Who would you prefer to win LP nomination?

[Kludge]

Yes, I know there are threads on this. However, we've now heard more from them and have had time to research them. Along with these, I also feel the population of RPFs has shifted since the poll was last given.

Yes, I know you want to shout "Ron Paul you fucking troll!" at me. So - it'd be in both of interest to treat this thread as a useless curiosity thread, knowing that it only involves who wins the LP - it does not deal with whether or not you are going to vote LP.

Yes, I know there are more candidates then those listed (and Barr - who hasn't even announced he's running). Get over it.

Cheers.

[Paulitician]

Phillies for President - Vote for the genuine Libertarian
Accept no two-party substitutes Phillies2008.org

That's what the advertisement is telling me, anyway.

[Razmear]

Dr. Mary
voteformary.com

eb

[Kotin]

I like Mary,

and I hate to say this, as it is a Ron Paul supporter's daily admonishment


Mary Ruwart's name would never be heard by anyone outside of our domain.

whereas Bob Barr's will.

phillies is a joke. and root is a shifty asshole. :D

and gravel is not really a libertarian

[crazyfingers]

voted Barr for lack of a better choice

[Kludge]

I like Mary,

and I hate to say this, as it is a Ron Paul supporter's daily admonishment


Mary Ruwart's name would never be heard by anyone outside of our domain.

whereas Bob Barr's will.

phillies is a joke. and root is a shifty asshole. :D

and gravel is not really a libertarian

Mmmm..... I like you Kotin ;)

[pcosmar]

Kent McManigal
http://kentforliberty.com/

[torchbearer]

Ruwart because Barr isn't even a declared candidate yet.

[Kludge]

Ruwart because Barr isn't even a declared candidate yet.

Do note that I didn't ask who WILL win =P

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Phillies for President - Vote for the genuine Libertarian
Accept no two-party substitutes Phillies2008.org

That's what the advertisement is telling me, anyway.

Phillies is a protectionist.

[torchbearer]

Phillies is a protectionist.

You have to meet the man in person to really get the idea of what i'm trying to say annoying.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

You have to meet the man in person to really get the idea of what i'm trying to say annoying.

uh ok. but he does believe in protectionism. George is also a bad speaker, won like 2% of the vote in his Congressional race, and believes we should keep the Federal Reserve and Federal Income Tax systems.

[torchbearer]

uh ok. but he does believe in protectionism. George is also a bad speaker, won like 2% of the vote in his Congressional race, and believes we should keep the Federal Reserve and Federal Income Tax systems.

He's even worse than that... imagine sitting at a table full of people trying to enjoy a nice drink with his annoying blathering of crap and backstabbing and bullshit for 4 hours.
He's like the guy at the party that everyone is wishing would just go away. You're freaking out the chicks man. kinda thing.
Weird Uncle Fester kind guy.

[Kludge]

He's even worse than that... imagine sitting at a table full of people trying to enjoy a nice drink with his annoying blathering of crap and backstabbing and bullshit for 4 hours.
He's like the guy at the party that everyone is wishing would just go away. You're freaking out the chicks man. kinda thing.
Weird Uncle Fester kind guy.

Lol... At the LP debates, he blamed Creationists for the suppression of libertarianism.

[sophocles07]

Ruwart, I'm not that fond of Barr (though he's probably second).

[torchbearer]

Lol... At the LP debates, he blamed Creationists for the suppression of libertarianism.

Just to clarify, that really happened, i spent that horrifying evening with Phillies.
I was a LP delegate at the time, though i later switched to republican.

[Cowlesy]

I voted for the first guy, but I'd rather vote for Kent McManigal (www.kentforliberty.com)

[rajibo]

Can somebody explain to me again how Mike Gravel can consider himself a Libertarian?

[torchbearer]

I voted for the first guy, but I'd rather vote for Kent McManigal (www.kentforliberty.com)

That first guy... didn't he coin a term off of his name Jingoism?

[Kludge]

I voted for the first guy, but I'd rather vote for Kent McManigal (www.kentforliberty.com (http://www.kentforliberty.com))

:confused::confused::confused:

"Although I am no longer actively campaigning, I can still be the write-in Presidential candidate for Anarchists and Radical Libertarians."

Really Cowlesy? That's incredibly unexpected from you, I always thought of you as a moderate Minarchist.

[torchbearer]

Can somebody explain to me again how Mike Gravel can consider himself a Libertarian?

He registered Libertarian. He went on CNN and said he was Libertarian. Fox News told me he was Libertarian. What other proof do you need? /sarcasm

[Cowlesy]

That first guy... didn't he coin a term off of his name Jingoism?

