Are Libertarians Going to Muck Things Up for the GOP?

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Over the weekend, Ron Paul announced that he might run as a 'third party' candidate, if he doesn't win the GOP nomination. (He won't.) Given this revelation, I think it is a fitting topic of discussion, because I see a Paul thrid-party candidacy as a guarantee of Obama's second term. He has a core of voters who will follow him off a cliff before considering another candidate, and just as Ross Perot did, he would pull enough support from the GOP to give Democrats a certain win.

I have always been drawn to Ron Paul's message, although I have often felt he went over the edge and was a little too radical in his thinking. His fundamental viewpoint is so diametrically opposed to Liberalism, and what is represented by Obama and the Democrats, I can't understand why he would or how he could, in good conscience, run as a third party candidate. Certainly, Ron Paul is smart enough to know he can't be elected president, and he also knows his presence as a third party will mean Obama wins easily. So, is this political jockeying, just a bold move to try and get the libertarian agenda some clout on the national ticket for the GOP? Is there something Ron Paul is advocating which the GOP could adopt as part of the platform? I know he has called for an audit of the Fed, hell... I think he said he would abolish it! I'm not sure if there is a way for the mainstream GOP to accommodate Ron Paul, and we haven't even gotten to his vehement anti-militarism, anti-war, left-wing-sounding diatribe... Most patriotic right wingers just don't get jazzed about blaming Bush for Iraq anymore.... if they ever did. They also tend to not think we need to legalize all drugs including Heroin. But still... Ron Paul pulls 15-20% of the GOP vote away... Obama is our president for four more years. That's simple math.

 

[cawacko]

I don't know how you would quantify the number but I would surmise a good number of Ron Paul voters would not just instantly vote for someone like Mitt Romney if Paul didn't run.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

the GOP can easily fix this by dropping their unconstitutional mainstream way or governing and adopt a more constitutional viewpoint of limited federal government and spending.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

the GOP can easily fix this by dropping their unconstitutional mainstream way or governing and adopt a more constitutional viewpoint of limited federal government and spending.

Here's the thing, a President, can't invoke constitutionality. If something is indeed unconstitutional, there is a process for handling that, and it doesn't involve the executive branch. Congress and the Supreme Court, ultimately determine what IS and ISN'T "Constitutional" at any given point in our history, and that's just how our system is set up, there are no shortcuts. The SCOTUS can rule something is unconstitutional, and Congress has to pass legislation to make it part of the Constitution. The President only plays a role in signing legislation he is sent by Congress, he can't control what the courts do, or even what Congress might do.

The radical nature of most of what Ron Paul advocates, could never pass a bipartisan Congress of Democrats and Republicans, and a 'mythical' Paul Administration would be a complete and total disaster anyway. Do you really think Republicans and Democrats are going to agree to abolish the Federal Reserve, draconian cuts to every department of government including the military, and legalization of every drug? What the fuck kind of drugs are you smoking, if you do?

There is something basic and fundamental about Ron Paul's message, and conservatives can generally agree we need to cut government and downsize... but Ron Paul is not the person that will ultimately lead us to that, and his emergence as a third party alternative, means we get 4 more years of Liberal Socialist Dictatorship... is THAT what Libertarians really want here?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Here's the thing, a President, can't invoke constitutionality. If something is indeed unconstitutional, there is a process for handling that, and it doesn't involve the executive branch. Congress and the Supreme Court, ultimately determine what IS and ISN'T "Constitutional" at any given point in our history, and that's just how our system is set up, there are no shortcuts. The SCOTUS can rule something is unconstitutional, and Congress has to pass legislation to make it part of the Constitution. The President only plays a role in signing legislation he is sent by Congress, he can't control what the courts do, or even what Congress might do.

the president can only choose not to enforce something if he feels it's unconstitutional, otherwise you're correct. congress and the courts also have their balances when it comes to constitutionality. he can help sway opinion in congress, much like happens today though.

