Posted on 11/05/2013 9:08:54 PM PST by SaveOurRepublicFromTyranny
He won the libertarian nomination right?
The Libertarians for Virginia website seems to be excited about pushing Sarvis.
http://lpva.com/
You know Democrats poured money into Todd Akin's primary campaign. Do you think he was a plant?
I agree Sarvis was bankrolled by Democrats up to no good, but all the libertarians I know in Northern VA went and voted for him. They obviously didn't feel he was a plant.
Most libertarians are actually social liberals first and foremost. You will almost always find, especially among the young crowd (which is the bulk of their support) that drug legalization, abortion on demand, peacenik foreign policy, etc, is really what drives them. Infact the fastest way to drive a libertarian from their party is to point out that actual libertarian positions call for an end to federal government social welfare programs.
I'll agree with you about the 'rat plant thing but not about the vote. It's possible that absent a libertarian some of those people simply would not have turned out to vote. It's also possible that some of those people voted libertarian because the Democrat was not socialist enough for them.
I don't automatically assume that the libertarian picked up votes exclusively from the Republicans.
Nationwide, that Muslim “small impact” is about the same as the Jewish vote.
Stangest stand on issues for a libertarian. And why would he let a big Obama bundler back him?
http://www.hoover.org/publications/hoover-digest/article/7991
So I take it you know more than Richard Allen?
No, but the dynamics in this country have been fundamentally transformed. Through indoctrination, immigration, and welfare, the Democrats have circumvented the democratic process and shredded the constitution.
Barack Hussein Obama got reelected after he got 4 people killed and lied about it, gave us zero jobs, doubled our debt, and a whole bunch of other crap.
And now the machine is squarely behind Hitlery. The problem with the theory that mild turmoil will drive people back to the conservative side ignores one thing. ‘The Limbaugh Theorem’, in which Obama and Democrats as a whole, are not ever seen by the public as having had anything to do with some failure. Its always Republican obstructionism or just bad luck, and to think otherwise is racist. This wasn’t really the case before. Yes, Slick Willy got away with adultery, but what if he had done all the things Obama has done, if he had failed so miserably? Would he have been reelected, even against the hapless Dole??? No.
My analysis is that there are certainly areas where we can win. I think senate seats and house seats and statewide elections are still very winnable, and in some states, are trending our way (2014 may be the death of the red state Democrat). But when it comes to the massive presidential cycle, with so many electoral votes already locked up on the other side, the Democrats have a formula that is new and cutting edge and I predict it will take one of two things to overcome it.
1) Some miracle strategy
2) A Greek-style crisis
I think it was Ann Coulter who was debating John Stossel on some of these issues. She pointed out that as long as we’re a socialist welfare state, it’s a bad idea to legalize much of what they want and she’s right. As long as we’re collectively responsible for others’ behavior it isn’t fair.
Want to do or engage in ..X...? Fine. But don’t make the rest of us pay for the bad outcome.
According to the census of 2010 about
.8% of the American population is Muslim and 1.7 % is Jewish.
Keep in mind those Muslim figures also include the “Nation of Islam” the black racist Muslim group which has been around a long time whose theology is rejected by Orthodox Muslims.
With respect to Judaism, there are religious Jews, secular Jews, etc which makes that figure difficult to interpret.
1) Some miracle strategy
2) A Greek-style crisis
Obamacare just may provide that Greek-style crisis, and much sooner than Democrats would like.
I just see Obama's chickens coming home to roost over the next three years. The effects and fallout from his "fundamental transformation" are going to accumulate into one gigantic failure of our economy and our system of government. We're already seeing these effects pile up in every sector, including the cultural area.
You simply cannot do this much fundamental damage to a country and a people, without the deleterious effects compounding into multiple crises that become too huge for anyone to spin away or ignore. The backlash against it began with the birth of the Tea Party, and will continue to grow into something even larger, as the pain on average citizens grows more and more.
