Discussion: The REPUBLICAN Party XV

[Victarion]

Neocon's, Conservative's, Moderates, and Far Right won't allow that to happen. They would just tell the libertarians to go to the LP. You got 5 factions in the GOP...I really doubt all can get a long for better of the country.

Sure if a vocal agent were to call the big wigs out, they'd get support from their fellow libertarians?

 

[enterthemadness]

Sure if a vocal agent were to call the big wigs out, they'd get support from their fellow libertarians?

I be very honest with you. I rather not hijack the GOP. There's bound to be sour grapes if libertarians become a majority. Moderates, Neocon and Conservatives, and Far Right have more members....have rich people willing to spend money. Look at the failed um...American Elect. $30..32Million...that ain't libertarian money, that's GOP money. If it was libertarians behind AE, they should had put the money into the LP. Even $15M towards Gary Johnson would created more TV exposure for the LP/Gary 2012.

 

[Victarion]

I be very honest with you. I rather not hijack the GOP. There's bound to be sour grapes if libertarians become a majority. Moderates, Neocon and Conservatives, and Far Right have more members....have rich people willing to spend money. Look at the failed um...American Elect. $30..32Million...that ain't libertarian money, that's GOP money. If it was libertarians behind AE, they should had put the money into the LP. Even $15M towards Gary Johnson would created more TV exposure for the LP/Gary 2012.

The GOP is in disarray and the time is ripe for a Libertarian uprising through the GOP's weakness. I feel its a more expedient process than trying to plug the Libertarians as is. The GOP needs to get out of the shadow of fear cast by the very people you mention; I feel someone with a Libertarian bent is the person to do just that for the GOP and, in doing so, bring the Libertarians to power.

Shall we agree to disagree?

 

[hippie_hunter]

You really think two parties that allowed the Federal Reserve to come into power are going to audit it and/or end it? Really? . Even if the libertarian movement spread...the GOP will always have factions...it would be a matter of time before a neoconservative, conservative, or moderate, or Far Right came into power again. Unless if the libertarian movement tells the other factions to get lost and changes it's name, then it's doubtful I vote GOP. I mean really...I already agree with the Democrats more than the GOP. At least according to isidewith site. I'm Libertarian, Green, Democratic, and then sadly, a very high 39% GOP.

You really really think the GOP is gonna change. You *really* think change will happen before a monetary collapse? Well, you can vote GOP, and I can vote LP. I be very shocked if Rand Paul is nominee in 2016 or 2020.

You completely ignore the history that parties change all the time. Parties change constantly in order to remain relevant and in power. While I think Rand Paul will have an uphill battle in 2016, he is going to be a major player in the primaries. Even more so than his father thanks to the work that he is doing.

 

[hippie_hunter]

I be very honest with you. I rather not hijack the GOP. There's bound to be sour grapes if libertarians become a majority. Moderates, Neocon and Conservatives, and Far Right have more members....have rich people willing to spend money. Look at the failed um...American Elect. $30..32Million...that ain't libertarian money, that's GOP money. If it was libertarians behind AE, they should had put the money into the LP. Even $15M towards Gary Johnson would created more TV exposure for the LP/Gary 2012.

You go it oh so wrong.

Moderates are very easy to work with. Economically, they're a bit more progressive than libertarians, but they still believe in most of the core economic issues that libertarians believe in. Socially, they're pretty much in line with the libertarians.

The Neoconservative wing of the Republican Party is dying. The era of pre-emptive intervention and massive government spending within the GOP is essentially over. Look at how poorly Karl Rove, John McCain, and Lindsay Graham are being received nowadays. Rand Paul created a massive blow to the Neoconservatives with his drone filibuster.

And it's the Evangelical wing that will be targeted by the GOP, not the Libertarians. The libertarian message has a lot more room for growth and much broader appeal to the general electorate than social conservatism. And the Evangelicals have devastated the GOP in a lot of races, costing them guaranteed seats (Indiana, Delaware, Missouri) due to their extreme views on gay marriage and abortion. You see, parties want to hold power first and foremost. So they keep on top of trends of where people are leaning, the Libertarians are a way for the GOP to keep that power while Evangelicals will cause them to lose it slowly.

