Don't forget they also need the ability to fight against those who write the law and are above the law.

For instance, the laws designed to fluff with third parties are so extreme that Mitt Romney is on the ballot illegally in Washington State. If Republicans weren't above the law, Gary Johnson would be on the ballot in more states than Mitt Romney is.

Ok, hint one, people never like the defeatist attitude (aka, this is America G'damnit). Politicians crying wolf (sometimes legitimately) are almost universally seen as whiners, incomptent and incapable of leading.

So, instead, hit on three points everyone agrees on and mix them with some broad platitude or quote from a historic leader. Boom, then you're good to go.

too many quotes :-P... The Religious group doesn't control their votes..... the cash they get paid to "vote" their opinion is... I'm not a republican or Democrat because of that reason, the Democrats have no backbone, and the republicans have no morals..

Care to post a source or some kind of support for this statement?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...ibertarian_n_1793305.html

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/...n-state-libertarians.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kX8YsTGCAZY

Huffington, McClatchy, and Maddow

When you experience defeat in court by those blatantly disregarding the law, a defeatist attitude is appropriate. To not be defeatist would be to show a complete disconnect from reality. Libertarians are not idealists, they are realists.

Republicans and Democrats can't even follow the laws they wrote themselves to protect their duopoloy.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/...n-state-libertarians.html

THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY IS SUING TO KEEP ROMNEY OFF THE BALLOT IN WASHINGTON, OVER A TECHNICALITY. WASHINGTON WENT TO A TOP-TWO PRIMARY SYSTEM SEVERAL YEARS AGO IN ORDER TO KEEP THIRD PARTIES OFF THE GENERAL ELECTION BALLOT FOR OFFICES OTHER THAN PRESIDENT . THE CRAFTERS OF THIS SYSTEM FAILED TO REALIZE THAT THIS WOULD CAUSE PROBLEMS WITH THEIR "MAJOR PARTY STATUS", WHICH WAS ALSO DESIGNED TO KEEP THIRD PARTIES OFF THE PRESIDENTIAL BALLOT ("MINOR PARTIES" MUST JUMP THROUGH MORE HOOPS TO GET A PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE REPRESENTED IN WASHINGTON)

THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY IS TECHNICALLY RIGHT ON THE LAW IN THIS CASE. HOWEVER, THE MIGHTY CLAN [DANGER]! FEELS THAT THE CHOICE BY THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY TO TAKE THIS ACTION IS UNFORTUNATE. IT MAKES THEM LOOK PETTY, AND THE LAST THING THE LIBERTY MOVEMENT NEEDS IS MORE BAD PRESS. BESIDES, IT'S NOT LIKE THERE'S A CHANCE WASHINTON'S ELECTORAL COLLEGE VOTES WILL GO TO ANYBODY OTHER THAN OBAMA ANYWAY. THE DEMOCRATS COULD PUT UP A HEROIN ADDICT FOR PRESIDENT AND HE OR SHE WOULD STILL CARRY WASHINGTON.

HA!

SAM
PUNDIT,
THE MIGHTY CLAN [DANGER]!

EDIT: I SEE ROCKMAN BEAT ME TO THIS. PLEASE FOCUS MORE ON YOUR FUTILE ATTEMPTS TO KILL ME AND LESS ON POSTING, SO THAT I CAN SPEND MY REMAINING TURNS AND THEN GET SOME WORK DONE!

I am assuming that people must fall somewhere along a 1 dimensional line that denotes 'Liberal' and 'Conservative'. The parties fall on the line, not the other way around. Everyone falls somewhere on that line. Maybe not in every issue at hand, but overall, everyone is a dot on that line. IF a strong, centrist party rose to power and manage to edge out both competing parties, one or the other party would simply disappear. The reality of the situation is that we have a first-past-the-post system, not a proportional system like many other countries have. The mechanics of the system CANNOT support 3 equal parties.

As the Republican Party continues to move further to the right(ie the extreme), they lose ground in the middle(ie independents/centrists/etc). If this trend continues, there could very well be a new party that would rest in the middle to middle right, and the GOP as we know it would dissolve. The people on the extremes are so far from the beliefs of the other party, that they are basically safe votes, and so parties must compete for those ideologically in the center. That's how it works in a system like ours.

Independent/centrists are largely a myth, you're talking about less than 10% of the voting public and an relatively inconsistent voters at that. The fight is typically over what's called the "center right" because they don't carry as much party allegiance.

