H ROTards would like to explain to you why voting is for fools
- Thread starter HRiscool
- Start date
She won in large part because it was an off year election and the Dems put up a lousy candidate and she ran a very good campaign
Natural progression goes like this: keep government off my back so I can make bank. After you make bank, politicians will undoubtedly reach out to you for donations (or vice versa) so you can insulate yourself from competition. Now you become a corporate socialist crony who plays the system. Big government is for the haves. They always sell there designs to the unwashed as to how it will help the public good and their children. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Last edited:
The D's and R's make the rules that protect their duopoly. Libertarians or any upstart must spend millions every election cycle JUST to get on the ballot. Much of their limited resources and manpower goes into acquiring signatures for the ballot.
“The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies... is a foolish idea. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can throw the rascals out at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy. Then it should be possible to replace it, every four years if necessary, by the other party which will be none of these things but will still pursue, with new vigor, approximately the same basic policies.”
― Carroll Quigley Bill Clinton's mentor at Georgetown
― Carroll Quigley Bill Clinton's mentor at Georgetown
I'd like to read your thoughts on why they are bad. After reading the below quote by this insider, voting libertarian for this reason alone should be sufficient. Libertarians would end the Fed. D's and R's adore it. Now they are throwing the Trans Pacific Partnership on the public...in secret of course.
"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences."
-- Quote from Caroll Quigley's Tragedy and Hope, Chapter 20
In a nutshell libertarians don't believe in solving problems. They ignore them leaving the weak vulnerable to the powerful. Libertarians are all about concentrating power in private hands. Its laughable that they would do anything to stop your Quigley scenario. Libertarians would get out of the way and let private concentrations of power do as they will without regulation or oversight. Under libertarianism, real feudalism would be the direction we would be headed, complete with lords and surfs.
In a nutshell, governments CAUSE the problems. It's their constant meddling that upsets peaceful transactions. They restrain freedom. They lust for power and dominion over the lives of others. They intercede in foreign countries on behalf of multi-national oligarchs leaving us in perpetual war.
What is laughable is your response. Libertarians getting out of the way, huh? Were you in a coma in 2008 when the "too big to fails" were bailed out by Joe Sixpack and Charlie the Plumber?
Because hardly anyone thinks they can win at the national level.
People want to vote for someone they think can win.
Not how I see it. IMO, people cause problems. For the weak, the only mechanism for addressing those problems is the government. You deprive the weak of the power to stand up to people doing harm while you protect the rights of the powerful to steamroll them. The bailout is the sort of thing I generally want my government to be able to do. I want them to stand between me and catastrophe, of course I'd like to see them arrest those who caused the catastrophe too. I'd like them to monitor, regulate, and enforce more, not less. Libertarianism isn't a move in that direction.
I've been voting in presidential races starting in 1968. That, as it turns out, was the only year I have ever voted for other than my preferred candidate. Even that year, when I voted for Humphrey over Nixon - an easy choice on the "lesser of evils" scale - I wasn't unhappy with my vote. My preferred candidate was Gene McCarthy, but I was a resident of N.Carolina and they didn't allow write-ins at that time. But Humphrey, despite being badly tarnished by his support of LBJ's war, was still an excellent choice on many other grounds - from civil rights to economic fairness.
Until your last sentence, I was planning to tell you you need a bigger tin foil hat.
Here's what's wrong with everything you said up to that point. It isn't governments that do those bad things and have those bad motives. It's the people we put in power (or allow to have power) who do those bad things and have those bad motives.
Some forms of government make it easier for the wrong people to gain power and easier for them to use power badly. The constitutional structure of our government was one of the early, better attempts to make it hard for the bad people to hold power or to use that power badly. But the power-hungry have had over 2 centuries to expose and exploit the flaws in that ancient text.
Even libertarians favor government. And even the small government favored by libertarians is corruptible.
Instead of railing against government as the source of all evil - rather than power and, in particular, the abuse of power as the source of all evil - I suggest you focus your energy on getting government back on the rails. And yes, work to make it smaller, if you wish.
It's the ease with which major concentrations of power now give orders to the government that's the main problem we face. When you spend your energy attacking government, instead of trying to wrest control of government from those who now own it, you are helping the actual bad guys.
In 2008 Obama was elected Prez. In 2 short years a new movement known as the Tea Party was cobbled together and they got several people elected to congress.
Some claim they have control of the Repubs. That's doubtful, but they do have influence. If they can do it, why can't the libertarians who've been around much longer? The only reason I can come up with is the voters aren't buying what they are selling.
Isn't that line of thinking stripping me of MY right to support whoever I choose? In 1980 John Anderson ran as an independent. 92 Perot was on the ballot. 2000 Nader.ran. Those are just some of the names. There's no law stopping you libertarians from raising money and putting your choice on the ballot. As already mentioned the voters have been given an opportunity to move away from the 2 parties and have voluntarily said no. Just because you don't like their choice, doesn't mean they don't have a right to it.
