologically pure, bu you have no say in the process.

So, as with all things political---in order to be in a position of any real influence, we must compromise our beliefs and ideals? To what end?

 

[mrjarrell]

It's not about being on the winning team, it's that you have to win to advance your agenda. And worse (and I get that you don't think it's a worse, but I do) you will be helping elect the furthest agenda away from yours.

The it would behoove your people to change their ways in order to garner our votes. Not the other way around.

 

[PatriotPride]

^^^^My thoughts exactly!

 

[dburkhead]

My comment about 1776 had nothing to do with how the war was fought and had everything to do with the opininions of the masses before the war began. Many thought that they could still talk and reason with the king. They believed war wasn't necessary and were more comfortable in chains then actually doing something about it. Our founders saw it differently. They believed the time for talk was over and liked the prospect of death better than the alternative of servitude to the king. By preaching about the ballot box, you are giving the same message as those who opposed the revolutionary war.

Am I a revolutionary war scholar? No. Am I a scholar in anything? No. Do I come on here to use $20 words to show off my intellect? No. This stupid backwoods hick understands freedom. What does freedom consist of? It can be summed up by property rights. My right to my labor, my thoughts, my income, etc. One of the single biggest reason I've given up on this country is the inability of the masses to understand basic economics. Most all of us understand the basic principles of balancing a checkbook. At the end of the day, the +'s have to be equal to or greater than the -'s. Yet many of these same people believe those principles apply to our government or businesses. They want every social program under the sun without ever giving a thought about who pays for it. They expect businesses to pay an ever increasing burden of taxes and somehow manage to sell their products for less. These people are voting me into slavery. Sorry I refuse to call these people fellow Americans.

You might remember that the Founding Fathers were not just folk who professed to "understand freedom" but where scholars with very extensive knowledge of history, classical writings and literature, philosophy, and so forth. And they went the course of revolution with great trepidation.

The problem is that as failed as our system is, it has done a better job than anything anyone else has ever tried. The problems with most of the "solutions" people propose have been tried and the results have been disaster.

Direct Democracy? Been done. Disaster.
Having civilization collapse? Been done. Disaster.
Armed insurrection/rebellion? Been done. Vast majority of the time, disaster. Tiannamen Square or William Wallace is far more common than Lexington and Concord. "The Terror" is a far more common result of even a "successful" revolution than is the Constitution. (Here's a question for you: do you consider America "freer" in, say, 1791 than in, say, 1775? Why, by what standard?)

I'm getting older. I'm going to continue to get older. At best, I can slow the physical decline of my body (while hoping for a medical breakthrough that might reverse/halt/or at least further slow the aging process). I don't like that. In fact, I think it really sucks. That doesn't mean that I'm going to try various "solutions" that have been tried in the past with quite harmful effects. (Example, in the beginning part of the 20th century "radium water" was a patent medicine of some repute. Yes, it really had radium in it and yes people really did die from radiation poisoning as a result. I don't think I'll try that particular "cure" for old age thank you very much.)

I don't have a good answer. That does not mean I'm going to jump on the societal version of "radium water."

 

[dburkhead]

No-one's going to beat Carson. Libertarian or gop. You need to stop pulling him out. The gop runs losers against him so they don't rock the boat. As for May, we'll have to see who, if anyone the Marion County LP runs. That will be known after their convention, not the primaries.

That's not the question: if that person, whatever person could not beat may in the primaries running as a Republican how could that person expect to beat him in the general election?

And you don't have to pick just Carson's district. That one was only by way of example.

If you could not beat the "front runner" Republican candidate in the Republican Primaries, how could you expect to beat that candidate in the General election? If you could beat the Republican front runner in the General election, could you not also beat him in the primaries and thereby be the official "republican" candidate?

If you can't get the votes in May, how can you get them in November? If you can get them in November, why can't you get them in May?

The question is about the dichotomy.

 

[dburkhead]

So, as with all things political---in order to be in a position of any real influence, we must compromise our beliefs and ideals? To what end?

Because otherwise is to yield the field entirely to the other side.

 

[Expat]

You might remember that the Founding Fathers were not just folk who professed to "understand freedom" but where scholars with very extensive knowledge of history, classical writings and literature, philosophy, and so forth. And they went the course of revolution with great trepidation.

I don't know about anyone else, but doesn't it seem remarkable that there was such an assemblage at one time to start this country. There have been very few if any men of such caliber that entered politics during my lifetime. I almost feel the hand of Providence must have been at play in the creation of this Republic (notice I tried to phrase it as inoffensively as possible).

 

[level.eleven]

The it would behoove your people to change their ways in order to garner our votes. Not the other way around.

The party machines won't allow that to happen. Just remember to send in those dollars.

 

[PatriotPride]

Because otherwise is to yield the field entirely to the other side.

Then sadly, we become little more than mirror-images of our opponents...with somewhat differing viewpoints. I suppose it IS highly improbable to have a candidate who supports the Constitution and the people of this nation and not the corporations etc, AND to have that candidate have any chance of being elected to a major position. Such is the decay of our country. Too much compromising IMO.

 

[hornadylnl]

Because otherwise is to yield the field entirely to the other side.

Either way, we are still in chains.

If you were alive during the revolution, would you have opposed it? Our founders knew what America could have descended into but they thought the risk was worth the chance of breaking the chains.

Patrick Henry Speech - Liberty or Death!

 

[PatriotPride]

Either way, we are still in chains.

