PDA

View Full Version : The Federalist says Libertarians are Blowing Opportunity of a Century




presence
08-16-2016, 09:30 AM
http://thefederalist.com/2016/08/15/libertarians-miss-an-opportunity/






http://thefederalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Screen-Shot-2016-08-04-at-2.52.54-AM.png (http://thefederalist.com/2016/08/15/libertarians-miss-an-opportunity/)


2016 (http://thefederalist.com/category/politics/2016/)


Libertarians Are Blowing The Opportunity Of The Century (http://thefederalist.com/2016/08/15/libertarians-miss-an-opportunity/) This is the one year I'm considering voting for the Libertarians. Too bad Gary Johnson and Bill Weld are blowing it.



By Robert Tracinski (http://thefederalist.com/author/rtracinski/) August 15, 2016




This is the one year I am vaguely considering voting for the Libertarian Party candidate, Gary Johnson. I’m sure I’m not the only regular Republican voter to do so. Too bad Gary Johnson and his running mate Bill Weld are kind of blowing it.

I normally wouldn’t vote Libertarian because they’re a small splinter party with no hope of winning and have no real impact on the election, and because, as a result of being a small splinter party, they tend to attract a lot of crackpots and repel the best political talent. (Libertarians with real political prospects, like Rand Paul or my own congressman, Dave Brat, bolt for the Republican Party when they can.) Then there’s the Libertarians’ dogmatically anti-interventionist foreign policy, complete with Ron-Paul-style rhetoric about how we were asking for 9/11. That is not exactly what you want to hear from the commander-in-chief.


But the offerings this year from the two big parties are so dreadfully bad, so clearly below the minimum level of acceptability, that I am willing to cast about for alternatives. It’s highly unlikely the Libertarian candidate could win outright, particularly in a year when the political Right is badly divided. There’s a slightly less slim hope that he could get enough electoral votes to throw the election to the House of Representatives and prevail there with the support of disgruntled anti-Trump Republicans. But at the very least, a Libertarian candidate who gets 20 percent or 25 percent of the vote, or more, would serve as an effective way to register a protest vote against both of the major parties, rob the actual winner of any kind of mandate, and give those of us who just can’t bring ourselves to pull the lever for Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton a way to vote our conscience.

It Wasn’t Hard to Seize the Moment, Guys All the Libertarian Party had to do was to put forward a candidate who could take relatively sane and defensible positions, particularly on the kinds of issues—like civil liberties and free markets—where you can usually expect a prominent Libertarian to think clearly and take a position in line with a commitment to liberty. Because that’s kind of what the Libertarian Party exists for, right?

Yes, well, those of us who have followed the Libertarian Party over the years know they never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. So it’s no surprise that Johnson and Weld are doing their best to drive us away—and they’re doing it by not even being good at being Libertarians.

Johnson badly flubbed a question about religious liberty, for the second time (http://thefederalist.com/2016/07/29/gary-johnson-is-still-terrible-on-religious-liberty/), coming out in favor the state’s right to coerce you into compliance with its notion of what your religious values ought to be. He wrapped up by declaring, “I just see religious freedom, as a category, as just being a black hole.” This sort of thing is Libertarianism 101, and Johnson just flunked it.


Then in the past few days, we got Weld sounding like a Massachusetts liberal on gun control (which he basically is), making hysterical claims (http://bearingarms.com/bob-o/2016/08/12/bill-weld-just-compared-ar-15s-weapons-mass-destruction-said-pistols-even-worse/) about imaginary gun parts like “clips” and “pins” and calling the AR-15 a “weapon of mass destruction.”


Again, this is Libertarianism 101.

Libertarians Are Basically Flower Children So what went wrong? Actually, none of this comes out of the blue, and it reflects a basic problem with the libertarian movement going back to the beginning.


When the Libertarian Party was first formed in 1971, the free-market firebrand Ayn Rand dismissed them as “hippies of the right,” and there was definitely something to that. While some libertarians saw themselves as taking inspiration from Rand’s political ideas, there was also a large strain in the movement that saw itself as ideologically and culturally aligned with the Left, as an offshoot of the counterculture. Libertarianism wasn’t about reasserting an American tradition of liberty and constitutionally limited government. It was about smashing the system, man.