The radical nature of most of what Ron Paul advocates, could never pass a bipartisan Congress of Democrats and Republicans, and a 'mythical' Paul Administration would be a complete and total disaster anyway. Do you really think Republicans and Democrats are going to agree to abolish the Federal Reserve, draconian cuts to every department of government including the military, and legalization of every drug? What the fuck kind of drugs are you smoking, if you do?

i'm always amused when people refer to adhering to the constitution as 'radical'. have we as a people come so far away from what real freedom was? and no, i think republicans and democrats would block nearly any and all legislation proposed by Paul. dems and repubs are way too fat dumb and happy with the power they've absconded from we the people to ever return it so easily.

There is something basic and fundamental about Ron Paul's message, and conservatives can generally agree we need to cut government and downsize... but Ron Paul is not the person that will ultimately lead us to that, and his emergence as a third party alternative, means we get 4 more years of Liberal Socialist Dictatorship... is THAT what Libertarians really want here?

you make it sound like Libertarians want what the GOP wants. not much could be further from the truth. Republicans are just as adept at infringing on our freedoms and the democrats are, just in different ways. Libertarians right now look at both major parties as opposite sides of the same coin, so to us one is just as bad as the other.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

the president can only choose not to enforce something if he feels it's unconstitutional, otherwise you're correct. congress and the courts also have their balances when it comes to constitutionality. he can help sway opinion in congress, much like happens today though.

I don't know that I agree a president can choose to not enforce something if he feels it's unconstitutional. I don't think the president has any such authority, he is obligated by the Constitution, to uphold and follow the Constitution, and failure to do so, COULD result in impeachment, if the charge were serious enough. Helping to sway opinions is a far cry from declaring things constitutional, or changing SCOTUS interpretations of what is constitutional.

i'm always amused when people refer to adhering to the constitution as 'radical'. have we as a people come so far away from what real freedom was? and no, i think republicans and democrats would block nearly any and all legislation proposed by Paul. dems and repubs are way too fat dumb and happy with the power they've absconded from we the people to ever return it so easily.

I am always amazed at how Libertarians assume their interpretation and understanding of the Constitution is empirical and unquestionable. There are dozens of various interpretations on just about every aspect of the Constitution, and what it means. There is not a single definitive understanding that people either abide by or ignore, as you wish to portray it. Most everyone in the TEA Party movement, wants a return to constitutional limited government. Most all agree the size and scope of government has gone way too far, and needs to be reigned back in, every single GOP candidate has expressed the desire to repeal Obamacare, and cut government spending.

What you are saying here is, Ron Paul is radically different because he wants to gut government even more, and dismantle even more than the GOP TEA Partiers, and that somehow makes him a better alternative, even though you KNOW FOR A FACT AND ADMIT he wouldn't get anything accomplished. This makes me wonder what you REALLY want, and if it's the same thing as you CLAIM to want?

you make it sound like Libertarians want what the GOP wants. not much could be further from the truth. Republicans are just as adept at infringing on our freedoms and the democrats are, just in different ways. Libertarians right now look at both major parties as opposite sides of the same coin, so to us one is just as bad as the other.

Again, much of what the TEA Party faction of the GOP wants, is articulated routinely by Paul and other Libertarians, there is indeed common ground. You seem to expect a majority of mainstream America to just wake up one day and be a radical Libertarian, and that isn't likely to happen. You want it to happen so badly, that you are willing to allow Marxist Socialists to control America and rule with an iron fist for another four years, rather than find common ground for the better overall good. In short, you are a bunch of ideological fucktarded idiots.

 

[cawacko]

I don't know that I agree a president can choose to not enforce something if he feels it's unconstitutional. I don't think the president has any such authority, he is obligated by the Constitution, to uphold and follow the Constitution, and failure to do so, COULD result in impeachment, if the charge were serious enough. Helping to sway opinions is a far cry from declaring things constitutional, or changing SCOTUS interpretations of what is constitutional.



I am always amazed at how Libertarians assume their interpretation and understanding of the Constitution is empirical and unquestionable. There are dozens of various interpretations on just about every aspect of the Constitution, and what it means. There is not a single definitive understanding that people either abide by or ignore, as you wish to portray it. Most everyone in the TEA Party movement, wants a return to constitutional limited government. Most all agree the size and scope of government has gone way too far, and needs to be reigned back in, every single GOP candidate has expressed the desire to repeal Obamacare, and cut government spending.

What you are saying here is, Ron Paul is radically different because he wants to gut government even more, and dismantle even more than the GOP TEA Partiers, and that somehow makes him a better alternative, even though you KNOW FOR A FACT AND ADMIT he wouldn't get anything accomplished. This makes me wonder what you REALLY want, and if it's the same thing as you CLAIM to want?



Again, much of what the TEA Party faction of the GOP wants, is articulated routinely by Paul and other Libertarians, there is indeed common ground. You seem to expect a majority of mainstream America to just wake up one day and be a radical Libertarian, and that isn't likely to happen. You want it to happen so badly, that you are willing to allow Marxist Socialists to control America and rule with an iron fist for another four years, rather than find common ground for the better overall good. In short, you are a bunch of ideological fucktarded idiots.

Look what Republicans did for six years with a Republican President, Republican House and Republican Senate most of the time. Now they by no means had a super majority but did they even pass one bill that attempted to cut spending? We know Bush veto'd nothing during his first six years so it a bill reached his desk that actually cut spending he would have signed it. So based on their recent record Republicans have given voters no real confidence that they'll actually do anything.

Now I want Obama gone just as much as the next person but claiming he's a Marxist Socialist and that Libertarian's are idelogical fucktards isn't exactly the Dale Carnegie way of winning over people to your way of thinking.

 

[icedancer2theend]

Look what Republicans did for six years with a Republican President, Republican House and Republican Senate most of the time. Now they by no means had a super majority but did they even pass one bill that attempted to cut spending? We know Bush veto'd nothing during his first six years so it a bill reached his desk that actually cut spending he would have signed it. So based on their recent record Republicans have given voters no real confidence that they'll actually do anything.

Now I want Obama gone just as much as the next person but claiming he's a Marxist Socialist and that Libertarian's are idelogical fucktards isn't exactly the Dale Carnegie way of winning over people to your way of thinking.

Bush did not cut spending because he did not have a super majority and democrats held the military budgets hostage.

 

[cawacko]

Bush did not cut spending because he did not have a super majority and democrats held the military budgets hostage.

What cuts did Congressional Republicans even propose that Democrats rejected?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Look what Republicans did for six years with a Republican President, Republican House and Republican Senate most of the time. Now they by no means had a super majority but did they even pass one bill that attempted to cut spending? We know Bush veto'd nothing during his first six years so it a bill reached his desk that actually cut spending he would have signed it. So based on their recent record Republicans have given voters no real confidence that they'll actually do anything.

Now I want Obama gone just as much as the next person but claiming he's a Marxist Socialist and that Libertarian's are idelogical fucktards isn't exactly the Dale Carnegie way of winning over people to your way of thinking.

What Republicans did in the past has as much relevance as what Whigs did in the past. Since when does the past dictate what is to be for the future? And what "claim" do you mean? The proof is in the pudding, everything this administration has done is right out of Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto, and modeled after European Socialism. How any rational thinking and intelligent person can arrive at any other conclusion, is beyond me. Libertarians ARE ideological fucktards if they can't understand that voting for a non-viable third party will result in ANYTHING other than re-election of Barack Hussein Obama.

Bush did not cut spending because he did not have a super majority and democrats held the military budgets hostage.

