Christie becomes Republicans' best bet for 2016 [Archive]

alucard13mm

11-05-2013, 11:15 PM

http://news.yahoo.com/christie-becomes-republicans-best-bet-2016-033629960.html

New York City (AFP) - New Jersey's Governor Chris Christie won overwhelming re-election on Tuesday, propelling him to the top of a list of Republican White House hopefuls for 2016. Christie, 51, who has led his majority Democratic state since January 2010, won "decisively" against Democrat rival Barbara Buono, according to The New York Times. The father of four with a larger-than-life personality fared better than Buono among women, blacks and Hispanics -- groups which Republicans typically have an uphill battle winning over. Christie's cross-party appeal comes with Republicans deeply divided, unpopular and appearing severely weakened by the recent budget crisis forced by its far right Tea Party faction.

"Congratulations to Governor Christie on his impressive re-election victory tonight,” said Reince Priebus, chairman of the Republican National Committee in a statement. Priebus said Christie's "significant support" among minority voters was a testament to his leadership and an inclusive campaign, engaging with black, Hispanic and Asian voters. "New Jersey residents know he's a man they can trust, and I'm confident he will continue to deliver results for the Garden State in his second term," Priebus added. Christie's win will cement his status as a favorite to win the Republican nomination for the White House in 2016 given his pragmatism, charisma and ability to command cross-party support. A Quinnipiac University poll had said 94 percent of Republicans, 64 percent of independents and even 30 percent of Democrats in New Jersey supported him for a second term as governor.

Sixty-one percent said they would vote for Christie compared to 33 percent for Buono in the traditionally Democrat state that suffered terribly from last year's Hurricane Sandy.

Mitt Romney, the Republican presidential candidate who ran and lost against Barack Obama in 2012, has spoken out for Christie.

"Chris could easily become our nominee and save our party and help get this nation on the right track again," he told NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday.
"They don't come better than Chris Christie," added the multi-millionaire former candidate.

ThePenguinLibertarian

11-05-2013, 11:19 PM

FrankRep

11-05-2013, 11:27 PM

After Ken Cuccinelli's defeat, I can picture the Establishment/Neocon Republicans pushing a "non-extremist" Rep. like Chris Christie.

2016 prediction: Chris Christie vs. Hillary Clinton.

For the record, yes, the Libertarian candidate will lose.

fr33

11-05-2013, 11:31 PM

After Ken Cuccinelli's defeat, I can picture the Establishment/Neocon Republicans pushing a "non-extremist" Rep. like Chris Christie.

I pictured it long before now. Hell we've seen it happen a few times already.

Brian4Liberty

11-05-2013, 11:32 PM

Christie was backed by the Dem/GOP establishment. Same as McAuliffe.

klamath

11-05-2013, 11:33 PM

Rands down Christie's up.

2young2vote

11-05-2013, 11:36 PM

Are the Tea Partiers aware enough to know that CC represents the establishment and big government and sign their nation away, or will they stick true to their principles? This could be an interesting election. The Tea Party has only gotten stronger since the 2012 election, and with people like Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck dissing the establishment republicans regularly, I think it is may be possible for a more conservative candidate like Rand Paul to get the nomination.

FrankRep

11-05-2013, 11:38 PM

It begins...

Terry McAuliffe Wins in VA, Immediately Begins Campaigning for Hillary Clinton
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?432462-Terry-McAuliffe-Wins-in-VA-Immediately-Begins-Campaigning-for-Hillary-Clinton

klamath

11-05-2013, 11:39 PM

Todays elections meant a whole lot more than a antisodomy AG. It is a major implosion.

enhanced_deficit

11-05-2013, 11:42 PM

Reactions like yahoo news in OP are bit too dramatic/dems propaganda courtesy of MSM imo.

Christie was backed by the Dem/GOP establishment. Same as McAuliffe.

Against, Hillary.. Christie will have no chance.

Left media like Salon and even mother of all neecons NYT has gone on attack against Rand this week, I see this as a good sign for 2016.

http://newsbusters.org/sites/default/files/thumbnail_photos/2013/June/Obama%20and%20Christie.jpg?1371577690 (http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=_F5Xxyen2oFXvM&tbnid=yD3xLOM4VzuMEM:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnewsbusters.org%2Fblogs%2Fnoel-sheppard%2F2013%2F06%2F18%2Fchristie-obama-s-charm-offensive-should-have-started-january-2009-bit&ei=Abd5UsKtE9LqkAeYvYDoCw&bvm=bv.55980276,d.eW0&psig=AFQjCNF2Tv7hSrLSthAEmflD4blAv5V_0w&ust=1383794756943243)

kathy88

11-05-2013, 11:46 PM

Carlybee

11-05-2013, 11:50 PM

Oh BS...he will not be the nominee. He will never, never, never win in the south. Maybe south Florida. But certainly not in most of the southern and western red states.

FrankRep

11-05-2013, 11:51 PM

Libertarian bashing doesn't make your dick any bigger, Frank.

Just a friendly reminder that Ron Paul became a Republican to win elections.

Carlybee

11-05-2013, 11:58 PM

Just a friendly reminder that Ron Paul became a Republican to win elections.

Just a friendly reminder that the Republicans lost the last 2 presidential elections and the senate.

FrankRep

11-06-2013, 12:01 AM

Just a friendly reminder that the Republicans lost the last 2 presidential elections and the senate.

The Big Government Democrats are winning. I get that.

klamath

11-06-2013, 12:04 AM

Oh BS...he will not be the nominee. He will never, never, never win in the south. Maybe south Florida. But certainly not in most of the southern and western red states.Oh BS yourself babe. Christie is leading in virginia AND SC in the latest polls.Getting your wish.

satchelmcqueen

11-06-2013, 12:11 AM

crispy cream is going to look like shit when he debates rand in the coming debates.

AlexAmore

11-06-2013, 12:22 AM

crispy cream is going to look like shit when he debates rand in the coming debates.

If Crispy Creme has one advantage, it's his charisma. Think Romney with a (hopefully overbearing) personality. They'll stand Crispy right in the middle and his big personality will probably bulldoze everyone else. I think the opportunity to hammer him will be when the media vets him and the pacs run ads. I'm betting he'll have TONS of skeletons, more than we know from Double Down.

klamath

11-06-2013, 12:26 AM

If Crispy Creme has one advantage, it's his charisma. Think Romney with a (hopefully overbearing) personality. They'll stand Crispy right in the middle and his big personality will probably bulldoze everyone else. I think the opportunity to hammer him will be when the media vets him and the pacs run ads. I'm betting he'll have TONS of skeletons, more than we know from Double Down.The media won't expose Christy until After he has won the nomination and is running against Hillary.

Carlybee

11-06-2013, 12:40 AM

Oh BS yourself babe. Christie is leading in virginia AND SC in the latest polls.Getting your wish.

Dream on "babe". I don't support Chris Christie. It's still early. If anything I would bet the establishment tries to get Jeb Bush. My opinions on the Virginia gubernatorial race have jack squat to do with this so reign it in. Chris Christie will not play in the south and doubtfully in the western red states. If you want to start blaming people, blame the GOP for constantly getting behind lame-o candidates. As for the polls...Ted Cruz was leading after his filibuster. I wouldn't put much stock in them at this stage of the game.

Brian4Liberty

11-06-2013, 12:42 AM

Oh BS...he will not be the nominee. He will never, never, never win in the south. Maybe south Florida. But certainly not in most of the southern and western red states.

Jeb will win Florida.

enoch150

11-06-2013, 01:02 AM

Christie will be about as popular in the Republican primaries as Rudy Giuliani was.

dillo

11-06-2013, 01:07 AM

Chris christie is as conservative as Michael Bloomberg, yea he can win elections but running him would literally cause the split in the republican party.

RonPaulFanInGA

11-06-2013, 01:22 AM

Just a friendly reminder that the Republicans lost the last 2 presidential elections and the senate.

And yet their electoral track record recently is still a million times better than that of the Libertarian Party; who, I remind you, does not hold a single U.S. House or U.S. Senate seat, or any Governor's Mansions.

Carlybee

11-06-2013, 01:30 AM

Carlybee

11-06-2013, 01:32 AM

Chris christie is as conservative as Michael Bloomberg, yea he can win elections but running him would literally cause the split in the republican party.

You mean widen the split. If the GOP is stupid enough to run Christie, they deserve to implode. Given the popularity of the Tea Party, I can't imagine they would take that risk unless they just want to lose again.

mad cow

11-06-2013, 01:36 AM

And yet their electoral track record recently is still a million times better than that of the Libertarian Party; who, I remind you, does not hold a single U.S. House or U.S. Senate seat, or any Governor's Mansions.

Or any State Senators or Legislators or City Mayors or Town Mayors or County Sheriffs or or or...somebody help me here,is there a Libertarian Dogcatcher in the USA?

enoch150

11-06-2013, 01:37 AM

enoch150

11-06-2013, 01:38 AM

Or any State Senators or Legislators or City Mayors or Town Mayors or County Sheriffs or or or...somebody help me here,is there a Libertarian Dogcatcher in the USA?

A few dogcatchers.
http://www.lp.org/candidates/elected-officials

dillo

11-06-2013, 01:45 AM

You mean widen the split. If the GOP is stupid enough to run Christie, they deserve to implode. Given the popularity of the Tea Party, I can't imagine they would take that risk unless they just want to lose again.

I think it would be the straw that broke the camels back,

I think Christie would pull a lot of moderates and indies, but leftists would never support him over a woman.

he would either lose the election because he wouldnt have enough support from the right or the right would band together justifying that Christie is better than Hilary and he would be POTUS. After a couple years of his bullshit, the tea party would get stronger and youd literally have people of the same party disagreeing on major issues.

RonPaulFanInGA

11-06-2013, 01:55 AM

Or any State Senators or Legislators or City Mayors or Town Mayors or County Sheriffs or or or...somebody help me here,is there a Libertarian Dogcatcher in the USA?

I'll never forget how, think it was after the 2002 midterms but not really sure, the Libertarian Party put out a press release bragging about their huge success in that election: they won a County Coroner's race in Colorado.

(Wouldn't be surprised if it was uncontested.)

Carlybee

11-06-2013, 02:01 AM

I'll never forget how, think it was after the 2002 midterms but not really sure, the Libertarian Party put out a press release bragging about their huge success in that election: they won a County Coroner's race Colorado.

I dont think anyone here has ever said that the LP is or has ever been a major player or factor. Its really kind of stupid though to crow about how much they lose when Republicans managed to lose the last 2 elections that meant anything. If not for that we wouldn't have Obummer in office and we wouldn't be a lame duck in the Senate.

dillo

11-06-2013, 02:02 AM

Wasnt GJ a libertarian Governor?

mad cow

11-06-2013, 02:03 AM

A few dogcatchers.
http://www.lp.org/candidates/elected-officials

Heh,from your link:
Nationwide, there are 144 Libertarians holding elected offices: 38 partisan offices, and 106 nonpartisan offices. If you know of an elected Libertarian who is not on this list, please notify us at info@lp.org.

General criteria: For partisan offices, the elected official must have appeared on the ballot with the party designation "Libertarian" -or- the elected official must currently be registered to vote as a Libertarian. For nonpartisan offices, the elected official must be a current or former dues-paying member of the Libertarian Party -or- the elected official must currently be registered to vote as a Libertarian.

So there are 38 currently in the 50 States,ranging from budget committees to Healthcare District Boards.

This reminds me why I threw away The Libertarian Party News unread for my last ten years or so as a Party member.

fr33

11-06-2013, 02:09 AM

This reminds me why I threw away The Libertarian Party News unread for my last ten years or so as a Party member.

I hope you replaced it with the National Review. That way you can feel like you are winning. :rolleyes:

mad cow

11-06-2013, 02:17 AM

I hope you replaced it with the National Review. That way you can feel like you are winning. :roll eyes:

If I wanted to feel like I was winning,I would have replaced it with the Washington Post.

Dary

11-06-2013, 06:29 AM

If it comes down to Christy vs Hillary, I guess I'll have to write in Ron Paul's name (again).

CaptLouAlbano

11-06-2013, 06:39 AM

Wasnt GJ a libertarian Governor?

No, he was a Republican. No Libertarian has ever won a seat higher than a state representative, the last being over 10 years ago.