Did you notice how, in the last election, Ron Paul kept billing his campaign as the “Ron Paul Revolution,” with the “evol” flipped backward so it read “LOVE”?

http://thefederalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/index-300x93.png

This was pure hippie flower-child nostalgia.


That’s why the Libertarians have been wasting so much effort in this election trying to appeal to disaffected Bernie Sanders supporters by railing against social conservatives and the military-industrial complex and a whole bunch of other lefty bogey-men. They cling to the illusion that they can convert a bunch of utopian socialists to libertarianism, if only they make clear that they’re opposed to religious nuts discriminating against gays, and that they don’t like guns. That, and the part about being allowed to smoke pot.

Meanwhile, they’re letting the political opportunity of a century pass them by. A sizeable chunk of the Republican Party is there for the taking. They may not agree with the Libertarians on everything, but they would be open to a ticket that can emphasize areas of agreement on a few core issues, while presenting themselves as the sane and normal alternative in this insane election year. You know how, in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king? This is the year when just being minimally acceptable is enough to snap up millions of grateful voters. It could also be done without having to compromise actual pro-liberty principles, for example, by actually defending religious liberty and Second Amendment rights.

Even on foreign policy, a candidate who presented himself as skeptical about overseas intervention but not eager to blame America first—the kind of balancing act Rand Paul has been working on—could, in this year, seem a reasonable alternative even to the hawks.

This is an opportunity that any sensible, pro-free-market libertarian should be able to run away with. But in a year when Republicans have chosen a candidate who is indifferent to their own party’s ideological roots, Libertarians have allowed themselves to be held back by their ideological history. They just have not been able to bring themselves to change course to meet the requirements of this unprecedented political moment.

They haven’t missed this opportunity to miss an opportunity.

Follow Robert on Twitter (https://twitter.com/Tracinski).

presence
08-16-2016, 09:31 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGUGMLbL8sM



#muhparty

JK/SEA
08-16-2016, 09:42 AM
GJ and Weld are liberals. Not libertarians.

angelatc
08-16-2016, 09:51 AM
GJ and Weld are liberals. Not libertarians.

Yes, I think you're right.

puppetmaster
08-16-2016, 10:14 AM
Part of the plan it seems.

Brian4Liberty
08-16-2016, 10:50 AM
http://thefederalist.com/2016/08/15/libertarians-miss-an-opportunity/

Isn't that special how the author takes several shots at Ron Paul? Teocon talking points.

And then he claims that Johnson isn't good enough. Apparently, he doesn't like Ron Paul either. Probably wouldn't like Browne or Badnarik.

Who would be his perfect "libertarian"? Ted Cruz? Tom Cotton? Mike Pence?

presence
08-16-2016, 10:53 AM
Who would be his perfect "libertarian"? Ted Cruz? Tom Cotton? Mike Pence?

next time you engage in barter you'll meet him

Natural Citizen
08-16-2016, 10:53 AM
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by JK/SEA http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=6288125#post6288125)
GJ and Weld are liberals. Not libertarians.

Yes, I think you're right.

Me three.

CaseyJones
08-16-2016, 10:59 AM
Johnson/Weld is an establishment insult to all true small government supporters
and Johnson's going along with it cause he wants to be the candidate with the largest vote % in history

Brian4Liberty
08-16-2016, 11:01 AM
All the Libertarian Party had to do was to put forward a candidate who could take relatively sane and defensible positions

Actually, that's pretty much what the Libertarian Party did. They choose what was perceived as the most palatable candidate. McAfee would have been more fun, but not more acceptable to the mainstream.


That’s why the Libertarians have been wasting so much effort in this election trying to appeal to disaffected Bernie Sanders supporters by railing against social conservatives and the military-industrial complex and a whole bunch of other lefty bogey-men. They cling to the illusion that they can convert a bunch of utopian socialists to libertarianism, if only they make clear that they’re opposed to religious nuts discriminating against gays, and that they don’t like guns. That, and the part about being allowed to smoke pot.

Some truth there, especially with the J/W ticket.

dean.engelhardt
08-16-2016, 11:13 AM
After reading this:


I normally wouldn’t vote Libertarian because they’re a small splinter party with no hope of winning and have no real impact on the election, and because, as a result of being a small splinter party, they tend to attract a lot of crackpots...