 

[enterthemadness]

The GOP is in disarray and the time is ripe for a Libertarian uprising through the GOP's weakness. I feel its a more expedient process than trying to plug the Libertarians as is. The GOP needs to get out of the shadow of fear cast by the very people you mention; I feel someone with a Libertarian bent is the person to do just that for the GOP and, in doing so, bring the Libertarians to power.

Shall we agree to disagree?

Sure, agree to disagree.

You completely ignore the history that parties change all the time. Parties change constantly in order to remain relevant and in power. While I think Rand Paul will have an uphill battle in 2016, he is going to be a major player in the primaries. Even more so than his father thanks to the work that he is doing.

I ignored the history on purpose. While I don't mind buying a book written by a R or a D or even a silly I (silly, cause a Independent imho is a R or a D having a hissy fit) or going to a game or even filling out a NCAA Men's Tourny bracket...I am not voting for anyone with a R, D, or I next to their name anymore. No. That bridge is gone.

The only thing you and I seem to agree on is Rand Paul is going to be a force to reckon with in 2016...he's going to win a state or states, but I think fell short or way short of nomination. Well...a ''force to reckon with'' may not be what I totally mean, but he is gonna make more noise than his Dad, and thus will get more MSM exposure.

Now when it comes to the LP gaining more traction in 2016...Gary Johnson hasn't ruled out another LP run...and Jesse Ventura has said he will run if he has ballot access. Ventura comes with more con's than pro's though...I be afraid he would only be covered for his theories. While I believe in a few theories, I've toned down on them. That said, I imagine I would vote for a Ventura ticket if he got it under LP in 2016. But...c'mon...I think we can agree that may make the LP kinda a joke. Yes, he is a former Governor now...it would be better suited if he was only a spokesperson or VP candidate. He already spoke with Gary on a few stops during 2012.

 

[enterthemadness]

You go it oh so wrong.

Moderates are very easy to work with. Economically, they're a bit more progressive than libertarians, but they still believe in most of the core economic issues that libertarians believe in. Socially, they're pretty much in line with the libertarians.

The Neoconservative wing of the Republican Party is dying. The era of pre-emptive intervention and massive government spending within the GOP is essentially over. Look at how poorly Karl Rove, John McCain, and Lindsay Graham are being received nowadays. Rand Paul created a massive blow to the Neoconservatives with his drone filibuster.

And it's the Evangelical wing that will be targeted by the GOP, not the Libertarians. The libertarian message has a lot more room for growth and much broader appeal to the general electorate than social conservatism. And the Evangelicals have devastated the GOP in a lot of races, costing them guaranteed seats (Indiana, Delaware, Missouri) due to their extreme views on gay marriage and abortion. You see, parties want to hold power first and foremost. So they keep on top of trends of where people are leaning, the Libertarians are a way for the GOP to keep that power while Evangelicals will cause them to lose it slowly.

Thank you. For educating me. But at the end of the day...I am not going to vote for the GOP or Democratic Party. My views. I am a stubborn young man. I also want more than two parties to compete...and voting for either of the major parties isn't going to help that. I'm in a small minority, but oh well. My path.

 

[wiegeabo]

IMO, that's being as narrowminded as those who vote the partyline.

What we should be doing is voting for the candidate that best fits what you want, regardless of party. Rewarding the candidates for their views, and also telling that party who we want.

Even though I would prefer a strong third party, I don't really care if the libertarian movement takes hold in the party itself, or in the GOP. As long as it does. And soon. Because I don't think we're going to survive much longer the way we're going.

 

[Schlosser85]

I am not voting for anyone with a R, D, or I next to their name anymore. No. That bridge is gone.

That's just as ridiculous as voting for someone just because of the letter next to their name.

Either way, you're not giving a crap about the issues.

 

[enterthemadness]

IMO, that's being as narrowminded as those who vote the partyline.