*shrugs*

Maybe?

Kent for Liberty!

[Kludge]

Can somebody explain to me again how Mike Gravel can consider himself a Libertarian?

It's his right, so long as Libertarians protect it.


That first guy... didn't he coin a term off of his name Jingoism?

*shrug* He needs to change his name if he wants to be considered.

[Cowlesy]

:confused::confused::confused:

"Although I am no longer actively campaigning, I can still be the write-in Presidential candidate for Anarchists and Radical Libertarians."

Really Cowlesy? That's incredibly unexpected from you, I always thought of you as a moderate Minarchist.

Hah!

Well, I keep my opinions on the Libertarian Party and its impact on anything/everything close to the vest.

I hope they continue to grow!

[torchbearer]

*shrug* He needs to change his name if he wants to be considered.

I've seen youtube videos of that Jingozian guy talking about Jingoism.
Am I crazy? Has anyone else heard of this phrase?

[sophocles07]

I think Gravel thinks because he was on CNN and was involved in the 70s in some things he automatically ranks above people who are spot on in terms of principles.

Though I like Gravel's intensity on foreign policy. "More libertarian than Ron Paul"? Yeah...

[torchbearer]

I think Gravel thinks because he was on CNN and was involved in the 70s in some things he automatically ranks above people who are spot on in terms of principles.

Though I like Gravel's intensity on foreign policy. "More libertarian than Ron Paul"? Yeah...

I'd accept Gravel as the nominee, but he isn't my top choices.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I'd accept Mike Gravel. He would be good for pr. I hate the LP being viewed as "Republican lite"

[nate895]

I think Chuck Baldwin should go for the nomination and win. He's pretty much a Ron Paul clone. I haven't found anything they disagree politically on yet.

[Kludge]

I think Chuck Baldwin should go for the nomination and win. He's pretty much a Ron Paul clone. I haven't found anything they disagree politically on yet.

CP nomination not enough?

[nate895]

CP nomination not enough?

No, not really. The CP and LP teamed can be a potent force. They'd probably be on every state's ballot and the combined money of their previous Presidential Runs was nearly 2 million dollars and the LP got 1 vote for every $2.75 spent. If we could combine them, and harness some of the RP energy, we could make a splash.

[mdh]

I voted for the first guy, but I'd rather vote for Kent McManigal (www.kentforliberty.com)

I like that guy a lot. He was at the Pittsburgh rally where I met you...


He's even worse than that... imagine sitting at a table full of people trying to enjoy a nice drink with his annoying blathering of crap and backstabbing and bullshit for 4 hours.
He's like the guy at the party that everyone is wishing would just go away. You're freaking out the chicks man. kinda thing.
Weird Uncle Fester kind guy.

Oh, the things I could add to this but won't.


He registered Libertarian. He went on CNN and said he was Libertarian. Fox News told me he was Libertarian. What other proof do you need? /sarcasm

He's more libertarian than Root, that's for sure.


Hah!

Well, I keep my opinions on the Libertarian Party and its impact on anything/everything close to the vest.

I hope they continue to grow!

At this point, I think it's probably silly not to work for liberty in both the LP and the GOP except in states where the LP is not worthwhile or the GOP is wholly unfriendly.


I think Chuck Baldwin should go for the nomination and win. He's pretty much a Ron Paul clone. I haven't found anything they disagree politically on yet.

Why not just nominate whomever the LP picks in the CP? The LP is bigger than the CP. :p

[JosephTheLibertarian]

No, not really. The CP and LP teamed can be a potent force. They'd probably be on every state's ballot and the combined money of their previous Presidential Runs was nearly 2 million dollars and the LP got 1 vote for every $2.75 spent. If we could combine them, and harness some of the RP energy, we could make a splash.

How about a GP/CP/LP coalition? left/right/center coalition i'll call it

[mdh]

How exactly is CP right and LP center? The CP and LP are both 'up'.

Re-evaluate your nolan chart, man. ;)

[JosephTheLibertarian]

How exactly is CP right and LP center? The CP and LP are both 'up'.

Re-evaluate your nolan chart, man. ;)

That's kind of irrelevant. CP people believe in imposng moral wills on others, while the LP is more "up" than "center," but it's still "center" imo.