Party perception is where your point picks up validity. Republicans lost handidly when they had an unpopular war, ethical scandals (Abramoff, Foley, etc), and failed to project much vision. Democrats seized the moment and made a strong case to those center right folks that the Republicans weren't fit to run the country. Democrats lost control by simply following through on their ideology by pushing new spending and a massive health care plan. Proving America is largely a center right country.

If you study the Democrat Party, you see they really lost a lot of control as their "blue dog" coalition died out or was forced to take tough votes. They controlled Congress for quite a long span and under the auspicies of letting the true center-to-center-right portion of their party rule (a lot of generational DINOs).

So will moving further down the pendelum cost votes and power? I would say, likely, but not for the same reason. It's a failure to win the policy debate before the political gyration. For instance, the Ryan Plan is probably a very realistic solution, but the groundwork just wasn't there yet to really move the pendulum. At least, that's my opinion.

If the center-right is the center of American politics, doesn't that make it the center?

Being part of the "religious right" doesn't mean that every decision you make is based upon religious beliefs, but it means that religion plays a large role in several key issues. And you say that sometimes these people will vote in a way that is not consistent with religious beliefs - but I'm not sure I see that. The only two candidates in the Republican primary that held opposing views on "value issues" were Huntsman and Paul, and Paul was only propelled to the results he achieved (which aren't that great anyway) because he is so different from other issues. Even if Mitt Romney isn't what I'd call super religious (not a member of the religious right), he wouldn't have been nominated if his beliefs didn't fall in line.

Just out of curiousity, would you label George W Bush as a member of the religious right? What about Romney? Palin?

You think that everyone falls on that line? Are you really that completely senseless? Where exactly does a libertarian socialist fit in?

You have no clue at all.

Independent/centrists are not a myth. Most Americans don't vote because they dislike both parties and see little difference between the two. And because they see no point in voting for a 3rd party alternative that has no chance of winning.

It is foolish to believe that most non-voters are still Republican or Democratic. That's simply not the case. That's no more true than assuming that all people are either Catholic or Protestant, even those who never go to church at all.

No more than I would label John Kerry a proponent of the NRA despite his attempt to pander to blue dog Dem primary voters. I think if you google "Romney, pro-choice, pro-life" you will come to the conclusion that he's pandering. Bush to a degree, yes. Palin, probably the most. However, I don't think things drastically changed under any of the three leading me to highlight the lack of the "pre-eminent power" argument.

One could certainly argue that point.

My point was the default vote is moderate Republican, but the brand of Republican isn't ideal hence recent gyrations. I do think the pendelum is moving further to the right within the Republican Party, particularly relative to the Rockefller/Eisenhower Republicans, but yet it seems to have the opposite effect. This leads me to believe the public (at least the voting public) has actually shifted some right.

One could also argue the Democrats have a branding problem for their issues and that's why the country isn't center-left. It's a point many of my more liberally-connected friends have argued. I disagree, but I can see their case.

Socialism and Libertarianism are two wildly contrasting views. Someone who claims to be both is very deeply confused and self-conflicted. Please re-read my first paragraph. Did I mention 'Republican' or 'Democrat'?? I said Liberal/Conservative. Don't mistake the two, especially considering the vast majority of American politics takes place on the more 'Liberal' side of things when compared to other countries.

But you inadvertently brought up a good point: People can often hold decidedly Liberal views in one area, and Conservative in another. Most typically this is some dichotomy between Social and Economic viewpoints. So yes, someone could be fiscally conservative and socially liberal. The important factor is how they vote.

Bonus homework for you if you want to continue this discussion: Look up Liberalism and Conservatism and get back to me. Thanks :)

I'll look up liberalism and conservatism after you look up Libertarian Socialism and admit that you were wrong to assume that the two are contradictory.

In that case, Libertarian Socialism clearly falls on the Liberal side of the things. Your turn.

Also, I will admit that I was being dumb and mistaking US Libertarianism with actual Libertarianism. I'm dumb for doing that.

Socialism, Libertarianism and Libertarian Socialism all fall pretty clearly on the Liberal end of the spectrum.

Alright, should I look them up on wikipedia, or do you have a better source for me to use? What is it that I need to learn about them?

I actually don't know that much about them, because I judge them by their actions, not their words, and if you judge by their actions, its really really hard to tell them apart. Like Obamacare versus Romneycare, for instance.

I'm actually not talking about political parties here, which is what you missed. I'm talking about peoples' beliefs. Within the US, the Democratic Party falls more on the Liberal side of things, and the Republican Party is more on the Conservative side. It's a bit simplistic, especially when you consider that the the US as a whole is decidedly more Liberal than many/most other countries in the world.