What we should be doing is voting for the candidate that best fits what you want, regardless of party. Rewarding the candidates for their views, and also telling that party who we want.

Even though I would prefer a strong third party, I don't really care if the libertarian movement takes hold in the party itself, or in the GOP. As long as it does. And soon. Because I don't think we're going to survive much longer the way we're going.

That's just as ridiculous as voting for someone just because of the letter next to their name.

Either way, you're not giving a crap about the issues.

-_- you both got me. You caught me red handed in the cookie jar. I feel so ashamed. A Fraud. *eats cookie*

Yes, I'm becoming loyal to a 3rd party. In my defense, I'm tired of seeing two parties drive up debt, tell me what to do with my money, and well...basically insanity is doing the same thing over and over again. While the LP hasn't won yet in it's history, I see two major parties always getting elected...I want no part of those parties when it comes to voting. I honestly don't believe much will change under them as well. I honestly believe a collapse will happen thanks to both parties.

 

[wiegeabo]

Hey, I give preference to third parties. I'm a registered LP member, after all. But I'll vote for any candidate based on them, not on party. I've not voted for LP candidates before because I didn't think they'd do a good job.

That being said, I do tend to vote 3rd party (of some kind) because I'm usually not happy with the incumbent, and I consider the other candidates equally, not based on party power.

Of course, I don't ignore party either. I shy away from Reform because they've gone full Neocon. But I won't exclude a candidate just because they're Reform, I'll look at their platform first.


I guess what I'm saying is, while I don't have a problem with leaning towards or shying away from a party, if you don't keep an open mind enough to actually hear what they have to say, you're not doing yourself, or anybody else, any favors.

 

[Destructus86]

I read an interesting article that stated that a majority of Americans favored conservative ideals....until they found out it came from a republican.

 

[wiegeabo]

That's because they don't support social conservative ideals. But because of the far right, that's what the entire party is labeled as being.

 

[enterthemadness]

After thinking it over...

Another reason why I detest the major parties so much, is something I've said in the past. They, by way of the CPD, make it very hard for 3rd parties to get their voice out there. By voting for major parties, I technically support them keeping 3rd parties or minor parties voices out. And since I get e-mails from Free and Equal, which is a organization that is helping 3rd parties, that would make it ''difficult' to vote for a Republican or Democrat. Not only that, both parties will just 'whine and cry like a baby' if a 3rd Party takes off

R's and D's: what can we do to keep your vote so you don't vote for a 3rd choice? What if we offer what they are offering?

Me: Why are you so afraid of 3rd parties? You been in power over 100 years...

 

[Kelly]

After thinking it over...

Another reason why I detest the major parties so much, is something I've said in the past. They, by way of the CPD, make it very hard for 3rd parties to get their voice out there. By voting for major parties, I technically support them keeping 3rd parties or minor parties voices out. And since I get e-mails from Free and Equal, which is a organization that is helping 3rd parties, that would make it ''difficult' to vote for a Republican or Democrat. Not only that, both parties will just 'whine and cry like a baby' if a 3rd Party takes off

R's and D's: what can we do to keep your vote so you don't vote for a 3rd choice? What if we offer what they are offering?

Me: Why are you so afraid of 3rd parties? You been in power over 100 years...

You could move to Spain, I believe they have a multi-party government system.

 

[enterthemadness]

You could move to Spain, I believe they have a multi-party government system.

I would fit right in there with the massive unemployed age group I'm in...


I rather build up 3rd party over here. Granted I could wait and see what happens to major parties after a monetary collapse. Gotta hand it to Bernake. Doing a nice job with his printing press powers...no inflation or hyper inflation yet...no collapse yet of dollar...but sooner or later if our polices keep up and we don't ya know, do something about out 16.6T National Debt and 59T total Debt...

 

[hippie_hunter]

After thinking it over...

