And don’t underestimate the number of Christians in the Republican Party who’d desert any party supporting sin in droves. Santorum got more votes than Ron Paul ever did despite being even crazier.
Bad move. It would starve millions of brain cells.
(I’m so going to hell …)
Perhaps, but, in the general election, those Christian Pubs held their noses and voted for the center-right, impossible-to-pin-down-on-abortion Mormon :eek: – didn’t they? Don’t they always, no matter what sort of sinner the Pub candidate might be?
They can make it up by wrangling in an equal or greater number if Independents + Fiscally Conservative Dems.
Didn’t he run the Khmer Rand?
Actually, no; he was with the Viet Bong.
Your impression is 100% correct.
The trouble is that the libertarians really are idiots if they vote Republican. They really should form their own party, and actually vote for it. Would they ever win the presidency? No.
But at the current rate, the Republican party won’t ever do that either. Their base is literally dying off, and when you see 60%+ of young people voting Democrat, that bodes very badly for the party. Especially if in 20 years Texas actually goes blue, as the demographics are trending - if/when that happens, and the Republicans haven’t coped, then they’re effectively going to be dead as a party, as they won’t have anything.
Really there are two things that can happen:
The Republicans can stay their current course. If they do that, come about 2020, they will have lost control of all three branches of government on essentially a permanent basis. This is not really stable, and will most likely lead to either a splintering of the party or a rebranding of it. Either could be effective, but a rebranding is likely to be very difficult because of the nature of the system; if the party actually disintegrates, though, into, say, the libertarians, the christian fundies, and the business branch, the business branch could potentially pick up some votes from the Democrats and become a second viable party, while the Christian/Libertarian groups would probably die pretty fast, or become permanent also-rans; they could never win the presidency, but they’d probably get some house seats in the south, and some senate seats as well, at least potentially.
The libertarians can split off from the Republicans. This will cause the Republicans to lose control of all three branches of government immediately, but will raise the profile of the libertarian cause and make people pay more than lip service to it if they want their votes. They would probably put some people in the house and maybe a couple in the Senate.
Firstly, the libertarians elected Grover Cleveland on two seperate occasions.
Secondly, I never cast a vote for Ron Paul this year. That makes 2/2 libertarians who didn’t vote for Paul who posted in this thread.
I guess you could point out at least three policy positions Paul holds that aren’t libertarian?
Uhh I’d say socialists of 1912 would be pretty happy wih the influence they had on American politics over the last 100 years.
Your last sentence is pure speculation. Socialism was a decades long movement before it had influence in mainstream politics. Paul’s brand, or should I say Murray Rothbard’s brand, of libertarianism is just gaining a foothold. You could be right, but it’s too soon to tell.
Well, let’s see, his idea that the government take over the precious metals market is rather the opposite of libertarianism, as is his policy of closed borders. And his racism has no place in a libertarian philosophy.
Racism has long been associated with libertarianism. And it frankly fits quite well with their insistence that some kind or “survival of the fittest” society is desirable; if they admit that people can be ground down through no fault of their own and not by the government, they drastically weaken their case for the intervention of government in society being unnecessary.
He isn’t racist and you have no proof that he is. This has been discussed ad nauseam. Even if he was, his policy positions (what I asked for, not his alleged racial biases) aren’t racist.
Closed borders? You’re going to have to be more specific than that. He is in favor of legal immigration and against any type of incentive of illegal immigration. He vote for the Secure Fence Act because he was against amnesty, but he says he doesn’t want the border secured by “fences and guns”. What he is against is welfare as a magnet for illegal immigration.
He is also against national ID cards and against forcing employers to verify the legal status of their employees. These policies would be supported by a hard right Republican but not a libertarian.
I hope the bit about takin over the precious metals market is just hyperbole. Of course his actual position is completely in line with libertarianism. He supports legalizing competing currencies which would end the government monopoly on money creation.
Yes since the days of the abolitionist Lysander Spooner, libertarians have been enthusiastic racists.
Wait, why shouldn’t they just join the LP?
We’re talking about guys who get in debt to coyotes or cross the desert on foot for a chance to hang out in a Home Depot parking lot and hope for odd construction or landscaping jobs. I very much doubt they were thinking of American welfare when they decided to come here.
As America is about the least socialistic country in the world, that seems very unlikely.
You guys are too modest. You should also be taking credit for electing Lincoln and Washington, writing the Declaration of Independence, winning both world wars, inventing the telephone and airplane, and curing smallpox.
Other than all of the horribly racist trash he published under his own name.
How can immigration be illegal, from a libertarian point of view? Freedom means freedom.
Competing currencies are already perfectly legal, and there are plenty of them. What he wants to do is make it so the government mandates by fiat the price of gold. Which looks an awful lot like a government takeover of a market, to me.
I wasn’t aiming for an exact parallel-by point was that Libertarianism like Socialism is a growing movement that is for now outside the political mainstream. And considering there are Libertarian positions that are growing in popularity such as marijuana legalization, opposition to gun control, and across the board cuts (to both entitlement and military spending), what I was saying is that Libertarians need to as a movement moderate much as the Socialists did in countries like Britain or Germany to gain electoral strength-in America they did not which along with FDR’s New Deal and Wilson’s suppression of the Socialists meant they never became a major party.
OK, so which agencies should we use to suppress the Libertarians?