The Problem with Third Party Candidates

[dross]

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

Need proof?

You're confusing TARP with the Stimulus and the rest of my points.

 

[dburkhead]

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

Probably. Then again, many of them would have probably hung the post Civil War Congress from Lamp posts for the 13th Amendment. How many of the Founding Fathers were slave owners?

They were good men of their day, great men by any reasonable standard, but they were not Gods nor were they infallible.

I wonder if Jefferson and The rest of our founders used their vocabularies to show off their intellects.

And now you're off to mind reading. Read any of Jefferson's letters? He was not afraid to use his knowledge and considerable vocabulary in his writings.

You accuse me of "showing off my intellect". And if I used small words and short sentences you would, no doubt, accuse me of "talking down" to you.

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.

Then don't engage in logical fallacies. Naming the fallacies, giving their formal names, is simply a way of pointing out that these stupid, bad arguments (argument ad hominem--the idea that an argument is good or bad because of who says it, like saying that the Volkswagen Beetle must be a bad car because Hitler was involved in its development; argument ad populem--that an argument is more valid because a lot of people agree; "No True Scotsman"--using a "convenient" definition to validate the claim; and so on) are quite well known and recognized as what they are: stupid, bad arguments. If a statement is true then it is true no matter who said it. If a statement is false, it doesn't matter how many people say it's true, it remains false. Using non-standard definitions to force a statement to be "true" does not make the original statement, as understood by most people using standard definitions, any truer.

The only thing that matters is the content of the argument itself. "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed...." doesn't become any more or less true because of who wrote it, how many people believe it, or what non-standard definitions one might try to apply to twist the meaning of the original statement. It stands on its own merits . . . or it doesn't. Read the Declaration of Independence with a list of common logical fallacies by your side some time. See how many you can find. If that number is greater than zero I really want to know about it because I haven't been able to find any. There may have been some things that were factually wrong (a different thing entirely) but there were no logical fallacies.

Folk like Jefferson probably didn't call debating partners on logical fallacies all that much, probably because said debating partners were fully aware of those fallacies and didn't use them much because they knew they could and would be called on them?

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.

What you fail to consider is that I am treating you (and others here) like a reasoning, intelligent human being capable of understanding complex arguments and learning from them. "Learning" in this case means coming to understanding of the other person's position and how and why it seems reasonable to that other person and not just agreeing with that other person.

Would you prefer I cease giving you that credit? I would rather not do so.

And, yes, I have myself, on occasion, learned from others' arguments and have even been known to modify or outright change my own position based on others' well-reasoned arguments, but not from others' uses of logical fallacies.

 

[hornadylnl]

By coexisting with socialists that are destroying my freedom, I am somehow more free? People are free to disagree with me all they want. But they are not free to enslave me.
As long as they agree to let me live in freedom, they are my friends. When they try to put a yoke around my neck, they become my enemis.

What fallacy does encouraging others to sacrifice their principles fall under?

 

[Paco Bedejo]

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.

My theory on this is that enough of the libertarian-minded Libertarians (as opposed to the confused social-conservative Libertarians) voted for Paul in the Republican primary instead of ensuring a good Libertarian candidate. This has actually been one of the Republican suggestions in this thread. I know that's what I did.

 

[dburkhead]

By coexisting with socialists that are destroying my freedom, I am somehow more free? People are free to disagree with me all they want. But they are not free to enslave me.
As long as they agree to let me live in freedom, they are my friends. When they try to put a yoke around my neck, they become my enemis.

What fallacy does encouraging others to sacrifice their principles fall under?

Oh, you might be less free that way. After all tyrants are more free then their subjects so not allowing someone to be a tyrant does make him less free.

Oh, you've already sacrificed your principles. "Freedom for me but not for thee" is called the double standard.

Yes, yes, I know. It's for the greater good. Seems to me that that, too, is a line I've heard before.

You see, you can disagree with them all you want. You can use persuasion to try to encourage others to agree with you rather than with them and thereby cut them out of political power. I'll even go so far as to allow direct "tit for tat" reprisals for actions they take (on an individual, case by case, basis).

But the instant you attempt to use force to enforce your view over theirs (and just how else exactly do you plan to expel them from the country) you become a tyrant.

