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.
It's called reality. You can see it in action in 2008 and 2012... oh but wait... you think you're smarter than the entirety of the GOP leadership. (No wonder why they lost. )
It's not that the GOP leadership isn't smart enough to win the election. It's that they DON'T WANT TO WIN AN ELECTION WITH A CANDIDATE THAT WILL CHANGE ANYTHING in our ultra-left Big Government.
libertarianism is a bigger joke than conservatism. libertarianism has never been attempted by one nation ever. Think about all the terrible forms of government that have been tried in various nations, and yet libertarianism is so kooky and flawed that not one nation has taken the plunge.
In a reality based world this disqualifies libertarianism as a governing philosophy.
You seriously never read the U.S. Constitution or studied the founding of America?
After they stuffed a once Democrat, with Progressive values, in front of the Republicans in 2008 and said vote for this guy...... the Republican party has had a battle from within.
The people that are the voters saw it first hand. 2010 Mid Terms happened...... Outted in many primaries, the Republican party started to cull the Good `ol Boys, with the voice of the peoples vote.
Then the they did it again with a self admitted and I quote, " I'm a PROGRESSIVE Republican, and more good `ol Boys didn't make it past the primaries.
2012 saw many States turn GOP offices, to a more Constitutional view of the office, putting the career GOP hacks in the states, out to pasture.
We have always wondered, why we always got the same thing, no matter which party held the control.
Both party's evolved into the same thing... Progressive, with the Constitution standing in the way of their grand plans for a One World Order.
Now we have those standing up for the Constitution, the very chains the founders of this nation placed on the federal government so WE THE PEOPLE remained free with Liberty for ALL, gaining ground within the party that once stood for individual freedom. The blowback from the Progressives in both parties is telling us we are on the right track.
I have high regard for libertarians on fiscal matters. It's their positions on social issues,immigration,drugs and national defense that I sometimes part ways with.
Libertarianism appears to be an oxymoron. For one cannot legislate sovereign prerogatives, nor preserve liberties, when the exercise of political liberty requires their surrender.
A nonpolitical non citizen American retains his sovereignty, freedom and independence, and is "free" of the regulatory restraints of government. As long as he does not trespass upon another, he is left alone.
On the other hand, if Libertarians want the privileges of political liberty without accepting the burdens of civic duty, then they are opposed to the republican form of government.
Libertarians cannot succeed. For either one is a sovereign, served by government. Or one is a subject and servant of the government. You cannot participate in the democratic form as a Libertarian without surrendering one’s rights in exchange for political liberties.
LIBERTARIAN GOALS ARE UNATTAINABLE
If you look at the Libertarian Platform through the eyes of the "Republican Form", where the sovereign people exercise natural and personal liberty, while not burdened with the socialist impositions nor the civic duties of the subject citizens, it's a fait accompli... But you cannot restore your status in the republican form of government, by participation in the democratic form. Nor can you restore surrendered rights by giving consent to their surrender (as a prerequisite for being a "Libertarian" voter). So the Libertarian platform is an impossible goal for Libertarians to achieve by voting Libertarian.
The people that are the voters saw it first hand. 2010 Mid Terms happened...... Outted in many primaries, the Republican party started to cull the Good `ol Boys, with the voice of the peoples vote.
One of the main reasons why the Tea party won in 2010 was because Republicans successfully labeled Democrats as cutting Medicare benefits with the passage of the ACA. It wasn't so much of a libertarian revolution, than it was defending a liberal program.
Seniors turned out in record numbers and swung dramatically from being evenly among both parties, to overwhelmingly supporting the GOP.
In the 2006 midterm election, seniors split their vote evenly between House Democrats and Republicans. This time, they went for Republicans by a twenty-one-point margin.
Why were seniors so furious with the Democrats? The weak economy and the huge deficits didn’t help, but retirees have actually been hit less hard by the financial crisis than other Americans. The real sticking point was health-care reform, which the elderly didn’t like from the start.
