Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Math-Challenged Silly People Voting Libertarian Cost GOP Victory in At Least 9 Congressional Races
Reaganite Republican ^ | 16 November 2012 | Reaganite Republican

Posted on 11/16/2012 3:21:20 AM PST by Reaganite Republican



The good news comes via instapundit:

PEOPLE WILL LOVE THIS: Libertarians provided the margin for Democrats in at least nine elections. It’s particularly sad that libertarians didn’t back Mia Love. Really, you’re not going to vote for a candidate whose favorite economist is Bastiat? Apparently not.


________________________________________________________________________________

So thanks Paulbot idiots- it all went-down just like we told you it was going to.

Any independent or Libertarian candidate running on the right is as much an enemy to American conservatives as are the progs: in our two-party system these people have zero chance of achieving real power or accomplishing anything meaningful, and are about as relevant as the Whig Party.  

That is, unless you count 'handing elections to Democrats', where they get to throw a tantrum, be heard, and do damage to conservatives- why does anybody think Ron and Rand Paul ran as Republicans? Because they want to WIN and take power, not sit at home dreaming about it- that's why

_____________________________________________________________________
instapundit   ThunderPig


TOPICS: Chit/Chat; Government; History; Politics
KEYWORDS: cost; libertarian; republicans; victory
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 301-304 next last
To: JCBreckenridge
That makes no sense whatsoever. If drugs are legalized, you are going to be paying for them under welfare. Next.

Ending the federal drug war would not legalize drugs. Next.

121 posted on 11/16/2012 11:15:08 AM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge

Wow... 3 non sequiturs in a row. That has to be some kind of FR record.

Look, if you didn’t want reasoned and logical arguments you should have just said so.

RINO’s like you are why we don’t win elections...


122 posted on 11/16/2012 11:20:13 AM PST by Dead Corpse (I will not comply.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: Jabba the Nutt

They aren’t human


123 posted on 11/16/2012 11:48:14 AM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper

I would like to say that too,
BUT Obama is far more damaging than Romney

There’s not any more to it than that imho


124 posted on 11/16/2012 12:19:42 PM PST by Reaganite Republican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: xzins

“They are pro-abortion, pro-gay, pro-drugs, and anti-foreign defense footprint.”

They are neither “pro-abortion” nor “anti-abortion” and I have found Libertarians with personal views on both sides, with the exception of the law, where they are pro-Liberty and pro-personal responsibility, as opposed to pro-government.

The same holds true for “gay” and “drug” issues. They don’t just mouth Conservative small government, limited government precepts, they believe in them, in matters of law, above and beyond their own moral choces they might make.

their excessive foreign policy isolationism is another matter


125 posted on 11/16/2012 12:29:45 PM PST by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Reaganite Republican

am convinced that libertarians running for office - most often - do not have their heads in the sand, they know their prospects of winning the election race they are in is most often slim to none

which makes me think most of them are running just to say that they ran, knowing there is little greater consequence to their action, other than a possible defeat of someone who is politically closer to them

that’s narcissistic and dumb


126 posted on 11/16/2012 12:41:05 PM PST by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GlockThe Vote
All Romney had to do get the paul people on board was repudiate the NDAA, say he was for full audit of the Fed, F Bernake, and maybe say RP would get a position in his Admn.

Paul is too extreme to appoint to any normal Republican administration, but auditing the fed and opposing NDAA would have helped. But we know why that would never happen. The same big money interests that wanted Romney nominated are all for the Fed, unaccountable federal police power, the degradation of human life, the abolition of Christianity, a borderless world and a huge big spending federal government larding out goodies to connected business interests.

Because Santorum and Newt aren't on board with the entire GOPe agenda they weren't getting any bones either.

And worst of all, the people who foisted Romney on us don't even care that he lost. Obama is just as much a globalist as he is.

Whoever wins, we lose.

127 posted on 11/16/2012 1:20:36 PM PST by MaxFlint
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: MaxFlint
Elsewhere on the boards, someone's posted a Linda Chavez column which begins: "Two weeks after the election, conservatives are still asking why Mitt Romney lost."

Incorrect. REPUBLICANS are still asking themselves why Mitt Romney lost.

CONSERVATIVES, on the other hand, already know why Mitt Romney lost.

Chavez's demonstrable confusion, on this baseline point, sums up the hopeless nature of this problem in sad, perfect miniature.

128 posted on 11/16/2012 1:34:57 PM PST by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle ("If you're not fiscally AND socially conservative, you're not conservative!" - Jim Robinson, 9-1-10)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: gdani

Not sure I agree 100%. Your still denying allowing the voters a ‘view’ of those on the ballot.

