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.
The Libertarian Party exists only because it is the one where disgruntled voters go whenever they don't like the direction their party is heading.
Um, no it doesn't. The libertarian party exists because some libertarians got together and formed a political party. Libertarians are not and never have been Democrats as a group.
Quote:
Back in it's early days, the Libertarian party was the home of the conservative wing of the Democratic party. When the party swung rightward, it became the home of the liberal wing of the Democratic party.
Please do some research before you spread 100% garbage around.
The founders of the libertarian party absolutely were not former Democrats. Did you read this anywhere or just make it up? The Libertarian Party was founded by former Republicans. Democrats had nothing whatsoever to do with it. The founders of the Libertarian Party broke away from the Young Americans for Freedom, a conservative youth organization in the 60s, and formed the Libertarian Party in 1971.
Quote:
Eventually, the Democrats began doing well enough on their own at appealing to all it's factions the disgruntled left and went back to where they came from.
The Libertarian Party was against the Democrats the day it was formed, has been against the Democrat Party throughout its history, and will continue to be against the Democrat party forever.
The Democrat philosophy of having government get involved to better society and solve problems is at complete odds with the libertarian philosophy of having as absolute minimum involvement of government in society as possible. Libertarians and Democrats are black and white, oil and water, night and day. They are completely and totally incompatible at the most basic and fundamental level.
Quote:
So now, it's a home for disgruntled Republicans. That's the way the Libertarians are; they always have a little sumpthin' for everyone. Once in a while, they do have a good candidate pop up for the moment, so I expect they will be around for a long time to come. But until peace-loving old hippies can embrace camo clad old gun nuts and go smoke pot while they shoot up the boonies, they will always be nothing but a bump in the road for the major parties.
Thank you for your expert analysis, but since you had absolutely no clue what you were talking about regarding the history of the Libertarian Party, it's hard to take your analysis seriously.
I think the libertarian wing of the party has too much power?
There is no Libertarian wing of the Republican party.
You have the Progressive Establishment GOP and you have the TEA Party Republican Constitutionalists.
Too much power? Wait until the more Constitutional side of the Republican party, become the majority in the Republican party. Then, too much power may come into play. Right now they are the minority, but gaining a lot of steam.
We've seen more and more Tea Party members claim to be "libertarian" (Rand Paul and even his father Ron before him) as well as past threads about Libertarian views. I went to decide for myself if there was a link and found this nugget in the Libertarian Party website
Now since the Tea Party really started in 2007 there have been more and more people saying that Republicans are RINOs because they aren't conservative enough and/or are not fiscally conservative. I've voted mostly Republican in 2008 and again in 2012 because I didn't think the Obama Democrats were the answer to problems. But now in 2014 I think the Tea Party and the conservative Libertarians who claim to be Republicans aren't the answer either. I personally want a moderate choice rather than just a far right choice or a far left choice like it has seemed the two parties have done. If given the choice, I may just end up voting for anyone but Hillary and a far-right candidate in 2016 (if both happen.)
What say you libertarians of C-D, are the libertarian Tea Partiers like Rand Paul hurting the Republican party more than helping it?
Libertarians need to stay in their own Party, hiding out as Republicans to get elected is nothing less than Dishonest. The TP needs to go start their own Party, but we know that is not their goal since they have openly stated they plan on taking over the GOP, thus resulting in the demise of the once great Party of Lincoln.
Libertarians need to stay in their own Party, hiding out as Republicans to get elected is nothing less than Dishonest. The TP needs to go start their own Party, but we know that is not their goal since they have openly stated they plan on taking over the GOP, thus resulting in the demise of the once great Party of Lincoln.
The guy that broke the Constitution and States rights, to start a civil war?
Libertarians tend to be more conservative than the Republicans & Democrats.
The one party system of Progressive politics(R's & D's) is still alive, but not doing too well these days, as a two party system is starting to emerge, from the ashes.
There is no Libertarian wing of the Republican party.
You have the Progressive Establishment GOP and you have the TEA Party Republican Constitutionalists.
Too much power? Wait until the more Constitutional side of the Republican party, become the majority in the Republican party. Then, too much power may come into play. Right now they are the minority, but gaining a lot of steam.
The TEA Party Constitutional Republicans taking over the Republican Party will truly make it one party politics. There are several political writers claiming that the TEA Party has ruined Republicans for years to come. There is no way any TEA Party candidate can win a presidential election. The swing states wont go to then at all with all the stupid comments they make about rape.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow
The guy that broke the Constitution and States rights, to start a civil war?