I decided to quite reading the rest. Author is an idiot and does not understand voting.

Spikender
08-16-2016, 11:46 AM
He can blow the opportunity I have between my legs.

NewRightLibertarian
08-16-2016, 12:18 PM
Isn't that special how the author takes several shots at Ron Paul? Teocon talking points.

And then he claims that Johnson isn't good enough. Apparently, he doesn't like Ron Paul either. Probably wouldn't like Browne or Badnarik.

Who would be his perfect "libertarian"? Ted Cruz? Tom Cotton? Mike Pence?

The author may not be a libertarian, but he is dead on accurate in his indictment of Johnson and Weld.

SilentBull
08-16-2016, 12:22 PM
I'm starting to write a lengthy blog post on this, but if anyone is interested in what it takes to win, and why Rand was doing what he was doing, read "Crossing the Chasm (https://www.amazon.com/Crossing-Chasm-3rd-Disruptive-Mainstream/dp/0062292986/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1471373179&sr=8-1&keywords=crossing+the+chasm)". It's a classic book about marketing and what it takes to sell your ideas/product to the mainstream. It's specifically about crossing the gap between the hardcore minority and the mainstream customers.

asurfaholic
08-16-2016, 01:47 PM
I'm starting to write a lengthy blog post on this, but if anyone is interested in what it takes to win, and why Rand was doing what he was doing, read "Crossing the Chasm (https://www.amazon.com/Crossing-Chasm-3rd-Disruptive-Mainstream/dp/0062292986/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1471373179&sr=8-1&keywords=crossing+the+chasm)". It's a classic book about marketing and what it takes to sell your ideas/product to the mainstream. It's specifically about crossing the gap between the hardcore minority and the mainstream customers.

I'll help you. It's all bullshit and useless without the media along with you on your side. Until the media stops purposely manipulating public opinion, the current "hardcore minority" groups will always remain minorities.

SilentBull
08-16-2016, 02:03 PM
I'll help you. It's all bull$#@! and useless without the media along with you on your side. Until the media stops purposely manipulating public opinion, the current "hardcore minority" groups will always remain minorities.

Of course the media is a problem, but you must understand how to sell to the mainstream. Those who thought Rand Paul should have continued doing what Ron Paul was doing, just don't understand marketing. Ron Paul reached the maximum number of people that could be reached with that strategy: the innovators and early adopters, as they are called in the book.

To reach the majority, the strategy must change because the majority cares about different things. It's this balancing act, keeping the early adopters and innovators happy while expanding your marketing to the mainstream that is hard; even harder when those early adopters are too stupid to realize what Rand was doing.

Natural Citizen
08-16-2016, 02:17 PM
The author may not be a libertarian, but he is dead on accurate in his indictment of Johnson and Weld.

Yep.

NewRightLibertarian
08-16-2016, 02:24 PM
Of course the media is a problem, but you must understand how to sell to the mainstream. Those who thought Rand Paul should have continued doing what Ron Paul was doing, just don't understand marketing. Ron Paul reached the maximum number of people that could be reached with that strategy: the innovators and early adopters, as they are called in the book.

To reach the majority, the strategy must change because the majority cares about different things. It's this balancing act, keeping the early adopters and innovators happy while expanding your marketing to the mainstream that is hard; even harder when those early adopters are too stupid to realize what Rand was doing.

The strategy you described was tried and it was a big fat pathetic failure. So while your line of thinking may have sounded good on paper, it was a horrible disaster for growing the liberty movement in actuality. Hopefully Rand wises up and makes some big changes during his next go around.

SilentBull
08-16-2016, 02:49 PM
The strategy you described was tried and it was a big fat pathetic failure. So while your line of thinking may have sounded good on paper, it was a horrible disaster for growing the liberty movement in actuality. Hopefully Rand wises up and makes some big changes during his next go around.

The only reason it failed is because of Trump, and the fact that the media helped make "anti-establishment" mainstream, precisely to combat Rand's strategy, which would have worked had it not been for that. The problem is we are trying to hit a moving target, which is, I believe, asurfaholic's point.