Working Poor

11-06-2013, 07:25 AM

The Big Government Democrats are winning. I get that.

I think we should stop fighting it and let them have their way and get it over with. Why should we let it burn up our resources and energy? The republicans will not win this election cycle unless you call some like Christie a republican. The media and the elites are totally against us I don't think we have enough fight in us to over come this.

Kotin

11-06-2013, 07:34 AM

The Big Government Democrats are winning. I get that.

That you, Reince Priebus?

So eager to make this about partisan politics.

You sound like a douchebag.

LibertyEagle

11-06-2013, 07:42 AM

I think we should stop fighting it and let them have their way and get it over with. Why should we let it burn up our resources and energy? The republicans will not win this election cycle unless you call some like Christie a republican. The media and the elites are totally against us I don't think we have enough fight in us to over come this.

If you have quit, please keep it to yourself. There is really no need for you to share it here.

cbc58

11-06-2013, 07:47 AM

Mr.NoSmile

11-06-2013, 07:53 AM

People see Christie as unrestrained and frank, not kowtowing to the big whigs of the GOP to the point that he slammed Congress for the Sandy relief bill. Also, given how he's still seen as popular in a very blue state, it's no surprise that he'd be seen as a frontrunner. To the eyes of many: he's seen as someone who can do the whole 'reach across the aisle' thing that folks like Paul and others in the Senate try, but ultimately cannot to the extent that Christie has. I don't know Christie's governor record, so I don't know what holes there are in it.

dinosaur

11-06-2013, 07:54 AM

LibertyEagle

11-06-2013, 07:57 AM

dinosaur

11-06-2013, 08:00 AM

Thing is, Christie is a big government guy too, which makes him a big 'ol liberal.

I don't want the kind of "change" that Christie would bring, because it would look just like the "change" we got from his big government brethren named Bush and Obama.

No thanks.

That's true as well. He might be perceived as fiscally responsible, but he isn't.

Red Green

11-06-2013, 08:04 AM

Hey, Mitt endorsed him. That's good enough for me!

CaptLouAlbano

11-06-2013, 08:11 AM

I know some here are not fond of Christie, but many, many people who actually get out and vote (middle aged and older) feel that he might be able to come in and bring some fiscal sanity to DC. It would be a mistake for Republicans to vote against him simply because they don't like him - just like last election where many voted for Obama. The deeper liberals get their hooks into buying votes with free giveaways and govt programs, the harder (if not impossible) it will be to turn things around. There is no perfect candidate and change is either going to come by degrees or revolution.

I see exactly where you are coming from and agree with the assessment. The analogy has been used before, but it is appropriate. Clinton and Christie would both drive us over a cliff, but Clinton would be doing so at 100MPH, where Christie might be doing so at 75MPH. Now, what we want is someone who will either put the brakes on, or better yet turn the damn car around and drive in the opposite direction, but barring that Christie is preferable to Clinton. In hindsight, would it be better to be in McCain's second term as opposed to Obama's? I think so. Would we be any closer to liberty? No, but we wouldn't be as far away as we are now.

Now, does this mean that if Christie gets the nomination that I will donate $10,000 to his campaign, knock on 1000's of doors, spend hours on the phone and put a bumper sticker on my car for him? Not at all. But, if it come down to Christie and Clinton, Christie is preferable, if by only a small amount.

Icymudpuppy

11-06-2013, 08:14 AM

I'm pretty sure our hope for liberty lies in two courses of action.

1. Massive emigration to a small country that we can co-opt.
2. Violent Revolution.

If a liberty candidate doesn't make the R nomination in 2016, I will be preparing my sailboat for an ocean crossing.

dinosaur

11-06-2013, 08:18 AM

I see exactly where you are coming from and agree with the assessment. The analogy has been used before, but it is appropriate. Clinton and Christie would both drive us over a cliff, but Clinton would be doing so at 100MPH, where Christie might be doing so at 75MPH. Now, what we want is someone who will either put the brakes on, or better yet turn the damn car around and drive in the opposite direction, but barring that Christie is preferable to Clinton. In hindsight, would it be better to be in McCain's second term as opposed to Obama's? I think so. Would we be any closer to liberty? No, but we wouldn't be as far away as we are now.

Now, does this mean that if Christie gets the nomination that I will donate $10,000 to his campaign, knock on 1000's of doors, spend hours on the phone and put a bumper sticker on my car for him? Not at all. But, if it come down to Christie and Clinton, Christie is preferable, if by only a small amount.

To me the two are equally dangerous because conservatives are willing to accept all sorts of lies if they are coming from the mouth of someone with an R after the name. Without Bush, we wouldn't have the Patriot act. If we had Christie instead of Obama right now, conservatives would have accepted Syria. With Christie in office, they will accept Iran. If Hillary is in office, conservatives will fight against an Iran invasion.

FrankRep

11-06-2013, 08:18 AM

Wasnt GJ a libertarian Governor?
Gary Johnson was a Republican.

CaptLouAlbano

11-06-2013, 08:21 AM

To me the two are equally dangerous because conservatives are willing to accept all sorts of lies if they are coming from the mouth of someone with an R after the name. Without Bush, we wouldn't have the Patriot act. If we had Christie instead of Obama right now, conservatives would have accepted Syria. With Christie in office, they will accept Iran. If Hillary is in office, conservatives will fight against an Iran invasion.

It's hard to speculate on the what ifs. If Gore were president, we still could have had the Patriot Act. We might also have a carbon tax and be forced to turn our lights out for 5 hours per day to save the planet. We really don't know.

Faced with the choice of Clinton or Christie, I believe that there will be little if anything that Clinton would do in office that I would support. Based on her ideology and voting record, I am going to guess nothing. Am I going to be pleased with what Christie would do? Probably not, but if he does one thing positive in his term in office, he'd be at least one point ahead of Clinton on that scorecard.

They are both Progressives, no doubt. But like any ideology, there are varying degrees. Christie is a Progressive that is at least somewhat friendly to business and the middle class. Clinton is a Marxist ideologue who, like Obama, is hell bent on remaking this country in the image of her ideological heroes.

Cap

11-06-2013, 08:24 AM

JK/SEA

11-06-2013, 08:31 AM

If it comes down to Christy vs Hillary, I guess I'll have to write in Ron Paul's name (again).

good plan..

noted.

phill4paul

11-06-2013, 08:31 AM

Cap

11-06-2013, 08:33 AM

There are plenty GOP operatives on this board that would advocate for Christie in this scenario.I'm curious to hear from them. Another question, how is this different from the Cooch race?

mosquitobite

11-06-2013, 08:37 AM

You mean widen the split. If the GOP is stupid enough to run Christie, they deserve to implode. Given the popularity of the Tea Party, I can't imagine they would take that risk unless they just want to lose again.

Agree. On every tea party page I read NONE like Christie.

We need to direct the narrative STARTING NOW on most of these sites to remind them there is ZERO difference between Hillary and Christie and that the DEMOCRATS are the ones who want us to put up Christie so that they win either way.

dinosaur

11-06-2013, 08:37 AM

I'm curious to hear from them. Another question, how is this different from the Cooch race?

Imperfect vs. imposter
Well meaning vs. monster

LibertyEagle

11-06-2013, 08:40 AM

There are plenty GOP operatives on this board that would advocate for Christie in this scenario.

I think that is a huge exaggeration and if anyone actually did that, they'd be booed on out of here. As they should.

CaptLouAlbano

11-06-2013, 08:40 AM

I'm curious to hear from them. Another question, how is this different from the Cooch race?

Honestly, a vote is inconsequential. In my state, regardless of who the nominee is, the Republican candidate will win. So whether or not I vote for him, has no bearing on the results. What matters here is political activism: donating, canvassing, phone banking, etc. And as I stated above, I would not do any of that for Christie (or for that matter any of the other potential GOP nominees, except Rand).

The Cuccinelli race was quite different because it wasn't "Progressive A" vs "Progressive B" as a Christie vs Clinton race would be. It was a Progressive vs a Conservative (and one that just happened to be endorsed and supported by the Pauls, GOA, YAL, and other groups). The problem we had on this site with that race (and we will continue to have throughout 2014), is that you have a vocal minority of people on here, that feel the need to bash any candidate that doesn't live up to THEIR standards, ignoring the fact that not everyone shares their same litmus tests. This site used to have some activist muscle (fundraising, phone banking, etc), but that muscle was not flexed much, if at all, in this race.

dinosaur

11-06-2013, 08:42 AM

It's hard to speculate on the what ifs. If Gore were president, we still could have had the Patriot Act. We might also have a carbon tax and be forced to turn our lights out for 5 hours per day to save the planet. We really don't know.

Faced with the choice of Clinton or Christie, I believe that there will be little if anything that Clinton would do in office that I would support. Based on her ideology and voting record, I am going to guess nothing. Am I going to be pleased with what Christie would do? Probably not, but if he does one thing positive in his term in office, he'd be at least one point ahead of Clinton on that scorecard.

They are both Progressives, no doubt. But like any ideology, there are varying degrees. Christie is a Progressive that is at least somewhat friendly to business and the middle class. Clinton is a Marxist ideologue who, like Obama, is hell bent on remaking this country in the image of her ideological heroes.

As you said, Christie is a progressive. Any fiscally sound decision that he might make is going to be a gesture. I also think that we can speculate about Iran. Hillary might be able to completely bulldoze the right, we can't be sure. But I am confident that the right will fight against Iran and also any new civil liberties infractions hard if she is president.

Cap

11-06-2013, 08:43 AM

Imperfect vs. imposter
Well meaning vs. monsterSo where does one draw the line on compromising one's principles? Does Captain Lou or Frank Rep have the inside track providing direction? One more question, is it now permissible to slam forum members because of a principled stance, even if you disagree with it?

LibertyEagle

11-06-2013, 08:44 AM

It's hard to speculate on the what ifs. If Gore were president, we still could have had the Patriot Act. We might also have a carbon tax and be forced to turn our lights out for 5 hours per day to save the planet. We really don't know.

Faced with the choice of Clinton or Christie, I believe that there will be little if anything that Clinton would do in office that I would support. Based on her ideology and voting record, I am going to guess nothing. Am I going to be pleased with what Christie would do? Probably not, but if he does one thing positive in his term in office, he'd be at least one point ahead of Clinton on that scorecard.

They are both Progressives, no doubt. But like any ideology, there are varying degrees. Christie is a Progressive that is at least somewhat friendly to business and the middle class. Clinton is a Marxist ideologue who, like Obama, is hell bent on remaking this country in the image of her ideological heroes.

Sorry, this is where we would split the sheets. I won't vote for Christie under any circumstances. That would only embolden the RNC believing it was a winning strategy to throw money towards establishment candidates and to abandon those that aren't. (ie. Cuccinelli). I won't be supporting that.

LibertyEagle

11-06-2013, 08:46 AM

This site used to have some activist muscle (fundraising, phone banking, etc), but that muscle was not flexed much, if at all, in this race.

Because the majority of those people are no longer here. I venture to say that they are tired of the same crap that you are tired of. I know I am.

ZENemy

11-06-2013, 08:47 AM

All "they" are looking for is someone that can go down in flames when they go against Hilary.

Hilary will be INSTALLED (not elected) in 2016. Rand Paul could save 100 babies on the debate stage and the next day Hilary will be "surging' for the win.

No Confidence 2016.

Cap

11-06-2013, 08:48 AM

Sorry, this is where we would split the sheets. I won't vote for Christie under any circumstances. That would only embolden the RNC believing it was a winning strategy to throw money towards establishment candidates and to abandon those that aren't. (ie. Cuccinelli). I won't be supporting that.But, let's speculate that Rand would endorse him. as it is very likely to happen as he did endorse Mitt. How do you make your argument without being hypocritical?

CaptLouAlbano

11-06-2013, 08:48 AM

Sorry, this is where we would split the sheets. I won't vote for Christie under any circumstances. That would only embolden the RNC believing it was a winning strategy to throw money towards establishment candidates and to abandon those that aren't. (ie. Cuccinelli). I won't be supporting that.

