Should gun owners abandon the Republican Party?

[marshaul]

imported post

Honesty, more than half the time AWDstylez isn't actually trolling, but his fans are so busy telling him what a troll he is that the discussion loses its focus. There was no trolling occurring here, yet apparently it was better to derail the thread to bitch about trolling (another word for "contentious discussion" nowadays).

 

[redlegagent]

imported post

Too many tunnel vision people out there. Politics is a practical business. You can not please everyone allof the time so you seek common ground. The more polarized you become, the more you cut yourself out of society. You want to cut and run from the republican party - okay, who you going to vote for?? The Libertarian party last election won 0.05% of the popular vote and exactly zeroelectoral votes. Assuming a ground swell of dissent like under Ross Perot, you may be able to increase that to say 15% of popular vote. No matter how much you hate the Democrats, they had enough sense to appeal to the masses and now they control the whole shebang and people who stayed home or voted for someone else - you voted for Obama by default - yeah I said it - because it's true. It would take years and tons of money to create a viable third party to compete against the republicans and democrats who have had 100+ years to solidify their positions in the eyes of the people. You don't like the repubilcans and feel sold out - then organize and try to appeal to others and then organize some more. Delegates vote on the platform, appeal to the people and you will change the platform for which they vote. Just keep this in mind, if a man has something you want - be prepared to do business with him. Stand back and apart from the rest of society and you will accomplish nothing more than looking like the child bitching about others in the sandbox so he's not gong to play.

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

redlegagent wrote:

You don't like the repubilcans and feel sold out - then organize and try to appeal to others and then organize some more.

Do you realize that the major parties are never going to change, for the exact same reason that you think a third party will never be viable? The fault is with the PEOPLE.

 

[R a Z o R]

imported post

Dianne Feinstein's 1994 AWB , Nancy Pelosi's age related memory loses , The Obamas blaming America

VS

http://freshleadership.blogspot.com/2009/05/romney-when-it-comes-to-protecting.html

 

[swillden]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

redlegagent wrote:

You don't like the repubilcans and feel sold out - then organize and try to appeal to others and then organize some more.

Do you realize that the major parties are never going to change, for the exact same reason that you think a third party will never be viable? The fault is with the PEOPLE.

Third parties will never be viable because it's a mathematical near-impossibility in a plurality voting system.

The major parties have changed hugely over the last 100+ years, and they can change some more. Now, you may well be right that our fellow Americans don't want them to change, and if that's true then they won't. But that's a completely separate issue from why a third party will never be viable.

 

[Washintonian_For_Liberty]

imported post

Changing the Republican party back to Republicanism will not happen at the Presidential level. Not yet!

In order to change the Republican Party, we must begin at the local level. Flood the Party with like minded Liberty loving individuals and vote for State and Federal legislators who are strict Constitutionalists. They run every two years, so if they lie and are not strict Constitutionalists... get them out of there by voting for someone else.

Most Republicans I know would very likely vote for a legislator who articulated Republicanism as enumerated in the Constitution. Most would vote for a legislator who stood for the values of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, and leaving people to mostly govern themselves.

Republicans are not like Democrats as many Republicans could be persuaded to separate their religious values from government if they were assured government would stop legislating moral values, while for most Democrats, government is their religion and the social engineering they have enjoyed by controlling government is something they'll never give up. I've noticed that most Republicans I've spoken too would not be pushing for morality based laws if the other side wasn't doing the same... but the Democrats I know (mostly everyone who lives around me including my family) think that laws like Affirmative Action, Hate Crimes Laws, Sexual Harassment Laws, Equality Laws (like equal pay for equal work), Laws against discrimination (like telling private establishments who they must serve), and the fight to remove all symbols of Religion from Cemeteries and War Memorials are Religious in nature to them and they will not give them up. The Democrats I know don't really like freedom because freedom means that a person can discriminate. Freedom means that a Restaurant owner can have a sign banning blacks, or homosexuals, or Asians, or Whites. Freedom means that a business owner can chose who to do business with. The only entity which ever should have been barred from discrimination is our government. Government should have to treat everyone equal. But private individuals must be allowed to discriminate and to be free. Social engineering isn't up to the government... but when Democrats constantly push social engineering on the rest of us... religious Republicans push back fearing their values will be legislated out of existence.

