The reason why Libertarians don't get elected into office is because...

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by lew

Ventura had name recognition.

And dailykos supports Democratic candidates.

Look at Ron Paul - he keeps getting elected. Obviously, his "FAR RIGHT EXTREMIST IDIOTIC LOL" positions are liked by some people. But how is he getting elected? Because he's a Republican.

Unless you have gross name recognition or a billion dollars, you will NOT win as a third party against the Republicans and Democrats.

Drew Carey has name recognition, infact I think wikipedia has a ton of celebrities who are Libertarians (its so e-cool right now)

you don't need a billion dollars to win one house seat

I thought libertarians were so numerous and bright and successful...

So its either:
A) A lie
B) True, but they are cheap and lazy

I honestly think Libertarians are a fad that never died because nothing else ever came along

In 2000 it was "hey im surfing the net dude, and bush and gore are lame, im a libertarian yea!"

You guys better hope there's not a revival of the Reform Party of you're going to lose most of current libertarians overnight

[hsmith]

This thread is proof why: no one knows what the LP stands for.

A bunch of uneducated conjecture.

[hsmith]

Originally Posted by JaJae

And the reason they have lack of funds is..... For starters, most people find it absurd to abolish the Department of Education or to be against government controlled police, safety services. There's a reason the Green party has done better, people relate to them more.

That is why one of the largest goals of the "Contract with America" was ditching the DoE.

Yeah, Libertarians viewpoint on that issues is "out there"

[7960]

libertarians will never be taken seriously because all their opponent has to do is say "they want to legalize heroin" and he wins, libertarian loses.

/thread




(edit: oh, and because "Libertarians tend to be ugly because it’s an anti-majority philosophy. People who are attractive have an easy time going through life and derive far too many advantages from the status quo to ever question it. It’s only outsiders, who are usually ugly, who join up with fringe movements."



http://libertariangirl.typepad.com/m...werent_fo.html )

[motivez]

If a socialist can get elected, why not a libertarian?

I think it has more to do with the popularity of the ideas than anything else.. if they moderated themselves and made their message more appetizing to the millions of people who like fiscal responsibility but social liberalism they could get support.

Is there even any place like dailykos or redstate for Libertarians?

[7960]

Originally Posted by motivez

..... if they moderated themselves and made their message more appetizing .....

If they did that they wouldn't be libertarians now, would they?

[motivez]

Originally Posted by 7960

If they did that they wouldn't be libertarians now, would they?

I think eventually every political party that wants to be taken seriously has to ask itself, "Do we want to accomplish anything?"

If so, then moving towards the middle is not such a bad thing. There's many fiscal and social areas where they could accomplish some of the less extreme policy goals and I think they'd have broad support for doing it

But, when, like you said, they want to legalize heroin, it's too much too fast.

[JaJae]

I agree. The Green and Reform parties didn't get funding because they found some magic beans at the bottom of a beanstalk. They weren't "lucky". They got funding because people related to them. And they did better in the polls because people were willing to vote for them. These are two major flaws of the Libertarian party. It has nothing to do with not understanding them and everything to do with not wanting anything to do with them until they come back to reality on a lot of key issues.

Libertarians are founded on the philosophy that both Democrats and Republicans are extreme and we need to bring America back to its roots. But that notion in and of itself is more extreme than both parties combined. And to the average undecided and independent voter, they're not willing to be so extreme. In fact, I'd probably vote for a socialist before I voted for a die hard libertarian. Because in my opinion, the socialist is dead wrong on most issues, but I can relate to them more.

[hsmith]

Legalizing herion?

I fail to see how that issue is "extreme" when you realize the reasoning behind it. I guess if you want to just look at the issues and not understand the reasoning behind them, you will fall into that mental pit. if you prefer the dog and pony show of "fluffy" ideas then sure, go with republicans or democrats. neither of those parties do a fucking thing nor present any ideas that differ from the norm.

i guess it takes more thought to understand the issue than "omg legalize heroin~~~@@@"

[motivez]

Yeah, but again, that's the entire problem.

People don't want to think. They want soundbytes. Fast food politics.

If it takes time and effort, they aren't going to bother.

[7960]

Originally Posted by hsmith

Legalizing herion?

I fail to see how that issue is "extreme" when you realize the reasoning behind it. I guess if you want to just look at the issues and not understand the reasoning behind them, you will fall into that mental pit. if you prefer the dog and pony show of "fluffy" ideas then sure, go with republicans or democrats. neither of those parties do a fucking thing nor present any ideas that differ from the norm.

i guess it takes more thought to understand the issue than "omg legalize heroin~~~@@@"

no amount of "explaining the reasoning behind it" is going to convince a majority of americans that heroin should be legalized

and THAT'S the problem...libertarians can't see that distinction. Your idea is "we're different from the norm" sucks when "different" means legalizing heroin.

[lew]

Originally Posted by 7960

no amount of "explaining the reasoning behind it" is going to convince a majority of americans that heroin should be legalized

and THAT'S the problem...libertarians can't see that distinction. Your idea is "we're different from the norm" sucks when "different" means legalizing heroin.

Legalizing heroin is a minor issue.



But even if it were a big issue, let's see, hmm.....

Legalize heroin or trample upon our constitutional rights like the Republicans and Democrats do, which should I pick?

I think the only time I agreed with Michael Moore is when he said that Americans have got to be some of the stupidest fucks on the planet.

[hsmith]

yeah, we all need a nanny. sorry, i don't follow that mindless logic.

there are very valid reasons for legalizing drugs. but you refuse to acknowledge any of them because it doesn't "jive" with what you "think" government should do.

the war on drugs has produced a country of felons over nothing. victimless crimes are not valid crimes, there is no reason to punsh people for them.

so please, explain to me why drugs should NOT be legalized? i find that a hilarious opinion.

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by hsmith

yeah, we all need a nanny. sorry, i don't follow that mindless logic.

there are very valid reasons for legalizing drugs. but you refuse to acknowledge any of them because it doesn't "jive" with what you "think" government should do.

the war on drugs has produced a country of felons over nothing. victimless crimes are not valid crimes, there is no reason to punsh people for them.

so please, explain to me why drugs should NOT be legalized? i find that a hilarious opinion.

What types of drugs are we talking about here?

Legalizing things like crack, seems to be very harmful and not harmless as you assess.

[Thorgrim]

i still think its because libertarians aren't as willing to back up their ideology with cash and action than well...anyone

[Diamond Cross]

The problem is that in a way it can be seen as sort of a catch 22. They want to limit government but the only way to limit government is to create new laws that limit government. And that's hard to do especially in the modern age where everybody's going to the government to enact new legislation that protects their interests and/or represents their morality. How can they prevent people from going to the government in this manner without having more laws to prevent them from doing so?

[lew]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

What types of drugs are we talking about here?

Legalizing things like crack, seems to be very harmful and not harmless as you assess.

Although it's a pretty minor issue, most libertarians are for legalizing all drugs. We don't believe in punishing anyone for a victimless "crime."

[lew]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

i still think its because libertarians aren't as willing to back up their ideology with cash and action than well...anyone

That may be so.

[hsmith]

the rise of crack and meth are directly attributed to the restriction of other drugs. the government has helped create the desire for these horrible drugs

people wouldn't be making drugs out of household chemicals that can kill them if they could buy a dime bag at the grocery store.
there would be no more inner city wars for "turf" to sell drugs. children wouldn't be led to the life of crime because it is an easy way to "get rich"

remove profit incentive and the problem goes away. it is simple economics.

[Diamond Cross]