I don't believe Bush would have cut spending in any event. Bush was not a fiscal conservative, he was a "compassionate conservative" and his ideology is very similar in many ways to that of Mitt Romney, John McCain, and Rick Perry. It's this idea that Republicans can find some "happy medium" with Liberals, that we can somehow moderate conservative principles and values, and appease Liberals in the process, and this will be better for us all as a collective society. The trouble is, this notion has failed resoundingly, instead of Bush being ever-popular among independents and moderate liberals, he became even more vilified and they couldn't make him evil enough... same can be said for John McCain... prior to his run against Obama in 2008, he was the Liberal "darling" of the GOP, he could do no wrong! Oh, what a wonderful man... he genuinely wants to see both sides and work together with the Democrats... but as soon as he became a candidate running against a Democrat, he was turned into the biggest right-wing radical that ever lived, and trashed on a daily basis as a Bush lap dog. These people do not care one whit about "working together" with conservatives, they are hell-bent on a Socialist Marxist European-style ideology that has repeatedly failed throughout history. They will lie, slander, distort, mislead, obfuscate, spin, and continue to hurl insults and baseless allegations toward the right, it doesn't matter how much conservatives try to negotiate a common ground. It's time to pop them in the nose with the newspaper and be done with this! We CAN'T appease them, we CAN'T please them, we CAN'T work together... so why are we trying?

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

What cuts did Congressional Republicans even propose that Democrats rejected?

.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

i don't think the gop will ever embrace a more libertarian approach. such an approach will dwindle their power base and all the nice perks they get. what needs to happen is the libertarians need a more mainstream leader. so far, every leader is not really middle of the road and most voters are middle of the road. it is why we essentially get the same people in office regardless of party. if a libertarian leader could embrace more middle of the road ideals and show how libertarianism can actually work for the majority of americans, they could win.

 

[icedancer2theend]

What cuts did Congressional Republicans even propose that Democrats rejected?

They could not propose cuts if they wanted democrats to support military spending- that's the way it works. To have gotten cuts and military spending they needed a super majority- they never had one.

 

[Onceler]

They could not propose cuts if they wanted democrats to support military spending- that's the way it works. To have gotten cuts and military spending they needed a super majority- they never had one.

ID, that's just absurd. The GOP Congress wrote most of the huge, pork-laden spending bills that Bush signed - like Energy & Transportation. What a sad rewriting of history.

 

[cawacko]

What Republicans did in the past has as much relevance as what Whigs did in the past. Since when does the past dictate what is to be for the future? And what "claim" do you mean? The proof is in the pudding, everything this administration has done is right out of Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto, and modeled after European Socialism. How any rational thinking and intelligent person can arrive at any other conclusion, is beyond me. Libertarians ARE ideological fucktards if they can't understand that voting for a non-viable third party will result in ANYTHING other than re-election of Barack Hussein Obama.



I don't believe Bush would have cut spending in any event. Bush was not a fiscal conservative, he was a "compassionate conservative" and his ideology is very similar in many ways to that of Mitt Romney, John McCain, and Rick Perry. It's this idea that Republicans can find some "happy medium" with Liberals, that we can somehow moderate conservative principles and values, and appease Liberals in the process, and this will be better for us all as a collective society. The trouble is, this notion has failed resoundingly, instead of Bush being ever-popular among independents and moderate liberals, he became even more vilified and they couldn't make him evil enough... same can be said for John McCain... prior to his run against Obama in 2008, he was the Liberal "darling" of the GOP, he could do no wrong! Oh, what a wonderful man... he genuinely wants to see both sides and work together with the Democrats... but as soon as he became a candidate running against a Democrat, he was turned into the biggest right-wing radical that ever lived, and trashed on a daily basis as a Bush lap dog. These people do not care one whit about "working together" with conservatives, they are hell-bent on a Socialist Marxist European-style ideology that has repeatedly failed throughout history. They will lie, slander, distort, mislead, obfuscate, spin, and continue to hurl insults and baseless allegations toward the right, it doesn't matter how much conservatives try to negotiate a common ground. It's time to pop them in the nose with the newspaper and be done with this! We CAN'T appeabase them, we CAN'T please them, we CAN'T work together... so why are we trying?