Another reason why I detest the major parties so much, is something I've said in the past. They, by way of the CPD, make it very hard for 3rd parties to get their voice out there. By voting for major parties, I technically support them keeping 3rd parties or minor parties voices out. And since I get e-mails from Free and Equal, which is a organization that is helping 3rd parties, that would make it ''difficult' to vote for a Republican or Democrat. Not only that, both parties will just 'whine and cry like a baby' if a 3rd Party takes off

R's and D's: what can we do to keep your vote so you don't vote for a 3rd choice? What if we offer what they are offering?

Me: Why are you so afraid of 3rd parties? You been in power over 100 years...

Again, the CPD has nothing to do with third parties have no voice. There are multiple reasons why third parties do not take off, but the CPD has nothing to do with it. I will emphasize it again: "The Commission on Presidential Debates has nothing to do with why third parties are so weak in the United States." Here are the actual reasons why:

1. The main culprit, our First Past the Post (FPTP) electoral system. In FPTP, the candidate that gets the most votes in an election, wins it all. Nations that use an FPTP electoral system tend to weed out other parties until the two major ones come out on top essentially with all the seats in power. Third parties are unable to get a voice because without a proportional electoral system, they don't get any seats at all.

2. Whenever a third party gains traction, one of the two major parties will often just absorb the platform of the third party, making them irrelevant. The GOP has done this in the past with the People's Party and the State's Rights Democratic Party. The Democratic Party has done this with Teddy Roosevelt's Progressive Party.

3. State chapters of the Republican and Democratic Parties make laws to make third parties irrelevant. New York for example allows cross party endorsements, so third parties will often endorse the major party candidates so that they can stay on the ballot. A lot of states make it notoriously difficult to even get on the ballot.

The only thing the CPD is, is a scapegoat for people who really don't understand the system.

 

[enterthemadness]

Again, the CPD has nothing to do with third parties have no voice. There are multiple reasons why third parties do not take off, but the CPD has nothing to do with it. I will emphasize it again: "The Commission on Presidential Debates has nothing to do with why third parties are so weak in the United States." Here are the actual reasons why:

1. The main culprit, our First Past the Post (FPTP) electoral system. In FPTP, the candidate that gets the most votes in an election, wins it all. Nations that use an FPTP electoral system tend to weed out other parties until the two major ones come out on top essentially with all the seats in power. Third parties are unable to get a voice because without a proportional electoral system, they don't get any seats at all.

2. Whenever a third party gains traction, one of the two major parties will often just absorb the platform of the third party, making them irrelevant. The GOP has done this in the past with the People's Party and the State's Rights Democratic Party. The Democratic Party has done this with Teddy Roosevelt's Progressive Party.

3. State chapters of the Republican and Democratic Parties make laws to make third parties irrelevant. New York for example allows cross party endorsements, so third parties will often endorse the major party candidates so that they can stay on the ballot. A lot of states make it notoriously difficult to even get on the ballot.

The only thing the CPD is, is a scapegoat for people who really don't understand the system.

It is my understanding that the poling rule was under 15% at one point. CPD changed ti from 5% or 10% to the now 15%. Not only that, polling isn't the best way to look at things. Getting on enough ballots is hard as it is and takes up time and money from the 3rd parties that do so. Going by state ballots, the LP's Johnson and Green's Stein would had been invited to the debates.

In 1988, the League of Women Voters withdrew its sponsorship of the presidential debates after the George H.W. Bush and Michael Dukakis campaigns secretly agreed to a "memorandum of understanding" that would decide which candidates could participate in the debates, which individuals would be panelists (and therefore able to ask questions), and the height of the podiums. The League rejected the demands and released a statement saying that they were withdrawing support for the debates because "the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission_on_Presidential_Debates#cite_note-15

Furthermore...Perot *****ed in 1996 about not getting into the debates even though the prior election he did. Because he asked for public funding aid in 1996, the CPD said he didn't have a great chance at winning, since in 92 he used his own money. But if you are using tax payer money to help your campaign, shouldn't you get in then? This money comes from the FEC I believe. In 1999, as the quote below says, the CPD made the new rule, the 15% in 5 polls rule.