I won't vote for him either. As I said a vote is inconsequential. I would abstain. I expressed a preference between the two, sort of like would I prefer to be shot in the heart at point blank rage or shot in the leg from 200 yards a way. If I had to choose, I'll take the leg shot.

phill4paul

11-06-2013, 08:48 AM

The problem we had on this site with that race (and we will continue to have throughout 2014), is that you have a vocal minority of people on here, that feel the need to bash any candidate that doesn't live up to THEIR standards, ignoring the fact that not everyone shares their same litmus tests. This site used to have some activist muscle (fundraising, phone banking, etc), but that muscle was not flexed much, if at all, in this race.

It still has activists muscle. To those candidates that deserve it.

dinosaur

11-06-2013, 08:50 AM

So where does one draw the line on compromising one's principles? Does Captain Lou or Frank Rep have the inside track providing direction? One more question, is it now permissible to slam forum members because of a principled stance, even if you disagree with it?

I don't compromise my principles. I wouldn't recommend compromising them at all. As for the supposedly "principled" stances of some foreign members, the ones who are loudest about their purity are usually the least principled.

CaptLouAlbano

11-06-2013, 08:53 AM

Because the majority of those people are no longer here. I venture to say that they are tired of the same crap that you are tired of. I know I am.

It's the nitpicking that gets to me and the "he's not a liberty candidate" bullshit as if there are two stone tablets that have come down from on high that we reference. The old adage, "if you don't have something nice to say, don't say anything at all" would be good here. Especially when you have a candidate that 75% or so of the site is supportive of.

Take Massie for example. He voted for the Farm Bill. I disagreed with that vote. Now, that one vote is not going to deter my support for him, but, hypothetically, what it I made it my full time job, to interrupt every Massie thread and post how he isn't a real libertarian because of his Farm Bill support. That's basically what we have taking place here on this site in regards to a whole host of candidates/politicians. And my guess is, unless those at fault are silenced, this will only escalate as the 2014 election season kicks into gear.

CaptLouAlbano

11-06-2013, 08:54 AM

It still has activists muscle. To those candidates that deserve it.

And according to the small, but vocal minority, none of them do. And they will make sure to interrupt every thread on that candidate to let you know why they think so. If you don't like a candidate then you are under no obligation to support them with your time and money. But what does one gain by trying to deter the work of others. It does nothing, but sew discord in the movement. Not everyone is going to agree with you all the time. Cuccinelli was a fine candidate in my opinion. I did what I could donating a hefty sum to his campaign. That is my choice to make.

Cap

11-06-2013, 08:54 AM

I see exactly where you are coming from and agree with the assessment. The analogy has been used before, but it is appropriate. Clinton and Christie would both drive us over a cliff, but Clinton would be doing so at 100MPH, where Christie might be doing so at 75MPH. Now, what we want is someone who will either put the brakes on, or better yet turn the damn car around and drive in the opposite direction, but barring that Christie is preferable to Clinton. In hindsight, would it be better to be in McCain's second term as opposed to Obama's? I think so. Would we be any closer to liberty? No, but we wouldn't be as far away as we are now.

Now, does this mean that if Christie gets the nomination that I will donate $10,000 to his campaign, knock on 1000's of doors, spend hours on the phone and put a bumper sticker on my car for him? Not at all. But, if it come down to Christie and Clinton, Christie is preferable, if by only a small amount.

I won't vote for him either. As I said a vote is inconsequential. I would abstain. I expressed a preference between the two, sort of like would I prefer to be shot in the heart at point blank rage or shot in the leg from 200 yards a way. If I had to choose, I'll take the leg shot.

Prevaricate much?

CaptLouAlbano

11-06-2013, 08:58 AM

Prevaricate much?

Do you understand the difference between casting a vote for someone, and doing nothing but having a preferred outcome? As I stated, one vote (or for that matter two since my wife and I vote the same way), is inconsequential to the result in my state. Christie (if he were the nominee) will win my state without question. I didn't vote for Romney, I abstained. Romney won my state. Of Romney and Obama, would I have preferred to see Romney win? Yes. But nothing that I would do would have changed the outcome of the election.

Now if Paul had been the nominee, I would have worked hard (more than likely in other states) to fight for his victory.

Cap

11-06-2013, 09:01 AM

Gunny was right, there a number of assholes that owe an apology to the forum. You all know who you are and so do the principled.

cajuncocoa

11-06-2013, 09:04 AM

If you have quit, please keep it to yourself. There is really no need for you to share it here.

When are you going to learn that you don't control what people say on this board? Good grief.

CaptLouAlbano

11-06-2013, 09:04 AM

Gunny was right, there a number of assholes that owe an apology to the forum. You all know who you are and so do the principled.

I apologize for nothing. I am adhering to MY principles. Your insinuation that others should compromise their principles so that they can march lockstep with an internet forum is nonsensical.

phill4paul

11-06-2013, 09:06 AM

Cuccinelli was a fine candidate in my opinion. I did what I could donating a hefty sum to his campaign. That is my choice to make.

Sorry you picked a lame horse. Don't blame the track for your loss.

cajuncocoa

11-06-2013, 09:06 AM

klamath

11-06-2013, 09:08 AM

I have a question. If Rand doesn't win the nomination and he endorses the nominee, say Christie or Jeb, to show he is team player, are we supposed to vote for said nominee because Rand endorsed him? Will we be shunned on the forum if we choose to instead abstain or vote for a viable third party candidate that is pro liberty?No more like it if Rand wins the nomination you will be attacking rand for some transgression and leaving Hillary alone, No most of of don't care in the least when you make up your own mind who to vote for and should, it is when people actively and EXCLUSIVELY NEGATIVE CAMPAiGN AGAINST candidates we support.
If you attack the candidates we support yes you are fair game as you make your statements, in public on a political forum. Your opinions can be attacked just like you attack politicians.
Cuccinelli wasn't even someone I supported so I never even commented on his threads until the last when from outside sources I saw this race had turned into the battle between the neocons and the teaparty. That is when I noticed people that didn't support Cuccinelli exclusively attacking only him.

CaptLouAlbano

11-06-2013, 09:10 AM

Sorry you picked a lame horse. Don't blame the track for your loss.

It happens. Not every candidate that I support wins. It's disappointing, but I simply move on and focus on the next race at hand, which in my case in the SC Senate primary.

Cap

11-06-2013, 09:10 AM

I apologize for nothing. I am adhering to MY principles. Your insinuation that others should compromise their principles so that they can march lockstep with an internet forum is nonsensical.Yet yesterday you slammed anyone who didn't follow Ron and Rands lead to vote for Cooch and today you are back tracking on the scenario that if Rand endorsed Christie or Mitt, you wouldn't vote? How is that any kind of principle?

erowe1

11-06-2013, 09:10 AM

After Ken Cuccinelli's defeat, I can picture the Establishment/Neocon Republicans pushing a "non-extremist" Rep. like Chris Christie.

What does that have to do with Cuccinelli's defeat? Of course they were going to push someone like that. There was never any possibility of them not doing it.

cajuncocoa

11-06-2013, 09:11 AM

But, let's speculate that Rand would endorse him. as it is very likely to happen as he did endorse Mitt. How do you make your argument without being hypocritical?

I don't think they can make that argument without being hypocritical. The same argument played out in the summer of 2012 when Rand endorsed Mitt. The people who called all of us names for not going along with Rand and Ron for Cuccinelli were telling us then that endorsements don't matter.

In other words, it is what they say it is at any one particular point in time. Subject to change.

Cap

11-06-2013, 09:11 AM

No more like it if Rand wins the nomination you will be attacking rand for some transgression and leaving Hillary alone, No most of of don't care in the least when you make up your own mind who to vote for and should, it is when people actively and EXCLUSIVELY NEGATIVE CAMPAiGN AGAINST candidates we support.
If you attack the candidates we support yes you are fair game as you make your statements, in public on a political forum. Your opinions can be attacked just like you attack politicians.
Cuccinelli wasn't even someone I supported so I never even commented on his threads until the last when from outside sources I saw this race had turned into the battle between the neocons and the teaparty. That is when I noticed people that didn't support Cuccinelli exclusively attacking only him.No, I'm calling you guys out on your despicable behavior.

klamath

11-06-2013, 09:14 AM

No, I'm calling you guys out on your despicable behavior.Well I am calling YOU out for your filthy behavior. You guys wanted a fight you got a fight.

cajuncocoa

11-06-2013, 09:14 AM

It's the nitpicking that gets to me and the "he's not a liberty candidate" bullshit as if there are two stone tablets that have come down from on high that we reference. The old adage, "if you don't have something nice to say, don't say anything at all" would be good here. Especially when you have a candidate that 75% or so of the site is supportive of.

You and LE definitely have control issues. That kind of thing brings out my rebellious side.

Oh, as to that whole "75% thing"....for me, issues have a weighted scale. The 25% where I disagree with a candidate may be more important than the 75% about which I do agree.

CaptLouAlbano

11-06-2013, 09:15 AM

Yet yesterday you slammed anyone who didn't follow Ron and Rands lead to vote for Cooch and today you are back tracking on the scenario that if Rand endorsed Christie or Mitt, you wouldn't vote? How is that any kind of principle?

Because Cuccinelli was a good candidate that would be beneficial to Rand in 2016 and other liberty candidates running in 2014. My issue with this forum (specifically the vocal minority), is that they hijack nearly every thread on a candidate to spout their dislike for that candidate, when a large majority of people are supportive of said candidate. So instead of a meaningful discussion on the complexities of the race, yesterday turned into a rehash of leftist attacks on a candidate, who by the way, made no mention of that particular issue in the campaign.

Cap

11-06-2013, 09:16 AM

Well I am calling YOU out for your filthy behavior. You guys wanted a fight you got a fight.So tell me Klamath, are you voting for Christie if Rand endorsees him?

cajuncocoa

11-06-2013, 09:16 AM

And according to the small, but vocal minority, none of them do. And they will make sure to interrupt every thread on that candidate to let you know why they think so. If you don't like a candidate then you are under no obligation to support them with your time and money. But what does one gain by trying to deter the work of others. It does nothing, but sew discord in the movement. Not everyone is going to agree with you all the time. Cuccinelli was a fine candidate in my opinion. I did what I could donating a hefty sum to his campaign. That is my choice to make.

That's a lie. I've openly supported Amash and Massie. And I will also support Rand's 2016 run. That doesn't mean any of those people are above criticism, but I DO support them.

Cap

11-06-2013, 09:18 AM

That's a lie. I've openly supported Amash and Massie. And I will also support Rand's 2016 run. That doesn't mean any of those people are above criticism, but I DO support them.He tends to do that.

dinosaur

11-06-2013, 09:19 AM

I don't think they can make that argument without being hypocritical. The same argument played out in the summer of 2012 when Rand endorsed Mitt. The people who called all of us names for not going along with Rand and Ron for Cuccinelli were telling us then that endorsements don't matter.

In other words, it is what they say it is at any one particular point in time. Subject to change.

I had no trouble distinguishing between the political necessity of the Romney endorsement and the actual plea behind the Cucinelli one. I doubt you did either.

CaptLouAlbano

11-06-2013, 09:19 AM

You and LE definitely have control issues. That kind of thing brings out my rebellious side.

Oh, as to that whole "75% thing"....for me, issues have a weighted scale. The 25% where I disagree with a candidate may be more important than the 75% about which I do agree.

The 75% referenced the percentage of forum members who were supportive of Cuccinelli. You had a choice, you could have just let people talk about the race, or you could hijack every thread with your negative comments. You chose the latter, which is your MO anyway. Maybe you just need to come to the realization, that not everyone agrees with you on who is a quality candidate and who is not. As I stated earlier, perhaps "if you don't have anything nice to say...." might be something you should take to heart, particularly when it is in reference to a candidate that a large majority of the people on here supported. Or do you just have an incessant need to stick your nose into everything and stir up controversy?

Cap

11-06-2013, 09:22 AM

klamath

11-06-2013, 09:23 AM

So tell me Klamath, are you voting for Christie if Rand endorsees him?I have never voted for anyone that Rand or Ron endorced and I didn't like but I didn't excusively campaign against that candidate especially if the others are the same or worse. I was here when this same group of people made Rand the number one attacked politician on these forums barring the president.

CaptLouAlbano

11-06-2013, 09:25 AM

Is this what you meant?

No. I meant what I said. There was a minority of people on here that did not support Cuccinelli, and they were very vocal about that.

