Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But the sheeple were too stupid to see it. Obviously, any of the white male Republican candidates would have gotten basicly the same white vote that Romney got... Santorum, Perry, Gingrich. The anti-Obama vote was a givaway to any white male candidate. But the only candidate that could have pulled a sizable number of voters away from Obama was Ron Paul.
I'm not against home school either, but being forced to do it because you can't afford to send your child to school is crazy. Here is the problem, you say that not all libertarians are alike, but guess what, in an election, you guys will get all lumped together. How do you think romney lost, that tea party screwed him over because they are associated with the republicans.
Just like all liberals get lumped together, and how all conservatives get lumped together. Liberals automatically get painted as atheists, and welfare recipients, and conservatives automatically are assumed to all be bible thumpers and against gays. You and I know that isn't true. So why paint all libertarians with a broad brush. Some libertarians yes are anarchists, but most want small, efficient government and want it to do what it was set up to do by the founders of this nation. Nor do they want the government playing the roll of some nanny state, telling people what they can and cannot consume, or what they do in their bedrooms.
Well enough to not get run off the stage advocating his polcies, and well enough to pick up Republican delegates to the Convention, which you were the one insisting that a Libertarian candidate would get run off the stage.
I already said a Libertarian would not do well and stated why. You were the one overreaching off into lala land with bogus conclusions about a libertarian being run off the stage, clearly having no concept of mental processing of the history of Ron Paul's NOT being run off the stage when he has been able to advocate his policies to be compared to other presidential candidates'.
You are conflating voting results with defensibility of a political position. A politician can make a reasoned defense of his positions and not succeed at the ballot box. It happens all the time. There is a HUGE difference between not succeeding at the ballot box and not making reasoned arguments concerning your positions. Sometimes candidates DON'T make well reasoned arguments, like my government will create 12 million jobs but government doesn't create jobs, or like I'm for small government but I want government all up in the middle of people's personal decisions- but Ron Paul WAS NOT weak and unreasoned in defending his positions. Gary Johnson was a no-name. Heck I followed the process and I didn't know who the heck Johnson really was. Bottom line- underperforming in a election does not mean you got run off the stage in a reasoned defending of your policy positions. It simply means the voters like another option better. You have to actually look AT the arguments themselves and them BEING presented to analyze and determine if they are rational and capable of reasoned defense.
You calling it nonsense speaks to your inaccurate and bogus argument that somehow the positions don't stand up to rational thought and reason and that THAT is why a libertarian would not be successful at the ballot box. Well the positions DO stand up to rational thought and reason, thus your theory is bogus. So when I point out THAT your theory of libertarian policies being irrational is bogus, you move to conflate ballot box results with rational thought and reasoned policy defense. You speak of being run off the stage in the context of irrational indefensible policy, and when I call you on it, you SHIFT to say "Oh I actually meant the ballot box results." LOL. Yeah, whatever.
Getting run of the stage means you presented your ideas, and 99% america said, thanks, but no thanks. You can try to make the argument that you had sound reasoning when defending your policies, but when it came time to vote, you got crushed. If you would have went up against obama, america would have also rejected your libertarian nonsense. There is no way you can present a libertarian message that is going to resonate with the majority of americans
Just like all liberals get lumped together, and how all conservatives get lumped together. Liberals automatically get painted as atheists, and welfare recipients, and conservatives automatically are assumed to all be bible thumpers and against gays. You and I know that isn't true. So why paint all libertarians with a broad brush. Some libertarians yes are anarchists, but most want small, efficient government and want it to do what it was set up to do by the founders of this nation. Nor do they want the government playing the roll of some nanny state, telling people what they can and cannot consume, or what they do in their bedrooms.
Because even though liberals and non tea party republicans may disagree on policies decisions, the ideas aren't so far off on another planet like libertarians. On top of that, for all the complaining about our government, we have worked together to give this country a surplus. Government is not perfect, but its not the devil that libertarians make it out to be.
I don't know what kool-aid you're drinking, but Ron Paul didn't stand a snowball's chance in hell. Almost every one of the ideas Ron Paul proposed, Obama already had. If Ron Paul could've defeated Obama, he wouldn't have disappeared into the woodwork.
Getting run of the stage means you presented your ideas, and 99% america said, thanks, but no thanks.
Yet originally you tied getting run of the stage to the ideas themselves being nonsense. NOW you switch to say oh, it's Americans not voting for your ideas. Like I said, whatever. I said it before, and I'll say it again, Ron Paul and the Libertarian policies are valid reasoned good ideas, they are not nonsense, they are not irrational. Also like I said before, a libertarian would not succeed now because of the power of the Washington Lobby and all the money that would be brought to bear against that candidate because of the fact that Dems and Repubs cater to that lobby, to that money, but libertarians wouldn't. So I ALREADY predicted a libertarian wouldn't run well in a general election for that reason, so I wasn't even disagreeing with the "no thanks" prediction of ballot box results. What I WAS disagreeing with was your bogus characterization of libertarian polices themselves. So now you'd like to shift and focus ONLY on the ballot box results question which I never suggested was favorable in the first place- and try to argue that point.
