Romney chooses Ryan

[jamil]

The "measure of electability" you call arbitrary, most people call "didn't get enough votes to make a difference to the election". The party you support hasn't made enough inroads with the vast electorate to have any noticeable influence on national elections. That won't change until your message is accepted by a higher percentage of the voting public. Don't blame us Republicans if you can't win enough of us over from even the mediocre candidates that have been foisted off on us in past years; our candidates are still getting more votes than yours - and it's your fault.

Taking that a bit further, I believe we can identify some traits that may keep Libertarians from being more successful, more than fringe. It's not libertarianism itself. It's hard to disagree with a lot of the libertarian contingent's views on liberty and the constitution. I'd like to see the Republican Party lean much further in that direction.

The sticking point is more the Libertarians conclusion. For all their rightness of thought on Liberty, they conclude with the puritan, all or nothing, black or white, us or them. I'm not sure I'd want to live in a community where that kind of candidate is electable. A Republic of millions just can't be only one thing or another and nothing in between.

I'm not saying I want compromise that will further a destructive direction. We need something like an economic triage. I want a problem solver elected with a more prioritized focus to recognize and address the most immediate needs first, the fortitude to make the tough decisions, and the political savvy to make it stick.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Taking that a bit further, I believe we can identify some traits that may keep Libertarians from being more successful, more than fringe. It's not libertarianism itself. It's hard to disagree with a lot of the libertarian contingent's views on liberty and the constitution. I'd like to see the Republican Party lean much further in that direction.

The sticking point is more the Libertarians conclusion. For all their rightness of thought on Liberty, they conclude with the puritan, all or nothing, black or white, us or them. I'm not sure I'd want to live in a community where that kind of candidate is electable. A Republic of millions just can't be only one thing or another and nothing in between.

I'm not saying I want compromise that will further a destructive direction. We need something like an economic triage. I want a problem solver elected with a more prioritized focus to recognize and address the most immediate needs first, the fortitude to make the tough decisions, and the political savvy to make it stick.

I suspect that Ron Paul has the right idea; try to take over the Republican Party in the same way the marxist/socialists have taken over the Democrat Party - except the Libertarians need to tailor their message so rank-and-file Republicans can accept it. Sure, the "Party Elite" is running them off for now; that's how "power politics" games are played. But it doesn't have to continue to be that way; the Libertarians just don't have enough Republicans believing in their message yet.

Of course, SOME of their platform may not be palatable to most Republicans for a long time to come, but that's what the concept of education is for.

 

[rambone]

I suspect that Ron Paul has the right idea; try to take over the Republican Party in the same way the marxist/socialists have taken over the Democrat Party - except the Libertarians need to tailor their message so rank-and-file Republicans can accept it. Sure, the "Party Elite" is running them off for now; that's how "power politics" games are played. But it doesn't have to continue to be that way; the Libertarians just don't have enough Republicans believing in their message yet.

Of course, SOME of their platform may not be palatable to most Republicans for a long time to come, but that's what the concept of education is for.

Taking them over wouldn't equate to voting for their liberty-stomping candidates.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Taking them over wouldn't equate to voting for their liberty-stomping candidates.

Or you could view it as reverse progressivism.

Small, consistant steps, with adherence to the constitution as a goal. That's the way progressives have done it, but in the opposite direction.

 

[gvbcraig]

This is like learning to walk, you must crawl before you can walk, then you can run like the wind. If you try to run like the wind, without learning to walk, you will end up with your face in the dirt, and then a boot on your neck.

Looks like we have some volunteers to put their boots on our necks.
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=484gnKyTMJc[/ame]

 

[rambone]

Or you could view it as reverse progressivism.

Small, consistant steps, with adherence to the constitution as a goal. That's the way progressives have done it, but in the opposite direction.

If only. Even on my most optimistic day, I can't imagine Romney and his gaggle of neocons making government smaller at the end of his term.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, you can't get fooled again.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Cannot help it, I find these funny:

http://heygirlitspaulryan.tumblr.com/

 

[Lex Concord]

Or you could view it as reverse progressivism.

Small, consistant steps, with adherence to the constitution as a goal. That's the way progressives have done it, but in the opposite direction.

If the Constitution is the goal, nearing anarcho-capitalism would be a good target (i.e. "aim high").

 

[Lex Concord]

Cannot help it, I find these funny:

http://heygirlitspaulryan.tumblr.com/

Hey Kirk,

I don't wanna hurt you, but I'm just not feelin' it.

 

[Trooper]

Taking that a bit further, I believe we can identify some traits that may keep Libertarians from being more successful, more than fringe. It's not libertarianism itself. It's hard to disagree with a lot of the libertarian contingent's views on liberty and the constitution. I'd like to see the Republican Party lean much further in that direction.

