What party are you for? (US)

[allan2]

"You already do. If you follow primaries, especially Republican primaries, the libertarian wing is a very important part to get a vote from."

I don't see them having any real input in this party however. The Repubs are still the "crony party", and the Religious Right effectively negates any of the personal-freedom libertarianism brought to the table by the libertarians.

There's a difference between compromise, and going absolutely nowhere. I say, these libertarian republicans either need to gain SOME headway by going this route (and they are not, at the moment), or find another vehicle by which they can gain more ground. Leaving EN MASSE and joining the Libertarian Party may actually do more than what they are doing now--a Libertarian Party with 10-20% of the vote will get noticed (and may very well gain momentum), whereas libertarians in the Republican Party seem to be getting drowned out between the Religious Right and the Old Boy network.... These two forces practically cancel them out.

"Of course, if their issues ever get truly popular the parties will latch on to them."

It doesn't seem so, all the time. In just about every online poll I've seen, majorities favor the legalization of marijuana. Now you may say that the online demographic represents mostly people under 50 years old, so maybe we can safely say that 40% or so of the whole population favor legalization of pot.

But voters in California VOTED it legal for medical purposes, and what did the Feds (led by Clinton at the time) do? They OVERRODE the majority vote, asserting Federal authority even against the clear will of the people.

And meanwhile, do you hear of ANY major party candidate proposing legalization, even though the idea is PRACTICALLY "mainstream"? You don't.

So what's going on there?

And that is just one example. The establishment serves ITSELF--if it CAN ignore the people (and the people often being as apathetic as they are, they make it easy), it will.

Time for the people to SPEAK. The two big parties aren't always speaking for them.

 

[Greadius]

Originally posted by CornMaster
Who acts based on the status quo, and doesn't think of alternate possiblities.

Translation: Anyone who is mainstream and not extreme is a peon. :finger:

Originally posted by CornMaster
It's not that they don't agree with my system....it's that they agree with the current one. They ***** and complain about this system....but when new ones are proposed they defend the current one.

I don't like getting punched in the arm. If you propose the alternative of punching me in the face, I'm going to say its a stupid idea, I'd rather get punched in the arm.
Same thing?

Originally posted by allan2
I don't see them having any real input in this party however. The Repubs are still the "crony party", and the Religious Right effectively negates any of the personal-freedom libertarianism brought to the table by the libertarians.

And because the personal-freedom people are scattered amongst independants and Democrats (like myself )
However, the Religious Right is a new movement within the Republican party, they're not permenant, and not intimidatingly numerous, so they're not impossible to overcome.

Originally posted by allan2
There's a difference between compromise, and going absolutely nowhere. I say, these libertarian republicans either need to gain SOME headway by going this route (and they are not, at the moment), or find another vehicle by which they can gain more ground. Leaving EN MASSE and joining the Libertarian Party may actually do more than what they are doing now--a Libertarian Party with 10-20% of the vote will get noticed (and may very well gain momentum)

Get noticed, and then what? If they leave the party en masse, they will have NO say in the elected government. 10-20% won't win them any seats. They'll be the equivalent to a protest party that have popped up several times in the past. Yes, I know that is how the Republicans started, but there have been a dozen others who have gone nowhere.

Originally posted by allan2
In just about every online poll I've seen, majorities favor the legalization of marijuana. Now you may say that the online demographic represents mostly people under 50 years old, so maybe we can safely say that 40% or so of the whole population favor legalization of pot.

I've seen the minority support legalization... its important to understand that its not a hotbutton issues. People may support it, but not enough are voting on it, writing letters of complaint, even protesting. I bet more people support the legalization of marijuana than the illegalization of abortion. Who is being heard, and why?

Originally posted by allan2
But voters in California VOTED it legal for medical purposes, and what did the Feds (led by Clinton at the time) do? They OVERRODE the majority vote, asserting Federal authority even against the clear will of the people.

... can you post some sorta news-weblink with the details of this... its news to me.

Originally posted by allan2
And meanwhile, do you hear of ANY major party candidate proposing legalization, even though the idea is PRACTICALLY "mainstream"? You don't.

Do you see any marijuana advocate groups running voter registration drives and showing up strong in primaries? It all starts with the voters, politicians won't move on anything that is below 51% without some major prodding.
But, beside that point, there are quite a few. The governor of New Mexico whose name slips my mind supports it, for example. Quite a few support it or would listen to it, but have other issues they're more conerned about that actually gets them votes. The Anti-marijuana crowd is smaller, but they're more dedicated and will cause more damage to an insecure candidate than supporting it will get him/her votes.

Originally posted by allan2
And that is just one example. The establishment serves ITSELF--if it CAN ignore the people (and the people often being as apathetic as they are, they make it easy), it will.
Time for the people to SPEAK. The two big parties aren't always speaking for them.

The place to get your voice heard is in major party primaries. I'd point to this years primary for California governor as the perfect example of the conservative wing coming out strong against the moderate...
I think the misconception is this kind of expectation that politicians should reach out to YOU, and come to YOU, and ask you what you want, then work their ass off to get it done. Its unrealistic. What makes politicians jump? Money, letters, and most importantly votes.

