We should take over the Democrat party as well

[johngr]

Why not? Especially in the South. Our opponents certainly play both sides. It's harder to do but would be much more effective. It would make us harder to deal with.

Disadvantages: it spreads our resources more. It's impossible in some states.

[Kludge]

I don´t think anyone would be opposed to working within the Dem party, too, but our resources are very limited and there is already an established libertarian-conservative base in the GOP. I suppose, though, that the Blue Dog Coalition of the Dems is much larger and powerful than the Goldwater Conservatives of the GOP.

Personally, I strongly prefer talking to (social) liberals than (Neo)conservatives, but I´m not terribly interested in saving the economy as it is. Good for me because my roommate is an anti-Obama socialist and´ll probably have me attending Dem events.

[Fr3shjive]

I've heard several Democrats say they would vote for Paul over Obama.

[johngr]

At the national level, the war issue is a huge wedge. Alot of them are right pissed at Mr "you can take that to the bank".

[johngr]

Imagine the "gridlock problem" solved. Repealing law after law.

[johngr]

It would be great for a change to have a choice between a liberty democrat and a liberty republican.

[akforme]

recruit the left-libertarian. He has a good channel on YT

YouTube - Left Libertarianism Part 1 of 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmf7ksraGSY)

[MN Patriot]

Issues to present to Democrats:
Oppose war.
Drug legalization.
Freedom of speech.

On second thought, Democrats are hopeless Marxists. They resent the rich, and are motivated by contempt for their fellow man. Let the Democrats fester in their own stew of hatred. Associating with liberals is a bad idea.

Better idea: build a third party that will welcome any libertarian leaning Democrat.

[Travlyr]

Issues to present to Democrats:
Oppose war.
Drug legalization.
Freedom of speech.

On second thought, Democrats are hopeless Marxists. They resent the rich, and are motivated by contempt for their fellow man. Let the Democrats fester in their own stew of hatred. Associating with liberals is a bad idea.

Better idea: build a third party that will welcome any libertarian leaning Democrat.

While they are uninformed Marxists, I wouldn't call them hopeless. They can learn.

[speciallyblend]

I don´t think anyone would be opposed to working within the Dem party, too, but our resources are very limited and there is already an established libertarian-conservative base in the GOP. I suppose, though, that the Blue Dog Coalition of the Dems is much larger and powerful than the Goldwater Conservatives of the GOP.

Personally, I strongly prefer talking to (social) liberals than (Neo)conservatives, but I´m not terribly interested in saving the economy as it is. Good for me because my roommate is an anti-Obama socialist and´ll probably have me attending Dem events.

well our libertarian conservative base already controls the democratic party in lake county. i would say our democratic party is more republican then our own republican party. it really depends on your local politics and county politics. reclaim the party that best suits your political needs and structure in your area!!!

the best way to call out the gop is reform the gop or just ignore it ,while you reform the democratic party and call out the neo-cons in the process in both parties!!

[MN Patriot]

While they are uninformed Marxists, I wouldn't call them hopeless. They can learn.

Maybe a few will wake up. But their core beliefs are driven by their hatred towards their fellow man. Pretty hard to enlighten a group of people who are in lockstep with collectivist attitudes.

Taking over the Republican Party won't entice any Democrats to renounce the dark side and change allegiances, either . That is why the third party route is a better idea. Yeah, I know. Big Brother tells us third parties can't win. Big Brother doesn't want a third party.

[hugolp]

Maybe a few will wake up. But their core beliefs are driven by their hatred towards their fellow man. Pretty hard to enlighten a group of people who are in lockstep with collectivist attitudes.

I was a socialist (social-democrat), my family is all socialist, its all I hear when I was young, I though right-wingers where evil and hated the poor.

Ron Paul changed that. And he changed my mind when I was 28, when they say its almost imposible to change your mind politically. And I have change the ideas of other people arround here, mainly other (now) ex-socialist. Its not easy, but it happens.

Libertarian ideas are very good and make a lot of sense (not hard comparing it with what you see on politics everyday). If you keep pushing (in a nice way) people will start listening, and at some point they will realize the ideas make a lot of sense.

[MN Patriot]

I was a socialist (social-democrat), my family is all socialist, its all I hear when I was young, I though right-wingers where evil and hated the poor.

Ron Paul changed that. And he changed my mind when I was 28, when they say its almost imposible to change your mind politically. And I have change the ideas of other people arround here, mainly other (now) ex-socialist. Its not easy, but it happens.

Libertarian ideas are very good and make a lot of sense (not hard comparing it with what you see on politics everyday). If you keep pushing (in a nice way) people will start listening, and at some point they will realize the ideas make a lot of sense.

Like they say, if your not a liberal by the time you are 18, you don't have a heart. If you aren't a conservative (this needs to be updated, LIBERTARIAN) by 30, you don't have a brain.

Once again, this shows that a third party would attract more ex-socialist Democrats than taking over the Republican Party.

[johngr]

Maybe a few will wake up. But their core beliefs are driven by their hatred towards their fellow man. Pretty hard to enlighten a group of people who are in lockstep with collectivist attitudes.

Taking over the Republican Party won't entice any Democrats to renounce the dark side and change allegiances, either . That is why the third party route is a better idea. Yeah, I know. Big Brother tells us third parties can't win. Big Brother doesn't want a third party.

You are talking about the leadership. We're up against the same thing with only slight ideological differences and lip-service to what we stand for with the Republican leadership. We are hijacking it (or should I say, hijacking it back). If you go back far enough, you can find some common ground. Particularly with certain Dixiecrats and notably, Andrew Jackson and more recently, Larry MacDonald.

