Most Libertarians do not identify with the Tea Party

[Guest Riciticky]

The problem is the media has tried their damnedest to paint the tea party as one thing. An old evangelical political group who want their ideals impressed on everyone. At the core, the tea party is a huge friend to the libertarian party but a lot in the libertarian party are turned off with any group that might even smell one bit like they are religiously based.


At the end of the day, i actually consider myself libertarian. But i identify with the tea party. The media wants to divide and conquer anything that is not left of center

Me too.

[Oh Shoot]

...Maybe I'm just being too idealistic, but I think a vote can still send a message, even if it is a seemingly hopeless vote.

 

not voting is a vote as well

 

Not really, on the overall picture. The Powers That Be figure on the  standard 35-55% participation rate in elections.

 

If all of a sudden 75% of eligible voters went to the polls and 25% of them voted neither Dem/Rep, would shake things up in a hurry. That's why I say the Tea Party needs to be a real party, rather than attempting to remake the GOP by minority infiltration.

 

- OS

[RobertNashville]

As long as libertarians want to play by themselves they will remain ineffective - with not enough clout to do anything except on a very small scale.

Edited October 30, 2013 by RobertNashville

[RobertNashville]

...That's why I say the Tea Party needs to be a real party, rather than attempting to remake the GOP by minority infiltration.

 

- OS

Just my opinion but I can't see how that can be a sound strategy. "Another party" will just be like every other third party; ineffective.

 

I submit that what it is much easier and has a much better chance of success is for local Tea Party groups to effect the ouster of establishment/big-government/progressive Republicans and replace them with principled, conservative candidates who will stand up for their principles. Get rid of the likes of McCain, Graham, Alexander, Corker, Boehner and their ilk and you could see real movement back toward the government the founders intended.

 

The only way I see a "third party" being viable and effective is for it not to BE a third party; by that I mean it would need to completely replace/do away with the Republican party (or the Democrats) and be one of the two parties in a two party system.

[Chucktshoes]

As long as libertarians want to play by themselves they will remain ineffective - with not enough clout to do anything except on a very small scale.

So who should the libertarians decide to play with? The Democrats who wish to control how we live our lives & spend our money? Or maybe we should play with the Republicans who unlike the Democrats only want to control how we live our lives and spend our money? ;)

[tnguy]

Not really, on the overall picture. The Powers That Be figure on the  standard 35-55% participation rate in elections.

 

If all of a sudden 75% of eligible voters went to the polls and 25% of them voted neither Dem/Rep, would shake things up in a hurry. That's why I say the Tea Party needs to be a real party, rather than attempting to remake the GOP by minority infiltration.

 

- OS

 

The problem with that is that then they would need to take a stance on other issues. One of the best things about the tea party was the focus on the finances only.

[RobertNashville]

So who should the libertarians decide to play with? The Democrats who wish to control how we live our lives & spend our money? Or maybe we should play with the Republicans who unlike the Democrats only want to control how we live our lives and spend our money? ;)

It doesn't really matter to me who they do or don't play with...what I suggested above and am suggesting again is that continuing to do what they've been doing will result in them continuing to get what they've been getting which is pretty much nothing in terms of effecting change.

Edited October 30, 2013 by RobertNashville

[tnguy]

Yes. We should all get behind the change that we don't want so that we can say we got some change.

 

Seems legit.

 

90% of politicians are just corrupt. Only by fearing that they will lose enough votes that they'll be unable to maintain their greedy grip on power can any kind of leverage be applied to them. They will all, (on both sides) do the same thing if they think their support is unconditional.

Edited October 30, 2013 by tnguy

[Chucktshoes]

It doesn't really matter to me who they do or don't play with...what I suggested above and am suggesting again is that continuing to do what they've been doing will result in them continuing to get what they've been getting which is pretty much nothing in terms of effecting change.

What libertarians have been getting recently is the message out that there is another option. Every day more people are hearing it and seeing the truth in it. Libertarians have been playing the long game for quite a while and continue to remain stedfast and principled that the only real difference between the Republicans and Democrats is style. The end result of an overly intrusive government controlling your life and your money is the same with both major parties. Occasionally there will be a candidate on one side or the other who isn't a total scumbag and is worth voting for at least one cycle and sometimes two. After that they are usually toast. They become corrupted and no different than the rest. So I choose to keep on the current path and growing (if slowly) the coalition over playing with one side or the other and selling out what I believe in.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I don't see the Tea Party being that much different from Libertarians, except for what the media wants you to believe.

 

I agree with where you are going, Chuck, but there is no long game when the only Libertarian is a presidential candidate.

It may be more than that, but that is all I see. Yours is a strategy, I guess. I consider myself more of a Libertarian than the

two major parties, but the Tea Party seems to me to want to gut the Republican Party enough to give me some light at

the end of the tunnel.

 

There have and always will be mistakes along the way. True of the Tea Party, also.

[Chucktshoes]

There are much more than Libertarian Presidential candidates. There are LP candidates in many federal, state and local races across the country.

http://www.lp.org/candidates-13

[Garufa]

When I go to the polls all I see are R's and D's next to the names. 

 

Where are these other parties you speak of?

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Maybe so, but we just don't hear about them.

 

I would definitely take a pure Libertarian stance over the two major parties when someone like our two senators or

the McCain-like crowd is what the Republicans ante up. But, if you can't get the kind of support close to the majors,

you need to destroy one of the majors and influence the Hell out of the new kids in town. That's where I think the

Te Party is going, eventually.