Cap

11-06-2013, 09:25 AM

I have never voted for anyone that Rand or Ron endorced and I didn't like but I didn't excusively campaign against that candidate especially if the others are the same or worse. I was here when this same group of people made Rand the number one attacked politician on these forums barring the president.Don't you think you are painting with a pretty broad brush?

cajuncocoa

11-06-2013, 09:25 AM

The 75% referenced the percentage of forum members who were supportive of Cuccinelli. You had a choice, you could have just let people talk about the race, or you could hijack every thread with your negative comments. You chose the latter, which is your MO anyway. Maybe you just need to come to the realization, that not everyone agrees with you on who is a quality candidate and who is not. As I stated earlier, perhaps "if you don't have anything nice to say...." might be something you should take to heart, particularly when it is in reference to a candidate that a large majority of the people on here supported. Or do you just have an incessant need to stick your nose into everything and stir up controversy?

I expressed my dislike for Cuccinelli due to his stance on social issues...which, in my view, makes him something other than a liberty candidate. So, yes, I felt the need to point that out whenever it was necessary. I make no apologies for it.

CaptLouAlbano

11-06-2013, 09:26 AM

I was here when this same group of people made Rand the number one attacked politician on these forums barring the president.

I recall that time. Wasn't there a certain person who vowed to no longer comment in the Rand forums?

Cap

11-06-2013, 09:28 AM

No. I meant what I said. There was a minority of people on here that did not support Cuccinelli, and they were very vocal about that.So how is that different in if Rand endorses Christie scenario? Are we not allowed in your book to slam Christie if we have principled arguments? Please explain.

CaptLouAlbano

11-06-2013, 09:28 AM

cajuncocoa

11-06-2013, 09:29 AM

Because Cuccinelli was a good candidate that would be beneficial to Rand in 2016 and other liberty candidates running in 2014. My issue with this forum (specifically the vocal minority), is that they hijack nearly every thread on a candidate to spout their dislike for that candidate, when a large majority of people are supportive of said candidate. So instead of a meaningful discussion on the complexities of the race, yesterday turned into a rehash of leftist attacks on a candidate, who by the way, made no mention of that particular issue in the campaign.
LOL...I don't blame him for not mentioning it! He was trying to hoodwink people into thinking he's a liberty candidate when, in fact, he tried to abuse a law that most good liberty candidates would do their best to reject, not embrace.

LOL too at your description of this as a "leftist" attack. Yep, if you're not full blown right wing Republican there's only one other possibility, right? :rolleyes:

cajuncocoa

11-06-2013, 09:29 AM

Your desire to let everyone know when you don't like someone is well documented.

Good!

cajuncocoa

11-06-2013, 09:30 AM

I recall that time. Wasn't there a certain person who vowed to no longer comment in the Rand forums?

That person (me) vowed not to criticize Rand in Rand's subforums. And I have kept that vow.

CaptLouAlbano

11-06-2013, 09:31 AM

So how is that different in if Rand endorses Christie scenario? Are we not allowed in your book to slam Christie if we have principled arguments? Please explain.

Because Christie, is not in the least bit a conservative. Issue after issue Christie stands in opposition to what we stand for. Cuccinelli had his faults, as all candidates do. But on balance a win by him would have extremely beneficial, as he embraces and champions many of the positions we hold dear.

klamath

11-06-2013, 09:32 AM

Don't you think you are painting with a pretty broad brush?Not at all.

Cap

11-06-2013, 09:32 AM

I expressed my dislike for Cuccinelli due to his stance on social issues...which, in my view, makes him something other than a liberty candidate. So, yes, I felt the need to point that out whenever it was necessary. I make no apologies for it.Cajun, I want to publicly thank you for standing up for principle yesterday. Even if people didn't agree with everything you said, most of them knew you were doing it out of love for liberty. Shame on the ones who attacked you for a principled stance.

CaptLouAlbano

11-06-2013, 09:32 AM

LOL too at your description of this as a "leftist" attack.

Your talking points, i.e. Cuccinelli wants to make blow jobs illegal, was straight out of Daily Kos.

Cap

11-06-2013, 09:33 AM

Because Christie, is not in the least bit a conservative. Issue after issue Christie stands in opposition to what we stand for. Cuccinelli had his faults, as all candidates do. But on balance a win by him would have extremely beneficial, as he embraces and champions many of the positions we hold dear.So who decides, you?

belian78

11-06-2013, 09:34 AM

I see exactly where you are coming from and agree with the assessment. The analogy has been used before, but it is appropriate. Clinton and Christie would both drive us over a cliff, but Clinton would be doing so at 100MPH, where Christie might be doing so at 75MPH. Now, what we want is someone who will either put the brakes on, or better yet turn the damn car around and drive in the opposite direction, but barring that Christie is preferable to Clinton. In hindsight, would it be better to be in McCain's second term as opposed to Obama's? I think so. Would we be any closer to liberty? No, but we wouldn't be as far away as we are now.

Now, does this mean that if Christie gets the nomination that I will donate $10,000 to his campaign, knock on 1000's of doors, spend hours on the phone and put a bumper sticker on my car for him? Not at all. But, if it come down to Christie and Clinton, Christie is preferable, if by only a small amount.
Shilling for Pufferfish already?? You just can't compromise fast enough can you?

Brian4Liberty

11-06-2013, 09:34 AM

I'm pretty sure our hope for liberty lies in two courses of action.

IMHO, your second option would do exactly the opposite, and result in much less freedom, along with the most awful results possible. There are also forum guidelines that come into play with that.

AuH20

11-06-2013, 09:34 AM

Cajun, I want to publicly thank you for standing up for principle yesterday. Even if people didn't agree with everything you said, most of them knew you were doing it out of love for liberty. Shame on the ones who attacked you for a principled stance.

She could have simply stated that she disagreed with him and that he couldn't earn her vote as opposed to embark on a full-fledged scorched earth campaign not even bestowed upon the likes of John McCain or Lindsay Graham. That's the issue here.

phill4paul

11-06-2013, 09:35 AM

The 75% referenced the percentage of forum members who were supportive of Cuccinelli. You had a choice, you could have just let people talk about the race, or you could hijack every thread with your negative comments. You chose the latter, which is your MO anyway. Maybe you just need to come to the realization, that not everyone agrees with you on who is a quality candidate and who is not. As I stated earlier, perhaps "if you don't have anything nice to say...." might be something you should take to heart, particularly when it is in reference to a candidate that a large majority of the people on here supported. Or do you just have an incessant need to stick your nose into everything and stir up controversy?

So it's "majority rule" is it? Sounds rather liberal.

cajuncocoa

11-06-2013, 09:36 AM

CaptLouAlbano

11-06-2013, 09:36 AM

Shilling for Pufferfish already?? You just can't compromise fast enough can you?

Reading comprehension is not your strong suit is it? As I said, Christie is preferable to Clinton, if only by a small amount. It doesn't mean that I would vote for him, donate to his campaign, or volunteer for him in any way.

Cap

11-06-2013, 09:36 AM

cajuncocoa

11-06-2013, 09:37 AM

She could have simply stated that she disagreed with him and that he couldn't earn her vote as opposed to embark on a full-fledged scorched earth campaign not even bestowed upon the likes of John McCain or Lindsay Graham. That's the issue here.
Yeah, I could have done that, and if those who supported Cuccinelli hadn't doubled down on insisting that he's a great liberty candidate, we could have left it at that.

I blame Cuccinelli's supporters for bastardizing what liberty means....it doesn't mean what Cuccinelli stands for, that's certain.

CaptLouAlbano

11-06-2013, 09:38 AM

So it's "majority rule" is it? Sounds rather liberal.

It's an issue of courtesy. It's one thing to express disagreement with a candidate, It's another thing to spend 12 hours bashing that candidate when the majority support him, and just want to discuss the race without constant and incessant interruptions.

But honestly it really is a waste of time to try and reason with some of the ignorant fucks that post on here.

AuH20

11-06-2013, 09:38 AM

Reading comprehension is not your strong suit is it? As I said, Christie is preferable to Clinton, if only by a small amount. It doesn't mean that I would vote for him, donate to his campaign, or volunteer for him in any way.

Christie is completely unvotable for me. How many daggers in the back do you have to remove, before seeing the big picture? In this recent race, Cuccinelli was a good, solid anti-establishment candidate that we rarely see in GOP cicrcles, but Christie will be Bush 2.0 or perhaps even worse.

cajuncocoa

11-06-2013, 09:41 AM

It's an issue of courtesy. It's one thing to express disagreement with a candidate, It's another thing to spend 12 hours bashing that candidate when the majority support him, and just want to discuss the race without constant and incessant interruptions.

But honestly it really is a waste of time to try and reason with some of the ignorant fucks that post on here.
So glad to see that you're now an expert on courtesy. :rolleyes: Not that I'm claiming to be....I'm not. Courtesy goes out the window when my liberty and my country are at stake, and so-called "liberty activists" are ready to hand over the keys to a candidate who wants to poke his nose into the bedrooms of Virginia residents. Nope, I won't stay silent on that.

CaptLouAlbano

11-06-2013, 09:41 AM

Christie is completely unvotable for me. How many daggers in the back do you have to remove, before seeing the big picture? In this recent race, Cuccinelli was a good, solid anti-establishment candidate that we rarely see in GOP cicrcles, but Christie will be Bush 2.0 or perhaps even worse.

Oh I totally agree. The original question that was posed (until the usual suspect hijacked that discussion) was who is preferable of the two. I used a getting shot in the heart versus getting shot in the leg analogy.

phill4paul

11-06-2013, 09:41 AM

She could have simply stated that she disagreed with him and that he couldn't earn her vote as opposed to embark on a full-fledged scorched earth campaign not even bestowed upon the likes of John McCain or Lindsay Graham. That's the issue here.

She, we, made our positions known and then the GOP shills responded criticizing our assessment. What are we to do? Just shut up and accept it? No. Not gonna happen.

cajuncocoa

11-06-2013, 09:41 AM

She, we, made our positions known and then the GOP shills responded criticizing our assessment. What are we to do? Just shut up and accept it? No. Not gonna happen.

I owe you another rep, too.

CaptLouAlbano

11-06-2013, 09:42 AM

So glad to see that you're now an expert on courtesy. :rolleyes: Not that I'm claiming to be....I'm not. Courtesy goes out the window when my liberty and my country are at stake, and so-called "liberty activists" are ready to hand over the keys to a candidate who wants to poke his nose into the bedrooms of Virginia residents. Nope, I won't stay silent on that.

Does Daily Kos send you your talking points by fax or via email?

cajuncocoa

11-06-2013, 09:42 AM

Does Daily Kos send you your talking points by fax or via email?

What is Daily Kos?

AuH20

11-06-2013, 09:43 AM

But is that not here right if she so chooses?

And the susequent reaction is warranted as well.

Cap

11-06-2013, 09:43 AM

She could have simply stated that she disagreed with him and that he couldn't earn her vote as opposed to embark on a full-fledged scorched earth campaign not even bestowed upon the likes of John McCain or Lindsay Graham. That's the issue here.Just one more polite question. Should Cajun be prohibited from campaigning against Christie if Rand endorsed him. I mean, isn't the big picture of say the 2020 election what matters?

Cap

11-06-2013, 09:44 AM

Man, the hypocrisy is rank.

phill4paul

11-06-2013, 09:45 AM

But honestly it really is a waste of time to try and reason with some of the ignorant fucks that post on here.

Then why do you bother? You wouldn't be missed. Honestly.

AuH20

11-06-2013, 09:48 AM

Just one more polite question. Should Cajun be prohibited from campaigning against Christie if Rand endorsed him. I mean, isn't the big picture of say the 2020 election what matters?

Of course not. Christie is the enemy and supported by GOP corporate money. In contrast, Cuccinelli was spit on and derided by the establishment & ultimately cut off so he would lose. That's why many of us supported him. We saw the chess board and it was clear as day.

cajuncocoa

11-06-2013, 09:50 AM

Does Daily Kos send you your talking points by fax or via email?

Oh, I see...I guess the fact that I care about liberty with regard to social issues as well as economic issues and foreign policy somehow makes me a flaming progressive. :rolleyes:

Believe me, it's noted that the majority of so-called "liberty activists" on this board seems to care only or mostly about economic liberty, and are even willing to compromise on foreign policy as long as their taxes are lowered.

