The Problem with Third Party Candidates

[turnandshoot4]

Well, let's see. Mine has allowed the '94 AWB to sunset, That didn't even make it to his desk. So something can be said for a DEMOCRATIC house and senate PREVENTING it from coming to his desk. has prevented AWB II See earlier post from being passed, has stopped civil suits against gun manufacturers for criminal misuse of guns That would never pass. If it did, than alchohol companies could be sued, car companies, so on and so fourth for criminal use of their own products, has nominated and confirmed justices that confirmed RKBA as an individual right, and so on.

What legislation have Libertarian candidates gotten passed or were instrumental in stopping again?

 

[dross]

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

Really? Why did Obama allow him to sign a bill that was passed after he left office? Never heard of such a thing. And for GM, it was done as an executive branch funtion also after Bush left office. Did Obama appoint Bush to something I didn't hear about? Edumacate me, please.

 

[hornadylnl]

If we were to ever have a continental congress, my first question for those proposing revolution is what is there plan to deal with the socialist once it is over. I think one of the biggest failures of the revolution was not putting all those loyal to the crown on a ship back to England.

If there were a revolution today and our constitution restored, what good would it do to leave the socialists here to vote for the next Obama in the next election?

No, I'm not proposing genocide to those on the left. I'm proposing expulsion. Just who do you think will commit genocide if we had a war?

 

[CarmelHP]

Yes, the Libertarian Party is ideologically pure and all about not doing the same thing again so they offered the retread Republican apostate Bob Barr as a presidential candidate. (who, apparently, everyone didn't like, but he got the nomination anyway for some reason, and who, although our stalwart LPers would never vote for "traitors" who voted for the PATRIOT Act voted for Barr, who voted for the PATRIOT Act, following so far?)

And the Founding Fathers would never considered compromise, prefering death to compromise, so that's why those anti-royalist republicans allied with the absolute monarch King Louis XVI.

I love how our resident LPers can recast facts and history to fit their cherished delusions. And, remember boys and girls, if you decline to share the delusion, you're close-minded.

 

[hornadylnl]

Yes, the Libertarian Party is ideologically pure and all about not doing the same thing again so they offered the retread Republican apostate Bob Barr as a presidential candidate. (who, apparently, everyone didn't like, but he got the nomination anyway for some reason, and who, although our stalwart LPers would never vote for "traitors" who voted for the PATRIOT Act voted for Barr, who voted for the PATRIOT Act, following so far?)

And the Founding Fathers would never considered compromise, prefering death to compromise, so that's why those anti-royalist republicans allied with the absolute monarch King Louis XVI.

I love how our resident LPers can recast facts and history to fit their cherished delusions. And, remember boys and girls, if you decline to share the delusion, you're close-minded.

what's funny is that you somehow believe that your failed solution is any better than the solution of the LP'ers. How has voting for rinos been working out for you?

 

[CarmelHP]

Originally Posted by dburkhead
Well, let's see. Mine has allowed the '94 AWB to sunset, That didn't even make it to his desk. So something can be said for a DEMOCRATIC house and senate PREVENTING it from coming to his desk. has prevented AWB II See earlier post from being passed, has stopped civil suits against gun manufacturers for criminal misuse of guns That would never pass. If it did, than alchohol companies could be sued, car companies, so on and so fourth for criminal use of their own products, has nominated and confirmed justices that confirmed RKBA as an individual right, and so on.

What legislation have Libertarian candidates gotten passed or were instrumental in stopping again?

See, facts and history are malleable to them. The House and Senate in 2004, when the AWB sunsetted was Republican, but they'll claim it was Democrat to advance their agenda. Gun manufacturers were being bled dry by lawsuits until the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act of 2005 stopped it, but the LPers will claim such lawsuits never happened to advance their agenda. Incredible.

 

[CarmelHP]

what's funny is that you somehow believe that your failed solution is any better than the solution of the LP'ers. How has voting for rinos been working out for you?