 

The OP article is about as reliable as any other poll. I don't see Libertarians as disagreeing with Tea Partiers the way

it claims. I know I am for the change that the Tea Party represents, and I think many Libertarians feel the same.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

When I go to the polls all I see are R's and D's next to the names. 

 

Where are these other parties you speak of?

They're out there, but most don't get to the ballot. That's why they are considered fringe by the media. Other countries,

like Israel and Germany have to build coalitions to get to the point of ability of passing any kind of legislation. France is

another.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Most third parties candidates, plus the independents running without any party affiliation such as Basil Marceaux, are not identified on the ballot by party name. 

 

Therefore, if a voter has decided to vote libertarian, green, constitution party, etc, then he has to take the initiative and research who his party candidates are, ahead of time BEFORE he goes to vote. He can't vote a straight ticket just by voting for all the available candidates labeled "Libertarian" or "Green" or whatever.

 

I believe there are details of election law which makes it thataway, which is crippling to third parties. Any dummy who can barely read, can vote a straight Dem or Rep ticket (except for elderly Floridians, anyway). Third party voters must either determine ahead of time his favored candidates, or alternately play russian roulette picking an unknown unrecognized name out of the "party un-labeled" candidates at the bottom of each section on the ballot. The law is obviously set up thataway to help the two major parties keep their lock on all elections.

[Guest Razz]

... But, if you can't get the kind of support close to the majors,
you need to destroy one of the majors and influence the Hell out of the new kids in town. That's where I think the
Te Party is going, eventually.
 

Does this help the situation? Would the Tea party not still be susceptible to perils of the two-party system? Would the powerful people from the GOP not simply move to the Tea party and bring their clout with them?

I'm genuinely asking.

[Garufa]

I believe there are details of election law which makes it thataway, which is crippling to third parties. Any dummy who can barely read, can vote a straight Dem or Rep ticket (except for elderly Floridians, anyway). Third party voters must either determine ahead of time his favored candidates, or alternately play russian roulette picking an unknown unrecognized name out of the "party un-labeled" candidates at the bottom of each section on the ballot. The law is obviously set up thataway to help the two major parties keep their lock on all elections.

 

That's the crux of the matter Lester.  The system is so institutionalized via years of party manipulation that it will take at least a couple of generations to change it, even if it can be.

 

 

 

FYI, by "generation" I mean the generally accepted, once upon a time, 20 years.

[Guest ThePunisher]

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but don't we own a lot of gratitude to the rather new Tea Party House representatives from the 2010 and 2012 elections that saved our 2nd Amendment rights from the commie democrats this year?

[tnguy]

I'd like to see the tea party make some inroads on getting some fiscally conservative dems online. I know that seems like an oxymoron but one can hope... Edited October 31, 2013 by tnguy

[Mike.357]

Not voting is just not voting, Mike. That majority of people who don't vote are giving this country to the victors, every

election. At least voting libertarian shows conviction and resolve.

 

We go around in circles about how votes effect the election every time, and it appears that many don't get involved in

getting candidates who could make a difference, so it becomes a self fulfilling prophesy for people to bitch about because

of their lack of interest. The Tea Party has made some difference, but not enough to show some of those many that

things can happen if they make that change. The two party system can work with people determining their own destiny

when they do get involved. That includes libertarians. It doesn't have to be Democrats and Republicans, just that that

is the current mixture. Even a democrat candidate could be worth voting for with people engaged in the process, but

just don't think I would be one voting for them any time soon unless they really did change.

 

Politics should be taken back from the party bosses and people should make the required changes by being in the

local apparatchik in their towns and move the process to each seat elected. Either get involved or let the dictatorship

evolve. That's where this goes.

 

 

not voting is just as much of a vote as voting is.  Statistics are kept.  The percent of people who register but don't vote is noted.   My would be non-vote has every bit the value as voting for Romney did.

 

I do not think my vote counts, it is a total waste of my time to go and cast it.  And of course that takes into account the question is it even accurately tabulated.  Not so sure it is.

[Mike.357]

So who should the libertarians decide to play with? The Democrats who wish to control how we live our lives & spend our money? Or maybe we should play with the Republicans who unlike the Democrats only want to control how we live our lives and spend our money? ;)

 

 

I see what you did there.  NO statement could be truer. 

[Oh Shoot]

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but don't we own a lot of gratitude to the rather new Tea Party House representatives from the 2010 and 2012 elections that saved our 2nd Amendment rights from the commie democrats this year?

 

The House had nothing to do with it, failed in the Senate, and as much due to Democrat votes as the Republican minority (4 Republicans voted for it, 5 Dems against it).

 

Thank Gawd it took 3/5 or it would have easily passed regardless, 54-46.

 

- OS

Edited October 31, 2013 by Oh Shoot

[Guest ThePunisher]

The House had nothing to do with it, failed in the Senate, and as much due to Democrat votes as the Republican minority (4 Republicans voted for it, 5 Dems against it).
 
Thank Gawd it took 3/5 or it would have easily passed regardless, 54-46.
 
- OS

But you know and the Senate knew it didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of passing the House. It could have very well passed the Senate if they knew the democrats controlled the House.

[Oh Shoot]

But you know and the Senate knew it didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of passing the House. It could have very well passed the Senate if they knew the democrats controlled the House.

 

Would those 5 Dems who voted nay have fallen on their swords for The Party if it was a sure pass in the House? Would two or three of the Republicans who voted aye gone the other way to prevent it?  We'll never know.

 

- OS

[JohnC]

As long as we stay fragmented and the left stays so well organized as they come together on any issues they agree with, we will continue to fail and they will continue to win and move our country farther left.

 

The progressive/RINO republicans aren't helping us either.

Edited October 31, 2013 by JohnC