When the GOP gets that liberty with regard to social issues is just as important as economics and foreign policies, they may start to win elections and then the Dems might become only a memory.

Cap

11-06-2013, 09:51 AM

Of course not. Christie is the enemy and supported by GOP corporate money. In contrast, Cuccinelli was spit on and derided by the establishment and ultimately cut off. That's why many of us supported him. We saw the chess board and it was clear as day.Again, who decides? You and Captain Lou? And isn't 2020 part of the big picture? Don't you see how ridiculous your stance is?

cajuncocoa

11-06-2013, 09:52 AM

Again, who decides? You and Captain Lou? And isn't 2020 part of the big picture? Don't you see how ridiculous your stance is?

They think they do, but they don't control me and I have no intention of listening to them. But I know and appreciate what you're doing (and you're exposing their hypocrisy with flying colors!!)

dinosaur

11-06-2013, 09:54 AM

Again, who decides? You and Captain Lou? And isn't 2020 part of the big picture? Don't you see how ridiculous your stance is?

You decide, Cap. If you judge someone to be an enemy of liberty than don't vote for him. Don't you see how ridiculous it is to fault someone or call them a hypocrite for campaigning for someone who they judge to be anti establishment and small government?

AuH20

11-06-2013, 09:54 AM

Again, who decides? You and Captain Lou? And isn't 2020 part of the big picture? Don't you see how ridiculous your stance is?

Nothing ridiculous about FACTS. In 2009, the RNC spent 9 million dollars in Bob McDonnell's runaway race and yet somehow scrapped together a measly 3 million dollars for this nailbiter. Secondly, we had Eric Cantor's chief of staff join the McAuliffe team as well as many prominent GOP politicians in VA giving endorsements to the insider. Only the most obtuse person could not see what was going on!!!

Cap

11-06-2013, 09:55 AM

As I said, some apologies are due, especially to Cajun.

cajuncocoa

11-06-2013, 09:56 AM

You decide, Cap. If you judge someone to be an enemy of liberty than don't vote for him. Don't you see how ridiculous it is to fault someone or call them a hypocrite for campaigning for someone who they judge to be anti establishment and small government?
That's not what Cap is saying...in fact, he is demonstrating the hypocrisy of the others with his questions.

klamath

11-06-2013, 09:58 AM

But is that not here right if she so chooses?Sure,as it is our right to counter her when she goes on scorched earth exclusive negatative camaign against candidates many people support.

dinosaur

11-06-2013, 09:58 AM

That's not what Cap is saying...in fact, he is demonstrating the hypocrisy of the others with his questions.

Cajun, you call everyone who disagrees with you a GOP operative. You don't think other people see that as bullying?

Cap

11-06-2013, 09:58 AM

Nothing ridiculous about FACTS. In 2009, the RNC spent 9 million dollars in Bob McDonnell's runaway race and somehow scrapped together a measly 3 million dollars for this nailbiter. Secondly, we had Eric Cantor's chief of staff join the McAuliffe team as well as many prominent GOP politicians in VA giving endorsements to the insider. Only the most obtuse person could not see what was going on!!!So you are saying one should gage their opinions on what ever the GOP funds or chooses not to? And if they don't follow the collective, then it's OK to berate and slander that person? How liberty minded of you.

cajuncocoa

11-06-2013, 09:59 AM

Your talking points, i.e. Cuccinelli wants to make blow jobs illegal, was straight out of Daily Kos.

I don't take talking points from anyone or any site or political party....but if you read DK and saw that there, I'll take your word for it. My words are my own.

cajuncocoa

11-06-2013, 10:00 AM

Cajun, you call everyone who disagrees with you a GOP operative. You don't think other people see that as bullying?

Not everyone. Just the few who I believe are GOP operatives. And why should it be seen as bullying? We all LOVE us some GOP, right? :rolleyes:

BTW, I disagree with you right now, but I'm not calling you one (see?)

cajuncocoa

11-06-2013, 10:02 AM

Sure,as it is our right to counter her when she goes on scorched earth exclusive negatative camaign against candidates many people support.
Of course you have that right....and if it ends up being a 12-hr (going on 24-hr now) pissing match, that's just the way it goes because I'm not backing down.

AuH20

11-06-2013, 10:02 AM

So you are saying one should gage their opinions on what ever the GOP funds or chooses not to? And if they don't follow the collective, then it's OK to berate and slander that person? How liberty minded of you.

No. But to infer that the plurality are GOP robots when we backed Cuccinelli is beyond disengenuous. The GOP was actively sabotaging Cuccinelli's campaign from the beginning right in the open. The anti-GOP vote last night was not for Sarvis but Cuccinelli. I hate the GOP. And I sent money to Cuccinelli for this very reason.

Cap

11-06-2013, 10:05 AM

Sure,as it is our right to counter her when she goes on scorched earth exclusive negatative camaign against candidates many people support.Then put up a substantive argument for your side then (and please, the lesser of two evils is unprincipled) and shoot her opinion down without infringing on her right to her opinion. Everyone here cherishes a good debate on issues. The debate should encompass the forward march of liberty, not division.

Cap

11-06-2013, 10:06 AM

That's it, I have stuff to do, I'm outa here for a while. Peace.

klamath

11-06-2013, 10:15 AM

Of course you have that right....and if it ends up being a 12-hr (going on 24-hr now) pissing match, that's just the way it goes because I'm not backing down.Nor are we, hince the statement "man your post". You are a politcal figure on a public forum and now viewed to me like Obama. Welcome to public life.

klamath

11-06-2013, 10:21 AM

belian78

11-06-2013, 10:23 AM

Then put up a substantive argument for your side then (and please, the lesser of two evils is unprincipled) and shoot her opinion down without infringing on her right to her opinion. Everyone here cherishes a good debate on issues. The debate should encompass the forward march of liberty, not division.
That's what these boards used to be filled with. People with many differing ideas and beliefs, all working towards the ideas and principles of freedom and liberty. Anymore we have been overrun with Republican firsters that would rather win elections than hold our representatives to the oaths they take. If you are principled, you are a troll or a 'losertarian' that wants to help the democrats. It's sad really, the heavy hitters from back in the day left once they realized Ron never really did want to win, but just educate, and the repub firsters have been enjoying themselves since.

klamath

11-06-2013, 10:25 AM

belian78

11-06-2013, 10:25 AM

Debate she is getting, now all she has to do is quit whining she is getting tag teamed.
I haven't seen much debate as I have you and Taft and CaptLou and Frank calling anyone you don't agree with either a troll a losertarian an ignorant fuck or shills for the dems.

We used to tear folks apart for the 'you're either with us or against us' crap around here, now it's common fare.

belian78

11-06-2013, 10:26 AM

Please no mention of anarchy, education, or sticking to your principles, as that is unpricipled. Sorry you don't get to determine the parameters of the argument.
but settling for evil, just because it's lesser IS unprincipled. LOL

klamath

11-06-2013, 10:26 AM

That's what these boards used to be filled with. People with many differing ideas and beliefs, all working towards the ideas and principles of freedom and liberty. Anymore we have been overrun with Republican firsters that would rather win elections than hold our representatives to the oaths they take. If you are principled, you are a troll or a 'losertarian' that wants to help the democrats. It's sad really, the heavy hitters from back in the day left once they realized Ron never really did want to win, but just educate, and the repub firsters have been enjoying themselves since.Sad day the libertarian party firsters have taken over these forums.

belian78

11-06-2013, 10:27 AM

Sad day the libertarian party firsters have taken over these forums.
People keep calling me a libertarian, just for disagreeing with them, and I'm not a libertarian. Kind of telling...

AuH20

11-06-2013, 10:27 AM

That's what these boards used to be filled with. People with many differing ideas and beliefs, all working towards the ideas and principles of freedom and liberty. Anymore we have been overrun with Republican firsters that would rather win elections than hold our representatives to the oaths they take. If you are principled, you are a troll or a 'losertarian' that wants to help the democrats. It's sad really, the heavy hitters from back in the day left once they realized Ron never really did want to win, but just educate, and the repub firsters have been enjoying themselves since.

There are a handful of GOP firsters here. A tiny tiny minority. Most of the posters here are principled and vote accordingly.

klamath

11-06-2013, 10:28 AM

I haven't seen much debate as I have you and Taft and CaptLou and Frank calling anyone you don't agree with either a troll a losertarian an ignorant fuck or shills for the dems.

We used to tear folks apart for the 'you're either with us or against us' crap around here, now it's common fare.It is the kind of debateyou get when you resorted to name calling.

belian78

11-06-2013, 10:30 AM

It is the kind of debate wanted it devolved into with your name calling.
My name calling? I'll wait for my name calling to be quoted here, laughing at you as you try in vain to find it. I haven't called anyone names, but I've been called dumb, fucking dumb, retarded, shill, losertarian, etc...

klamath

11-06-2013, 10:33 AM

People keep calling me a libertarian, just for disagreeing with them, and I'm not a libertarian. Kind of telling...
I know full well you are and anarchist but you side with party first libertarian without fault.

klamath

11-06-2013, 10:35 AM

My name calling? I'll wait for my name calling to be quoted here, laughing at you as you try in vain to find it. I haven't called anyone names, but I've been called dumb, fucking dumb, retarded, shill, losertarian, etc...How about "republican firster". Not even a quarter page down you are denying you own name calling.

CaptLouAlbano

11-06-2013, 10:36 AM

There are a handful of GOP firsters here. A tiny tiny minority. Most of the posters here are principled and vote accordingly.

Correct. There are some of us who recognize and understand how the political process works and how numbers (i.e. having a majority in a legislative branch) works. Because of that I would prefer to see ANY Republican win a general election, but that does not mean I would vote for or financially support the candidate. Because of our understanding of the process, we are called "operatives" or "shills"

dinosaur

11-06-2013, 10:39 AM

Man, the hypocrisy is rank.

Yes, it is.

cajuncocoa

11-06-2013, 10:40 AM

Debate she is getting, now all she has to do is quit whining she is getting tag teamed.
I'm not whining. It was Carly who mentioned tag-teaming, not me...but Carly doesn't whine either.

belian78

11-06-2013, 10:42 AM

I know full well you are and anarchist but you side with party first libertarian without fault.
It absolutely kills you to not have a quaint little tag to hang on me isn't it? LOL

klamath

11-06-2013, 10:42 AM

I'm not whining. It was Carly who mentioned tag-teaming, not me...but Carly doesn't whine either.And you agreed with it. It was pretty whiny.

belian78

11-06-2013, 10:42 AM

How about "republican firster". Not even a quarter page down you are denying you own name calling.
I called someone that directly? Or I pointed out that a group of posters here do, in fact, support the republican part first before anything else?

klamath

11-06-2013, 10:46 AM

I called someone that directly? Or I pointed out that a group of posters here do, in fact, support the republican part first before anything else?

As I pointed out the libertarian firsters as a group. FUNNY!

belian78

11-06-2013, 10:47 AM

As I pointed out the libertarian firsters as a group. FUNNY!
Which I never referenced, as it was said after my post, so has no bearing on whatever point you're trying to make. FUNNY!

LibertyEagle

11-06-2013, 10:49 AM

I called someone that directly? Or I pointed out that a group of posters here do, in fact, support the republican part first before anything else?

The only person I have seen that you could remotely say that about is Capt Lou and even he appears to me to be focused on getting liberty republicans in office. Yes, he is focused on the Republican Party, but because he is realistic, as Ron Paul has been, that we currently have a 2 party duopoly so we must use one of these to get our candidates in office. So, I don't see that as putting the Republican Party first, sorry.

belian78

11-06-2013, 10:52 AM

The only person I have seen that you could remotely say that about is Capt Lou and even he appears to me to be focused on getting liberty republicans in office. Yes, he is focused on the Republican Party, but because he is realistic, as Ron Paul has been, that we currently have a 2 party duopoly so we must use one of these to get our candidates in office. So, I don't see that as putting the Republican Party first, sorry.
So what you're saying LE, is that both you and CaptLou would be first in line to vote for a democrat if they had better records than their republican counterparts? Because in my opinion, I thought the goal was to advance freedom and liberty first and foremost.

klamath

11-06-2013, 10:56 AM

Which I never referenced, as it was said after my post, so has no bearing on whatever point you're trying to make. FUNNY!but what ever it wa name calling against the side you obviously have came down against. So the circle goes around.