Bob Barr, so slapping a new label on a bag of crap made it taste good to you? Great, glad to hear it.

 

[dburkhead]

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.

Nice dodge.

If a person who has a "libertarian" platform ran in the GOP primary could that person get enough votes to win the nomination?

If yes, then what possible benefit would there be to that person to running under "Libertarian" instead?

If no, then how could that person possibly expect to get enough votes to win the general election as a Libertarian against (at the least) the same person against whom they would have lost in the primary?

It really comes down to a pretty simple question: what advantage is there really for someone to run with an "L" after his or her name rather than an "R"?

Let me be a little more concrete. If I were to run in some future election, my positions are mostly pretty libertarian (my objection here is not against the platform of Libertarians, just the tactics of trying to get candidates with those views into federal office in enough numbers to make a difference), why might I want to pick "Libertarian" rather than "Republican"?

If I ran Republican, I'd have to win the primary against whatever other candidates were vying for the Republican nomination. If I ran Libertarian, I wouldn't have to do that in the primaries since, of course, I wouldn't be in the Republican primary. I would however, have to beat the Republican Front runner in the general election. So whoever my strongest competition for the seat would have been in the Republican primary, were I to run Republican, would still be there come the general election.

So we have a couple of possibilities. I could run Republican and either when or lose against Nehemiah Scudder (hypothetical other candidate for the Republican nomination). If I can beat Scudder, all well and good. I've got the Repubican nomination. I've got all the votes of folk that are going to vote "R" no matter whose name is attached to it (and, much as you or I might wish otherwise, those people do exist). I've got a shot at the votes of folk who are going to vote for someone from one or the other "major party", third parties need not apply (again, they do exist). And I've got a shot at all those people who aren't tied to party and look at individual candidates. The only people I definitely lose are the folk who absolutely won't vote for a Republican no matter what.

Now, suppose instead that I can't beat Scudder and figure this out before declaring my candidacy so I go instead Libertarian. How does that help me? Scudder, the guy I couldn't beat in the primary is still there and he's the one who has all the "vote republican no matter what" and the chance at "major party only" voters that I would not have in this scenario. The only people I pick up are the "I won't vote Republican or Democrat no matter what" and can anyone point to any evidence that those numbers outweigh what Scudder picks up just because he has the "R".

So me, as a potential candidate who believes in Freedom, in rolling back "gun control", taxes, the welfare state, and so forth, in actually amending the Constitution properly if one wants to do things like have some limited national parks/forests (arguments can be made both ways there--but if one is going to do it then do it right rather than just assuming power that is nowhere in the Constitution), would be the same whichever party I'd run under. But I see very little reason why I would want to run under "L" rather than "R".

Consider. If you like Ron Paul, where has he been most effective: as a successful Republican Congressman from Texas or as a failed Libertarian presidential candidate? Or Bob Barr. Successful Republican Representative from Georgia or failed Libertarian presidential candidate? Such influence that they had in Washington was with an "R" after their name not an "L". R or L it's still the same Ron Paul. It's still the same Bob Barr. I haven't noticed that their policies significantly changed with the change from "R" to "L" (and back again in the case of Ron Paul).

So candidates can be Libertarian all they want. In fact, I encourage it. That's my own inclination for the most part (with the caveat that one has to live in and function in a world that doesn't always--or often for that matter--live up to my ideals). I just think that they would be more successful running against their Republican opponents in Republican primaries where they have as much chance of getting Republican votes as anyone else than in the General elections where a significant number of Republican votes are lost to them simply because they don't have the "R" after their name.

Ideal solution? No. But I've long since come to the conclusion that chasing ideal solutions is to be chasing the will of the wisp of legend--it leads you into the swamp and leaves you trapped in quagmire to die.