http://www.publicintegrity.org/2008/09/18/3057/two-party-debates

But Perot’s suit and subsequent scrutiny by the Federal Election Commission demonstrated weaknesses in the debate commission’s position. In 1999, then-Commission Vice Chairman Newton Minow co-wrote a report recommending new criteria for who could participate in the debates that would no longer rely on the assessment of the pundits, whom he referred to as “an aristocracy of unelected analysts and observers.” He advocated a straightforward, transparent approach free from manipulation. One year later, the Commission acted on his suggestions by formally establishing guidelines for participation in the debates at a 15 percent polling threshold. To debate, a candidate must now show an average of 15 percent support in five selected national public opinion polls prior to the each debate. “You might not like the 15 percent threshold,” Antonia Hernandez, a member of the Commission’s board of directors, argued to Open Debates founder George Farah, “but it’s clearly articulated, and if a person meets it, then that candidate gets in.”

Why 5 polls at 15%? I've asked what these 5 polls are..and no one really knows which ones. It's only known that Gallup is one of the 5. Another one that *may* be in on it is Rasmussen. Not to mention sponsors, usually corporate ones at that, fund the CPD.

Brown’s annual salary ($175,000 as of 2004 and 2005, paid even in non-election years) the organization’s operating expenses and debate production costs are paid by a small number of major donors. In 2004, the Commission took in over $4.1 million, more than 93 percent of which came from just six contributors. On the donor list provided to the Center for Public Integrity, the Commission blanked out the names of all six. Nonprofit organizations are not legally required to make this information public.

 

[wiegeabo]

Not saying is the only reason third parties are kept out, but the CPD's rules are arbitrary and easy to manipulate to keep it down to the big two.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Yes, it's doubtful a third party will ever have a serious shot at winning the presidency (though stranger things have happened), but keeping them intentionally out of the debates obviously goes a long way to keeping them out of focus.

The real worry isn't that they'll win an election. The worry is that they'll draw a small (but crucial) number of votes from one of the two mainstream candidates. Basically, it's a reaction to Ross Perot, who some say cost Bush (the first one) his reelection.

 

[enterthemadness]

Yes, it's doubtful a third party will ever have a serious shot at winning the presidency (though stranger things have happened), but keeping them intentionally out of the debates obviously goes a long way to keeping them out of focus.

The real worry isn't that they'll win an election. The worry is that they'll draw a small (but crucial) number of votes from one of the two mainstream candidates. Basically, it's a reaction to Ross Perot, who some say cost Bush (the first one) his reelection.

they afraid if Gary gets in he get way more votes. Got 1.2M votes with campaign on only $2-3M dollar budget.

The CPD should let Ventura in, then ask him a question on why he hosts a conspiracy theory show and how that makes him fit or unfit to be President.

 

[Thundercrack85]

I would bet you that if they let any sane, reasonable person take part in the debate, that they would get at least 10% of the popular vote. That scares the bad place out of the Democrats and Republicans.

 

[enterthemadness]

I would bet you that if they let any sane, reasonable person take part in the debate, that they would get at least 10% of the popular vote. That scares the bad place out of the Democrats and Republicans.

Ventura would get around that much....but people would realize they're voting for a man that believes in the NWO. One of the reasons why I doubt I ever run as a Congressman under the LP later on in life...

 

[Kelly]

Ventura was an anomaly that turned into a true freak show....if he got more than 2% of the vote, I would leave the country....j/k, I would however think about it....

 

[enterthemadness]

Ventura was an anomaly that turned into a true freak show....if he got more than 2% of the vote, I would leave the country....j/k, I would however think about it....

He would be the only 3rd Party Presidental choice running that would get on a talk show or late night show on on NBC, CBS, or ABC. He's been on The View last year now...

Why would you leave the country? 2% for him would be good. I believe in some of what he belives in, but like I said...I am toning down on it, while he makes money on a TRU TV SHOW ABOUT CONSPIRACY THEORIES.

I want to see Andy Levy run under the LP before Ventura though...He is libertarian, served our country, and has a job some would say on FOX NEWS.