LibertyEagle

11-06-2013, 10:56 AM

belian78

11-06-2013, 10:59 AM

If you are asking if I ever have voted for a Democrat, the answer is yes I have. I have also voted for candidates from the Libertarian Party and the Constitution Party. Oh, and whatever party that Perot ran in. Any other questions?
Awesome, then I have no argument with you, cheers.

klamath

11-06-2013, 11:01 AM

belian78

11-06-2013, 11:04 AM

I would. Name me one. In fact the last primary election I did for a local candidate. I would vote for a good libertarian as well and have. I guess you most have missed the thread someone started about how great it was the libertarian candidate got so many votes, NOT because he was a great candidate but because it was good for the PARTY!
Having ballot access is not a bad thing at all, but voting just for that access is as bad as voting for the less of two evils.

bunklocoempire

11-06-2013, 11:09 AM

You put Christie in a pantsuit and it could be a tight race.

NOBP

CaptLouAlbano

11-06-2013, 11:15 AM

So what you're saying LE, is that both you and CaptLou would be first in line to vote for a democrat if they had better records than their republican counterparts? Because in my opinion, I thought the goal was to advance freedom and liberty first and foremost.

I would vote for a Dem if they had a better record. I haven't found one though in decades though. The lines are pretty clearly drawn, the progressives have complete control of the Democratic Party at the state and federal level, and the Progressives have a strong foothold in the GOP. The only place where you will find someone champion the ideals that I support is in the GOP. Now, yes, there are third party guys out there from time to time that have good views, however, I strongly believe that third parties at the state and federal level are a waste of time and money - so I tend not to support them simply that I don't like to encourage their silliness.

belian78

11-06-2013, 11:17 AM

I would vote for a Dem if they had a better record. I haven't found one though in decades though. The lines are pretty clearly drawn, the progressives have complete control of the Democratic Party at the state and federal level, and the Progressives have a strong foothold in the GOP. The only place where you will find someone champion the ideals that I support is in the GOP. Now, yes, there are third party guys out there from time to time that have good views, however, I strongly believe that third parties at the state and federal level are a waste of time and money - so I tend not to support them simply that I don't like to encourage their silliness.
Their silliness? How is it silliness if there are those fighting to bring the libertarian party back to what it was supposed to be? Isn't that the same as what we are supposedly trying to do with the Rep party? You make yourself sound very pompous.

erowe1

11-06-2013, 11:23 AM

How is it silliness if there are those fighting to bring the libertarian party back to what it was supposed to be?

Even when you put it like that, and try to make it sound like it's not silly, it still sounds silly.

What would possibly be the point of bringing the Libertarian Party back to whatever it's supposed to be?

Ron Paul supporters could completely take over the Libertarian Party easily. It would be by far the best thing that ever happened to the LP and the worst decision Ron Paul supporters ever made.

CaptLouAlbano

11-06-2013, 11:27 AM

Their silliness? How is it silliness if there are those fighting to bring the libertarian party back to what it was supposed to be? Isn't that the same as what we are supposedly trying to do with the Rep party? You make yourself sound very pompous.

It's silliness because for 40 years the LP has been able to win only a small number of seats, the highest being state rep. And the majority of their wins have come from "fusion candidates" (i.e. the run on both the GOP and the LP line of the ballot). The last LP "victory" at the state house level was well over 10 years ago, when a Democrat lost his ballot spot because he ran for State Senate in the Dem primary. He ran reelection by switching to the LP, and then from there switched to the GOP after he was elected. The last "home grown" candidate that won a seat on the LP ticket was Andre Marrou in 1984 who won a seat in the Alaska State House. 40+ years and thousands of races have shown that the LP is a waste of time and money. If someone wants to run for a state house seat on the LP line, they are more than welcome to do so, but I cannot support their effort with my vote, as it could potentially encourage them to do so again and further waste the time and money. You run for office to win, and the path to victory (at the state and federal level) for libertarians is through the GOP. You involved yourself, you gain credibility and experience, you run in the primary and win, and then win the general. Those who do not have what it takes to pursue that path are not worthy of my support.

klamath

11-06-2013, 11:28 AM

Having ballot access is not a bad thing at all, but voting just for that access is as bad as voting for the less of two evils.This is where I also differ. I will vote for a libertarian or any other party if that candidate is the best but I don't automatically subscribe to the kneejerk reaction that a thrid party is a good thing. A government is formed by a majority of the political coalitions that come together regardless. Look a merkel in Germany. With the two party system I personally get to choise which coalitions (Ron Rand wing of the R party)I want join up with. With multiple parties the elected party leaders make that choice even if I adamently disagree with the coalitions they form.

cajuncocoa

11-06-2013, 11:50 AM

If Crispy Creme has one advantage, it's his charisma. Think Romney with a (hopefully overbearing) personality. They'll stand Crispy right in the middle and his big personality will probably bulldoze everyone else. I think the opportunity to hammer him will be when the media vets him and the pacs run ads. I'm betting he'll have TONS of skeletons, more than we know from Double Down.

Are we really using "charisma" in the same sentence with Chris Christie again?

cajuncocoa

11-06-2013, 11:50 AM

And you agreed with it. It was pretty whiny.
Let me get back to you when your opinion matters.

Peace&Freedom

11-06-2013, 12:06 PM

And yet their electoral track record recently is still a million times better than that of the Libertarian Party; who, I remind you, does not hold a single U.S. House or U.S. Senate seat, or any Governor's Mansions.

The political system is structured to EQUALLY freeze out or exclude the LP, the CP the GP, Socialist or any other third party from obtaining major elected office. The Dem and GOP club is set up so that Republicans can get elected on marginally conservative rhetoric, but never win legislatively to repeal any aspect of the welfare-warfare state, as demonstrated over the last century, and currently.

Peace&Freedom

11-06-2013, 12:17 PM

The last "home grown" candidate that won a seat on the LP ticket was Andre Marrou in 1984 who won a seat in the Alaska State House. 40+ years and thousands of races have shown that the LP is a waste of time and money. If someone wants to run for a state house seat on the LP line, they are more than welcome to do so, but I cannot support their effort with my vote, as it could potentially encourage them to do so again and further waste the time and money. You run for office to win, and the path to victory (at the state and federal level) for libertarians is through the GOP. You involved yourself, you gain credibility and experience, you run in the primary and win, and then win the general. Those who do not have what it takes to pursue that path are not worthy of my support.

Do you hold the Republican party at least as accountable, for losing every legislative battle to reverse the growth of the Total State for over 80 years? I say you 'use politics to win,' to win the legislatively, not merely to hold office and then accomplish nothing. At least the LP can point out the gerrymandering system is hardwired to deprive them (and all other third party groups) of a friendly district to get elected in across the US. What's the GOP's excuse, for eight decades of failure, while in office? Haven't they thus also wasted time and money?

erowe1

11-06-2013, 12:29 PM

Do you hold the Republican party at least as accountable, for losing every legislative battle to reverse the growth of the Total State for over 80 years?

When has the Republican party ever fought any legislative battles to do that?

CaptLouAlbano

11-06-2013, 12:35 PM

Do you hold the Republican party at least as accountable, for losing every legislative battle to reverse the growth of the Total State for over 80 years? I say you use politics to win to win the legislatively, not merely to hold office and then accomplish nothing. At least the LP can point out the gerrymandering system is hardwired to deprive them (and all other third party groups) of a friendly district to get elected in across the US. What's the GOP's excuse, for eight decades of failure, while in office? Haven't they thus also wasted time and money?

The progressives have majority control of the GOP and (with few exceptions) have had that control for those 80 years or so. We are on an upswing at the present time.

The LP's biggest problem is not gerrymandering, but that they rarely, if ever, run a qualified candidate for office. How many of the 100+ candidates that the LP ran for Congress in 2012 have any sort of legislative experience, credibility or notoriety in their community? It's few if any, and that has been the case for decades. And honestly, if someone with no experience, no notoriety and no ability to raise money ran on the D or R line of the ballot, they would experience the same fate that the LP candidates do. There are many examples of no-name candidates vying for D or R seats in the primary that go no where, for the very same reasons the LP candidates go nowhere. If perhaps the LP folks would focus on building a farm team and rising up, instead of running Walmart security guards and waitresses for US Senate seats, they might have better success.

My allegiance to the GOP goes as far as the fact that it is the only party that has elected officials at the state and federal level who are libertarian/conservatives. If all those whom I support up and left the GOP and went to the LP, the Dems, or started a new party, I would follow them there. It is not about party, but about an ideological wing that has a home within a party.

So are there 8 decades of failure? I think not. Conservative influence within the GOP has, at times, forced the hand of the progressives to make compromises, and at times has handed them defeat. I shudder to think what our country would look like today, if the progressives had the complete and unfettered ability to pass whatever laws they wish. If you want a glimpse of what it would look like, just look at European nations who have little, if any, genuine libertarian/conservative influence within their political parties.

As I said, we are at a point where libertarians and their conservative allies are growing in numbers within the GOP. We have far more good folks in Congress today then we did a decade ago. And this is in spite of the LP folks pretty much sitting on the sidelines for all those years.

Look, if you want to run candidates for office every year, go for it. But don't expect any different results when you continue to repeat the same mistakes year after year. Stop blaming the system, the big parties, etc and start looking inward at the own misguided strategy of your own party and the poorly funded and qualified candidates you run for office.

trey4sports

11-06-2013, 12:41 PM

This is ridiculous. Christie will not get through Nevada. Hell be done before the northeastern states even vote.

CaptLouAlbano

11-06-2013, 12:45 PM

This is ridiculous. Christie will not get through Nevada. Hell be done before the northeastern states even vote.

I agree, but then I probably said the same about Romney in 2012.

rpfocus

11-06-2013, 01:07 PM

People keep calling me a libertarian, just for disagreeing with them, and I'm not a libertarian. Kind of telling...

Laughable isn't it? The same dopey thinking that many tried to pull during the election: "If you don't vote for RMoney, you're voting for Obama!" Now it's the Rand Bullies instead of the GOP/RMoney Bullies. Just wait until you get called a Marx\Left\Social\Lenin\State\InsertIstHere-ist.

Barrex

11-06-2013, 01:12 PM

When are you going to learn that you don't control what people say on this board? Good grief.
Comes from the person that told me to go to bed, to shut the fuck up, to do many other things to many other people.... roflmao.

No, I'm calling you guys out on your despicable behavior.

As I said, some apologies are due, especially to Cajun.

....People with many differing ideas and beliefs, all working towards the ideas and principles of freedom and liberty. Anymore we have been overrun with Republican firsters that would rather win elections than hold our representatives to the oaths they take. If you are principled, you are a troll or a 'losertarian' that wants to help the democrats....
But when some people start calling activists who try to help Rand (and me) GOP operative, liars, get a rope smear it with shit.... then it is ok? If I were trying to build coalition, help Rand and Ron and someone is on my back screaming "you are stupid"; "you are GOP operative"; "authoritarian"; "liar"; "shut the fuck up"; I would respond. What a surprise. What those people did was despicable sabotage of activist who tried to make difference. Every thread that activists started was derailed and sabotaged(Sabotage is a deliberate action aimed at weakening another entity through subversion, obstruction, disruption, or destruction. In a workplace setting, sabotage is the conscious withdrawal of efficiency generally directed at causing some change in workplace conditions. One who engages in sabotage is a saboteur...).
Lou gave decent answer too:

It's an issue of courtesy. It's one thing to express disagreement with a candidate, It's another thing to spend 12 hours bashing that candidate when the majority support him, and just want to discuss the race without constant and incessant interruptions.

But honestly it really is a waste of time to try and reason with some of the ignorant fucks that post on here.
Totally agree.

Then why do you bother? You wouldn't be missed. Honestly.
CaptLouAlbano would be missed. Unlike others he lives in reality and works on things that realistically can change things. You could argue that sabotaging other peoples activist efforts is changing things too...but I dont think I support that kind of change.

It is a shame that people who all want liberty turn on each other and are sabotaging each others efforts to change things to better.

There is a time for everything,
and a season for every activity under the heavens: a time to be born and a time to die,
a time to plant and a time to uproot,
a time to kill and a time to heal,
a time to tear down and a time to build...