[Bradley in DC]

I've worked with Bob Barr for ten years and spelled out my case for his House re-election here:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=136012

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I've worked with Bob Barr for ten years and spelled out my case for his House re-election here:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=136012

Yeah, you're a lobbyist so you've worked with him a lot I bet ;) LOL

[Bradley in DC]

Yeah, you're a lobbyist ;) LOL

Yeah, I've debunked you on that point previously. :p

[paulaholic]

I voted for the first guy, but I'd rather vote for Kent McManigal (www.kentforliberty.com)

This guy is the epitomy of fringe. The picture on the homepage cracks me up.

[pcosmar]

This guy is the epitomy of fringe. The picture on the homepage cracks me up.

I don't know what you are talking about.
Appearances ?
The guy looks normal to me.
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1183/701275674_52b10b5f87.jpg?v=0

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3119/2294499849_47232f9f64.jpg?v=0

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3172/2470926038_4d4385d153.jpg?v=0

All the same guy on different days.
Appearances can be deceptive, and should not be used to judge character.

[Kludge]

How about a GP/CP/LP coalition? left/right/center coalition i'll call it

There's a reason there are three parties - they have irreconcilable differences. I would never vote for a GP member and probably not any CP members unless they had a shot at winning.

The only thing the three have in common is that all rights derive from property, and the GP - occasionally the CP even - have platforms that overstep government's inherent authority, which is only to protect against the loss of protection due to aggression.

[paulaholic]

I don't know what you are talking about.
Appearances ?
The guy looks normal to me.
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1183/701275674_52b10b5f87.jpg?v=0

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3119/2294499849_47232f9f64.jpg?v=0

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3172/2470926038_4d4385d153.jpg?v=0

All the same guy on different days.
Appearances can be deceptive, and should not be used to judge character.


I wasn't talking solely about his appearance, but rather his issue statements in conjunction with the nutty photos.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

There's a reason there are three parties - they have irreconcilable differences. I would never vote for a GP member and probably not any CP members unless they had a shot at winning.

The only thing the three have in common is that all rights derive from property, and the GP - occasionally the CP even - have platforms that overstep government's inherent authority, which is only to protect against the loss of protection due to aggression.

I guess you're not familar with party coalitions, huh?

[Kludge]

I guess you're not familar with party coalitions, huh?

Sure I am. I was involved with Michigan Third Parties Coalition (http://www.mithirdparties.org/) for a while. However, I see no benefits from forming a coalition with the aforementioned parties - what is sought to be accomplished?

I think it'd be more beneficial just to have the CP and various reform/taxpayer parties join into the much larger LP.

[dvdrink]

Jesse "The Libertarian" Ventura

[nate895]

Chuck Baldwin is a Ron Paul clone. If you disagree with Baldwin enough to pick someone like Barr over him, you need to ask yourself if you truly support Ron Paul.

[Kludge]

Chuck Baldwin is a Ron Paul clone. If you disagree with Baldwin enough to pick someone like Barr over him, you need to ask yourself if you truly support Ron Paul.

I support Ruwart over Baldwin. :) Third party candidates are only a spokesperson for the party's ideas, and for me - Ruwart is a nearly flawless speaker-on-my-behalf.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I support Ruwart over Baldwin. :) Third party candidates are only a spokesperson for the party's ideas, and for me - Ruwart is a nearly flawless speaker-on-my-behalf.

her answer to animal abuse:


"I certainly would want to live in a society where animals were not mistreated. In a libertarian society, a person who abused their animals would most likely be visited by concerned neighbors. If the abuser showed no remorse, the neighbors might ostracize the abuser, refusing to associate or do business with him or her.

"If the abuse continued, the neighbors might attempt to rescue the suffering animals. If the abuser sued, a libertarian jury would have to decide if he or she was due compensation.

"If compensation was awarded to the abuser, the rescuers might gladly pay it as a cost of saving the animals. Such compensation might allow the abuser to save face, but the public exposure would likely dissuade him or her from purchasing more animals to abuse.

"Animals 'rights' might evolve in a libertarian society through the failure of juries to award abusers compensation for the rescued animals. Failure to award compensation would essentially be a verdict of 'not property.' Prior to the Civil War, juries acknowledged rights of escaped slaves by returning a verdict of 'not guilty' when they or their rescuers were captured.

That sounds like an anarchocapitalist argument. I wonder if she's really an ancap. Just tell her to not campaign on this issue by saying she will do nothing lol

[Kludge]

I certainly would want to live in a society where animals were not mistreated. In a libertarian society, a person who abused their animals would most likely be visited by concerned neighbors. If the abuser showed no remorse, the neighbors might ostracize the abuser, refusing to associate or do business with him or her.

