The Loosertarians say that they are building a party.
If so, it is a party built upon diminishing returns as every presidential election they get a smaller and smaller percentage of the electorate.
This is one third party that deserves a place in the trash can.
Hey, we don't want any of your ideas.
Reagan defeated you guys in 1980 and we are sticking with Reagan.
Since 1980, you get fewer and fewer votes.
Even Ron Paul and Rand Paul left the Loosertarians.
This is what political neophytes like church mouse guy don't seem to understand.
The whole point of Libertarian politics, at this time, is not to get party members elected, but to participate in the election cycle to inject Libertarian ideas into the process and to bring the two major parties closer to the Libertarian ideal. :)
And when we look at the platforms of both major parties we see both have adopted Libertarian planks. :)
So is Che but the left still wears t-shirts saying that he is lives.
I don't quite get your point.
The Reagan platform is still good.
I don't know what ideas the Libertarians have pawned off on the GOP, but it is time for that party to go the way of the Prohibitionist Party.
Every year the Loosertarians get fewer and fewer votes.
Their main star is the gay Matt Drudge.
CMG's source is right. In the U.S., a third-party storms onto the scene filling an obvious void between the two dominant political parties. The Republicans replaced the Whigs, whose ideologies were stale, limited in scope and popularity, slow to respond to changing demands of the electorate, and ultimately failed to respond to the issue of states' rights and slavery. That void was filled by the "upstart" Republicans, and the Whigs died a quiet, merciful death.
We need a third party, a strong third party to fill a void. The Tea Party is the only political movement afoot right now that could fill that void, but hasn't become discontent enough as a wing of the Republicans to
make the move. I think that will change in the next two to four years.
First of all, Reagan ran on many ideas held by libertarians. What's more, he was even closer to libertarian philosophy in 1976 when he ran the first time.
Incidentally, you do realize that one of Reagan's chief supporters was Milton Friedman, right?
Second, what's with the rudeness? Are you really unable to disagree and to state your case in a civil manner?
Third, is there a reason you chose not to answer my questions?
Once again:
Who would you have us vote for?
What libertarian ideas, specifically, do you disagree with?
If libertarian ideas are so bad, and Republicans the paragon of all that is good and holy, why are the Republicans now beginning to adopt libertarian ideas?
I see. So then it's not libertarian philosophy you disagree with, but the fact that the Libertarian Party is allegedly losing votes.
How is Matt Drudge their "main star"??? I can think of many people who are far more revered by libertarians than Drudge. For example, Milton Friedman, Andrew Napolitano, etc.
Well, we certainly know how he feels about libertarians. We just don't know why, other than that they can't win elections. And if they're as bad as he says, I would think he would consider that a good thing.
But, so far, he hasn't told us one libertarian idea he objects to.
So far, all I see is a Republican throwing a temper tantrum.
What ideas do the Libertarians have?
Reagan defeated them at their high-water mark.
Vote your conscience.
Libertarians are modernists.
Their foreign policy, from what I read on this board, is much like Clinton/Kerry/Obama foreign policy.
The GOP has never been a modernist party.
It was started as an abolitionist party, as you know, to counteract the Democrats on their pro-slavery stance.
As Medved pointed out, the Loosertarians did not hurt the GOP in Florida in a close race.
They are spending a lot of money for fewer and fewer voters.
They have no influence in the GOP because they run their own candidates.
That party is a sinking ship.
The GOP has survived the Libertarians and I can't see that the Democrats have paid any attention to them either.
Thgat's a total cop-out, an excuse for failing. It is a useless process, if that is truly the purpose. I suspect we all know it is not. The Libertarians would love to be elected. Unfortunately, there is no way that is going to happen. They have great fiscal concepts, but lousy views on morality, and morality is what tilts elections.
For example, the Libertarian platform calls for no intervention in the abortion industry, i.e., don't make it legal or illegal at the federal level, leave it to the states. While that fits well with my states' rights views, it is read as being pro-abortion by conservatives. When Ron Paul issued statements that his religious views forbade endorsement of abortion, the electorate read it as another cop-out, an attempt to appeal to conservatives while going against the official position of the party. I know it doesn't really do that, but most voters don't. They see no anti-abortion plank in the Libertarian platform, assume them to be pro-choice, and no other input is going to be heard.
1. Do you really think "Loosertarians" is still clever? I mean, never mind the fact that you can't even spell it correctly, and never mind the fact that you don't even know what libertarians believe, and never mind the fact that it's childish. It's an old joke. You've made it. Now move on. What's next? Are you going to ask us "Where's the beef"?
2. If libertarianism has no influence on the GOP, then why is the GOP now adopting libertarian ideas?
3. Is your intent just to win elections? Or is it to support the best candidate and ideas? Are you really that happy with the status quo that you see it as "our side vs their side"? You're treating the future and, quite frankly, at this point, the survival of our republic like the Iron Bowl (which we won, 34-28, by the way) where it's "My team, do or die". It's not. It's far more important than that. If you can't see that, then you're part of the problem.
4. You still haven't told us what libertarian ideas you disagree with.
5. You made a claim that the Libertarian Party's foreign policy is the same as Obama's, but you won't tell us how it's the same. Why not?
It's your party so I was hoping that you yourself would define it.
Unfortunately, I have duty now but I will answer you later today.
Meanwhile, you can tell me why your party is relevant and how their foreign policy differs from Obama's.
Seems pretty odd that someone who supports the Libertarians would want someone who does not to explain the party's relevance. That's your job as a party advocate.
The abortion issue alone will keep me from supporting any Libertarian candidate or even listening to their ideas. If they are not willing to protect the unborn but simply leave it to the states then I have no respect for them.