But blaming the strategy is wrong. That was precisely the right strategy. The problem is the media is always a step ahead, because they control the minds.

If Rand had chosen an "anti-establishment" strategy, the media wouldn't have made "anti-establishment" popular. They would have said he was a "fringe" candidate.

NewRightLibertarian
08-16-2016, 03:04 PM
The only reason it failed is because of Trump, and the fact that the media helped make "anti-establishment" mainstream, precisely to combat Rand's strategy, which would have worked had it not been for that. The problem is we are trying to hit a moving target, which is, I believe, asurfaholic's point.

But blaming the strategy is wrong. That was precisely the right strategy. The problem is the media is always a step ahead, because they control the minds.

If Rand had chosen an "anti-establishment" strategy, the media wouldn't have made "anti-establishment" popular. They would have said he was a "fringe" candidate.

Perhaps if Rand is as myopic and tone-deaf as you are, he can halve the liberty movement and get embarrassed yet again in 2020.

angelatc
08-16-2016, 03:05 PM
Isn't that special how the author takes several shots at Ron Paul? Teocon talking points.

And then he claims that Johnson isn't good enough. Apparently, he doesn't like Ron Paul either. Probably wouldn't like Browne or Badnarik.

Who would be his perfect "libertarian"? Ted Cruz? Tom Cotton? Mike Pence?

Just saying that the Libertarians don't agree on much across the board, but gun rights is a big exception to that. I don't think I've ever encountered a Libertarian that wanted restrictions on handguns. And yet here we are.

SilentBull
08-16-2016, 03:06 PM
Perhaps if Rand is as myopic and tone-deaf as you are, he can halve the liberty movement and get embarrassed yet again in 2020.

Sure, go ahead and ignore the basics of marketing. I'm sure you know better how to get people elected. I'm sure you have helped elect many candidates, as smart as you are.

Feel free to ignore my post and my book recommendation, as it was meant for people interested in educating themselves.

oyarde
08-16-2016, 03:10 PM
Isn't that special how the author takes several shots at Ron Paul? Teocon talking points.

And then he claims that Johnson isn't good enough. Apparently, he doesn't like Ron Paul either. Probably wouldn't like Browne or Badnarik.

Who would be his perfect "libertarian"? Ted Cruz? Tom Cotton? Mike Pence?

More like Lyndon Johnson

NewRightLibertarian
08-16-2016, 03:14 PM
Sure, go ahead and ignore the basics of marketing. I'm sure you know better how to get people elected. I'm sure you have helped elect many candidates, as smart as you are.

Feel free to ignore my post and my book recommendation, as it was meant for people interested in educating themselves.

I will certainly ignore you, and your terrible-beyond-belief advice regarding political strategy for the liberty movement. Regardless of your excuse-making, we saw the fruits of your ideas in 2016. The fact that you want to double-down on them even after they have failed abysmally shows that you are boneheaded, not wise.

Occam's Banana
08-16-2016, 04:05 PM
Ron Paul reached the maximum number of people that could be reached with that strategy [...]

Apart from mere assertion, what reason is there to think that the number of people he reached was the maximum that could have been?


It's this balancing act [...] that is hard; even harder when those early adopters are too stupid to realize what Rand was doing.

Does this book you're talking about recommend the strategy of referring to the people you're trying to persuade as being "too stupid" to realize something?

SilentBull
08-16-2016, 06:13 PM
I will certainly ignore you, and your terrible-beyond-belief advice regarding political strategy for the liberty movement. Regardless of your excuse-making, we saw the fruits of your ideas in 2016. The fact that you want to double-down on them even after they have failed abysmally shows that you are boneheaded, not wise.

And yet you completely ignore the reasons I stated as to why they failed; Trump, and idiot libertarians too stupid to see what he was trying to do, who refused to donate money to allow him to get his message out. Carry on. I look forward to your candidacy so you can teach Rand Paul how to get elected.

69360
08-16-2016, 06:33 PM
I think the LP is doing just fine. Better than ever actually. It's silly to think they would make the jump from 1% to potus in one cycle. Polling double digits is good. They are probably going to hit 5% of the vote and get matching funds for next time. Maybe they run with some real funding next time around and they get to 15% and get in the debates.