It can definitely help to expand the line to a 2-dimensional grid, with Social issues on one side, and Economic issues on another. But at the end of the day, it's how people vote that matter. You could be incredibly liberal when it comes to social issues, but if you vote based on economic issues, that's what matters. And in that case, my argument about where the parties lie and how there will never be a viable 3rd party still stand.

This is an on-the-money point. I can't emphasize enough how many times different pollsters from across the aisle will point out that people romanticize what they find important. It's usually easier to find when you're message testing or battle polling. Either way, it is a very very important distinction that often goes unnoticed by most.

I'm complaining about the Republican National Convention. We're supposed to be the party that supports the REPRESENTATIVE (Republican) form of government. (That's what our constitution setup, and that's what we pledge allegiance to, the Republic; not Democracy).

Several states (about 5 in all) had their delegates (which represent the districts and states that they come from) wrongfully removed. The most egregiousness being the state of Maine. Maine had 20 of 23 delegates removed. All 23 of these delegates were elected by the people of Maine, and those 20 were Ron Paul supporters. The candidate they support should have no bearing on the status of their seat. The state party chairman, didn't remove himself, and instead appointed those other 20 seats; 10 of which were Romney supporters.

Maine already got screwed over at the primary, when the party stopped counting the votes after 84% being reported. They got the result they wanted, and shut it down.

For the delegation, Maine had gone through the appropriate channels to contest the removal of their delegates; but the credentialing committee, and the committee on contests sided against the people of Maine, and with the party, again and again. The last option was to amend the report on the floor (all the delegates at the convention). But, rules were broken again (SURPRISE!) and the chairman sided with the "Ayes" (to keep the delegates they appointed) when it was clear that it was too close to call with the "Nays" (to seat the delegates that the people had voted for). Some that were there, claim that "the ayes have it" was on the teleprompter. The chairman of the convention, Boehner (also House majority leader), refused to listen to any points of order, or a roll call. A roll call is important to get the exact number of votes, when it's too close to call, and more importantly to make sure those that said "aye" or "nay" actually have the right to vote, and are not guests.

As you can see, this obviously is NOT a REPRESENTATIVE (Republican) form of governing.

This is not just about the Nominees. It's also about the Platform and about the Rules, which are also voted by the delegates at the convention. The latest Rules that they have adopted, is fundamentally changing the way the party works. Making it top-down, instead of bottom-up / grassroots / representation. But I guess if they've already screwed over the states, removing free thinking individuals, and appointed party towing robots, they can go ahead and shove Rules changes too.

Ahhh! Anyway, this is at a national level. I have work to do to clean up my state. Tuesday we had our primary. So I am now officially a Precinct Committeeman, with the right to vote in the party. I also got some people in my family in, which were in uncontested seats. So this will give me more voting power when it comes to the District, County and State leadership positions. There will be various events for these votes from November-January (after the general election). Things will get fun. We'll clean up our house, then clean up the country. I am not alone. Lots of other people in other states are waking up and doing the same thing.

Perhaps at the convention, but in the voting booth, the establishment has not been getting their way. See Rand Paul, Sharon Angle, Christine O'Donnell, Ted Yoho, Jim Bridenstein, Brad Wenstrup, etc.

It's happening in the elections too. I don't trust voting machines. There is obvious vote flipping going on. http://ralphlopez.hubpages.com/...aries-Mathematicians-Find

Voting machines need to have a paper trail, and to be able to audit the voting machines. It's too easy for the results to go into a box, and never be seen again. (I spent over 4 hours being an observer at my local poll this past Tuesday. I saw the equipment get taken down and the "memory card" and "printout" get sent off, and the paper, early mail-in, and provisional ballots get sealed.)

Here's a youtube video of this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B39W91O-rUg

The "ayes" vs "nays" is at 3:31, with a link to another video showing the teleprompter.

Umm whoever came up with that Clint Eastwood stunt should be fired

Wow, great video lymz... That's really shocking stuff, IMHO. Sad sad sad day for Republicans...

As a US citizen, I found that to be extremely embarrassing.
Whoever approved it should not be near the White House.

Sorry World.

Tellarion.

Read Moral Politics....

Lackoff proves rather strongly that Libertarianism is an offshoot of conservatism.

If Lackoff believes that, he is wrong. Libertarianism dates back to the 1800s in Europe.

He comes at it from the study of linguistics, and how we use metaphor to communicate in our languages.