So, if we can get legislators who will fight against these social engineering laws... we will get most Republicans on our side. If not, they'll vote for those they believe will counter the irreligious social engineers on the Liberal Democrat side. One side pushes, and the other side pushes back... this is where all the restrictions on Freedom have come from.

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

swillden wrote:

AWDstylez wrote:

redlegagent wrote:

You don't like the repubilcans and feel sold out - then organize and try to appeal to others and then organize some more.

Do you realize that the major parties are never going to change, for the exact same reason that you think a third party will never be viable? The fault is with the PEOPLE.

Third parties will never be viable because it's a mathematical near-impossibility in a plurality voting system.

The major parties have changed hugely over the last 100+ years, and they can change some more. Now, you may well be right that our fellow Americans don't want them to change, and if that's true then they won't. But that's a completely separate issue from why a third party will never be viable.

No, that's the exact same issue. The masses of American sheeple enjoy the status quo. They will put forth ZERO effort to change it, whether that effort be voting third party or changing the corrupt two parties.

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:

Republicans are not like Democrats as many Republicans could be persuaded to separate their religious values from government if they were assured government would stop legislating moral values, while for most Democrats, government is their religion and the social engineering they have enjoyed by controlling government is something they'll never give up. I've noticed that most Republicans I've spoken too would not be pushing for morality based laws if the other side wasn't doing the same... but the Democrats I know (mostly everyone who lives around me including my family) think that laws like Affirmative Action, Hate Crimes Laws, Sexual Harassment Laws, Equality Laws (like equal pay for equal work), Laws against discrimination (like telling private establishments who they must serve), and the fight to remove all symbols of Religion from Cemeteries and War Memorials are Religious in nature to them and they will not give them up. The Democrats I know don't really like freedom because freedom means that a person can discriminate. Freedom means that a Restaurant owner can have a sign banning blacks, or homosexuals, or Asians, or Whites. Freedom means that a business owner can chose who to do business with. The only entity which ever should have been barred from discrimination is our government. Government should have to treat everyone equal. But private individuals must be allowed to discriminate and to be free. Social engineering isn't up to the government... but when Democrats constantly push social engineering on the rest of us... religious Republicans push back fearing their values will be legislated out of existence.

I lol'd. You're so off the wall that you don't realize you're part of the problem.

Freedom involves not infringing on the freedoms of others. Bigot store owners are infringing on the freedom of whoever they're discriminating against. That type of behavior has absolutely no place in a civil society. You've interpreted "freedom" to mean "free to do anything you want."

You're a true, close-mindedconservative that would have us living in the stone age if you got your way. The sad thing is, you'll take that as a compliment.

You don't realize it, because you're too blind to see it, but for the last eight years the Democrats have been the more freedom (for all)promoting party.

 

[Washintonian_For_Liberty]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

I lol'd. You're so off the wall that you don't realize you're part of the problem.

Again, there is no need for ad hominem... please refrain from it in future statements.

AWDstylez wrote:

Freedom involves not infringing on the freedoms of others.

Exactly. Freedom involves not infringing on the freedoms of others. This is a very important point and one that I think was made very clearly in my post.

AWDstylez wrote:

Bigot store owners are infringing on the freedom of whoever they're discriminating against. That type of behavior has absolutely no place in a civil society. You've interpreted "freedom" to mean "free to do anything you want."