The sticking point is more the Libertarians conclusion. For all their rightness of thought on Liberty, they conclude with the puritan, all or nothing, black or white, us or them. I'm not sure I'd want to live in a community where that kind of candidate is electable. A Republic of millions just can't be only one thing or another and nothing in between.

I'm not saying I want compromise that will further a destructive direction. We need something like an economic triage. I want a problem solver elected with a more prioritized focus to recognize and address the most immediate needs first, the fortitude to make the tough decisions, and the political savvy to make it stick.

My attorney said that libertarianism was a great idea but a horrible political party.

Yes we need to have more libertarians (Classic Liberals, civil libertarians, and others from the democrats) in the Republican party. One is not going to get all that any of us want overnight. Wanting everything now is immature and just will not happen.

The progressives made gains over decades (it will not take that long to shift the republicans) slowly taking over the democrats, the universities and the news media.

Long term goals are to dismantle the damage done by the leftwing freaks. This means not only shifting the republicans towards a more traditional constitutional position but moving academia and journalism as well. Building libertarian views into society. Not going to happen fast but could be done within 20 years.

 

[firehawk1]

While I haven't made the two sides to the same coin post (this time, anyway ), if you want there to be intelligent conversation rather than a pointless pissing match, stop pissing and moaning and prove someone wrong.

What do you see as the substantive differences between the two?

Why do you see 4-8 years of Romney better than 4 more years of Obama?

If you want to see a difference in the rhetoric, take the first step.

Throwing out a claim of false premises and complaining that people hold them without pointing out their falsehood is just more pissing.

Ahem... it appears the Paul/Johnson supporters are the only one's pissing and moaning. It is those supporters that keep bringing up EVERYTHING that supposedly supports their take on Romney, so don't point the pissing and moaning claim at me. Time for some to look in the mirror.

I for one could care less about the claim that Romney is no different than Obama, since it will have no effect on who I vote for in November whatsoever. I am firmly in the ABO camp THIS November.

Also, some here might try to loose the modern day Paul Revere, we're the only true patriots, everyone who disagrees with us are blind ignorant sheep crap and maybe try to figure out how to actually convince voters to come to their side on issues. Arrogance and insults obviously don't work, also offering nothing more than constantly pissing and moaning about "other guy" while never really doing much to promote "your" guy doesn't accomplish much either.

 

[rambone]

 

[hornadylnl]

Ahem... it appears the Paul/Johnson supporters are the only one's pissing and moaning. It is those supporters that keep bringing up EVERYTHING that supposedly supports their take on Romney, so don't point the pissing and moaning claim at me. Time for some to look in the mirror.

I for one could care less about the claim that Romney is no different than Obama, since it will have no effect on who I vote for in November whatsoever. I am firmly in the ABO camp THIS November.

Also, some here might try to loose the modern day Paul Revere, we're the only true patriots, everyone who disagrees with us are blind ignorant sheep crap and maybe try to figure out how to actually convince voters to come to their side on issues. Arrogance and insults obviously don't work, also offering nothing more than constantly pissing and moaning about "other guy" while never really doing much to promote "your" guy doesn't accomplish much either.

Oh, the irony. Couldn't cut it with a diamond tipped blade.

 

[hacksawfg]

The "measure of electability" you call arbitrary, most people call "didn't get enough votes to make a difference to the election". The party you support hasn't made enough inroads with the vast electorate to have any noticeable influence on national elections. That won't change until your message is accepted by a higher percentage of the voting public. Don't blame us Republicans if you can't win enough of us over from even the mediocre candidates that have been foisted off on us in past years; our candidates are still getting more votes than yours - and it's your fault.

Yeah, you're absolutely right, because they're asking the people about all the candidates, and the Democrats and Republicans are totally interested in letting someone else get their viewpoints out.

http://ivn.us/2012/08/15/partisan-commission-on-presidential-debates-harms-election-process/

http://www.gallup.com/poll/election.aspx

Please note that there's 8% MISSING! So is that Johnson, or the Green candidate? It's obviously some combination of both but of course, we'll never know.

Of course, you can keep saying "Well, he wouldn't get the support anyway, so why include him." I'll let YOU continue to "**** and moan" about the Patriot Act, wonder if Romney really supports the NRA or is only doing so for votes.

By the way, this is funny:

http://laspac.org/2012/08/02/gary-johnson-gets-19-in-nationwide-poll/

I grew up in Minnesota. One of the coolest things I've ever seen happen was the election of Jesse Ventura. Here's a pretty good summary about how he did it:

www.senate.leg.state.mn.us/departments/scr/treatise/cogel-jesse.pdf

Good luck getting the Dems. and Reps. to accept spending limits though

So I guess by what you're telling me we just keep leaving his name off the polls, and out of the media altogether. Maybe you're right, Americans just aren't ready to have another candidate in the debates either, because heaven forbid we get to see a candidate who might do something besides point the finger across the aisle and call the other party obstructionist or socialists for 60 minutes.