 

[dburkhead]

My theory on this is that enough of the libertarian-minded Libertarians (as opposed to the confused social-conservative Libertarians) voted for Paul in the Republican primary instead of ensuring a good Libertarian candidate. This has actually been one of the Republican suggestions in this thread. I know that's what I did.

Since I am told the Libertarian Party doesn't use primaries how, exactly,would folk not voting for Ron Paul have helped?

And, IIRC, did you not say uptopic that you didn't like Bob Barr but voted for him anyway? If so, then how can you criticize folk for doing exactly the same thing for Republican candidates and not be guilty of hypocrisy?

 

[jsgolfman]

Arguments like these really depress me. My king is better than your king.

 

[Paco Bedejo]

Since I am told the Libertarian Party doesn't use primaries how, exactly,would folk not voting for Ron Paul have helped?

And, IIRC, did you not say uptopic that you didn't like Bob Barr but voted for him anyway? If so, then how can you criticize folk for doing exactly the same thing for Republican candidates and not be guilty of hypocrisy?

I said that I voted Libertarian, despite Barr...in order that perhaps the Libertarian Party would be offered the same monetary benefits that the Big-two enjoy. I knew he wouldn't win, so his policies didn't mean jack-!@#$ to me. Baldwin was much closer to my ideals, but the LP is the most popular 3rd party.

 

[dross]

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.

One of the things to keep in mind in this thread is that the folks arguing here are generally in agreement on most other threads. Pick any of the other controversial threads in the politics or 2nd Amendment forums, and for the most part, the people who have lined up on the two sides of this issue would be pretty much together arguing against our less libertarian brothers.

Ironic that some of the most bitter fights are always amongst the ideologically close, and they are often about what we're arguing about here: pragmatism vs. purity.

Whatever battle is coming - political or otherwise - those of us arguing right now will likely be on the same side. Just keep that in mind. No traitors here, no closet socialists, just people who believe substantially the same thing. What's the disagreement about? We disagree on the best strategy to get what we want. Just a reminder.

Now, a quick comment on intelligence and pointing out logical fallacies. First, dburkhead can't help looking more intelligent than the next guy, he usually is. It's tough to argue with a very smart person because sometimes they argue better than you even when they're wrong. In this case I think he happens to be right, but that's beside the point.

His pointing out of logical fallacies - something I do as well - is a valuable thing. I see mainstream arguments coming from politicians and prominent commentators that are fallacious arguments - not logically sound. That should be a non-starter, instead certain fallacious arguments have come to be accepted as particularly valid! When I first discovered that logical argument was a field of study, I was amazed. It used to be a required part of philosophy, and philosophy credits used to be required. I think they still should be. Read the arguments of prominent people 100 years ago and before, and try to find fallacies. It's difficult. You can find a dozen in any political speech today. That more than any other thing may be proof at the level the sheeple are beeing hoodwinked.

Anyway, just remember that this is a very internal fight between people who agree on philosophy, just not on battle tactics.

 

[dross]

I said that I voted Libertarian, despite Barr...in order that perhaps the Libertarian Party would be offered the same monetary benefits that the Big-two enjoy. I knew he wouldn't win, so his policies didn't mean jack-!@#$ to me. Baldwin was much closer to my ideals, but the LP is the most popular 3rd party.

The point is, though, that even when executing your strategy you had to vote for a guy you didn't want.

 

[Paco Bedejo]

The point is, though, that even when executing your strategy you had to vote for a guy you didn't want.

That's because my guy didn't make it through your primary...What did you accomplish by giving your vote to McCain? What could you have accomplished? Mine might have at least led to a viable 3rd party in the future...

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.

Yeah, this does seem rather familiar...

From 06-12-2009...

This is why I tend to stay out of the politics forum. The liberal gets a pass, but the old fashioned Republican gets chided. Ok. Here is goes...

It worked at least as well as the vote for someone who can't possibly win method. Maybe better because I wasn't inadvertently responsible for Obama's election

Connor’s Blog Blog Archive 2008 Presidential Election: The Popular Vote Count

You're gonna have to show me where your calculator shows that 1.6 million more votes would have given McCain the win... Is it some crazy electoral college math?