Misinformation about “death panels” and so on had something to do with seniors’ hostility. But the real reason is that it feels to them as if health-care reform will come at their expense, since the new law will slow the growth in Medicare spending over the next decade. It won’t actually cut current spending, as Republicans claimed in campaign ads, but between now and 2019 total Medicare outlays will be half a trillion dollars less than previously projected. Seniors, entitlements, and the midterms : The New Yorker
If anything, the 2010 midterms was a vote to maintain liberal policies, not to overturn them. Where Republicans sincere in defending Medicare and their attacks on Democrats cutting benefits? No, because as soon as Republicans took office, Paul Ryan drafted a bill with significant Republican support that would practically abolish Medicare as we know it. After finding out that it was so politically unpopular, he revised his bill.
Anyways, good luck with your libertarian takeover. It will certainly be a step in the right direction for reforming the current GOP. I can find common ground with libertarians over foreign policy and civil liberties, but usually oppose them on various economic issues. Nevertheless, a libertarian will never win....or at least an honest one.
"Vote for me and I will abolish SS in the name of freedom!" Good luck with that platform.
Sure, it's easy enough for a political organization or candidate to win elections if they sell out to interest groups, corporations, unions and anyone else who wants to pimp the system and **** all over the Constitution, but those of us in the Tea Party movement don't want to compete for the votes of the uninformed and self-serving.
We already have two parties doing that.
The strategy is to gradually take over the Republican Party from within.
Of course this will take time, and there will definitely be some squealing before it's all done, but that's the only practical solution.
I'm not missing the point.
You presume all elections from local to national are won only by candidates who 'sell out' and 'pimp the system' (both your words). This is untrue and a cynical insult to all those who step up and work for our democracy because they have a sense of civic responsibility and duty.
These citizens are neither pimps or sell-outs. Try it yourself before make these scummy claims.
You in the Tea Party were all too willing to bend over for the Koch brother's money, so don't try wearing a mask of self-righteousness.
I am happy, though, to read that Teabaggers don't want to compete for the votes of the uninformed and self-serving. I have yet to see a ballot that asks "Are you uninformed?" or "Are you self-serving?", but I know for a fact that a vote is a vote, no matter how uninformed or self-serving the voter who cast it is.
if you want to win, you have to get voters. It's good to know Teabaggers aren't interested in winning.
Political parties vote among themselves to select who will lead them, who will organize them, and who will recruit new members. Since you say the Teabaggers plan to take over from within, but aren't interested in the very groups that are most likely to join you, I doubt your doublespeak will ever come to pass.
Those idiotic contradictory plans will take a long time, for sure. I agree with you on that. More time than the Tea Party has left before it vanishes, leaving nothing but a stink of sulphur behind when it goes.
Anyone here that has a parent 70 yo. or older, knows all about the death panels that already exist.
I lived it for 12 years with my 82 yo dad, who was finally killed by a death panel.
New Zealand already has an organ transplant calculator that decides whether or not someone receives a transplant. There are waiting lists for a variety of medical surgeries in Canada. The NHS in Britain has been dealing with the declining quality of care for years now.
Like it or not, more socialized systems decide who gets care and who doesn't and the decisions are often based on political or mortality concerns (as opposed to strictly medical).
Is the American healthcare system perfect? No, but neither are the systems that Progressives would wish to replace it with. It would be like out of the frying pan and into the fire.
New Zealand already has an organ transplant calculator that decides whether or not someone receives a transplant. There are waiting lists for a variety of medical surgeries in Canada. The NHS in Britain has been dealing with the declining quality of care for years now.
Like it or not, more socialized systems decide who gets care and who doesn't and the decisions are often based on political or mortality concerns (as opposed to strictly medical).
Is the American healthcare system perfect? No, but neither are the systems that Progressives would wish to replace it with. It would be like out of the frying pan and into the fire.
And the for profit system decides who gets treatment based on their ability pay. This idea that the free market system does not have death panels is absurd.
No system is perfect, but as other countries have shown, it can deliver HC to the majority of their citizens at a fraction of their cost.