Um what? I thought you said that freedom involved NOT infringing on the freedom of others. How is barring people from entering my PRIVATELY OWNED ESTABLISHMENT infringing on anyone's freedom? For clarity's sake, forcinga bigoted store ownerto serve anyone is infringing onhis or herfreedom and taking awayhis or herright tohis or herproperty. So only those who agree with you get rights?

It has been said that the right to free speech was not meant to protect speech we agree with, but rather, it was meant to protect speech we disagree with. In that same light, what a person does with their private property is their business as long as what they do in or on their property does not come onto another person's property infringing on their rights... example: a man has a factory on his property, his neighbors sue him for infringing on their rights because he polluted the water table or his factory is constantly billowing smoke onto their property... in these cases, it is his neighbors who have the right to get the government to stop him because he is infringing on their civil rights. On the other hand, a bar owner has an establishment that he only wants to serve hot blonde womenunder the age of 30.He bars everyone else no matter what. How many bars are in your town? There are four or five in my little town here in Washington State.... so we have a choice. If a bar owner discriminates... (his choice on his property) then we can chose to boycott his business. If enough people... including hot blondes find his discrimination unpalatable, and stop patronizing his establishment... he goes out of business. Problem solved. I cannot take away your civil rights by banning you from my store... but you can take away mine by forcing me to let anyone into my store against my wishes.

AWDstylez wrote:

That type of behavior has absolutely no place in a civil society. You've interpreted "freedom" to mean "free to do anything you want."

First sentence is opinion, not fact. The second is an obvious Straw Man since I did no such thing. I interpret freedom as Walter E Williams wrote; 'The way our Constitution's framers used the term, a right is something that exists simultaneously among people and imposes no obligation on another. For example, the right to free speech, or freedom to travel, is something we all simultaneously possess. My right to free speech or freedom to travel imposes no obligation upon another except that of non-interference.' So my right to use my property in the way of my choosing is my right. You are not obligated to come into my establishment.

AWDstylez wrote:

You're a true, close-mindedconservative that would have us living in the stone age if you got your way. The sad thing is, you'll take that as a compliment.

Again, what is with the ad hominem attacks? You do know that ad hominem is a logical fallacy and that in using them, you invalidate your argument? If you would just refrain from personal attacks, we could much more easily have a civil discussion.

AWDstylez wrote:

You don't realize it, because you're too blind to see it, but for the last eight years the Democrats have been the more freedom (for all)promoting party.

Again, stop with the ad hominem. Democrats don't ever promote freedom. They promote a radical form of egalitarianism in which they use the government to force equality through coercion and threat of force. Democrats discriminate constantly, but they are worse than the individual restaurant owner who discriminates because unlike him, their discrimination obligates everyone to comply or else... they use the force of government to implement their discrimination and that makes them far worse than the bigoted business owner who won't serve a certain group... he has no power to force anyone to do anything... he just controls his property... Democrats use government for social engineering and this is why what they do is so bad. Granted, Democrats are not alone in these types of social governmental controls, but my assertion is that Republicans would be far more willing to give up the social controlling government that would the radical egalitarian Democrats.

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:

AWDstylez wrote:

Bigot store owners are infringing on the freedom of whoever they're discriminating against. That type of behavior has absolutely no place in a civil society. You've interpreted "freedom" to mean "free to do anything you want."

Um what? I thought you said that freedom involved NOT infringing on the freedom of others. How is barring people from entering my PRIVATELY OWNED ESTABLISHMENT infringing on anyone's freedom? For clarity's sake, forcinga bigoted store ownerto serve anyone is infringing onhis or herfreedom and taking awayhis or herright tohis or herproperty. So only those who agree with you get rights?