That sounds like an anarchocapitalist argument. I wonder if she's really an ancap.

*shrug* That's the argument I'd make. Animals have no rights as they are property and all rights stem from property.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

*shrug* That's the argument I'd make. Animals have no rights as they are property and all rights stem from property.

You can't make an argument like that to voters that aren't in the LP.

She supports the death penalty ew

[Kludge]

You can't make an argument like that to voters that aren't in the LP.

She supports the death penalty ew

"I suspect that we have a misunderstanding rather than a disagreement.

"You are correct in pointing out that the state cannot take possession of another's life. However, the victim(s) of an aggressor might be able to lay claim to that aggressor's life as compensation for injury.

"For example, a child is tortured and murdered by an assailant, who shows no sign of repentance and is suspected to have committed such atrocities previously. In most libertarian societies, the parents would want the aggressor imprisoned indefinitely, in addition to any monetary compensation that they might request.

"However, if the parents felt that they would only find solace in the murderer's death, a libertarian court might decide that the parents (not the state) do have a right to the killer's life as compensation for their child's murder. If the state actually handled the execution, it would be acting only as an agent for the parents.

"That's just one theory. As you note, libertarians do indeed disagree over such questions regarding capital punishment."" - Ruwart

[JosephTheLibertarian]

So? Capital punishment is never necessary!

[Kludge]

So? Capital punishment is never necessary!

Neither is fining the person, sending them to prison or otherwise punishing them.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Neither is fining the person, sending them to prison or otherwise punishing them.

Two wrongs don't make a right. Us anarchists can eradicate capital punishment legitimately, effectively ending one of most brutal actions carried out by statism.

[Kludge]

Two wrongs don't make a right.

o.0 Then how do you propose lawbreakers are dealt with?

[Richie]

I'm with Brent. Even though I've been a strong supporter of Barr in the past (he's starting to grow on me in a bad way, though) and still am one, he isn't even in right now - so Ruwart it is.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

o.0 Then how do you propose lawbreakers are dealt with?

Well, we can only repeal the laws that the people will tolerate. Public is ready to eradicate capital punishment entirely (milestone) but not ready to eliminate the penal system. One step at a time. I think the system should be reformed though. We should look at nations with the least amount of crime and study their systems and maybe adopt some reforms in the US.

[nate895]

Well, we can only repeal the laws that the people will tolerate. Public is ready to eradicate capital punishment entirely (milestone) but not ready to eliminate the penal system. One step at a time. I think the system should be reformed though. We should look at nations with the least amount of crime and study their systems and maybe adopt some reforms in the US.

Ultimately eradicate the penal system? Have you lost your mind?

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Ultimately eradicate the penal system? Have you lost your mind?

Wouldn't a self-governing society be ideal? I hope overcrowded prisons is not the utopia you envision.

[Kludge]

Wouldn't a self-governing society be ideal? I hope overcrowded prisons is not the utopia you envision.

I don't envision a self-governing society - wait.... Weren't you just associating Ruwart to anarcho-capitalism negatively???

I'm a.... "minarcho-capitalist", believing government only has the right to protect against direct aggression towards property (and punish those who violate the sacred right of property) - funded primarily by donations.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I don't envision a self-governing society - wait.... Weren't you just associating Ruwart to anarcho-capitalism negatively???

I'm a.... "minarcho-capitalist", believing government only has the right to protect against direct aggression towards property (and punish those who violate the sacred right of property) - funded primarily by donations.

I don't know, was I? hmm. I'm a "democratic voluntaryist" whatever that means. It just feels right. I'm generally anti-government but I do believe in working within and with government in order to change things. If you can, that's great.

[nate895]

Wouldn't a self-governing society be ideal? I hope overcrowded prisons is not the utopia you envision.

I hope to have a self-governing society. I don't see how a self-governing society can't lock up the members of society who violate the other citizens'/free men's rights

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I hope to have a self-governing society. I don't see how a self-governing society can't lock up the members of society who violate the other citizens'/free men's rights

well.. then you'd be imposing your will on them. I guess you're a minarchist. That's fine. I know we can't just eradicate the penal system. I think we can help guide the people by repealing laws and slowly lessening the interference of government. It's a gradual process imo. The free market "free people" also isn't always capitalistic. Free people take part in many voluntary things, even in socialism. (families, communes, community projects)

[nate895]

well.. then you'd be imposing your will on them. I guess you're a minarchist. That's fine. I know we can't just eradicate the penal system. I think we can help guide the people by repealing laws and slowly lessening the interference of government. It's a gradual process imo. The free market "free people" also isn't always capitalistic. Free people take part in many voluntary things, even in socialism. (families, communes, community projects)

Socialism, however, violates property rights. Therefore, it is against the natural law to have a socialist system.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Socialism, however, violates property rights. Therefore, it is against the natural law to have a socialist system.

socialist system... did I say that? no. I'm talking about the voluntary kind. Anyway, I personally think we're stuck with involuntary government for a long time.