Just even try to dismantle the NHS over in England, and it would be political suicide. Heck, why don't you RWers put your policies to the test and dismantle the VA.
There's too many non-whites in the United States now and that number will swell in the coming decades.
The GOP can't survive. In a multi-ethnic country like the United States, anti-immigration views can't exist.
They'll have to become Democrats with a different name.
The United States is changing extremely radically. Demographics is the key driver for this. Everything is changing. Politics, policy, culture. No country or civilization has undergone such a drastic change in such a short time frame as the United States is today.
Unfortunately, these new immigrants are very socialistic and communistic in their political and cultural beliefs that any sort of functional government can't exist in Washington anymore. It'll become a one party system essentially as the European demographic shrinks in number and hands the reins over to the non-white immigrants. Given this, the future is very uncertain.
But when the dust settles I hope the other countries of the world looks back in at the United States and analyzes where it went wrong and how they can use the United States errors to their advantage so as to avoid the same fate. Sort of how people and governments do today in regard to the Roman Empire. People study the Romans furiously to see where they went wrong and it was quite easy to figure that out. It was too big and too culturally and ethnically diverse. It was impossible for the Romans to rule over so many different people. Sort of like how the Soviet Union collapsed. The United States is on the same path sadly.
Learn from your mistakes humanity and move on! Immigration is not the answer to low birth rates, nor is it helpful to your economy when in the long run it only destroys through lack of cohesion.
Still some hope remains. It's certainly no secret that people of African descent cannot lead a nation. If they can't lead and have stable families, then what hope do they have to lead a stable nation? The Asians seem to be very introverted and money focused. Certainly a greedy demographic. The Mexicans are too humbled and carefree in my opinion. Education doesn't seem too popular amongst that demographic.
If I were a betting man though, I'd say the Asians are the only one's capable of keeping this train rolling. They place a high value on education and wealth obtainment. They have a good understanding of politics and have the capability to lead. The only issue here is over population by the blacks and the mexicans may displace the asians through sheer numbers because asian birth rates are even lower than whites.
*shrug* Who knows. The future is hard to predict.
Maybe the white population will rebound. Demographic trends are never the same and fluctuate. Hell just 300 years ago there was rougly 1.5 billion people on earth. Today it's amost 7.5 billion. That's a pretty big spurt in growth! The point is demographics are hard to predict. For all we know whites could dip down to 20 or 30 million by the year 2100 and then shoot up to 500 million by 2200 for all we know. It's impossible to predict because demographics are influenced by many things.
----------------------
Another way to look at things is this: Yes. There will be as many hispanics in the U.S. as there are whites in about 60 years and Asians will catch up to the black population during that same period as well. Interesting how the demographics in a country as big as the U.S. will have an even distrubtion of racial groups. Asian 25% White 25% Black 25% Hispanic 25%. 100 million of each! I don't think such a country has ever existed. Will be interesting to see what the results of such a country will be.
But back to my point about hispanics - Most of the latin american immigrants coming in are coming from Mexico. Most mexicans, especially north mexicans, have over 50% white european DNA. This is why whenever a white and a mexican has a child the child more often than not comes out with european features. I've known a mexican girl who got pregnant by a white man with blonde hair and the child came out with golden blonde hair and looked as white as can be. I think Mexican Americans in the future will be very white. Half of all interracial marriages and mixed children in the United States are between a Mexican and a White American. Interestingly enough as well is that the gender rate between both demographics is even. White men are marrying and having children with mexican women at the same rate white women are having children and marrying mexican men. Definetly a mutual attraction between the two demographics.
I think Blacks will become very mixed and there'll be alot less pure black people in the U.S.
Especially since so many are dating out these days, incarceration rates are high, abortion rates are high, death rates are high, birth rates are right at replacement levels. We'll have a large mulatto population that'll replace the african american population, just a guesstimate by me after looking at statistics and such. We'll see.
That's just my two cents on the whole subject. I study demographics regularly and keep track of this as it's a subject that highly interests me. These are just my predictions based off evidence that I've read and observed.
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.
)