It has been said that the right to free speech was not meant to protect speech we agree with, but rather, it was meant to protect speech we disagree with. In that same light, what a person does with their private property is their business as long as what they do in or on their property does not come onto another person's property infringing on their rights... example: a man has a factory on his property, his neighbors sue him for infringing on their rights because he polluted the water table or his factory is constantly billowing smoke onto their property... in these cases, it is his neighbors who have the right to get the government to stop him because he is infringing on their civil rights. On the other hand, a bar owner has an establishment that he only wants to serve hot blonde womenunder the age of 30.He bars everyone else no matter what. How many bars are in your town? There are four or five in my little town here in Washington State.... so we have a choice. If a bar owner discriminates... (his choice on his property) then we can chose to boycott his business. If enough people... including hot blondes find his discrimination unpalatable, and stop patronizing his establishment... he goes out of business. Problem solved. I cannot take away your civil rights by banning you from my store... but you can take away mine by forcing me to let anyone into my store against my wishes.

Your world is a small one, that's why you can't see the issues here. Let's hit the zoom out button a few... thousand... times.

Your ideas sound all well and good, because we're talking about one store, one owner. Let's expand a little.

What if EVERY store and EVERY owner decided to be a bigot (see: Kant - catagorical imperative)? That effectively turns off societal functioning for all minorities (be they ethinic, sexual, sexuality, social class, etc minorities). That infringes ontheir freedom to the uttermost. It would effectively remove them from society.

Requiring someone to NOT be a bigot, is no more infringing on their freedom than requiringthem to NOT murder and NOT steal. ALL of those acts infringe on the freedom of others MORE (because the world is not black and white, this is an issue of degrees)than restricting them infringes on the rights of the restrictee.



When you cherry pick the context in which to use you logic, of course it's going to work. It's when you universalize that logic that it's tested and fails.



Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:

Again, stop with the ad hominem. Democrats don't ever promote freedom.

Prove it.

Prove it.

Prove it.

Prove it.

and...

Prove it.



You make LOTS of absolute statements and youoffer NOTHING to back them up but more absolute statements, all based on nothing other than your own opinion.

Prove it.

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:

my assertion is that Republicans would be far more willing to give up the social controlling government that would the radical egalitarian Democrats.

Prove it.

Based on what?

Prove it.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:

Again, stop with the ad hominem. Democrats don't ever promote freedom. They promote a radical form of egalitarianism in which they use the government to force equality through coercion and threat of force. Democrats discriminate constantly, but they are worse than the individual restaurant owner who discriminates because unlike him, their discrimination obligates everyone to comply or else... they use the force of government to implement their discrimination and that makes them far worse than the bigoted business owner who won't serve a certain group... he has no power to force anyone to do anything... he just controls his property... Democrats use government for social engineering and this is why what they do is so bad. Granted, Democrats are not alone in these types of social governmental controls, but my assertion is that Republicans would be far more willing to give up the social controlling government that would the radical egalitarian Democrats.

What a bunch of BS. "It's all the democrats' fault! They always oppose freedom! Republicans always support it! zomg Radical Egalitarians!!!11"

There are free market, civil libertarian democrats. These people are not "egalitarians".

The Republican Party under Bush was responsible for huge assaults on our civil rights. Many (although not enough) Democrats opposed this, and it has nothing to do with "egalitarianism".

There is simply no significant difference between the two parties. They both only pursue their own limited, twisted version of "liberty".

I'm getting the impression that the idea of religious types in government imposing their morality on others really doesn't bother you, because deep down you believe they really want to give you freedom, if only Jesus would remind them to. :quirky

Your arbitrary partisanship is exemplary of all that is wrong with mainstream American politics.

 

[Washintonian_For_Liberty]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

Your world is a small one, that's why you can't see the issues here. Let's hit the zoom out button a few... thousand... times.

You just cannot make an argument without an ad hominem attack in it can you? I understand you likely didn't get an opportunity to be a part of a debate team, and if you did, you forgot the rules of decorum. Personal attacks of any sort make your whole argument invalid. Belittling your opponent via personal jabs reduces your argument to an insignificant tirade. Any more personal attacks and I will not debate you any further, and should they continue despite my lack of participation in the debate with you, I will ask the moderators to ban you.

AWDstylez wrote:

Your ideas sound all well and good, because we're talking about one store, one owner.

One store owner... a thousand store owners... personal freedom and choice does not know a limit in terms of who gets it or not.

AWDstylez wrote:

Let's expand a little.

What if EVERY store and EVERY owner decided to be a bigot (see: Kant - catagorical imperative)? That effectively turns off societal functioning for all minorities (be they ethinic, sexual, sexuality, social class, etc minorities). That infringes ontheir freedom to the uttermost. It would effectively remove them from society.

Semantics dictates me to observe you've not expanded a little, but a lot. What if's are hypotheticals that are unsophisticated methods of making a point out of nothing. It is an improbable scenario you offer up as your premise and so does not give us any real value or use. Even in the deep south in the 1950s, there were establishments that served Whites and Blacks. While there were many private businesses that refused to serve Blacks, it still was not EVERY store and EVERY owner. And again, what I do with my property in no way infringes on your freedom as defined by a right simultaneously held by both of us requires no obligation from either of us to the other. So, barring someone or a class of people from my store in no way imposes an obligation upon them that would not be there if no store such as mine was available. However, imposing rules that take away my rights to my property infringes on my freedom and my rights.

AWDstylez wrote:

Requiring someone to NOT be a bigot, is no more infringing on their freedom than requiring them to NOT murder and NOT steal. ALL of those acts infringe on the freedom of others MORE (because the world is not black and white, this is an issue of degrees) than restricting them infringes on the rights of the restrictee.

[/quote]
Your premises are replete with logical fallacies. Comparing someone being a bigot to someone committing murder is a Red Herring as committing a murder is not even in the same ballpark as discriminating against someone. The reasoning is also based in a relativist fallacy. Try and argue a point that does not resort to fallacy.

AWDstylez wrote:

When you cherry pick the context in which to use you logic, of course it's going to work. It's when you universalize that logic that it's tested and fails.

There is no cherry picking... in the macro or microcosm, the truth is the truth. Liberty and freedom within the confines of one's own property is that person's choice. Just because you don't like that person's choice does not give you the right to take away that person's liberty.

Nazis have freedom of speech and freedom to assemble in a public location and spout their hateful rhetoric. Do you think we should ban that? Doesn't that infringe on a person's right to not live in a hostile and hateful environment?

We protect Liberty for everyone... not just those we agree with. If you don't agree with that assertion, so be it, but it has been said again and again that Free Speech was not put in the Constitution to protect speech we agree with... but rather, it was put in the Constitution to protect speech that might seem to us to be abhorrent.

AWDstylez wrote:

Prove it.

I stated an assertion that Democrats never promote freedom. It is based in every single law they support that takes freedom away. They do lie constantly and say that they support freedom... but then they vote for laws that strip freedom. They do it in the name of equality, or fairness, or keeping our kids safe etc. But they do it. Republicans have also fallen into the populist trap of pandering to people on moral or religious grounds to legislate away our freedom. It's not something that either party can say that they have not done... however, it is my assertion that Republicans could more easily be convinced to get rid of all morality based laws if it meant that allthe liberal social engineering would also be junked.

AWDstylez wrote:

You make LOTS of absolute statements and youoffer NOTHING to back them up but more absolute statements, all based on nothing other than your own opinion.

Prove it.

There are two schools of thought on absolutes. One view says that there are no absolutes that define reality. Those who hold this view believe everything is relative to something else (moral relativists), and thus everything is relative and neither wrong nor right. Because of that, there are ultimately no moral absolutes, no authority for deciding if an action is positive or negative, right or wrong. This view leads to “situational ethics,” or the belief that what is right or wrong is relative to the situation. Of course, situational ethics leads to a subjective, “whatever you believe is right is right for you” mentality and lifestyle, which has a devastating effect on society and individuals.The moral relativists are bent oncreating a society that regards all values, beliefs, lifestyles, and truth claims as equally valid.

The other view holds that there are indeed absolute realities and standards that define what is true and what is not. Therefore, actions can be determined to be either right or wrong by how they measure up to those absolute standards. For example, to take the life of someone for no other reason than you wanted to is to commit murder. This is an absolute standard that we measure the act of murder by. If there are no absolutes and nothing is real, chaos ensues. Take certain scientific laws we know to be true, if we question the absolute nature of these laws, we die. For example, if either the absolutelaw of momentum or the absolute law of gravity are ignored by the parachutist, he most likely dies on impact with the ground. The scientist or beer maker or steam engine operator who ignores Boyle's Law will likely die in a boiler explosion. Laws of science and physics would be irrelevant if there were no absolutes. There are also absolutes in numbers and mathematics such as 2 plus 2 equals four and without these absolutes, commerce would be impossible. There are absolutes and absolute truths, and theycan be found and explained and understood.

To make the statement that there is no absolute truth is illogical. Yet, today, many people are embracing a cultural relativism that denies any type of absolute truth. A good question to ask people who say, “There is no absolute truth” is this: “Are you absolutely sure of that?” If they say “yes,” they have made an absolute statement—which itself implies the existence of absolutes. They are saying that the very fact there is no absolute truth is the one and only absolute truth. However, if this was true, then Death would not be absolute, and anyone who tells you that probably is relying on faith as their proof.

 

[redlegagent]

imported post

Blacks, bigotry, etc. I thought we were talking about the republicans Do any of you libertarians out there think it's funny that Glenn Beck (and others) rail against GE on his show and they buy air time for their commercials during his slot. OOPS! :celebrate

 

[Alexcabbie]

imported post

What is perhaps most revealing is that the certain pain-in-the-butt trolls here NEVER appeaar in the technical threads and discuss purely mechanical issues such as recoil, "knckdown power" reliability, cleaning of firearms (important!) holsters, etc. Oh maybe one of them might come asking what caliber he should carry in Bambiville Connecticut to avoid being nuzzle-mauled by a bunnykins. Yeah, they know what a sear is, it connects to the roebuck. :banghead:

Now this is not my private domain and the founders of this Organization and Site have thus far seen fit to allow these persons who are OBVIOUSLY ENEMIES OF RTKBA and who insult all of us into the bargain to remain. Now I have DEMANDED of the worst of these that he stop hiding behind the net and be MAN enough to show his face, and I have made a point of showing mine. I do not fear my own opinions and I do not fear any man. Show your faces, trolls, or be dismissed as irrelevant to the discussion.

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:

Semantics dictates me to observe you've not expanded a little, but a lot. What if's are hypotheticals that are unsophisticated methods of making a point out of nothing. It is an improbable scenario you offer up as your premise and so does not give us any real value or use.

Tell that to him...

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/

5. The Formula of the Universal Law of Nature
Kant's first formulation of the CI states that you are to “act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law.” (G 4:421) O'Neill (1975, 1989) and Rawls (1989, 1999), among others, take this formulation in effect to summarize a decision procedure for moral reasoning, and I will follow them: First, formulate a maxim that enshrines your reason for acting as you propose. Second, recast that maxim as a universal law of nature governing all rational agents, and so as holding that all must, by natural law, act as you yourself propose to act in these circumstances. Third, consider whether your maxim is even conceivable in a world governed by this law of nature. If it is, then, fourth, ask yourself whether you would, or could, rationally will to act on your maxim in such a world. If you could, then your action is morally permissible.

I bet the Philosphy department at Stanford has terrible grammar too. :lol::quirky


As for the rest of your post... I got a good laugh, but it's just not worth the time. There's just so much wrong with it. You didn't even correctly understand the points I was making. You addressed individual statements without regard for those preceeding and following which supported and explained.

 

[Tess]

imported post

Much more important than debating whether a third party could (or would) do anything differently should be a push to abandon both the Democrat and the Republican parties.

Get American away from "us" vs "them" -- don't vote party, vote issues.

To keep a consistent message on that, rather than on ad hominem attacks and "Dems are evil" and "Republicans are confused", would go a long way toward getting people back to what is important.

We would do extremely well if we could get both parties away from defining themselves by one or two issues.

Would Obama have won if people didn't frame the issue as "Bush = Republican, Bush is bad, therefore Democrats are good"? If people had voted on issues, balancing them appropriately, we might have seen the same end game, but the scoreboard would look significantly different.

 

[swillden]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

swillden wrote:

Third parties will never be viable because it's a mathematical near-impossibility in a plurality voting system.

The major parties have changed hugely over the last 100+ years, and they can change some more. Now, you may well be right that our fellow Americans don't want them to change, and if that's true then they won't. But that's a completely separate issue from why a third party will never be viable.

No, that's the exact same issue. The masses of American sheeple enjoy the status quo. They will put forth ZERO effort to change it, whether that effort be voting third party or changing the corrupt two parties.

You missed the point completely, so I'll try to explain it in simpler terms.

There are two completely separate issues:

1. No third party will ever be viable in our system due to the mathematics of plurality-rules election systems. This is completely independent of the motivation of the masses.

2. The people like the dems and reps the way they are and won't change it.

Even if 2 were not true, 1 would still be true. If 2 were not true, though, 1 wouldn't matter so much because the parties would change.

I do think, though, that if we were to change to a better election system (range, ranked pairs or even approval), that third parties would obtain enough power in spite of point 2 that they'd have more influence on the debate, and perhaps be able to change point 2.

And that, of course, is why the major parties have ZERO interest in changing voting systems. They like having a stranglehold on high office, and they like controlling and framing the debate.

 

[swillden]

imported post

Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:

In order to change the Republican Party, we must begin at the local level. Flood the Party with like minded Liberty loving individuals and vote for State and Federal legislators who are strict Constitutionalists. They run every two years, so if they lie and are not strict Constitutionalists... get them out of there by voting for someone else.

+1 million

This is exactly right, and this is exactly what we need to do if we want to effect change.

I see this as a failure of the constitutionalists and libertarians which is akin to the decades-long failure of the gun lobby to understand incrementalism.

The anti-gunners understood long, long ago that you can make significant progress in your agenda if you're willing to take it one nibble at a time, never getting very much of what you want at any one time, but allowing the decades to work in your favor. It wasn't until fairly recently that the pro-gunners realized this and started nibbling back, beating the anti-gunners at their own game.

Similarly, the liberal and neo-con forces in this country are small, but they figured out that the way to take power is to build it from the ground up (especially the liberals). Not to shoot for high office and big change immediately, but to work slowly up the chain. Libertarians and constitutionalists have focused on high rhetoric and running losing candidates for high offices -- they always have a presidential candidate on the ballot, but rarely anyone for mayor, or state house of representatives, etc.

What we need to do is to get involved in the local party caucuses and start shifting the major party agendas from the bottom up. Flood them with liberty-minded individuals volunteering their time and speaking their mind. Start pushing for liberty-minded evaluation of the performance of local politicians and move gradually up the chain.

It's slow, and tedious, but over the course of a decade or two it will *work*.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

Tess wrote:

Much more important than debating whether a third party could (or would) do anything differently should be a push to abandon both the Democrat and the Republican parties.

Get American away from "us" vs "them" -- don't vote party, vote issues. 

To keep a consistent message on that, rather than on ad hominem attacks and "Dems are evil" and "Republicans are confused", would go a long way toward getting people back to what is important.

We would do extremely well if we could get both parties away from defining themselves by one or two issues.

Would Obama have won if people didn't frame the issue as "Bush = Republican, Bush is bad, therefore Democrats are good"?  If people had voted on issues, balancing them appropriately, we might have seen the same end game, but the scoreboard would look significantly different.

Precisely right.