Libertarians tend to be more conservative than the Republicans & Democrats.
The one party system of Progressive politics(R's & D's) is still alive, but not doing too well these days, as a two party system is starting to emerge, from the ashes.
First off, the southern states got boo-boo faced when it came to the Democratic nominee and got their own. Combined, the two candidates wouldn't have won. Then the southern states feared that the Union would uphold the Declaration of Independence line of all men being equal and ending slavery "crushing the south's farming economy." They seceded for that reason, Lincoln would have just been proverbial pen abolitionists were waiting for. Without the southern state Senators, to filibuster abolitionist laws on a national scale, the 13th achievement got pushed through rather easily.
As fir the last part, ah you used the "Republicrat" straw man argument. The Republicans are not progressive at all, even the Democrats who turned Republican. The Democratic Party and the Republican Party can be similar at times but the Republican Party is far more conservative than the Democratic Party. It's virtually the whole 1960's Goldwater Conservatism rise and backlash on the national scale all over again.
Libertarians need to stay in their own Party, hiding out as Republicans to get elected is nothing less than Dishonest. The TP needs to go start their own Party, but we know that is not their goal since they have openly stated they plan on taking over the GOP, thus resulting in the demise of the once great Party of Lincoln.
I entirely agree. The TEA Party is just posioning the well for Republicans. Many political writers are claiming the TEA Party has killed the chance of ANY Republican (even RINOs, establishment or constitutional) in the White House for twenty years. That is five terms and it ids unlikely once you vote for a single party three times, you will vote against them.
The TEA Party Constitutional Republicans taking over the Republican Party will truly make it one party politics. There are several political writers claiming that the TEA Party has ruined Republicans for years to come. There is no way any TEA Party candidate can win a presidential election. The swing states wont go to then at all with all the stupid comments they make about rape.
How did the Dem's win with their stupid comments about cheating on their wives while recovering from cancer?
Another question, since we are throwing around the RINO phrase in this thread wouldn't most presidents who were Republicans be RINOs? Lincoln would be a RINO because "Oh no, he wanted slaves to become US citizens," Theodore Roosevelt would be a RINO because "Oh no, businesses aren't Odin Allfather and should face legislation." Eisnenhower would likely be a RINO, W has been called a RINO several times, Bush Sr. could be and even Nixon and Ford. I can even see one of the original conservatives being called a RINO now, Reagan. People forget, he was a major win for Goldwater Conservatism after getting wiped off the board during the 1964 election. Reagan won the gubernatorial election in California, a known liberal state thanks to the Haight-Ashbury backlash of the mid to late 60's.
How did the Dem's win with their stupid comments about cheating on their wives while recovering from cancer?
I refer to a post I made in another libertarian thread. Perhaps the Democrat insult wasn't as bad as comments made by the Republican and it was the lesser of two evils... I agree a stupid comment but let's remember when your choices are a "giant douche" or a "turd sandwich" it still be the best option to vote for the Democrat who made that comment if you are a mother or a father hearing a Republican say a rape victim's reproductive system can shut down to prevent getting pregnant.
Another question, since we are throwing around the RINO phrase in this thread wouldn't most presidents who were Republicans be RINOs? Lincoln would be a RINO because "Oh no, he wanted slaves to become US citizens," Theodore Roosevelt would be a RINO because "Oh no, businesses aren't Odin Allfather and should face legislation." Eisnenhower would likely be a RINO, W has been called a RINO several times, Bush Sr. could be and even Nixon and Ford. I can even see one of the original conservatives being called a RINO now, Reagan. People forget, he was a major win for Goldwater Conservatism after getting wiped off the board during the 1964 election. Reagan won the gubernatorial election in California, a known liberal state thanks to the Haight-Ashbury backlash of the mid to late 60's.
What you are seeing unfold is what was seen right before the civil war popped off.
Two different political parties with opposite ideology.
The days of Democrat v. Republican and Republican v. Democrat are coming to an end.
It is now a full on war of Progressive v. Conservative and Conservative v. Progressive.
The Conservatives are set on taking the Republican party for their own, culling the big government progressives.
As seen up to the mid-terms, the Progressives are having to take a more Conservative stance, or get tossed in the General. Obama is TOXIC once again, according to Axelrod.
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.
I agree a stupid comment but let's remember when your choices are a "giant douche" or a "turd sandwich" it still be the best option to vote for the Democrat who made that comment if you are a mother or a father hearing a Republican say a rape victim's reproductive system can shut down to prevent getting pregnant.