The path the country is on, is not sustainable. Something, at some point, is going to break. It remains to be seen whether the people can endure the sweeping and dramatic changes to their way of life that this regime is ushering in, or whether the pace of ruin is too fast, and the people decide to pull the plug on the whole Progressive agenda.
I honestly don't know what form the larger response is going to take. We could see secession by one or more red states. We could see widespread civil disobedience and rioting. Perhaps millions and millions will simply go Galt, and starve the beast. The balance of political orientation could shift to the Republicans' favor. Or, we could even see the regime do the unthinkable, and attempt to use force to compel the citizens to submit to their Brave New World.
Who knows?
I just know that what we have today, can't be defined as a status quo. Our country is in a state of flux. We're actually living in a moment of revolutionary change that is based upon an ideology that has proven to be destructive and bankrupt wherever it's been tried. Only death, contraction, and suffering can come of it.
The only question is, at what point will a large number of people draw their own line in the sand, and say, "Not another inch. Across this line lies war."
Speaking of women voters, my son told be of a study he read where within 10 years of women getting the vote, at local, state, and federal level, at all levels, we started overspending. (Surprise, women spend.)
I mentioned to him that we went off the charts, basically, when the first woman speaker of the house took over the national credit card.
I should ask him to find the study for me. May be good to keep around.
Besides average citizens who post on Free Republic, what political candidates or office holders are talking about such things? In your previous post, you insinuated that voters were turned off by "crazy" talk. Ok. What politicians are you referring to, specifically?
What I am saying is that if we want to make inroads in purple and blue states, we are going to need to attract some voters that don't ordinarily vote for us. Being a happy warrior is a good start. Talking calmly and with an even temper gets you further. Paying lip service to "working with the other side" is another winning position...
That is some of the squishiest RINO speak I've ever read on Free Republic. What wins elections, is staying true to your principles, and having the courage to give voice to them at every opportunity. Ronald Reagan taught us that, and more recently, Ted Cruz proved that lesson is still valid today.
You're suggesting we adopt the McCain/Graham/Romney model, which gains you lots of friends on the left, but undermines and ultimately destroys everything Republicans supposedly stand for.
As I said earlier, you're trying to analyze American politics through the lens of a bygone era. You're no longer dealing with people who fundamentally agree with you on American basics, but with hardened radicals who want to burn the Constitution and our history books. It's not even possible to reason with such people. You can't attract them to the party by any amount of happy talk and compromise.
No, the only thing that rings their bell is Socialism, and if you think we can out Democrat the Democrats, you're as deluded as the GOP-e (which you sound exactly like).
Boycott his Austin-based software firm (Trilogy).
Makes perfect sense to me.
However, in all fairness, 99.99 percent of the men there are just as bad if not worse.
The entire ruling class needs to go, right now.
Um, this was actually a very interesting read and completely destroys your argument. Reagan didn’t pick Bush to poke a stick in anyone’s eye as you claimed. His campaign had spent a long while trying to find the best nominee and at the end it emerged that Bush was that guy. Reagan wasn’t enthusiastic about him at first, but came on board at the very last minute when he rejected the Ford deal. This, Reagan reasoned, was the best choice to give the ticket it’s best shot.
Thanks for the link though, that was an interesting perspective.
What wins elections, is staying true to your principles, and having the courage to give voice to them at every opportunity.
You think that's it? You think that's mostly what it takes? You are so naive. Good grief man, the average citizen is a political idiot. Not just here, almost everywhere. Human nature is the first consideration. You have to determine which, among your slate of possible candidates, is ELECTABLE in said district/state/etc. Alan Keyes stayed true to his principles as much or more than anyone around - why isn't he a Senator in Maryland or Illinois? Why is he not President for that matter. There are candidates all over the country - left and right, that absolutely adhere to principles and they get destroyed election cycle after election cycle. The most important thing about a candidate is whether they are capable of being a skilled, charismatic politician.