Just ‘cuz someone may have the name recognition, backing or big $$ doesn’t mean they got the best ideas.

It should be an open and honest opportunity to put out ones thoughts, ideals and plans and the People are left to choose whom they want to put into office with all the information available.

My contention has always been if they let the other parties in, you’d see a mass exodus from the R&D party as most would see others are more inline w/ what they’d want, instead of what the party wants.


129 posted on 11/16/2012 2:22:08 PM PST by i_robot73
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

Elimination of welfare should come first. :) So long as we are paying for welfare, we are subsidizing drug distribution. But then, that’s why you are pushing for legalization.


130 posted on 11/16/2012 2:23:29 PM PST by JCBreckenridge (They may take our lives... but they'll never take our FREEDOM!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse

Again, show me where the Founders endorsed gay marriage.


131 posted on 11/16/2012 2:24:24 PM PST by JCBreckenridge (They may take our lives... but they'll never take our FREEDOM!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry

“The Constitution overturned the Common Law.”

It did no such thing. Again - read Reynolds. I encourage all the libertarians to do so.

If you’re not going to bother to become informed on this issue aside from supporting gay marriage - then there’s not much point.

Vote for a Democrat next time. :)


132 posted on 11/16/2012 2:25:45 PM PST by JCBreckenridge (They may take our lives... but they'll never take our FREEDOM!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: Wuli

Since, as you assert, gay marriage, drug legalization and abortion are not essential parts of what it means to be a libertarian - libertarians ought to be willing to concede these issues to conservatives.

If they are considered to be essential planks - then the libertarians are not going to concede either of these three.

Based on the posts so far - the libertarians seem very clear that abortion, gay marriage and drug legalization are all core principles.


133 posted on 11/16/2012 2:28:26 PM PST by JCBreckenridge (They may take our lives... but they'll never take our FREEDOM!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: Wuli

Don’t inject thoughtful/insightful commentary into a thread based on FEELINGS or ‘one-plank-wonders’ . Most of the (R) following lemmings’ heads would explode.

There’s always been the (R) hard-cores with their heads up the GOPe ass to see the forest for the trees.

Too many cliches? :P


134 posted on 11/16/2012 2:29:28 PM PST by i_robot73
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: Wuli

Give you one better.

They’re the vanguard, telling the people of what to beware and their own road to serfdom is nearly upon.

Instead, they are attacked, marginalized and besmirched as kooks/crazies by the same people whom should be barking the warning themselves.

Too many people to try to shoo under the Big Tent. Freebies to some minority for votes....Not a dimes difference anymore.


135 posted on 11/16/2012 2:32:46 PM PST by i_robot73
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: Reaganite Republican
One of the two NH races would have gone to the Republican if there was no libertarian candidate, and the other one would have been close.

Libertarians also cost Massachusetts the opportunity to send a Republican to Congress (a rare event nowadays).

136 posted on 11/16/2012 2:55:29 PM PST by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge
But then, that’s why you are pushing for legalization.

Every state has it's own drug laws on the books right now. If the Controlled Substances Act was repealed, and the DEA de-authorized today, every one of those laws would still be valid and in effect tomorrow. There is no enumerated power of the federal government that gives them the authority to legalize drugs.

What is your motive for accusing me of wanting to legalize drugs just for telling people the truth?

137 posted on 11/16/2012 3:00:48 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

The federal government does have the ability to control substances entering the country per taxes and tariffs power granted by the constitution.

Explain to me why drug legalization takes priority over getting our fiscal house in order.


138 posted on 11/16/2012 4:11:32 PM PST by JCBreckenridge (They may take our lives... but they'll never take our FREEDOM!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

Second question.

Drug legalization + medical dope paid for by O-Care.

Do you not see this coming - where we are all paying for everyone’s dope habits? I see it. Do you not see it?


139 posted on 11/16/2012 4:15:35 PM PST by JCBreckenridge (They may take our lives... but they'll never take our FREEDOM!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge

Ignorant newbie... They never gave the power to the government. In fact, that made Religion hands off for regulation in the 1st Amendment.

Why do you WANT our currently Democrat controlled government having the POWER to tell the various Faiths who they can marry? Enough power to limit it to one Religions view point is enough to open a whole can of worms...

Of course, you aren’t interested in reasoned debate... Are you? You just signed up to start sh*t... You won’t last long.


140 posted on 11/16/2012 4:37:52 PM PST by Dead Corpse (I will not comply.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 301-304 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson