As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options
The Libertarian National Convention
KevinNash
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
As most of you probably don't know, the Libertarian National convention takes place in Denver this weekend. Together, thousands of people who hate the government will all converge in a state where Tom Tancredo holds office to cast their ballots for the Nominee of their party.
There are currently 14 candidates vying for the Libertarian Presidential Nomination. Here are the current front-runners:
Mike Gravel
http://www.gravel2008.us/
Former Senator from Alaska. Former Democrat. Adamantly opposed to the occupation in Iraq. Advocates the abolition of the IRS and the Income Tax.
Wayne Allyn Root
http://www.rootforamerica.com/home/wherestands.php
A self made millionaire in the gaming industry. Positions himself as a fiscal conservative who will end the nanny state. Opposes long term Iraq occupation but also immediate withdrawal. Describes himself as "tolerant" on social issues.
Mary Ruwart
http://ruwart.com/Pages/Home/
Author. Peace Advocate. Activist. New Agers apparently like her a lot.
Bob Barr
http://www.bobbarr2008.com/
Former head of the Clinton Impeachment hearings. Former congressman from Georgia. Federalist on most social issues though personally conservative. Advocates withdrawal from Iraq and low taxes. Now works for the Marijuana Policy Project. Appeared in the Borat Movie. Mustache.
There are currently 14 candidates vying for the Libertarian Presidential Nomination. Here are the current front-runners:
Mike Gravel
http://www.gravel2008.us/
Former Senator from Alaska. Former Democrat. Adamantly opposed to the occupation in Iraq. Advocates the abolition of the IRS and the Income Tax.
Wayne Allyn Root
http://www.rootforamerica.com/home/wherestands.php
A self made millionaire in the gaming industry. Positions himself as a fiscal conservative who will end the nanny state. Opposes long term Iraq occupation but also immediate withdrawal. Describes himself as "tolerant" on social issues.
Mary Ruwart
http://ruwart.com/Pages/Home/
Author. Peace Advocate. Activist. New Agers apparently like her a lot.
Bob Barr
http://www.bobbarr2008.com/
Former head of the Clinton Impeachment hearings. Former congressman from Georgia. Federalist on most social issues though personally conservative. Advocates withdrawal from Iraq and low taxes. Now works for the Marijuana Policy Project. Appeared in the Borat Movie. Mustache.
KevinNash on
0
Posts
Bob Barr is the presumptive nominee here because the Paleo's are convincing the Hippies that he can garner the most general election votes both because he is most in line with Ron Paul's platform and because John McCain hates conservatives and vice versa.
Barr's primary weakness is that he's not Ron Paul. Ron Paul supporters don't necessarily like him and his voting record isn't exciting. He is guilty of voting for the Iraq War, the Patriot Act and has a history of voting on the fascist side of Drug War policy. He has since renounced all of this and flip-flopped. He now advocates GTFO on Iraq, legalizing most drugs and abolishing the Patriot Act. If he can convince the LP he means all this he can secure the nomination.
Wayne Allyn Root was a serious contender before Barr jumped into the race and now has the distinction of being the pseudo Paleo with no experience in government. Root's primary problem is he is perceived as hawkish by Libertarian standards because he doesn't want to get out of Iraq immediately and instead supports a phased withdrawal like the current crop of dems.
Old school Libertarians who are horrified by the infiltration of Lew Rockwell / Ron Paul types into the party are pushing Ruwart as their candidate. She's basically a front runner simply to prove a point.
Mike Gravel is pushing Mike Gravel. God bless this man.
Either way I'll probably be voting for one of these individuals come November.
What's the philosophical divide between Ron Paul and the old guard libertarians?
Those are the most hardline ones.
The more moderate ones just believe that the government is too big and needs to be pared down.
Unfortunately, the first targets for their paring knives are social services, because for some reason they believe that things like schools and homeless shelters would magically work better if they were laid down by the invisible hand of Adam Smith like so many Monopoly board pieces.
Also: lollibertarians.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Aside from the abortion issue some Libertarians (note the capital L) are not federalists and as a result don't think "let the states decide" is always appropriate.
That being said Paul is a admirer of Ruwart (he hasn't endorsed anyone in the LP) but the "disenfranchised conservatives" who currently support Paul probably wouldn't necessarily support the pro-choice Ruwart, even though philosophically she'd be closer than anyone else running in November.
I would guess it had more to do with Ron Paul being fairly social conservative on issues like gay rights, abortion, and the role of religion in government. That being said, if Paul would actually switch to this party, he probably could take this thing in a walk. And I really, really hoped he would have.
I think they passed some sort of motion within the party that basically says that if Ron Paul wants the nomination, he has it.
Honestly, I don't really want Barr to get the nomination. Looking at his policies, it feels like "I have libertarian views, except on this, and this, and this, and this, and this...".
To anyone generalizing that all Libertarians want to end all social programs and privatize roads, that's just some Libertarians. Like any party, there are a range of views represented. Just like not all Republicans want to nuke Iran, but some do. Not all Democrats want America to be a socialist country, but some do.
I'm a Social Libertarian myself, or what some would call a left-libertarian. I believe in smaller government and less regulation, but believe the government should have a role in providing quality health care and education, for example.
Assuming Paul doesn't come and ask for the nomination, I think Gravel and Root are both good candidates. My main concern with Gravel is age. After all, he is 78. If there were a younger candidate with Gravel's platform, he or she would be the candidate I'd pick.