Well, you MADE the bogus argument about the policies themselves, THAT is what I was objecting to, and THAT is what I am still objecting to and have shown it to be bogus. But by all means, continue to try to shift away to a discussion of ballot box results that I agreed from the beginning was unfavorable to libertarians so as to sidestep just how bogus your argument was proven to be that the libertarian policies themselves are nonsense.
Ron Paul has the right policies for the time when America is experiencing strong consistent economic growth, contrary to your absurd and dismantled argument that libertarian policies are nonsense.
Because even though liberals and non tea party republicans may disagree on policies decisions, the ideas aren't so far off on another planet like libertarians. On top of that, for all the complaining about our government, we have worked together to give this country a surplus. Government is not perfect, but its not the devil that libertarians make it out to be.
Hmmm so ideas like getting the government out of the marriage business, or getting out our bedrooms is from another planet? The idea of continuing to fight a failed war on drugs that only serves to benefit the cartels, and other special interest groups (especially the war on weed) is from another planet? The idea of bringing all of our troops home, and to quit meddling in other nations affairs is from another planet? Opposing corporate bailouts and too big to fail, hence the government picking winners and losers and rewarding uber wealthy executives on our (the taxpayers) dime for making p*** poor business decisions is from another planet? Furthermore, where are you seeing a surplus? I sure as Hell ain't seeing it.
When most people get into debt, they tighten their belts and cut their spending. Yet our government thinks that the only way to reduce the deficit is to spend, spend, spend. Oh, and print more money that isn't backed by anything further reducing the value of our currency, and causing inflation!
I don't know what kool-aid you're drinking, but Ron Paul didn't stand a snowball's chance in hell. Almost every one of the ideas Ron Paul proposed, Obama already had.
Which seems to be a validation THAT the ideas were good ones if one believes they had the same ideas.
But actually Ron Paul differs significantly from Obama in that Obama believes in heavy federal investment in education whereas Paul wants to do away with the Department of Education as a cost-cutting measure. Also, Paul believes in closing our military bases that we operate perpetually around the globe and bringing those troops home, whereas Obama has not given any indication that he is pushing for reduced US global military footprint in general, just that which was ramped up by the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars. Ron Paul also makes no bones about stating clearly that people should have the right to smoke marijuana as a personal choice if that's what they want to do (just like people have the right NOW to drink alcohol and to smoke cigarettes) but Obama doesn't want to tread on that territory, he's more keep simple possession illegal but go more hands-off on federal prosecutions of citizens for simple possession.
So no, what you say really is not the case about Ron Paul's policies versus Obama's policies. They ARE different. But IMO Ron Paul's personal liberty policies in general are right for America at all times, it's just that his economic policies, budgetary policies, and cutting of federal investment policies are wrong for an America coming out of recession.
Yet originally you tied getting run of the stage to the ideas themselves being nonsense. NOW you switch to say oh, it's Americans not voting for your ideas. Like I said, whatever. I said it before, and I'll say it again, Ron Paul and the Libertarian policies are valid reasoned good ideas, they are not nonsense, they are not irrational. Also like I said before, a libertarian would not succeed now because of the power of the Washington Lobby and all the money that would be brought to bear against that candidate because of the fact that Dems and Repubs cater to that lobby, to that money, but libertarians wouldn't. So I ALREADY predicted a libertarian wouldn't run well in a general election for that reason, so I wasn't even disagreeing with the "no thanks" prediction of ballot box results. What I WAS disagreeing with was your bogus characterization of libertarian polices themselves. So now you'd like to shift and focus ONLY on the ballot box results question which I never suggested was favorable in the first place- and try to argue that point.
Well, you MADE the bogus argument about the policies themselves, THAT is what I was objecting to, and THAT is what I am still objecting to and have shown it to be bogus. But by all means, continue to try to shift away to a discussion of ballot box results that I agreed from the beginning was unfavorable to libertarians so as to sidestep just how bogus your argument was proven to be that the libertarian policies themselves are nonsense.
Ron Paul has the right policies for the time when America is experiencing strong consistent economic growth, contrary to your absurd and dismantled argument that libertarian policies are nonsense.
My original point was that even in good times, ron paul would still get run off the stage. If we are doing good as an economy, why would anybody change what is working? On top of that, putting a free market society like libertarians want on the table, would send us back into a recession and on a social level would be a disaster. No government regulation would be anarchy, the poor would be screwed, and minorities are screwed. When you start letting people do what they want, especially in a time of economic growth like we did back in 2000, people start taking unnecessary risk, or doing things that approach the ethical line, like creating mortgages for people who can't afford them, or creating mortgage backed securities that were basically junk, or allowing banks to co-mingle funds with customer deposits. When the money is flowing, that's when things get worse.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