[Kludge]

Socialism, however, violates property rights. Therefore, it is against the natural law to have a socialist system.

Voluntary "socialism" doesn't impede on private rights - so long as an all-covering contract was signed by all members participating.

[nate895]

socialist system... did I say that? no. I'm talking about the voluntary kind. Anyway, I personally think we're stuck with involuntary government for a long time.

I think the people who believe in no government should get to pick their little corner of the world they want, and they can try it out and see how well it works out for them.

[Kludge]

I think the people who believe in no government should get to pick their little corner of the world they want, and they can try it out and see how well it works out for them.

I should update my avatar someday to better reflect my views...

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I think the people who believe in no government should get to pick their little corner of the world they want, and they can try it out and see how well it works out for them.

There is no place to choose from. I think you should respect other people's beliefs.

[amy31416]

Who cares? BJ is winning his primary folks!

This is the future of the movement, not the LP nominee!

This is how we bring the ideals of the libertarian party into reality! WOOHOO!

[nate895]

There is no place to choose from. I think you should respect other people's beliefs.

I respect them, it's just you're never going to win in an election, at least in the next 500 or so year, so I think if you got your little corner of the globe, and it worked out, people would follow you. If it doesn't work, well, good thing the rest of the world didn't adopt the plan.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I respect them, it's just you're never going to win in an election, at least in the next 500 or so year, so I think if you got your little corner of the globe, and it worked out, people would follow you. If it doesn't work, well, good thing the rest of the world didn't adopt the plan.

Who says I would run on this platform? I'm not in your fringe.

[OptionsTrader]

None of the above.

[mdh]

I respect them, it's just you're never going to win in an election, at least in the next 500 or so year, so I think if you got your little corner of the globe, and it worked out, people would follow you. If it doesn't work, well, good thing the rest of the world didn't adopt the plan.

Too bad the rest of the world has adopted (at the end of a gun barrel) the tyranny plan. It isn't working out too well for regular folks!

[Kludge]

bump

[Anti Federalist]

He's even worse than that... imagine sitting at a table full of people trying to enjoy a nice drink with his annoying blathering of crap and backstabbing and bullshit for 4 hours.
He's like the guy at the party that everyone is wishing would just go away. You're freaking out the chicks man. kinda thing.
Weird Uncle Fester kind guy.

Phillies = Ghemminger?:D

Seriously, Barr.

My wife and I argued a bit over this.

She is of the opinion that, having once been a neo-con, and not being completely pure on Iraq withdrawal, among other things, he is not to be trusted.

I look at it this way: what is the purpose of all our hollering from the rooftops?

To bring people to the message of freedom, to "convert" them, to offer them the "red pill".

To then reject them, when they truly do have an epiphany, as I believe Barr has, and have a track record of winning elections, as Barr has, doesn't make much sense.

[Brent Canada]

Barr is not a Libertarian.

Someone who supports the war on drugs so strongly, automatically disqualifies themselves from being a libertarian.

He may of changed his mind on some things which is good.

But it's like having a white guy, being the leader of the Black Panthers. No matter what his views are, it just can't happen.

[Bradley in DC]

Barr is not a Libertarian.

Barr is a member of the Libertarian National Committee and has been a member of the Libertarian Party for a few years and was always generally libertarian.


Someone who supports the war on drugs so strongly, automatically disqualifies themselves from being a libertarian.

He may of changed his mind on some things which is good.

He doesn't think the war on drugs is a federal issue and has lobbied for Marijuana Policy Project. ;)

[Brent Canada]

Barr is a member of the Libertarian National Committee and has been a member of the Libertarian Party for a few years and was always generally libertarian.



He doesn't think the war on drugs is a federal issue and has lobbied for Marijuana Policy Project. ;)

He's still for keeping all other drugs illegal. He's a pseudo-libertarian.

[Bradley in DC]

He's still for keeping all other drugs illegal. He's a pseudo-libertarian.

No, you're not getting it, his position is now the same as Dr. Paul's that it isn't a federal issue and that he is running for federal office and that he wouldn't interfere with what states do (same as Dr. Paul).