I was at least trying to give a 3rd party 10% of the popular vote to secure public financing. Voting for one party to stop the other is ridiculous...especially considering that both of the top two parties only accomplish the systematic ruin of our nation...

 

[dburkhead]

I said that I voted Libertarian, despite Barr...in order that perhaps the Libertarian Party would be offered the same monetary benefits that the Big-two enjoy. I knew he wouldn't win, so his policies didn't mean jack-!@#$ to me. Baldwin was much closer to my ideals, but the LP is the most popular 3rd party.

IOW you voted tactically rather than for a candidate you actively supported. How then can you object to other folk doing the same thing?

 

[Paco Bedejo]

IOW you voted tactically rather than for a candidate you actively supported. How then can you object to other folk doing the same thing?

I wasn't trying to put Barr into office (rather, I knew that Rock Star Obama would take more than 50% of the popular vote). You were trying to put McCain & his terrible policies into office. That's a big difference right there.

 

[dburkhead]

I wasn't trying to put Barr into office (rather, I knew that Rock Star Obama would take more than 50% of the popular vote). You were trying to put McCain & his terrible policies into office. That's a big difference right there.

No, I was trying to keep Obama and his worse policies out of office.

 

[Paco Bedejo]

No, I was trying to keep Obama and his worse policies out of office.

As my quote from last June shows (post #131 above)...even if every person who voted, but didn't vote for Obama had voted for McCain, Obama would have still won. Good strategy you've got there...

Besides..."worse policies" is a matter of opinion...one which I don't share.

 

[bigg cheese]

Only one thing to add:

Remember the "frog in the frying pan" scenario"?

Just electing the lesser of two evils is turning up the temperature slowly.

If we vote third party, should that be our conscience, and the democrat gets in just because of our protest vote, in my mind that constitutes ramming the temperature up all the way.

We may have a crappy four years, but nothing that can't be undone by a VERY conservative guy the next time round.

 

[dburkhead]

As my quote from last June shows (post #131 above)...even if every person who voted, but didn't vote for Obama had voted for McCain, Obama would have still won. Good strategy you've got there...

You're flaw is in the "even if every person who voted." That's just one of the groups that let people that helped to elect Obama. Another includes the people who stayed home because they didn't like any of the candidates.

Yeah, we failed this time. Where did I say anything about a particular strategy always winning? Straw man time here.

Besides..."worse policies" is a matter of opinion...one which I don't share.

Right. Right. Right.

After all, McCain voted for Tarp. Oh, wait, so did Obama. McCain voted for McCain-Feingold. Well, Obama wasn't there to vote for it but his comments when the Supreme Court overturned it tell us that he would have.

So I'm kind of wondering what anti-freedom position McCain is supposed to have that Obama doesn't share in full measure?

 

[dburkhead]

Only one thing to add:

Remember the "frog in the frying pan" scenario"?

Just electing the lesser of two evils is turning up the temperature slowly.

If we vote third party, should that be our conscience, and the democrat gets in just because of our protest vote, in my mind that constitutes ramming the temperature up all the way.

We may have a crappy four years, but nothing that can't be undone by a VERY conservative guy the next time round.

Make things worse as fast as possible as a strategy? How very Che of you.

You really need to look at how well that has worked historically before hitching your wagon to that star.

 

[CarmelHP]

I said that I voted Libertarian, despite Barr...in order that perhaps the Libertarian Party would be offered the same monetary benefits that the Big-two enjoy. I knew he wouldn't win, so his policies didn't mean jack-!@#$ to me. Baldwin was much closer to my ideals, but the LP is the most popular 3rd party.

So, in a perversely ironic twist, you voted for an unacceptable candidate (by your own standard) that couldn't win (and which you apparently hoped would not), in order to secure government largesse for so-called Libertarians? And you consider that reasonable? Those voting for Republicans are "comprising principles?" Hail Bedlam, I've now heard everything.

 

[Paco Bedejo]

So I'm kind of wondering what anti-freedom position McCain is supposed to have that Obama doesn't share in full measure?

Exactly. You finally agree with my earlier opinion:

I see them as two heads of the same beast. One has sharp, gnashing teeth. The other has wide, crushing teeth. In the end, it all turns out as

Can we be done here now?