Listen. You certainly have the right to disagree with Libertarian ideology, but don't be an ass about it. I probably disagree with your ideology, or at least large parts of it, but I'm not going to wish harm on you just for believing it.
This is a thread for discussing the Libertarian convention and party. If you don't like it, no one's forcing you to read this thread. Also, don't assume every Libertarian is the same. Every party has differences of opinion, and every party has extremists.
Anyway, back on topic. One thing I like about Root is his long term plan for electability. Part one is to get one or two million votes this time around. Then, spend the next four years spreading awareness and building legitimacy. In 2012, try for numbers nearing what Perot got. Continue building up the party in the nation's view, do better in 2016, and continuing the trend, have a legitimate shot in 2020.
It's a lot more realistic than trying to claim he's going to win this year. Assuming he's not expecting to be the nominee every time, it's certainly a decent plan.
He stands the best chance of sapping votes from McCain.
Barr can die in a fire for all I care, but you're pretty much right.
I hate being from Georgia. The man makes me even more ashamed of this district, and Linder's not doing any better by us.
He does have that going for him, as much as I personally don't like him.
Honestly, that's a goal Libertarians, Democrats, and real Republicans can all agree on. John McCain represents everything wrong with the current Republican party. It wasn't that far back that the Republicans represented things like fiscal responsability, reduced spending, smaller government, and humble foreign policy. Hopefully losing this election will knock the wind out the neo-con sails, and let some real Republicans take back the party. Then maybe a few years from now we'll be able to have three legitimate options on the ballot.
30+ years is pretty far back.
And how would electing someone with the support of 35% of the country be a step forward?
Well it's certainly farther back that many care to admit, but more recently than that there was still a much larger segment of the party supporting those views than there are now.
There will always be people who didn't vote for the winner. In Canada for example, there are more than two major parties. There are the Liberals, the Conservatives, and the NDP nationwide. Then there are the Bloc who have significant support in Quebec. It was even more splintered back in the 90s with the Progressive Conservatives and the Reform Party. Yet it still worked.
In our last election, the winning party got about 36% of the vote, yet the country hasn't desolved into chaos.
Short answer; Representing more ideologies is never a bad thing.
Also, I like Elendil's answer.
That's what's got Alberta talking about secession.
Didn't this happen in 2004 with the Green party?
Some Libertarians meet that criteria. There are many Social Libertarians like me out there who think the government should have a role in health care and education.
Yeah, I know. I would consider myself a social libertarian for the most part. Unfortunately, it seems like it isn't represented very well at all.
When was this? I'd be fascinated to hear some specific names and examples of who you've got in mind when you say things like this, because it seems like you're just repeating the self-deluding mantra Republicans have been chanting lately as they desperately try to persuade themselves that the GWB administration has been some sort of freakish abomination rather than the culmination of decades of GOP policy.
Wasn't Gore Vidal basically this? It's been a while, so I could be mis-remembering.
e: Nope. Shit. He's democrat. Nevermind.
Well dude, I dunno. Eisenhower?
Your ilk is not very representative, it seems. The core libertarians seem to be of the Ayn Rand "they terk er jerbs" variety except "jerbs" are money and "they" is poor people.
Gore Vidal is a Democrat.
Not really. The seperatist party in Alberta got something like 500 votes overall in the last election. It's not a serious movement.
The main tensions in Quebec and in the West were caused by parties that got more than 50% of the vote many times, regardless of having more than one opposing party. Hell, the Mulroney government got a massive majority in the 80s, and he's considered one of the worst Prime Ministers in recent history. The West actually used the system to their advantage.
Listen, I don't go posting everything that I don't like about the Democratic party in the Democratic Primary thread, and I have no lack of disagreements with their ideology. I recognize that it's not the place for that though. Just like a thread for discussing the Libertarian convention isn't the place for someone who feels that way about the party to voice such.
is different enough from a liberal to warrant its own name.
There is more emphasis placed on personal freedom.
Well in my opinion, the last good Republican president, disregarding what happened at the end of his presidency, was Nixon. Reagan is largely to blame for what's wrong with the current GOP. Bush Sr. made it worse, and Bush Jr. is a fucking idiot with his strings being pulled by neo-con Cheney.
So admittedly, the leadership of the party hasn't been good for a while.
What specifically does that translate to?
"My rights end where your nose begins."
Nixon fought an illegal war and spied on private citizens. Which of those makes him at all appealing to a self-described libertarian? He was the autocrat writ large.
See, I'm saying Eisenhower. I didn't like Nixon. I'm almost convinced that he would have tried to stay on as the first American Emperor (for the good of the nation, of course) had he not been impeached.
Plus, there are fewer social programs supported. Health care and education are exceptions because they're of such critical importance to society. A Liberal and a Social Libertarian would disagree on things like social security, foreign aid, taxation, etc.
Still not really getting a difference.
Yeah, that doesn't really answer my question.
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1808384,00.html
Mary J. Ruwart does not come of well in it though. Her stance on Child pornography should be the death knell for any candidate: "Children who willingly participate in sexual acts have the right to make that decision as well, even if it's distasteful to us personally,"
and:
"When we outlaw child pornography, the prices paid for child performers rise, increasing the incentives for parents to use children against their will."
If she is the nomine, then stick a fork in the libertarian party they are done. (I am not suggesting that any of the libertarians on this board support her view).