Blacks say they are disenfranchised
So do Arabs and Native Americans
Latinos say the same thing
Libertarians makes this claim
Atheists feel this way because "In God We Trust" is on the currency and you have to put your hand on the bible when being sworn into office.
And now Christians are making the claim after losing the culture wars
So if everyone's disenfranchised, maybe nobody is? Maybe, just maybe, Americans are poor losers, or at least don't understand that you can't have a winner without a loser.
Some claim they have control of the Repubs. That's doubtful, but they do have influence. If they can do it, why can't the libertarians who've been around much longer? The only reason I can come up with is the voters aren't buying what they are selling.
Isn't that line of thinking stripping me of MY right to support whoever I choose? In 1980 John Anderson ran as an independent. 92 Perot was on the ballot. 2000 Nader.ran. Those are just some of the names. There's no law stopping you libertarians from raising money and putting your choice on the ballot. As already mentioned the voters have been given an opportunity to move away from the 2 parties and have voluntarily said no. Just because you don't like their choice, doesn't mean they don't have a right to it.
Blacks say they are disenfranchised
So do Arabs and Native Americans
Latinos say the same thing
Libertarians makes this claim
Atheists feel this way because "In God We Trust" is on the currency and you have to put your hand on the bible when being sworn into office.
And now Christians are making the claim after losing the culture wars
So if everyone's disenfranchised, maybe nobody is? Maybe, just maybe, Americans are poor losers, or at least don't understand that you can't have a winner without a loser.
There are lots of perfectly reasonable things we could do to give minor parties a better chance. If you think these minor parties reflect the views of many Americans, encouraging more of them is a way to give many Americans a stronger voice. Here are a few:
1. Proportional representation.
2. Eliminate winner-take-all election decisions (there are various ways to do this, states could experiment).
3. Have debates handled by a non-partisan group (or groups) and open to all on looser qualifying criteria than now.
4. Mandatory voting (on the theory that many of those who don't vote don't like the choices - so if they did vote, minor parties might be helped).
5. Have a "None Of The Above" option on the ballot for every race. If NOTA wins, none of the candidates can run in the followup election. It's a great way for the populace to express dissatisfaction with the choices they have had forced down their throats.
6. Eliminate state laws that make it hard for independents and third parties to register and run.
Notice that I haven't even mentioned campaign finance reforms or restraints on money in the electoral process.
1. Proportional representation.
2. Eliminate winner-take-all election decisions (there are various ways to do this, states could experiment).
3. Have debates handled by a non-partisan group (or groups) and open to all on looser qualifying criteria than now.
4. Mandatory voting (on the theory that many of those who don't vote don't like the choices - so if they did vote, minor parties might be helped).
5. Have a "None Of The Above" option on the ballot for every race. If NOTA wins, none of the candidates can run in the followup election. It's a great way for the populace to express dissatisfaction with the choices they have had forced down their throats.
6. Eliminate state laws that make it hard for independents and third parties to register and run.
Notice that I haven't even mentioned campaign finance reforms or restraints on money in the electoral process.
From where I'm sitting, the Tea Party is just the simpler-minded neo-cons who hold the Bible in one hand and their gun-of-choice in the other and just hate everything the "conservative media" refers to as being "The Left."
Sure, those are the folks who buy into the libertarian, do nothing fantasy. But while most tea party members might be as you describe, the tea party itself specifically tries to avoid religion and while militant, isn't neocon.
Your link supports my position that tea party members hold many ideas outside of the actual tea party platform. When you are talking about 41% of the electorate that's bound to happen. It might also be argued that since your article defines the tea party as 41% of the electorate, the author is basically denying any distinction between the tea party and republicans and hence it might be a poor source. Nevertheless, the tea party principles are an expression of mainly libertarian ideas. I'm surprised a man who claims to hate labels and boxes would insist on such purity.
Last edited:
Let's not forget that the Tea Party (the broader movement, not necessarily the formal party) has morphed a good bit in the last 7 years or so. It was initially a reaction to the economic meltdown. And it attracted interest from left and right. It started off with a lot of outrage against Wall Street; against job losses and outsourcing; against people losing their homes; against favorable treatment for big banks, and big corporations and the whole idea of "too big to fail"; against the rich and powerful being able to buy our government. And more. But then it was co-opted.
It's still against some of those things, but it also now defends some of them. It's stopped being outraged by out-of-control businesses and government. Now it's mainly only opposed to government. It now opposes "entitlements" that people have worked and paid for - like Social Security - but supports entitlements like the ruinous tax breaks for the rich passed by the Bush administration. It still objects to our bought-and-paid-for government, but objects even more to passing laws that would stop this blatant corruption.