If you were alive during the revolution, would you have opposed it? Our founders knew what America could have descended into but they thought the risk was worth the chance of breaking the chains.

Patrick Henry Speech - Liberty or Death!

This. Rep'd. The choice to force a change was an unpopular and risky one, but a necessary decision.

 

[mrjarrell]

That's not the question: if that person, whatever person could not beat may in the primaries running as a Republican how could that person expect to beat him in the general election?

And you don't have to pick just Carson's district. That one was only by way of example.

If you could not beat the "front runner" Republican candidate in the Republican Primaries, how could you expect to beat that candidate in the General election? If you could beat the Republican front runner in the General election, could you not also beat him in the primaries and thereby be the official "republican" candidate?

If you can't get the votes in May, how can you get them in November? If you can get them in November, why can't you get them in May?

The question is about the dichotomy.

Your question means nothing. The LP Marion county doesn't run against gop candidates, nor do they run in the primary in Marion county. They only have to beat him in the general election. You're dealing in fairy tales, not reality.

 

[PatriotPride]

Not to threadjack here---but I am going to watch The Patriot as soon as my shift is over.

 

[dburkhead]

Either way, we are still in chains.

One way the "chains" are bronze chains with big, old fashioned padlocks that we might be able to pick given time.

The other way, the chains are iron, wrapped three times around, and weighted with anchors as we're dropped off a ship over the Marianas trench.

If you're in such a hurry to take a swim, I won't stop you but please stop trying to drag me with you.

If you were alive during the revolution, would you have opposed it?

I identify quite strongly with Mel Gibson's character in The Patriot. Make of that what you will.

Our founders knew what America could have descended into but they thought the risk was worth the chance of breaking the chains.

Patrick Henry Speech - Liberty or Death!

Ah, yes, because we actually went to war about that time you pick someone who spoke stirringly of "liberty or death." Picking one speaker who happens to agree with your position is called cherry picking. Note the very first paragraph where he is pointing out that the preceding speaker had a position completely contrary to his. It is only in hindsight that one gets any sense of "inevitability" or "certainty" about the road to war at that time. And there, very clearly, was no certainty that they would win.

You might also want to consider that while Patrick Henry was saying "the war has already begun" Benjamin Franklin was busy in London trying to head it off.

Furthermore, the situation of the American Revolution is far different from what we face now. For one thing we have the example of the French Revolution to show how very badly things can go wrong even if you "win." And, in fact, the objections and driving forces of current discontent are far more akin to the French Revolution than to the American revolution.

Do you honestly have any idea what unleashing revolt and insurrection in the United States would mean? Wars in the late 18th century were remarkably sanitary affairs by comparison. The founding fathers, if they lost, were really only risking their own "lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor." Life for the rest of the people would pretty much go on as it had. They didn't have to think that if they failed that for each one of them who would hang hundreds to thousands of people not party to that decision would likewise suffer enormously. They did not have to think that they would be starting a war that would kill literally millions, a war wear the functional equivalents of Oklahoma City or the 9/11 would be regular occurrences and those would be the minor atrocities.

Without all that, and with Patrick Henry's admittedly excellent speech still ringing in their ears the vote in question was still a close thing. With all that, I'm not saying they would not still have gone to war, but they may well have spent a bit more time trying to avoid it first.

In much the same way when I had the birthmark (compound nevi, upper left abdomen) removed I knew it would be a little painful but not terribly so and so it was an easy decision to have it removed. The shoulder surgery, on the other hand, was going to be quite a bit more painful. And so, I spent more time trying physical therapy, cortisone shots, and the like to have it fixed before taking the step of surgery. In the end, none of those worked and I ended up having the shoulder surgery. When did I reach that decision? When I was facing more pain from the shoulder problem and the treatments that helped a bit but didn't solve the problem and that pain was enough to that the small but very real chance that I would die in the operation (a risk in any operation that involves general anesthetic) seemed like a worthwhile trade, then I had the operation.

Do you really think that things are bad enough that a civil war in which literally millions (almost certainly a minimum of seven million) will die and our infrastructure be so thoroughly destroyed that we not only can forget being a "superpower" but will be lucky to avoid "failed state"? Or a societal collapse (a la Galt's "stop the motor of the world") that will have much the same result?

And if it's not that bad, how can anyone justify working to make it that bad and expect to to be responsible for it becoming so?

I, at least, intend to at least try to prevent it from reaching that point.

You may identify with Patrick Henry while I identify with Benjamin Franklin, but note that it was Benjamin Franklin who charmed the French and convinced them to provide the support which led to the French fleet blocking resupply of Cornwallis allowing George Washington to force his surrender at Yorktown.

Patrick Henry may have been one of the ones who started the Revolutionary War but in a very real sense it was Benjamin Franklin--the one who worked for peace right up until the very opening of hostilities--who won it.

 

[turnandshoot4]

Well, under Bush we got some bad stuff. But it wasn't as bad as the "stimulus" bill, the nationalization of the financial industry, buying GM, and this healthcare bill. Bush helped to increase the deficit, Obama has managed to triple? quadruple? I'd have to look it up. Under Bush, we weren't talking about unilateral nuclear disarmament.

Under Bush, we got a broken arm. That's bad. Under Obama we've gotten lung cancer. That's worse.

Where were you for the underlined part? THAT WAS BUSH. He signed it.

Need proof? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cyDcSc27qWUhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOjK4HIomnE