Dixie, if we shouldn't look back how long should we believe what politicians are talking us? So say don't look at Bush and the Republican Congresses. Ok here is another example. On my local ballot next week is a school bond measure. They are obviously asking for money. It has been determined that over the past decade bond measures for schools in Sam Francisco raised $100 million. They barely know where Amy of the money went and can show few tangible results. Now these same idiots want more money. Should I overlook past behavior and assume they'll do it right this time?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

i don't think the gop will ever embrace a more libertarian approach. such an approach will dwindle their power base and all the nice perks they get. what needs to happen is the libertarians need a more mainstream leader. so far, every leader is not really middle of the road and most voters are middle of the road. it is why we essentially get the same people in office regardless of party. if a libertarian leader could embrace more middle of the road ideals and show how libertarianism can actually work for the majority of americans, they could win.

But that's the rub... Libertarianism is almost as Utopian as Liberalism, in that, those who believe in it, believe it can work in American society. It is idealistic, and no more rational than Liberalism and Socialism. While Republicans and the GOP can indeed take a more libertarian approach, they are not going to abandon all principles to do so, and Libertarians shouldn't expect that to happen. America is not going to be transformed into a Libertarian Utopia any more than a Liberal Utopia, and Libertarians need to get this point through their dumb little pinheads. You're being just like the Liberals and trying to cram your ideology down the throat of America against its will... that will never work.

 

[cawacko]

They could not propose cuts if they wanted democrats to support military spending- that's the way it works. To have gotten cuts and military spending they needed a super majority- they never had one.

No disrespect but I have a hard time buying that. The democrats supported us going into Afghanistan so there was no problems there. And Iraq wasn't until 2003. What did they attempt to cut between then?

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

But that's the rub... Libertarianism is almost as Utopian as Liberalism, in that, those who believe in it, believe it can work in American society. It is idealistic, and no more rational than Liberalism and Socialism. While Republicans and the GOP can indeed take a more libertarian approach, they are not going to abandon all principles to do so, and Libertarians shouldn't expect that to happen. America is not going to be transformed into a Libertarian Utopia any more than a Liberal Utopia, and Libertarians need to get this point through their dumb little pinheads. You're being just like the Liberals and trying to cram your ideology down the throat of America against its will... that will never work.

huh? what ideology am i trying to cram down america's throat?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Dixie, if we shouldn't look back how long should we believe what politicians are talking us? So say don't look at Bush and the Republican Congresses. Ok here is another example. On my local ballot next week is a school bond measure. They are obviously asking for money. It has been determined that over the past decade bond measures for schools in Sam Francisco raised $100 million. They barely know where Amy of the money went and can show few tangible results. Now these same idiots want more money. Should I overlook past behavior and assume they'll do it right this time?

No, not if its the same bunch promising more of the same thing that failed. Is that what you are hearing from Republicans? That we should try to moderate our conservative principles and meet Democrats half way on spending? I'm not hearing that, I am hearing an almost consistent message from every GOP candidate, that we should CUT spending. Are you hearing some Republicans call for taxing "the rich" to appease the Liberals and show "compassion?" Again... I'm not hearing this from the GOP. Are you even hearing any of them say we don't really need to cut spending... like Bush argued... like others in the past have argued on the GOP side? I'm not hearing that now! The message I am hearing now, is a far cry from what I've heard in the past from the GOP... maybe it's not libertarian enough, heck, maybe it's not even conservative enough or constitutional enough, but it's a long fucking way from what we KNOW we get with 4 more years of Obama.


Bottom line... that's going to ultimately be our choice... Whoever the GOP nominates, or Barack Obama! If you don't support one, you will support the other by default, that's how our system works and how it will play out in reality.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

huh? what ideology am i trying to cram down america's throat?

I didn't say "Yurt is trying to cram ideology down our throat" did I????? Nope... not what I said! LIBERTARIANS want to cram LIBERTARIAN ideology down our throat, much the same way LIBERALS want to, because you are ideologically-driven retards who can't see the Big Picture! You don't seem to understand that Libertarians make up about 25% of us, and the rest are something else and want something else! We don't agree with you on everything, we don't think your ideas will work in every case, and we're not willing to accept them as empirical truth and have faith it will all work out in the end.