Those threads were not the place or time to spam that kind of posts. When I just came to this forum a lot of people were talking about "sign waving". For me it was silly and waste of time. I posted that and and let them be. It is better that they wave signs than dont do anything. I wasnt spamming, sabotaging, trolling and insulting them. It was their time and their resources. It was their way of activism and I respected that. It is a shame that this turned into something bad. If people didnt agree they could simply leave those threads and not sabotage them.

Ender

11-06-2013, 01:26 PM

It's an issue of courtesy. It's one thing to express disagreement with a candidate, It's another thing to spend 12 hours bashing that candidate when the majority support him, and just want to discuss the race without constant and incessant interruptions.

But honestly it really is a waste of time to try and reason with some of the ignorant fucks that post on here.

The "ignorant fucks" are those who still perpetuate the 2 party system and act as if it is real.

There is only ONE party with politicians that use different talking points to capture ignorant voters. There are no "conservatives" in the true sense of the meaning. There used to be one actual conservative that was a representative from Texas, but he is no longer in Congress.

To belittle others who do not agree with a personal assessment of a candidate is completely ignorant; if one learns to QUESTION EVERYTHING, then they might actually become educated.

Brian4Liberty

11-06-2013, 01:35 PM

The leftists, Marxists and Socialists at CNN are giddy today about Chris Christie. They also keep bringing up Marco Rubio, just for fun. And they call both of them "Tea Party" favorites.

klamath

11-06-2013, 02:17 PM

The leftists, Marxists and Socialists at CNN are giddy today about Chris Christie. They also keep bringing up Marco Rubio, just for fun. And they call both of them "Tea Party" favorites.Rubio will get the VP under Christie. That will be bridging the gap between the pragmatists like Christie and tea party like rubio:rolleyes: We were badly fucked in yesterdays elections.

kahless

11-06-2013, 02:31 PM

How predictable. I have been avoiding the news channels for that very reason. Decided not to torture myself having to hear it.

cajuncocoa

11-06-2013, 03:14 PM

Comes from the person that told me to go to bed, to shut the fuck up, to do many other things to many other people.... roflmao.

Other than one post where I pointed out that Carly hadn't specifically mentioned Cuccinelli her discussions, I don't remember even saying anything to you (and I most certainly did not tell you anything of the sort in that post). Is this something you're dragging up from several weeks ago or are you confusing me with someone else?

Barrex

11-06-2013, 04:14 PM

Other than one post where I pointed out that Carly hadn't specifically mentioned Cuccinelli her discussions, I don't remember even saying anything to you (and I most certainly did not tell you anything of the sort in that post). Is this something you're dragging up from several weeks ago or are you confusing me with someone else?

Sure sure... It is my fault. I am the one that lied. I am the one that insulted people.

cajuncocoa

11-06-2013, 04:23 PM

Sure sure... It is my fault. I am the one that lied. I am the one that insulted people.
post the quote. Prove me wrong. Maybe I'm just forgetting it, but I looked through my posting history and I only saw that one reply to you.

Peace&Freedom

11-06-2013, 09:35 PM

So are there 8 decades of failure? I think not. Conservative influence within the GOP has, at times, forced the hand of the progressives to make compromises, and at times has handed them defeat. I shudder to think what our country would look like today, if the progressives had the complete and unfettered ability to pass whatever laws they wish. If you want a glimpse of what it would look like, just look at European nations who have little, if any, genuine libertarian/conservative influence within their political parties.

As I said, we are at a point where libertarians and their conservative allies are growing in numbers within the GOP. We have far more good folks in Congress today then we did a decade ago. And this is in spite of the LP folks pretty much sitting on the sidelines for all those years.

Look, if you want to run candidates for office every year, go for it. But don't expect any different results when you continue to repeat the same mistakes year after year. Stop blaming the system, the big parties, etc and start looking inward at the own misguided strategy of your own party and the poorly funded and qualified candidates you run for office.

In other words, you are not holding the GOP accountable for failing to reverse the growth of the state, and only want to hold the LP accountable for electoral failures. If you can make up notions that they curbed that growth through legislative resistance, I can make the case the LP and libertarian movement curbed the growth through educational campaigns and cultural influence over that same period. Neither view changes the reality that the growth of the state was not reversed. All I asked for is two way accountability, and after decades of failure, acknowledgement of such in the misguided party strategy you are pursuing.

mad cow

11-06-2013, 10:20 PM

acptulsa

11-06-2013, 10:26 PM

Trap 1, getting a moderate
Trap 2, diluting the platform and principles
Trap 3, try to out liberal the liberals in new and different ways

Trap 4, a few bad articles

Result: the party that promises MOAR free shit wins.
Rinse, Repeat

Exactly right, except for one thing. The Democrats automatically win, because real liberals automatically beat imitation liberals.

One of these days Republicans might figure that out--once they lose enough times after Fox talks them into nominating enough liberals. Even if they were dumb enough to trust Dubya and Cheney...

How did this thread go on eight pages when Penguin ended it in Post Two?

HOLLYWOOD

11-06-2013, 10:37 PM

Yep, pretty much sums it up... Ron Paul dead on target again... he showed us how we should do it.
Rubio will get the VP under Christie. That will be bridging the gap between the pragmatists like Christie and tea party like rubio:rolleyes: We were badly fucked in yesterdays elections.

Fair enough,except the Libertarian party has only been around for the last 43 years.
What has the Libertarian Party done in the last 43 years to reduce the growth of the State?

Bear in mind that I was a card carrying,dues paying NAP signing member of the Libertarian Party for ~20 years.

Personally,I think that Ron Paul has done more to reduce the growth of the State,By Himself,as a Republican,in the last 20 years than every member of the Libertarian Party has done combined in its entire existence.

Peace&Freedom

11-06-2013, 10:41 PM

Fair enough,except the Libertarian party has only been around for the last 43 years.
What has the Libertarian Party done in the last 43 years to reduce the growth of the State?

Bear in mind that I was a card carrying,dues paying NAP signing member of the Libertarian Party for ~20 years.

Personally,I think that Ron Paul has done more to reduce the growth of the State,By Himself,as a Republican,in the last 20 years than every member of the Libertarian Party has done combined in its entire existence.

I was responding to those critiquing the LP's 43 year history in isolation to the factor of the institutional suppression of third parties that prevents them from being elected, and from the failure of the major party (GOP) that has failed for twice as long. Kind of like asking a bound and gagged person why they haven't achieved anything, while ignoring the unbound person who hasn't achieved anything either, despite being free.

I would also flip your premise around, to note that the educational campaigns and cultural influence of the libertarian movement over the last few decades properly seeded the public, for Paul to harvest with his congressional career and last two campaigns, and so helped make his successes possible. I don't think even Paul would suggest he has reduced the growth of the state, let alone reversed any aspect of it, so you are presenting a metric of his achievement (compared to the LP) that doesn't exist.

mad cow

11-06-2013, 10:57 PM

I was responding to those critiquing the LP's 43 year history in isolation to the factor of the institutional suppression of third parties that prevents them from being elected, and from the failure of the major party (GOP) that has failed for twice as long. Kind of like asking a bound and gagged person why they haven't achieved anything, while ignoring the unbound person who hasn't achieved anything either, despite being free.

I would also flip your premise around, to note that the educational campaigns and cultural influence of the libertarian movement over the last few decades properly seeded the public, for Paul to harvest with his congressional career and last two campaigns, and so helped make his successes possible. I don't think even Paul would suggest he has reduced the growth of the state, let alone reversed any aspect of it, so you are presenting a metric of his achievement (compared to the LP) that doesn't exist.

I see that you are Political Director of the LP in New York State.You have a dog in this hunt,you want more Libertarians,particularly,in NYS,to become Party members.Perhaps you might regale us with some of your New York State victories,in order to convince us to stop supporting Republicans like Ron and Rand Paul and start sending money to the Libertarian Party of New York State?

enoch150

11-07-2013, 04:28 AM

It's hard to speculate on the what ifs. If Gore were president, we still could have had the Patriot Act. We might also have a carbon tax and be forced to turn our lights out for 5 hours per day to save the planet. We really don't know.

A Gore Presidency meant being a signatory to Kyoto was guaranteed.

On the other hand, Bush did sign the incandescent light bulb ban, which pisses me off to no end, and his foreign policy was greatly responsible for running up gas prices from $1 to $3.

enoch150

11-07-2013, 04:33 AM

The 75% referenced the percentage of forum members who were supportive of Cuccinelli. You had a choice, you could have just let people talk about the race, or you could hijack every thread with your negative comments. You chose the latter, which is your MO anyway. Maybe you just need to come to the realization, that not everyone agrees with you on who is a quality candidate and who is not. As I stated earlier, perhaps "if you don't have anything nice to say...." might be something you should take to heart, particularly when it is in reference to a candidate that a large majority of the people on here supported. Or do you just have an incessant need to stick your nose into everything and stir up controversy?

Do you never speak to groups in opposition to your point of view in an effort to win them over?

Or is dissent only frowned upon when that dissent is from your position?

CaptLouAlbano

11-07-2013, 05:09 AM

In other words, you are not holding the GOP accountable for failing to reverse the growth of the state, and only want to hold the LP accountable for electoral failures. If you can make up notions that they curbed that growth through legislative resistance, I can make the case the LP and libertarian movement curbed the growth through educational campaigns and cultural influence over that same period. Neither view changes the reality that the growth of the state was not reversed. All I asked for is two way accountability, and after decades of failure, acknowledgement of such in the misguided party strategy you are pursuing.

Parties are merely entities, they are not monolithic. The people within those parties are those who are to blame. As I stated, the GOP has a progressive wing and a conservative wing. The progressives within the GOP are the ones who routinely vote for bigger government. The conservative wing has worked to stop the growth of government, but since they are in the minority, their effect is minimal. If we want to see the growth of the state reversed it will require a majority of conservatives/libertarians be elected into office. At the present time, there are a handful of congressmen that support that position, but until we have 51 Senators and 218 House members that support that position, government will continue to grow.

The people that make up the LP are at fault for their electoral failures for the reasons I described. The primary one being that they fail to raise up candidates that have experience, credibility, notoriety and the ability to raise money - all of which are necessary to win elected office regardless of what party they are in.

If any strategy is misguided, it is the one where a party regularly runs inexperienced candidates with no money, no notoriety, no credibility and no money for federal and state office . If my research is correct, you have run for Governor and Senator in New York. Instead of running for these high profile offices, why not try getting elected in your hometown first, serving the constituents of your community nobly, and then using that experience and notoriety to run for a higher office like the state Assembly? It's obvious after over a dozen years of running for a state wide race that you cannot win, so wouldn't it serve your time better to run for an office you actually might have a shot at winning?

CaptLouAlbano

11-07-2013, 05:13 AM

Do you never speak to groups in opposition to your point of view in an effort to win them over?

Or is dissent only frowned upon when that dissent is from your position?

I do. However, it is one thing to make your case. It is another thing entirely to make your case over and over and over and over to the point of being an annoyance. At that point people will no longer listen but either tune you out or become adversarial.

Natural Citizen

11-07-2013, 06:11 AM

I can make the case the LP and libertarian movement curbed the growth through educational campaigns and cultural influence over that same period.

Absolutely.

klamath

11-07-2013, 07:13 AM

A Gore Presidency meant being a signatory to Kyoto was guaranteed.
On the other hand, Bush did sign the incandescent light bulb ban, which pisses me off to no end, and his foreign policy was greatly responsible for running up gas prices from $1 to $3.
You think gore wouldn't have had the same foreign policy?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JE48XHKG64[

pcosmar

11-07-2013, 10:18 AM

I can't wait for our "principled" members to try to tell us that voting for Christie over whoever is running "D" is good for liberty.

/wait for it

Peace&Freedom

11-07-2013, 11:01 AM

I see that you are Political Director of the LP in New York State.You have a dog in this hunt,you want more Libertarians,particularly,in NYS,to become Party members.Perhaps you might regale us with some of your New York State victories,in order to convince us to stop supporting Republicans like Ron and Rand Paul and start sending money to the Libertarian Party of New York State?