 

[Fez_Monk]

Jerry Falwell and co. might not be very numerous, but they sure as hell are annoying.

 

[CornMaster]

Originally posted by Greadius
Translation: Anyone who is mainstream and not extreme is a peon. :finger:

Your proving my points.

Twisting my words into what they are not.

I don't like getting punched in the arm. If you propose the alternative of punching me in the face, I'm going to say its a stupid idea, I'd rather get punched in the arm.
Same thing?

How about I kick you in the groin.

 

[ApocalypseKurtz]

I think it is safe to say that the majority of the American public is socially moderate-to-liberal, and fiscally moderate-to-conservative.
So in general (keep in mind there MANY MANY exceptions; I am just talking about Joe Public) those citizens who care most about social issues at the time will vote Democrat, and those who care most about economic issues will vote Republican.

I think the LIbertarian Party, while PERHAPS sharing the views of many more Americans than who vote for their candidates, is not very popular because their views are more extreme than most Americans can deal with (Socially VERY Liberal and Economically VERY Conservative)

 

[VoodooAce]

Originally posted by Greadius

And because the personal-freedom people are scattered amongst independants and Democrats (like myself )
However, the Religious Right is a new movement within the Republican party, they're not permenant, and not intimidatingly numerous, so they're not impossible to overcome.

... can you post some sorta news-weblink with the details of this... its news to me.

The Religious Right has been an influence in the Republican party for decades. They may have reached the height of their power ten or fifteen years ago, but they still have considerable influence. If these wackos can get people that can't afford it to send them $50 they can get them to vote Republican.

Sometimes, while channel surfing, I'll stop on The Worship Channel, or whatever lol, and these guys get into politics on a regular basis. And, uh, they ain't advising anybody to go out and vote for Democrats, lol.

And, yes, the Feds did step in in California and said that the law voted in by California voters conflicted with federal law and that they would continue to enforce federal law...truly harshing my buzz, man

 

[VoodooAce]

Originally posted by ApocalypseKurtz
I think it is safe to say that the majority of the American public is socially moderate-to-liberal, and fiscally moderate-to-conservative.
So in general (keep in mind there MANY MANY exceptions; I am just talking about Joe Public) those citizens who care most about social issues at the time will vote Democrat, and those who care most about economic issues will vote Republican.

My personal opinion is that Joe Citizen concerned with social OR economic matters tend to vote Democrat.

If he's concerned more at the time with international or military issues, then they vote Republican.

After all, remember "It's the economy, stupid."?

 

[Greadius]

Originally posted by VoodooAce
And, yes, the Feds did step in in California and said that the law voted in by California voters conflicted with federal law and that they would continue to enforce federal law...truly harshing my buzz, man

I double checked on this AGAIN and can't find it. Is that about the Supreme Court ruling that the Federal government laws still supercede state laws or was there some other circumstance? When someone says 'Feds' I think executive agency not Supreme Court ruling.
Which leads me to another bone to pick...

Originally posted by allan2
But voters in California VOTED it legal for medical purposes, and what did the Feds (led by Clinton at the time) do?

If it was the Supreme Court case you're refering to, I don't see any reason to say 'led by Clinton'. He had no control of the Court, and is in no way culpubable for their decision.

Originally posted by VoodooAce
They may have reached the height of their power ten or fifteen years ago, but they still have considerable influence. If these wackos can get people that can't afford it to send them $50 they can get them to vote Republican.

Absolutely they're still important... very important. The point I was making is about WHY they are so important. Its nothing special to the religious right, you can get the same answer asking Democratic campaign managers why enviromentalists are important: because they vote in primaries en masse.

Originally posted by VoodooAce
My personal opinion is that Joe Citizen concerned with social OR economic matters tend to vote Democrat.
If he's concerned more at the time with international or military issues, then they vote Republican.

I wish it were that simple. We'd win by landslides everytime. Fact of the matter is they vote for the candidates they agree with or like the best. If someone is concerned about the economy (who isn't?), they'll vote for the candidate that says what they think about the economy, or as close to it as possible.

Of course, deconstructing why a specific group mostly voted for a specific candidate takes hours of boring number crunching and research (I've done it too many times). Trying to generalize a populace over time is a waste of time.

 

[allan2]

"I double checked on this AGAIN and can't find it. Is that about the Supreme Court ruling that the Federal government laws still supercede state laws or was there some other circumstance? When someone says 'Feds' I think executive agency not Supreme Court ruling.
Which leads me to another bone to pick..."

It was in the news at the time. I'm not all that good at web searches (I'll try to dig up some stuff), but I can remember the news--especially since the California vote was something I was very interested in.

But I do remember one Peter McWilliams, an activist who had AIDS. He died by choking on his own vomit, because he couldn't get the marijuana he needed to control the extreme nausea his daily AIDS cocktail was giving him--due to the Feds effectively negating California law and arresting him for possession. He wrote a book called "Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do". I never read it, but I plan to buy it and read it. Here's a link to a review of the book:

http://www.hoboes.com/html/FireBlade/Books/AintNobodys.shtml

"quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by allan2
But voters in California VOTED it legal for medical purposes, and what did the Feds (led by Clinton at the time) do?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"If it was the Supreme Court case you're refering to, I don't see any reason to say 'led by Clinton'. He had no control of the Court, and is in no way culpubable for their decision."