 

[dburkhead]

Please remember, "my side" is not any one politician but

Originally Posted by dburkhead
Well, let's see. Mine has allowed the '94 AWB to sunset, That didn't even make it to his desk. So something can be said for a DEMOCRATIC house and senate PREVENTING it from coming to his desk.

With a large number of Republican votes in it. Had Republicans supported renewal in the same proportions as Democrats it would would have come to pass.

has prevented AWB II See earlier post

Again, Republican willingness (overall, individual results may vary) to oppose it prevented the democrats from getting enough votes to pass it.

from being passed, has stopped civil suits against gun manufacturers for criminal misuse of guns That would never pass. If it did, than alchohol companies could be sued, car companies, so on and so fourth for criminal use of their own products,

Exactly backwards. It didn't have to pass to let the suits proceed. The suits were going forward. The House and Senate--with a lot of Republican votes (and rather fewer democrat votes) passed a law to prevent such suits explicitly for firearms manufacturers. They didn't have to pass a law prohibiting such suits for other things because nobody was filing suits for those other things.

has nominated and confirmed justices that confirmed RKBA as an individual right, and so on.

On this one: How do you think Sotomayer would have voted on Heller? (In the not too distant future we'll get a glimpse of that when we see how she votes on McDonald v. Chicago.) How did Bush's nominees vote? How did Clinton's? Of the Five that voted for Heller, all five were nominated by Republicans. Of the four that voted against, two were Bill Clinton's nominees, one was GHWB's and one was Gerald Ford's. Looked at another way, 71% of the justices nominated by Republicans voted for Heller while 100% of the justices nominated by Democrats voted against Heller.

What legislation have Libertarian candidates gotten passed or were instrumental in stopping again?

 

[dburkhead]

If we were to ever have a continental congress, my first question for those proposing revolution is what is there plan to deal with the socialist once it is over. I think one of the biggest failures of the revolution was not putting all those loyal to the crown on a ship back to England.

If there were a revolution today and our constitution restored, what good would it do to leave the socialists here to vote for the next Obama in the next election?

No, I'm not proposing genocide to those on the left. I'm proposing expulsion. Just who do you think will commit genocide if we had a war?

Ah yes, Freedom, but only for those who agree with you.

Seems I've heard that line before.

 

[level.eleven]

This is an argument has happened before and will most likely happen again down the road. Heck, some of the people in this thread have had the exact same discussion several months ago.

I just want to inject a human, for lack of a better word, angle to the discussion. First, I am just going to drop the idea of this being a 3rd party discussion and procede as if we are talking exclusively about libertarians.

When people are presented with these types of arguments they are going to have a completely normal, defensive stance. Not everyone making rebuttals are new to the libertarian idea set/party. If someone has worked with the party for some time, be it locally or nationally, it may sting a little when people want them to abandon their work and ideals to win an election for a candidate they don't support. Its being asked that a principled man relax his beliefs for the sake of party to which he doesn't belong.

Maybe I didn't do the best articulating my thoughts on this. It's difficult to "sell out". Again, a better term escapes me.

 

[hornadylnl]

I'm somehow supposed to shed my blood for freedom for those who actively oppose said freedom and will work to immediately put more socialists back into power? No thanks.

So let's assume you as a liberatarian could overcome republican establishment opposition in the primary and defeat their cherry picked socialist and go on to win in the general. What are you going to do once sworn in? Committee assignments? Party backing for any legislation you propose? HA! You will be their redheaded step child who they will work to unseat you in the next primary.

Yes, I voted for Barr. Am I a member of the liberatarian party? No. I've since learned that it is futile. I'll say it once again. You can participate in the charade where the outcome is already known. I'm not going to legitimize it by showing up to the park. I'm accomplishing no less by showing up.

 

[dburkhead]

I'm somehow supposed to shed my blood for freedom for those who actively oppose said freedom and will work to immediately put more socialists back into power? No thanks.

There's a term for freedom that only applies to those who agree with you.

That term is "tyranny."