SilentBull
08-16-2016, 06:38 PM
Apart from mere assertion, what reason is there to think that the number of people he reached was the maximum that could have been?


Because the "innovators" and "early adopters" are always a very small segment in any market. There just aren't enough of them. The early and late majority account for something like 66% of the market.

The hardest part is switching your focus to go after that majority, while keeping your early customers happy, which was obviously the problem with Rand. If libertarians realized that he was doing this and would have donated the way they donated to Ron, he would have had a much better shot. He may still have lost because Trump, with the media's help, messed things up for everyone, including Jeb who was the favorite and also had an establishment strategy.

The early majority, also called "pragmatists", are scared away by big changes. They don't like anything too disruptive and are looking for incremental improvements only. They look for things that can neatly fit into their already established routines. Innovators and early adopters are the ones looking for revolution. To sell to the early majority and late majority, you have to package your message a certain way.

fisharmor
08-16-2016, 07:31 PM
Silentbull, I've heard all that marketing crap before at dying churches. It was the exact same scenario, too. They got far enough off message to drive everyone away, some true believers stuck around trying to convince everyone that staying on message was the point and without a point there's no reason to stay, the leaders called them naysayers and fools and that they didn't understand how to run things, and it all spiraled down a leftist toilet bowl, in exactly the same way the OP article pointed out.

The only real way to get them back is to keep your bull a lot more silent and allow some ideological purity back in. That is what attracts independent voters. Truth. Not marketing strategy bullshit.

Occam's Banana
08-16-2016, 08:25 PM
Ron Paul reached the maximum number of people that could be reached with that strategy [...]
Apart from mere assertion, what reason is there to think that the number of people he reached was the maximum that could have been?
Because the "innovators" and "early adopters" are always a very small segment in any market. There just aren't enough of them. The early and late majority account for something like 66% of the market.

The hardest part is switching your focus to go after that majority, while keeping your early customers happy, which was obviously the problem with Rand. If libertarians realized that he was doing this and would have donated the way they donated to Ron, he would have had a much better shot. He may still have lost because Trump, with the media's help, messed things up for everyone, including Jeb who was the favorite and also had an establishment strategy.

The early majority, also called "pragmatists", are scared away by big changes. They don't like anything too disruptive and are looking for incremental improvements only. They look for things that can neatly fit into their already established routines. Innovators and early adopters are the ones looking for revolution. To sell to the early majority and late majority, you have to package your message a certain way.

With due respect, that all sounds rather pat and glib - and in any case, it doesn't answer the question I asked: what reason is there to think that the number of people Ron Paul reached was the maximum number that could have been reached? I have no doubt that there was indeed some (at least theoretical) "maximum" to the support Ron Paul might have achieved at any given point in time - but I am quite skeptical that he ever actually achieved it (or even came close to doing so, for that matter).

For one thing, such maxima are relative and not absolute; by their nature, they change with time and circumstances. For instance, Ron got more votes in '12 than he did in '08. How, then, can one say with any confidence that he would not have gotten even more in '16, had he run again? And if one cannot say this with confidence, then how can one say with confidence that he had "reached the maximum number of people that could be reached" (except by counterfactually asserting that he could not have gotten more than he actually did - which is the very claim at issue)?

For another thing, Ron was not a particularly good orator or expositor. Had he the speaking skill and eloquence of, say, a Harry Browne, I do not see how anyone could contend ceteris paribus that he could not have gotten more support than he did. And then, of course, there all the other contingent factors which subdued the support he actually received, as distinct from how much he otherwise might have achieved. The all-too-well-known shenanigans of the media are one example of such factors. Another example is the performance of the official campaign (let's be charitable and call that performance "somewhat less than vigorous") on a variety of accounts, such as the missed opportunity in Virginia, where only Ron and Romney were on the primary ballot in '12. Any of a number of other such factors could be identified.

The upshot of all this is that I simply do not know what Ron's "maximum" was, let alone whether he actually "reached" it or not - and neither do you. Nor does anyone else. Thus, I see no warrant for declarations that Ron Paul achieved "maximum reach" and that he took things as far as they can go "with that strategy" ...