The LP's electoral record in NY is the same as the national LP record. What I want is for the liberty agenda to win, the vehicle (minor or major parties) is just a means. There are several metrics in politics for 'victory,' including winning elections. But the most important one from our standpoint, actually reversing the expansion of the welfare-warfare state, is the objective some here want to keep NOT talking about, since it shows the traditional major party path has ALSO been a failure.

I have suggested those inside and outside the 2 party system stop divisively sniping at each other, and build the resources of our grassroots movement basically outside the parties, major or minor. Use the third party universe as a vetting system to identify true and thoroughgoing pro-liberty candidates and activists, and use the major parties (either of them) and movements as leveraging vehicles to get them into office when/where there is an opening. By staying independent, we don't have to compromise, and by running principled campaigns under a major party label we don't get marginalized. This is the better path, for both electoral and legislative victory, going forward.

CaptLouAlbano

11-07-2013, 11:20 AM

The LP's electoral record in NY is the same as the national LP record. What I want is for the liberty agenda to win, the vehicle (minor or major parties) is just a means. There are several metrics in politics for 'victory,' including winning elections. But the most important one from our standpoint, actually reversing the expansion of the welfare-warfare state, is the objective some here want to keep NOT talking about, since it shows the traditional major party path has ALSO been a failure.

When those who want to reverse the expansion of the state are outnumbered by those who want to increase the expansion, there is little they can do. In order to see a reversal, we need to continue to elect men and women to federal and state offices that share that vision. Our numbers are growing and will continue to grow, but you cannot undo 100 years of a growing federal government overnight, particularly when you do not have the majority. It's simple math.

Don't know if you plan on answering my question posed above, but instead of puttzing around for 10 years now running for offices that you have no chance of winning, wouldn't a wiser course of action have been to run for a local office and then use that experience to run for a state assembly office? You very well at this juncture may have been serving for 10+ years, made the connections needed to win a state wide contest, and maybe then you could go after that US Senate seat that you have tried to win a couple times.

Peace&Freedom

11-07-2013, 02:05 PM

Don't know if you plan on answering my question posed above, but instead of puttzing around for 10 years now running for offices that you have no chance of winning, wouldn't a wiser course of action have been to run for a local office and then use that experience to run for a state assembly office? You very well at this juncture may have been serving for 10+ years, made the connections needed to win a state wide contest, and maybe then you could go after that US Senate seat that you have tried to win a couple times.

I decline to lose my soul, or losing the more important additional 80 years waiting on either major party to 'undo' a growing federal government, that they clearly have established they have no intention of undoing. The election-only focus you have is what is misguided, considering legislatively we are batting zero. Okay, we can't do it overnight, but are we supposed to wait decades more, for the GOP to succeed somewhere in repealing a major program? Answer MY question.

The local seats are 95% gerrymandered to ensure a hack Democrat or hack Republican wins, and making internal connections within each major party commits the contender to the course of compromise that neuters or disables the liberty agenda they are in politics to enact. We've just seen how the GOP, at the behest of Wall St special interests that control the leadership, is now committed to de-funding the Tea party factions in Congress for having the temerity to try to actually push for restraints on borrowing and spending (and opposing Obamacare).

Their internal GOP funding is a result of those 'connections' you speak of, which is a main way the establishment co-opts alternatives and 'keeps them in line.' A better approach would be not to make those 'connections,' and get into, and stay in office largely independent of establishment control via those purse strings. Of course, then the establishment uses marginalization to disempower minor party candidates. Ron and Rand Paul got in, and have stayed in office without GOP infrastructure or PAC 'connections' support.

What I suggest is pursuing open seats in the primaries, regardless of whether the district is a Republican or a Democratic leaning area, on largely the same basis. No necessary commitment to or reliance on the GOP or Dem resources to win, just a use of either major party label in order to win office as a liberty person, relying on independent resources. The Tea Party has shown you can do this even by primarying incumbents, but I think the higher percentage approach is the 'Bentivolio' scenario, where we look for a retiring non-liberty incumbent, whose seat can be taken by a presumably pro-liberty figure.

This picks the lock freezing out alternative candidates from victory, without committing them to being locked into a party's 'loyalty pit.' This blended method is different from either the big or 3rd party-reliant approach, already tested in the case of the Pauls and partially by the Tea Party, thus more likely to gain liberty seats, and liberty legislation victories in the long run.

CaptLouAlbano

11-07-2013, 02:14 PM

Okay, we can't do it overnight, but are we supposed to wait decades more, for the GOP to succeed somewhere in repealing a major program? Answer MY question.

Do we have any other choice? We will either experience a political revolution, a complete collapse or full blown socialism. But every year there are seats that are up for election, so the liberty movement runs candidates for those seats so that we can have a shot at holding back, and eventual turning around the leviathan.

The local seats are 95% gerrymandered to ensure a hack Democrat or hack Republican wins, and making internal connections within each major party commits the contender to the course of compromise that neuters or disables the liberty agenda they are in politics to enact.

Then go out on the street and knock on every single door in your district connecting with the voters and letting them know why you should represent them. Then follow that up with internet marketing, direct mail, phone calls, etc. You have a far better chance at winning a borough council seat than you do winning a Governor's race.

What I suggest is pursuing open seats in the primaries, regardless of whether the district is a Republican or a Democratic leaning area, on largely the same basis. No necessary commitment to or reliance on the GOP or Dem resources to win, just a use of either major party label in order to win office as a liberty person, relying on independent resources. This blended method is different from either the big or 3rd party-reliant approach, already tested in the case of the Pauls and partially by the Tea Party, thus more likely to gain liberty seats, and liberty legislation victories in the long run.

I agree with running for open seats, though I think running in a deep blue district is not the best use of resources. CD's that are heavily Dem are so for a reason, they are either filled with middle class Progressives (like Nancy Pelosi's district), or are filled with people living off entitlements (inner city CD's). Either way, those folks will only vote for the person offering the most handouts. That being said, people can try, but with 435 CD's it's far better to pick and choose and run for seats that are winnable.

jonhowe

11-08-2013, 10:55 AM

Personally,I think that Ron Paul has done more to reduce the growth of the State,By Himself,as a Republican,in the last 20 years than every member of the Libertarian Party has done combined in its entire existence.

THIS

The NSA outrage, the slowing of the drug war, discussion of the Fed, not bombing syria... Ron Paul is the most influential person no longer in politics. He made it ok for Republicans to not be bloodthirsty.

kahless

11-08-2013, 11:17 AM

I can't wait for our "principled" members to try to tell us that voting for Christie over whoever is running "D" is good for liberty.

/wait for it

Maybe I have not been following that closely here but that sounds like a a bit of an exaggeration don't you think? There is a big difference between Christie who is out right hostile to Rand, the Tea Party and Conservative beliefs than someone Ron and Rand ally with.

Todd

11-08-2013, 11:28 AM

rich34

11-08-2013, 11:32 AM

I don't know Christie's governor record, so I don't know what holes there are in it.

I'm not so sure Christie would be any more successful at working with democrats in the senate than what Rand is. Except of course him working with them on liberal causes which I could see him doing like a John McCain

rpfocus

11-08-2013, 12:21 PM

This article is bs.

Christie is anti-gun, pro choice, an Obama apologist and a loudmouth

and once those facts seep out of N.J. his crossover appeal with southern conservatives will be worse than Romney's. There is NO WAY he is getting the nomination.

As if southern conservatives are going to dictate the nomination? Mittens was nominated at the height of power for outside conservatives and the Tea Party. If an establishment hack like him can still get the nomination what makes you think Christie wouldn't? Wall $t and the NeoCons will always make the final decision in the GOP. Even if they have to resort to dirty tricks like not seating Ron's delegates and 'The Ayes Have It."

Todd

11-08-2013, 12:24 PM

rpfocus

11-08-2013, 12:27 PM

And the same outcome of Romney will occur. People will stay home. And my state will go blue again.

Hillary 2016. yay...

Yeah, as of now I see two outcomes in 2016:

Hillary runs and wins
Hillary doesn't run and Christie wins

HOLLYWOOD

11-08-2013, 12:31 PM

Christie becomes Republicans' Elitists' best bet for 2016 (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?432460-Christie-becomes-Republicans-best-bet-for-2016/page11)

Teenager For Ron Paul

11-08-2013, 12:41 PM

Who really cares if Christie's up right now? The election cycle doesn't even start until mid 2015.

erowe1

11-08-2013, 12:42 PM

As if southern conservatives are going to dictate the nomination? Mittens was nominated at the height of power for outside conservatives and the Tea Party. If an establishment hack like him can still get the nomination what makes you think Christie wouldn't? Wall $t and the NeoCons will always make the final decision in the GOP. Even if they have to resort to dirty tricks like not seating Ron's delegates and 'The Ayes Have It."

If the Wall Street establishment unites behind a candidate, that candidate will have a big advantage whoever it is.

But if it's Christie, he'll have a lot more against him than other establishment anointees have had. And I doubt that he could overcome those disadvantages. Being pro-choice is practically a fatal flaw in the Republican presidential primaries. Every pro-choicer who has tried, no matter what else they had going for them, hardly made a dent. And some, like Giuliani and Pete Wilson, had a lot of other things going for them. Others with pro-choice backgrounds, like Romney, knew they would have to flip flop or else they would be dead in the water.

Take that, and then add to it being pro-gun control, and not just a little bit, which is another disadvantage just as big as being pro-choice.

I don't know if he could squeak by with the nomination even with the full force of all the funding and endorsements of the establishment that he could get. But if so, that's what it would be, just barely squeaking by. And I doubt he can do it.

He'll lose Iowa for sure. Maybe he can win NH. But he's starting out way behind Rand there, so he's far from a favorite. Then he'll lose South Carolina. Then he'll lose North Carolina.

His first win might be the nonbinding Nevada caucuses with his Mafia connections. But even then, that's just the kind of place where our own advantages shine, and they're nonbinding anyway. By that time he'll already be in a position going into the other states where he could be competitive of his potential supporters asking themselves what the point of voting for this guy who can't win is.

Contumacious

11-08-2013, 01:22 PM

http://news.yahoo.com/christie-becomes-republicans-best-bet-2016-033629960.html

Chris Christie: (http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/chris-christie-the-enigma/)

http://i2.wp.com/thelibertarianrepublic.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Screen-Shot-2013-03-03-at-8.35.39-PM.png?resize=273%2C204

He portrayed himself as a cost-cutting fiscal hawk but then proceeded to strangely advocate for the pork-filled Sandy Relief Bill (the lack of actual Sandy relief has been well-documented). His willingness to accept the expansion of Medicaid is not a head-scratcher. Governor Christie stated “we have an opportunity to ensure that an even greater number of New Jerseyans who are at or near the poverty line will have access to critical health services beginning in January 2014.” In a week that is dominated by talks of the sequester cuts (peanuts compared to the list of entitlements that are bankrupting the nation) this is not time to expand dependency on the federal government."

.

rpfocus

11-08-2013, 04:19 PM

If the Wall Street establishment unites behind a candidate, that candidate will have a big advantage whoever it is.

But if it's Christie, he'll have a lot more against him than other establishment anointees have had. And I doubt that he could overcome those disadvantages. Being pro-choice is practically a fatal flaw in the Republican presidential primaries.

Hmm Christie has been stating he is Pro-life for a few years now.

I don't know if he could squeak by with the nomination even with the full force of all the funding and endorsements of the establishment that he could get.

I think you underestimate the clout of the WallSt/Chickenhawk wing of the GOP. I'm of the opinion that their candidate will always be the one who gets the nomination. And I've seen how low they will stoop to make sure other candidates don't get the nomination. I mean really, refusing to seat delegates and a phony vote? That's nothing less than crooked GOP shenanigans.

He'll lose Iowa for sure. Maybe he can win NH. But he's starting out way behind Rand there, so he's far from a favorite. Then he'll lose South Carolina. Then he'll lose North Carolina.

His first win might be the nonbinding Nevada caucuses with his Mafia connections. But even then, that's just the kind of place where our own advantages shine, and they're nonbinding anyway. By that time he'll already be in a position going into the other states where he could be competitive of his potential supporters asking themselves what the point of voting for this guy who can't win is.

Yeah I'll be interested to see how well Christie would fare in the primaries. I believe he will be the establishment choice (based simply on the fact that the establishment will think that he is the only candidate with a chance of winning) so it will be interesting to see the tactics used to torpedo the other candidates.