So let's assume you as a liberatarian could overcome republican establishment opposition in the primary and defeat their cherry picked socialist and go on to win in the general. What are you going to do once sworn in? Committee assignments? Party backing for any legislation you propose? HA! You will be their redheaded step child who they will work to unseat you in the next primary.

And supposing I managed the even greater challenges of doing the same thing and get elected as a Libertarian. How does that make things better in any way?

Now, consider that were I to run and, through some miracle win (Considering the resources I have to mount a campaign it would take a Red-sea-ish sized miracle to make it successful), I would not be alone. There would be Ron Paul (don't agree with him on everything--I think his views on foreign policy border on the naive--but on much else we come reasonably close). It's not impossible that Bob Barr could take his seat back. Others could do the exact same thing I would have done. On some issues we could get some backing on individual issues.

Would we get everything we want right away? No. But then I don't expect perfection, well, not ever really, and certainly not soon.

Yes, I voted for Barr. Am I a member of the liberatarian party? No. I've since learned that it is futile. I'll say it once again. You can participate in the charade where the outcome is already known. I'm not going to legitimize it by showing up to the park. I'm accomplishing no less by showing up.

Right. Right. Right. "The outcome is already known." "It's futile." "The Man is keeping us down." "Tune in, Turn on, and drop out."

Self-fulfilling prophecy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[hornadylnl]

Socialists wouldn't be under tryanny. They can choose their favorite dictator and move to that country. What you keep saying is to stop the bleeding. I guess it would make too much sense to remove the gunman from the equation so they can't keep creating new bullet holes to treat. How exactly do we coexist with socialists who are still trying to rob you blind and hold tyranny over you?

 

[hornadylnl]

Right. Right. Right. "The outcome is already known." "It's futile." "The Man is keeping us down." "Tune in, Turn on, and drop out."

Self-fulfilling prophecy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I will ask you for third time. Show me one instance where your method has brought about liberty.

Is this when you will bring in the ad post $20 word something argument?

 

[dburkhead]

Socialists wouldn't be under tryanny. They can choose their favorite dictator and move to that country. What you keep saying is to stop the bleeding. I guess it would make too much sense to remove the gunman from the equation so they can't keep creating new bullet holes to treat. How exactly do we coexist with socialists who are still trying to rob you blind and hold tyranny over you?

If your ideas cannot stand against the ideas of others, if you can persuade others to the rightness of your beliefs, if your position is so weak that competing ideas must be excluded for it to fall, then as the Bard said, "the problem, dear Brutus, lies not in the stars but in ourselves."

Look at societies the world over and throughout history that excluded people who disagreed with them.

You would remove the gunman from the equation and treat the bleeding with a tourniquet--about the neck.

No thank you, sir. I find your chains every bit as oppressive as the socialists. Freedom must be freedom for all or it is freedom for none.

 

[dburkhead]

I will ask you for third time. Show me one instance where your method has brought about liberty.

You mean like when "my method" gave us the five Supreme Court Justices that voted that gun ownership was an individual right and that DC's handgun ban was unconstitutional. Oh, wait. That didn't give everything back all at once so it doesn't count.

You mean like my method allowed the AWB to sunset? Oh, wait. Again, not everything right now.

Or how about when "my method" extended the vote to folk like women and native americans?

Or how about when "my method" stopped folk from owning other folk as chattel property?

Or "my method" has actually kept things from getting as bad as they could have over the course of the past 200+ years. This is virtually unprecedented in history. How many examples can you find that are still as free as the US 200 years after their founding (counting from last major revolution/invasion/or other "reset")? Oh, again, it doesn't produce exactly the results that you want they way you want so that doesn't count either.

Is this when you will bring in the ad post $20 word something argument?

Ah, the "clever" approach of denigrating someone's arguments because they have a larger vocabulary than you and are actually knowledgable on the subject. I'm sure you would have been just as critical of Thomas Jefferson's education at the College of William and Mary, of Patrick Henry being a lawyer, of the fact that the first Continental Congress was stuffed to the rafters with eggheads, as were the Constitutional Conventions convened to amend the Articles of Confederation but instead coming up with a Constitution to completely replace them.