[Theocrat]

Why not? Especially in the South. Our opponents certainly play both sides. It's harder to do but would be much more effective. It would make us harder to deal with.

Disadvantages: it spreads our resources more. It's impossible in some states.

You can't even take over the Republican Party, so much less the Democratic Party, in my opinion. It would be doubly as difficult trying to change the platform of a party which, in principle, holds to the view that government can solve all the problems in society. That is the major political philosophy (and flaw) of the Democratic Party.

Unfortunately, the Republican Party has become the Democratic Party Lite. Would-be reformers of the GOP need to stop committing rape towards the Republican Party and seek to harness and promote their ideas in a third party where their principles will be more readily received.

[johngr]

You can't even take over the Republican Party, so much less the Democratic Party, in my opinion. It would be doubly as difficult trying to change the platform of a party which, in principle, holds to the view that government can solve all the problems in society. That is the major political philosophy (and flaw) of the Democratic Party.

Unfortunately, the Republican Party has become the Democratic Party Lite. Would-be reformers of the GOP need to stop committing rape towards the Republican Party and seek to harness and promote their ideas in a third party where their principles will be more readily received.

Even socialist Barney Frank is behind the anti-Fed movement (if only for political gain). It's not a large jump from there to show that the income tax is her twin brother and how both end up benefitting the rich.

You could spin many liberty principles as anti-corporatism and soft-pedal the anti-welfare stuff. Let the right hand take care of that. Get the picture? Change the demopublicans and republicrats into the libricrats and liberpublicans.

[constituent]

reclaim the party that best suits your political needs and structure in your area!!!

good advice.

[constituent]

You could spin many liberty principles as anti-corporatism and soft-pedal the anti-welfare stuff. Let the right hand take care of that. Get the picture? Change the demopublicans and republicrats into the libricrats and liberpublicans.

I do it all the time... but i'm not affiliated with either party, and won't be.

[johngr]

I do it all the time... but i'm not affiliated with either party, and won't be.

I'm talking about candidates for office more than voters. I'd vote for Kuchinich over Cheney any day of the week. Many liberty-minded people held their noses and voted for Obama (and got just as much war in the bargain). If McCain had won, he'd have disappointed anyone wanting small government.

[johnrocks]

At this point in time I think all our resources should be concentrated in one area like a laser beam, face it, we are a young movement and time is needed for it to grow, the foundation is already in the GOP.

[constituent]

I'm talking about candidates for office more than voters. I'd vote for Kuchinich over Cheney any day of the week. Many liberty-minded people held their noses and voted for Obama.

oh yea, agreed. you're saying to vote principle, and for the individual, rather than for the party. fair enough. i think most folks around here probably agree with you on that.

[catdd]

Sometimes I wonder if we would not be better received by the democrats.

[johngr]

At this point in time I think all our resources should be concentrated in one area like a laser beam, face it, we are a young movement and time is needed for it to grow, the foundation is already in the GOP.

It's only in the GOP because our most promising leader is a maverick in that party. We need some Democrat mavericks as well, imo. Very often, though Democrat candidates adopt the most tyrannical aspects of the Republicans (viz. Obama).

[moostraks]

At this point in time I think all our resources should be concentrated in one area like a laser beam, face it, we are a young movement and time is needed for it to grow, the foundation is already in the GOP.

I think the best advice is to work within the party that has the most traction in your area. Liberty topics appeal to the heart of all humanity and that is what makes it an ideal to work towards, irregardless of party affiliation.

By using the laser beam approach you also give tptb the direction to focus their animosity and msm hatred. They put a title on us and then you have to work twice as hard to get past the propaganda just to get folks to listen. Not to mention there are some areas where a GOP candidate will not fly because people cannot get past their biases that have been drilled into them.

[johngr]

Sometimes I wonder if we would not be better received by the democrats.

Certain aspects certainly would be.

Republican, by and large, only pay lip service to the other parts anyway.

We could start grooming someone to replace Bachmann, for example.

[johnrocks]

I think the best advice is to work within the party that has the most traction in your area. Liberty topics appeal to the heart of all humanity and that is what makes it an ideal to work towards, irregardless of party affiliation.

By using the laser beam approach you also give tptb the direction to focus their animosity and msm hatred. They put a title on us and then you have to work twice as hard to get past the propaganda just to get folks to listen. Not to mention there are some areas where a GOP candidate will not fly because people cannot get past their biases that have been drilled into them.

I understand and appreciate that stand moostraks, infiltrating at the local area wherever or whoever has the best chance is indeed wise advice.:)

[johngr]

You can't even take over the Republican Party, so much less the Democratic Party, in my opinion. It would be doubly as difficult trying to change the platform of a party which, in principle, holds to the view that government can solve all the problems in society. That is the major political philosophy (and flaw) of the Democratic Party.

Unfortunately, the Republican Party has become the Democratic Party Lite. Would-be reformers of the GOP need to stop committing rape towards the Republican Party and seek to harness and promote their ideas in a third party where their principles will be more readily received.

We don't change the platform until we have elected enough of our people to ever higher offices.

One thing to remember: parties are not static. They change according to times and condition (and in the case of the Neocons, with a little help from the top). Some even dissolve.

[johngr]

oh yea, agreed. you're saying to vote principle, and for the individual, rather than for the party. fair enough. i think most folks around here probably agree with you on that.

But, depending on the area, tactically changing party affiliation would facilitate what I'm talking about.

Also dropping the "C" word and redefining liberal to mean classical liberalism.

[catdd]

Liberty minded Blue Dogs would be the way to go.

[johngr]

One greater obstacle with democrats: government workers. You'll find them in abundance whereever you find solid democrat voters. But that could change if they're forced to lay many of them off.