SilentBull
08-16-2016, 08:26 PM
Silentbull, I've heard all that marketing crap before at dying churches. It was the exact same scenario, too. They got far enough off message to drive everyone away, some true believers stuck around trying to convince everyone that staying on message was the point and without a point there's no reason to stay, the leaders called them naysayers and fools and that they didn't understand how to run things, and it all spiraled down a leftist toilet bowl, in exactly the same way the OP article pointed out.

The only real way to get them back is to keep your bull a lot more silent and allow some ideological purity back in. That is what attracts independent voters. Truth. Not marketing strategy bull$#@!.

Wow, I guess there is really no hope for the liberty movement. I come into this thread and recommend one of the best written books on marketing of all time, and this is the response I get from the "experts" that have never gotten anyone elected and probably have never had any experience actually marketing anything. Cool. You think you can win without understanding your customers, and you think you can win by attracting only a small minority. "Marketing is bullshit." Got it. Good luck to you.

Anti Federalist
08-16-2016, 08:28 PM
GJ and Weld are liberals. Not libertarians.

This.

Danke
08-16-2016, 08:46 PM
This.

That.

Occam's Banana
08-16-2016, 08:53 PM
That.

The other thing.

Danke
08-16-2016, 09:00 PM
The other thing.

I know what you are up to, and I'm not falling for it.

-rep

Natural Citizen
08-16-2016, 09:19 PM
Heh. That was funny.

Anti Federalist
08-16-2016, 09:22 PM
I guess there are two "Stupid Parties" now.

Occam's Banana
08-16-2016, 10:00 PM
I know what you are up to, and I'm not falling for it.

-rep

Too late. You already did.

±rep

Origanalist
08-16-2016, 10:28 PM
Too late. You already did.

±rep


たわごと rep

jmdrake
08-16-2016, 10:40 PM
Isn't that special how the author takes several shots at Ron Paul? Teocon talking points.

And then he claims that Johnson isn't good enough. Apparently, he doesn't like Ron Paul either. Probably wouldn't like Browne or Badnarik.

Who would be his perfect "libertarian"? Ted Cruz? Tom Cotton? Mike Pence?

Yeah. I noticed that too. The author of the OP is full of crap. Interestingly enough Ron Paul was "terrible" for suggesting our foreign policy caused 9/11 but Donald Trump is alright for saying Bush could have prevented 9/11 but didn't. Hmmmm.....maybe Ron should have gone more to the conspiracy theory side of things after all.

Occam's Banana
08-16-2016, 10:46 PM
たわごと rep

これは何ですか? シルバニア ビート ソニー 再び ? rep

RJ Liberty
08-16-2016, 10:50 PM
The Libertarian Party is blowing the opportunity of a century by registering (http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/opinion/readers/2016/07/27/republican-switches-registration-libertarian-party/87576054/) record numbers of people into the Libertarian Party? Hmmm...

Origanalist
08-16-2016, 10:51 PM
これは何ですか? シルバニア ビート ソニー 再び ? rep

Well, not in this century, lol. It appears I was using the wrong translator...:o

Dr.3D
08-16-2016, 10:59 PM
Well, not in this century, lol. It appears I was using the wrong translator...:o
多分モールス符号に固執する必要がありますか。

Danke
08-16-2016, 11:03 PM
Lol,

+rep if anyone knows these in English.

Shakuhachi


Namehoodai. (Or houdai)

Occam's Banana
08-16-2016, 11:04 PM
多分モールス符号に固執する必要がありますか。

... -. .. ..-. ..-. ... / ..-. --- .-. / -.. --- - ... / .- -. -.. / -.. .- ... .... . ...

Origanalist
08-16-2016, 11:09 PM
多分モールス符号に固執する必要がありますか。

で吸う私はモールス符号

Dr.3D
08-16-2016, 11:09 PM
... -. .. ..-. ..-. ... / ..-. --- .-. / -.. --- - ... / .- -. -.. / -.. .- ... .... . ...
... -. .. ..-. ..-. ... / ..-. --- .-. / . .-.. . .--. .... .- -. - ...

Origanalist
08-16-2016, 11:09 PM
... -. .. ..-. ..-. ... / ..-. --- .-. / -.. --- - ... / .- -. -.. / -.. .- ... .... . ...

I'll let doc handle that one.

edit, looks like he already did....