Liberarianism, definately falls more on the "strict father" model of metpphor system that conservatives use, then the "compassionate mother" side of the metaphor system that liberals use.

I repeat. He's clueless.

A SAD DAY FOR THE REPUBLICAN PARTY PERHAPS, BUT A GREAT DAY FOR LIBERTY!

HUH? WHAT?

WITH EVERY RIDICULOUSLY EGREGIOUS ACT LIKE THIS WHICH OUR "REPRESENTATIVES" COMMIT, MORE PEOPLE WAKE UP. THE REPUBLICAN ESTABLISHMENT HAS LET YOU ALL KNOW, BY HAVING VOICE VOTE RESULTS PREDETERMINED AND ON A TELEPROMPTER, THAT THEY NO LONGER EVEN CARE WHETHER YOU KNOW AND CAN PROVE THAT THEY ARE CORRUPT, LYING D-BAGS.

REPUBLICANS RUN UP MASSIVE DEBT UNDER BUSH: PEOPLE START TO WAKE UP.

OBAMA PROMISES TO CUT THE DEFICIT IN HALF, THEN RUNS UP MORE DEBT IN THREE YEARS THAN BUSH DID IN EIGHT: MORE PEOPLE WAKE UP.

THE DEMOCRAT PARTY DECLARES THAT WE ARE NO LONGER CITIZENS, BUT SUBJECTS, BY TELLING US WHAT WE MUST SPEND OUR MONEY ON: MORE PEOPLE WAKE UP.

REPUBLICANS PROMISE TO DEFUND OBAMACARE IF WE GIVE THEM VICTORY IN 2010.. AND TO MASSIVELY CUT SPENDING IF WE WILL JUST GIVE THEM THE HOUSE, FROM WHERE ALL SPENDING ORIGINATES.. THEN THEY DO NOTHING OF ANY SIGNIFICANCE: MORE PEOPLE WAKE UP.

THE ONLY THING BOTH PARTIES CAN AGREE UPON - THE 2012 NDAA - GRANTS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT THE POWER TO ARREST, AND DETAIN INDEFINITELY WITHOUT TRIAL, AMERICAN CITIZENS WHO ARE MERELY SUSPECTED OF TIES TO TERRORIST GROUPS (AN INTENTIONALLY VAGUELY WORDED CLAUSE IN THE ACT): MORE PEOPLE WAKE UP!

THE SUPREME COURT RULES THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS UNLIMITED POWER TO RULE ITS SUBJECTS, AS LONG AS THEY CALL FINES A TAX: MORE PEOPLE WAKE UP.

YOUR SHARE OF THE NATIONAL DEBT NOW EXCEEEDS $50,000. YOUR CHILD'S SHARE EXCEEDS $50,000. YOUR GRANDCHILD'S SHARE EXCEEDS $50,000.

ARE YOU AWAKE YET?

HA!

SAM

I'm glad others are paying attention! No trial, no jury, no lawyer, just shipped off to a military prison (Gitmo style). That is the *POWER* they now wield. With the DHS definition that anyone who is suspicious of the central government, and loves their liberties, is deemed a terrorist. And the Republicans failed 4 times to add "removal of indefinite detention" into the party platform. Not that it seems to matter anymore; Boehner admitted no one reads the platform, and now they have the power to change it willy nilly (in case we try to hold them accountable to the platform).

I'm trying to bring this to the attention to the two state legislatures I'm closest to. I know our state passed a nullification against the NDAA for the citizens of the state of Arizona. We have Repub majority of our State House and State Senate, and our Repub Governor vetoed it (twice?). *sigh* -_- But with the grassroots bringing the attention to marines such as Staub, this is lifting the scales of their eyes, and HOPEFULLY they can see the WISDOM IN THE CONSTITUTION!

So define who the "terrorists" are. And why were the pirate laws of hundreds of years ago insufficient?

Oh and by the way, we're now buddy-buddy with Al Qaida again*, by supporting them in Syria's "opposition" .

* Again because we created them (Mujahedeen), and now reigned in their leader. We'll kill them again with drone strikes when they fall out of line, including American citizens.

Hopefully others will wake up and see the fallacy in these foreign policies, and why NON-INTERVENTION (not "isolationism") is the best choice for Americans.

terrorism and islam have been the new communism, but with how involved in the scaremongering the american media is I really don't see any hope for you guys in that regard

and it's across the board craziness, though with more sane people on the left than on the right in that regard. (I think Obama for instance is one of the sane ones, but has to pander a lot.)