Politics is a skill. Most people take a long time to get good at it, some people are naturals. How many times do we hear from people "oh how I wish regular people would run and win elections"? Quite a lot. We've all probably even read that sentiment here. The problems is, people won't, usually, actually vote for those kind of candidates. They don't have the political skill to avoid gaffes that destroy their campaign. All it takes is one stupid comment and an entire campaign is ruined. Just ask Akin or Murdoch.
Which is why Reagan lost to Carter in 1980.......oh wait.....he didn't lose to Carter. He whupped him soundly from coast to coast by speaking the plain and unassailable truth to the voting public.
You need to come out of the closet. It's pretty obvious by your posts to me that you're a dyed-in-the-wool establishment GOPer. I'll bet you were one of Mitt's staunchest supporters on FR during the last election. I'd probably have a hard time finding a single cross word from you about John McCain. Scathing posts about the Bush's in your posting history? I'll bet I'd have a hard time finding any of those either.
Like I said, you seem not to have noticed that we're living in a time, and under a presidential regime, that isn't comparable to any other in our history. There is a radical, diabolical deconstruction, and out right dismantling of our Constitutional foundations occurring right before your eyes, yet you believe people are being hysterical.
It's why you're still trying to operate on an obsolete political model that has no relevance to the situation our nation is in today. The very notion that we even have a functioning civil system is even debatable now. This moment in time could rightfully be called a 'calm before the storm', but despite the fact that you're exposed to the best aggregation of information on the web, you're not seeing it for some reason.
I can't help you. Politics is nearly a side story to the rapid and fundamental changes that are taking place as we speak. There's every chance that it's going to take something a lot larger than a few elections to bring it to a halt and turn it around.
We've now reached a point where the Declaration is more relevant than the Constitution. Think with that and proceed accordingly.
Hate to see what a loss looks like.
Why would the libertarians turn down free money from the democrats, or anyone else?
Did you read post 209, libertarians and democrat victories go back decades.
Remember that the libertarians are even to the left of the democrats, on some issues.
True. It is a loss.
But, on the bright side. His governance will probably be so horrible that in a few years we will get a win.
Reagan, as I already pointed out, is EXACTLY the kind of candidate we need in as many places as possible. He's a happy warrior who sounds reasonable. He makes ideas that people who are currently not with us sound like something they could support. He came across as stable, friendly, approachable. NOTHING like a firebrand preacher like EW Jackson or Alan Keyes. Can you seriously not see the difference? Think of a guy like Scott Walker in Wisconsin (the home of the public sector union). He took on those powerful unions and won, and he did it by sounding calm, reasonable, thoughtful, pragmatic, etc.
Reagan also was open to compromise when necessary - willing to take a deal if he could get 75% of what he wanted. He was an well learned conservative ideologue who understood pragmatism was necessary in politics. You listen to purists here who believe it's all or nothing. Every day people on FR are writing off another conservative for saying something they don't agree with. It almost seems like, among many grass roots conservatives, that there is more criticism of people either on our own side or allied with us than there is attacks on the left.
We've now reached a point where the Declaration is more relevant than the Constitution. Think with that and proceed accordingly.
Again, your alluding to some sort of civil war, and it's just not likely to happen. And if the voting public even suspects that conservatives believe that it is necessary, the vast majority will never, ever vote for us. Think what conservatives and originalists must have thought during FDR's reign. FDR was a real socialist. Ever read his second bill of rights? Read your history man. That guy was a real socialist.
I agree this nation has lost its moorings and we are headed for collapse. But it isn't likely to happen anytime soon and it isn't the kind of thing the public believes. Just look at Europe - that is the path we are on. You may not realize just how far a the can can be kicked - even with a moribund, broken economy.
I'll bet you were one of Mitt's staunchest supporters on FR during the last election. I'd probably have a hard time finding a single cross word from you about John McCain. Scathing posts about the Bush's in your posting history? I'll bet I'd have a hard time finding any of those either.
Well, you'd be wrong on all counts.
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.