Take a look at this website, and click around on some of the states to see who is supported based on their position. I was mildly surprised at the percentage of people who hold the same views as Johnson. Just too bad he doesn't have the backing of Wall Street or the Bar Association or he could really get his message out there. Money talks, and when the two parties change the rules to make themselves the only game in town...

http://www.isidewith.com/

 

[rambone]

Paul Ryan begs Congress to Pass $700B TARP Bailout

"Madame Speaker, this bill offends my principles. But I'm gonna vote for this bill, in order to preserve my principles; in order to preserve this free enterprise system." -- Paul Ryan

LOLZ


[ame]www.youtube.com/watch?v=RyJBZYz858M[/ame]

 

[sentinelrepublic]

lol, fiscal progressive!

 

[buckstopshere]

My attorney said that libertarianism was a great idea but a horrible political party.

Yes we need to have more libertarians (Classic Liberals, civil libertarians, and others from the democrats) in the Republican party. One is not going to get all that any of us want overnight. Wanting everything now is immature and just will not happen.

The progressives made gains over decades (it will not take that long to shift the republicans) slowly taking over the democrats, the universities and the news media.

Long term goals are to dismantle the damage done by the leftwing freaks. This means not only shifting the republicans towards a more traditional constitutional position but moving academia and journalism as well. Building libertarian views into society. Not going to happen fast but could be done within 20 years.

I'm just not sure our country has that much time. Looking at the fiscal policies, the continuous wars, the civil liberties being eroded at such an alarming rate, in 20 years time it may be all over. May be all over well before then.

I think, at the core, this why those of us voting third party are so passionate about it. We need to shrink .gov now, not over 20 years.

My opinion is that it's not immature. It's a mindset that great things can be accomplished quickly with a great strategy, sound tactics executed flawlessly.

It's similar to me as getting out of personal debt. Sure, I can make small payments that chip away at the principle and yeah, I pay more in the long run but so what? Except now you know you're facing a massive lay off with little hope for future employment. You have time to pay down your debt, do you keep doing what you're doing or GOYA and get that debt paid off or give up and lose everything.

 

[Trooper]

Ahem... it appears the Paul/Johnson supporters are the only one's pissing and moaning. It is those supporters that keep bringing up EVERYTHING that supposedly supports their take on Romney, so don't point the pissing and moaning claim at me. Time for some to look in the mirror.

I for one could care less about the claim that Romney is no different than Obama, since it will have no effect on who I vote for in November whatsoever. I am firmly in the ABO camp THIS November.

Also, some here might try to loose the modern day Paul Revere, we're the only true patriots, everyone who disagrees with us are blind ignorant sheep crap and maybe try to figure out how to actually convince voters to come to their side on issues. Arrogance and insults obviously don't work, also offering nothing more than constantly pissing and moaning about "other guy" while never really doing much to promote "your" guy doesn't accomplish much either.

And we had a female Hispanic columnist (Ester Cepeda) in the Indy Star complaining that Romney did not select a Hispanic or minority as VP. She mentioned Rubio, Gov Bobby Jindal (LA), Gov Nikki Haley (SC), Gov Susana Martinez (NM) as all possible candidates.

Everyone has an axe to grind.

 

[firehawk1]

And we had a female Hispanic columnist (Ester Cepeda) in the Indy Star complaining that Romney did not select a Hispanic or minority as VP. She mentioned Rubio, Gov Bobby Jindal (LA), Gov Nikki Haley (SC), Gov Susana Martinez (NM) as all possible candidates.

Everyone has an axe to grind.

I'm still waiting for the Johnson supporters tell me why I should support him instead of continually trashing Romney...... Guess I'll never know.

 

[mrjarrell]

I'm still waiting for the Johnson supporters tell me why I should support him instead of continually trashing Romney...... Guess I'll never know.

Well, how about supporting him for his opposition to the hugely wasteful drug war? Or his stance on taxes? Maybe you'd like to support him because he wants to bring American troops home, so they stop dying for countries that don't want us there in the first place? He a proponent of the Fair Tax legislation. A plan that would end the IRS and the progressive income tax. He wants to balance the budget in year one of his administration, rather than more than a decade out, as Ryan's lame assed plan would do.
You're free to take a look at his stance on the issues, rather than be spoon fed.

Issues

Maybe one of these days you'll actually answer the question you were asked, rather than dodging it.