That's the current form of American Libertarianism, ie the Libertarian Party. It tends to be economically libertarian(ie extremely limited government and laissez faire), but socially conservative. Hence why Ron Paul is part of the Republican Party.

And seconded on the terrorism = communism. It's red scare all over again....But honestly, having a common enemy is an incredibly powerful political tool. Just look at North Korea.

It's all about being a lefty, Barack Hussein Obama II gets WaWa's nod.

Sam, that may have been one of the best rants I have read on here in a while. I'm not sure I would assess it the same way at every bend, but generally speaking I am glad you are laser focused on our debt because it's a serious problem.

Hell,i'd vote for a picture of Ronald Regan over Obama.

There are plenty of things the President has done wrong, but I'm amazed how persistent the spending/debt claim is. Of course the debt is still rising, but the deficit is down about 35% from when Obama took office. This is well short of the 50% reduction promised in his campaign, but implying that the needle is still moving in the wrong direction is silly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/...ted_States_federal_budget
http://en.wikipedia.org/...ted_States_federal_budget

Where did you learn to do math? It is definitely not 35%. At best, it's a 6% drop.

If you go by the requested deficit, it went from 407 billion in 2009 to 901 billion in 2013. If you go by the enacted deficit, it went from 1413 billion in 2009 to 1327 billion in 2012 (source: the wikipedia links YOU posted. Learn to read, moron).

On the other hand, the deficit was 245 billion in 2006, 161 billion in 2007 and 455 billion in 2008 (actual numbers, not requests). These are budgets that Bush had total control over, rather than budgets that Obama was allowed to tamper with.

Normally there's not a big difference between the initially requested deficit (which was the 407 billion Bush requested), and the actual amount (or 1413 billion, which Obama is partly responsible for). The US brought in 600b less in tax revenue, but Obama also spent 400b more than Bush had proposed. And then he's maintained the deficit at levels far surpassing what Bush had done.

You're a flat out liar. Which you have to do to support your views, I suppose. Can't tell the truth and be an Obama supporter.

Yes, what a deceitful liar I am for using projected numbers for a fiscal year that hasn't even started yet!

But you raise a valid point. 2012 revenue was 94% requested, and expenditures 102% requested. Derating the 2013 numbers this same amount yields a reduction more like 20%. My points stand: it isn't the 50% promised, but it isn't increasing out of control as some would have you believe.

http://www.politifact.com/...splice-tags-obama-promise

(MORE FILTHY LIES THOUGH I'M SURE)

Did you see the numbers?

Deficit in 2006: 245b
Deficit in 2007: 161b
Deficit in 2008: 455b

Then
Deficit in 2009: 1413b
Deficits in 2010-2012: all over 1 trillion
Deficit in 2013: estimated for 901 billion, extremely high likelihood of being over 1 trillion again regardless of who wins.

It is increasing out of control.

1 trillion deficit is really fluffing big
1 trillion dollars is $1,000,000,000,000.00

If that doesn't scare you, you're a fluffing idiot. We're digging ourselves that much deeper into debt EVERY SINGLE YEAR. And you're not worried. You're a dumbass.

I'll respond to your clever insults with some questions -- where do I say that the overall debt or remaining deficit doesn't worry me? Does anything short of full-throated denouncement make me an 'Obama supporter'? Isn't it even remotely possible that both sides are guilty of hyperbole and numbers-twisting to make their respective points as I was trying to point out?

This is exactly why I try to stay out of political discussions. Most of the time, people would rather think of new and creative ways of insulting each other and/or declaring how much they dislike the other side, rather than having a rational discussion.

You think there's "the other side" and "both sides". You completely ignore the possibility of any opinions outside of the Liberal-Conservative duopoly. That's one of the many things that is wrong with you. You're voicing support for Obama's spending habits, and that is why I cannot have a rational discussion with you. You're an irrational person.

A rational person sees the 16 trillion debt we have, and sees how Republicans and Democrats have both contributed to it, and neither will ever do anything about it, and immediately concludes that a change is needed. An irrational person still has faith in the Republican or Democratic leadership to not bankrupt the country.

Until you become rational and realize that voting Republican or Democrat will only lead to bankruptcy, we cannot have a rational discussion.

Psst, I supported and contributed to the Roemer campaign. But I must still be an irrational idiot for daring to call out hyperbole, right? And since it was Republican-branded hyperbole, I surely must be the strongest type of Obama supporter there is!

You defended Obama's record on deficit spending. Only an irrational person would do that.

just because economic growth with the extra spending has been "weak" doesn't mean it can't be a huge improvement over not spending that much money...