Danke
08-16-2016, 11:12 PM
で吸う私はモールス符号

Japanese does not end a sentence that way.

Origanalist
08-16-2016, 11:22 PM
Japanese does not end a sentence that way.

I'm not Japanese.

Danke
08-16-2016, 11:37 PM
I'm not Japanese.

But you are posting Japanese.

Dr.3D
08-16-2016, 11:39 PM
But you are posting Japanese.
How could it be Japanese if they don't end sentences that way?

Brian4Liberty
08-16-2016, 11:40 PM
I'm starting to write a lengthy blog post on this, but if anyone is interested in what it takes to win, and why Rand was doing what he was doing, read "Crossing the Chasm (https://www.amazon.com/Crossing-Chasm-3rd-Disruptive-Mainstream/dp/0062292986/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1471373179&sr=8-1&keywords=crossing+the+chasm)". It's a classic book about marketing and what it takes to sell your ideas/product to the mainstream. It's specifically about crossing the gap between the hardcore minority and the mainstream customers.

Interesting. When Rand came out at the first debate attacking Trump, he was an innovator, or perhaps an early adaptor. If Trump were to win, then in time, Rand may be vindicated by the late majority and laggards. Or not.

While it's a good book recommendation, tying it to Rand's performance is probably resulting in some hostility. What Rand did was more in the category of learning from mistakes.

Danke
08-16-2016, 11:42 PM
How could it be Japanese if they don't end sentences that way?

Is English what I'm typing now or not now? If not now, what language is it than?

Dr.3D
08-16-2016, 11:46 PM
Is English what I'm typing now or not now?
Ask that of an Australian and he would say, it's Australian with poor grammar.

Danke
08-16-2016, 11:48 PM
Ask that of an Australian and he would say, it's Australian with poor grammar.

So you are begining to understand.

Natural Citizen
08-16-2016, 11:51 PM
gvnagalas

Origanalist
08-16-2016, 11:53 PM
Is English what I'm typing now or not now? If not now, what language is it than?

It's the other than language.

JK/SEA
08-17-2016, 07:18 AM
it appears no one is taking this election serious.

when i vote, i'm using a red, white and blue sharpie.

NewRightLibertarian
08-17-2016, 08:10 AM
And yet you completely ignore the reasons I stated as to why they failed; Trump, and idiot libertarians too stupid to see what he was trying to do, who refused to donate money to allow him to get his message out. Carry on. I look forward to your candidacy so you can teach Rand Paul how to get elected.

It's Rand's fault that he sucked so bad that a reality TV character ate his lunch. It's Rand's fault that he sucked so bad that he squandered his father's base. Your excuse-making and denialism are not helping the movement one iota.

fisharmor
08-17-2016, 09:06 AM
Wow, I guess there is really no hope for the liberty movement. I come into this thread and recommend one of the best written books on marketing of all time, and this is the response I get from the "experts" that have never gotten anyone elected and probably have never had any experience actually marketing anything. Cool. You think you can win without understanding your customers, and you think you can win by attracting only a small minority. "Marketing is bull$#@!." Got it. Good luck to you.

Whereas you think you can win without your customers truly understanding your product.
That is what matketing is, and that is all it is. Covering up a lack of information, most often duplicitously.
I will admit that you're right... you can get people into office on half truths mingled with outright lies.
The point we are all really wishing you and your marketing people would get through your thick skulls already is we don't really give a rat's ass whether you win or lose under those conditions.
That is why the liberty movement fell apart. It isn't because we aren't listeni g to you. We all listened and told you, over and over, that we are actively rejecting your premises.

It's a dead movement because you're not even processing what we are saying.

undergroundrr
08-17-2016, 09:18 AM
GJ and Weld are liberals. Not libertarians.

Trump is a liberal. Not a conservative.

JK/SEA
08-17-2016, 12:21 PM
Trump is a liberal. Not a conservative.

meh...his 'alleged' alignment with the liberal ideology has yet to be proven, due to the fact he has not held an elected office where his supposed liberal ideology has seen any light of day.

His stump speeches seems to indicate a conservative leaning, so, that being the case, Hillary has shown the world what a commie scumbag she really is.

Toss a coin. Its your vote.