 

[hornadylnl]

If your ideas cannot stand against the ideas of others, if you can persuade others to the rightness of your beliefs, if your position is so weak that competing ideas must be excluded for it to fall, then as the Bard said, "the problem, dear Brutus, lies not in the stars but in ourselves."

Look at societies the world over and throughout history that excluded people who disagreed with them.

You would remove the gunman from the equation and treat the bleeding with a tourniquet--about the neck.

No thank you, sir. I find your chains every bit as oppressive as the socialists. Freedom must be freedom for all or it is freedom for none.

so I must work to save the very person trying to slash my throat? No thanks.

How am I supposed to bring freedom to those who detest it? You know, those who vote for socialists?

 

[hornadylnl]

200 years ago, most politicians who would have tried to pull the stuff our current ones have would probably have been hung from a lamp post.

I wonder if Jefferson and The rest of our founders used their vocabularies to show off their intellects. I agree with many of the arguments you make but almost every debate I've seen you in here ends up in an argument about somebody is guilty of an ad something or other fallacy pissing match.

I don't begrudge anyone of their intellect but I'm not a fan of anyone who uses it to sound smarter than everyone else in the room.

You mean like when "my method" gave us the five Supreme Court Justices that voted that gun ownership was an individual right and that DC's handgun ban was unconstitutional. Oh, wait. That didn't give everything back all at once so it doesn't count.

You mean like my method allowed the AWB to sunset? Oh, wait. Again, not everything right now.

Or how about when "my method" extended the vote to folk like women and native americans?

Or how about when "my method" stopped folk from owning other folk as chattel property?

Or "my method" has actually kept things from getting as bad as they could have over the course of the past 200+ years. This is virtually unprecedented in history. How many examples can you find that are still as free as the US 200 years after their founding (counting from last major revolution/invasion/or other "reset")? Oh, again, it doesn't produce exactly the results that you want they way you want so that doesn't count either.



Ah, the "clever" approach of denigrating someone's arguments because they have a larger vocabulary than you and are actually knowledgable on the subject. I'm sure you would have been just as critical of Thomas Jefferson's education at the College of William and Mary, of Patrick Henry being a lawyer, of the fact that the first Continental Congress was stuffed to the rafters with eggheads, as were the Constitutional Conventions convened to amend the Articles of Confederation but instead coming up with a Constitution to completely replace them.

 

[dburkhead]

so I must work to save the very person trying to slash my throat? No thanks.

No, you are supposed to save Freedom. You cannot save Freedom by killing it. "We had to destroy the village to save it." Feh.

How am I supposed to bring freedom to those who detest it? You know, those who vote for socialists?

What you fail to miss is that by denying it to those who disagree with you you demonstrate that you are one of the ones who "detest it."

If you cannot defend freedom in the face of opposition, even from within, then you do not have freedom.

You sound very like those left-wing colleges that forbid certain speakers in the name of "free speech." The answer to someone you disagree with is to argue back, not to shut him up. If you cannot persuade more people than he can then the problem is yours, not his.

Your way--anyone who disagrees must go--is exactly what led to The Terror in Revolutionary France. Oh, I'll grant that you have that attitude to a very mild degree and wouldn't result to Madame Guillotine for the "aristos" ("socialists" for purposes of the metaphor) but do you think that there weren't people who were just as "moderate" in France back in the day? It's not the "moderates" who end up leading such revolts but the most extreme examples.

Freedom must be freedom for those whose ideas you disagree with as much as for those whose ideas you agree with or it is not freedom at all. And if you don't see that then perhaps you don't understand freedom as well as you think you do because "the freedom to agree with the powers that be" is the one "freedom" that every tyrant throughout history--without exception--has granted.