Which is it? The "actual" Tea Party or some variant that you've cooked-up in your mind- OPINION. The Tea Party is just another abstract group.
Did a Ron Paul supporter take one of your love interests? This sounds personal to me.
Interesting stuff. But note that these results are 5 years old. This was just before a heated off-year election where Obamacare - rather than treason on Wall Street - had already become a key focal point, perhaps the focal point, of attack for the right. People like me - sympathetic at first - no longer found much in the way of shared concerns or values.
I think this is a more accurate summation. Most tea party people I ever met and spoke with in-person were only Libertarian in their desire to shrink government. But, they weren't specific except that they didn't like being taxed. Of course, they were co-opted and now they are fine with being taxed as long as it's tax breaks for the wealthy in the end result.
This all reminds me of the character in Platoon- "King." Stone's screenplay has him citing to the idealistic Chris (Charlie Sheen): "The poor always been f*cked-over by the rich. Always have, always will."
An abstract group you apparently have a very specific opinions about. I find that fun, but you sound mad brah.
You sound exactly like jscott bitching about conservatism. Always wrong, but has a personal grudge, nonetheless.
An abstract group you apparently have a very specific opinions about. I find that fun, but you sound mad brah.
I have opinions based on my experience being around them. About as much as you do. I'm hardly mad. I just get tired of your feigned altruism toward the "less fortunate." All you're ever really doing is compartmentalizing political ideologies to fit, combat, and project your own inherent need for self-victimization.
I realize these terms are like cryptic voodoo chants to you, but I'm trying to help you use them correctly. Your tenuous grasp on reality would be greatly aided by a dictionary and a modicum of curiosity.
You don't see the problem with you claiming you're the only "pure" libertarian. Hell, there is a large rift within your movement. I would be more sympathetic to libertarians if they didn't start from a place of self-righteousness pontification.
"Everyone's corrupt except me!"
BULL***T
I'm not claiming to be any member of any of these ever-changing groups. We're all part of all of them. Everyone has some liberal, some conservative, some of this, some of that. No one is all one or the other.
Nice to see this whole thread was a way to troll something that bothers you.
Take a specific issue... debate it. These political clubs are never really distinct enough to debate their legitimacy anyway. That is why my initial post in this thread was directed at ANY third party. You and Natural have some personal vendetta against whatever you've decided "Libertarian" means or represents to you. These "isms" are like religions. No two people have the exact same definition of what they are or consist. The reason no other candidate or party ever gets any traction is because the 2-in-1 duopoly makes it impossible for any others to have equal exposure. Yay American Democracy!
Practically speaking...How can "libertarians" ever be a political party? Wouldn't they be too independent and too self-reliant to belong to any type of group or any particular of mantra?
By the way, there are tons of people from all political directions that start from a place of self-pontification. Yourself included!
Even tougher for anarchists, you'd think, and yet anarchists in Spain were well-organized communities and successful enough to bring down the full might of the Spanish fascist government with modern military aid from Hitler.
Unfortunately, that's too often the fate of those who choose liberty over regimentation, peace over aggression, cooperation over competition. Those willing to use force and treachery have an advantage. And when they win, they can write the histories and the laws.
If Libertarians
I double agree. Libertarians are very disingenuous about their own integrity issues. Tarians and Rand Paul had a love affair with each other, until Rand demonstrated that ambition among Libertarians does the same thing to them that it does to Republicans n Democrats. It makes them compromise.
I double agree. Libertarians are very disingenuous about their own integrity issues. Tarians and Rand Paul had a love affair with each other, until Rand demonstrated that ambition among Libertarians does the same thing to them that it does to Republicans n Democrats. It makes them compromise.
This is the confused kind of post I expect from a pseudo libertarian leaning poster who fawns all over everything from statist, Robert Reich. You just championed the status quo that is going in a fascist direction at warped speed. Take just about any issue and there is a libertarian solution to it. Government offers coercion and theft while libertarians offer freedom of choice. For some reason, HR Cool, Natural and yourself feel threatened to denounce libertarianism even though you say it's going nowhere. Perhaps because Ron Paul still has an audience while out of office and young people are enamored by him. This upsets the Romney types because...well, he's Romney.
Your post flaunts a lack of history. The world was awash in monarchies that moved away from that form of government. They moved to a more sophisticated form known as democracy by using all of their wealth to deliver schmucks a false narrative come election time. This game of Hobson's choice leaves the electorate feeling empowered. The wealthy laugh because they know they control the purse, the debt strings of the nation aka The Fed. You can throw all the mis-direction you want as you shill for the Man. Socialist Party A and Socialist Party B will continue keeping the public's eye off the ball and receiving inflated dollars to buy votes. They never attack the hydra-headed monster that feeds them. Only libertarians offer this solution that would bring the bad people to their knees. Ending the Fed defangs them. It's how they fund wars and buy votes. It promotes the welfare-warfare state that you gush over.