I'll look for details on the web. But I do remember Janet Reno saying something to the effect that her justice department WILL enforce the federal law vigorously in the matter--and I think we can agree that the vigor of enforcement is something up to the Attorney General's discression, somewhat. In practice anyway.

A better way of handling it would have been to suggest to congress (presidents "suggest" things to congress all the time) that, since the clear will of Californians (and Arizonans too, for that matter) was to legalize marijuana for medical purposes, and the federal law conflicted with it, that congress should debate and discuss the federal law--if anything, to possibly avoid alienating the Californians; to seriously discuss an issue that is now obviously mainstream and won't go away; to avoid an unnecessary federal-state conflict; and (more importantly) to avoid undermining the people's faith in democracy through their state referendums. It would have been a nice gesture on the part of the ruling party, indicating that they CARE about it when the people speak. They didn't HAVE to do it I suppose. But they could have, to show SOME respect for the people of California.

I'll look to see if I can find the exact mechanics of the federal decision to override the California voters, but it doesn't really matter--because the president and congress could have decided to delegate this decision back to the states--Constitutionally, THAT IS WHERE IT BELONGS anyway....

 

[allan2]

"Do you see any marijuana advocate groups running voter registration drives and showing up strong in primaries? It all starts with the voters, politicians won't move on anything that is below 51% without some major prodding."

Oh, they will if it is in their interest to do so. They will vote themselves raises (do >50% of the people support that, or a small vocal minority prod them?). They will vote to exempt themselves from random drug testing (a distasteful intrusion that many other employees of the government face). They will do favors to big contributors if they feel that is necessary to keep the contributions coming.

And what exactly did the California voters do? They showed up, and they voted. They made their wishes known. What more should they HAVE to do?

And what about campaign finance reform? Most of the people seem to want that, yet it never passes. Conflict of interest? Well, they "move" on it, but go nowhere. No difference really. And if they get unseated because of this, their replacements probably won't pass it either. And I think many of the people know this.

(BTW in a libertarian system, where congress is truly restricted in its powers, campaign finance reform would become unneccesary--what power could big contributors buy? So while I oppose regulating voluntary contributions in principle, UNDER THE PRESENT SYSTEM it may be necessary if anything is to stop the corruption it's creating. I certainly understand why people want this to happen.)

Have you ever wondered why so many people don't vote? Yes, I agree, they SHOULD vote (and maybe stir some things up). But I think an understandable reason why they don't is that they feel hopeless--that no matter WHO they elect, the people with more money and power than them will always have the real say in what they do. Both parties being so close to each other these days, they can bet that no matter who they choose, it won't make much difference--the winner will still "play the game" and give in to the people who ante the most money into it....

And what I meant to illustrate with the Republicans (and this can also apply to the Dems, in slightly different ways), is that the party actually has almost diametrically-opposing factions in it--Religious Right, Old Boy network, and Libertarian. WHAT POSSIBLY can such a house divided do? Whatever "middle ground" they come to will be just a meaningless chaotic muck of ideas that can't really serve any purpose at all.

Libertarianism is by nature activist (not the nature of many of the people who are libertarians--unfortunately in some ways--but the nature of the ideals demand activism and change of the status quo)--it is in the interest of libertarians NOT to keep the status quo, but to change it. And they can't change anything by mucking about with a group of people that, by nature, OPPOSES them. They need to gather with like-minded people--not people who all agree with EVERYTHING, but people with overall similar views. The republicans aren't it, the democrats aren't it; but some people in BOTH parties, along with some independents, even some Greens, and maybe some of the disenchanted and unvoting masses (let's register them!), ALONG with the small Libertarian Party core, MAY be better.

10-20% of votes may not win seats, but it will change some paradigms. It will deprive any winner of a majority or anything remotely resembling a mandate. It could very well change the polarizing debate from left vs. right (whatever that means anymore), to where Libertarians would want it to be--liberty vs. increased authoritarianism. Which I think is the really crucial debate that needs to be made. This debate is NOT where some of the bigwigs in the big parties want us to go, I don't think. So we can't create this debate within a party machine that will stifle it any chance it can get.

BTW--Perot's "Reform Party" collapsed because it lacked any real, solid ideas--it was populist by nature. Libertarians, on the other hand, HAVE solid ideas, that are relevant to any time, not just the "now". I think if they get 20% of the vote, they will gain momentum--and in a generation, you may be looking at 51%, who knows? But we can't do it unless we make a real effort, and think long-term, even if we have to suffer temporarily under a victorious Republican (or Democratic) Party without our "influence".... (Actually if the government gets more authoritarian as an interim result, we will point that out to the people and our cause will get stronger .)

 

[amadeus]

Originally posted by VoodooAce
If these wackos can get people that can't afford it to send them $50 they can get them to vote Republican.

Of course, anyone that disagrees with you is a "wacko."

 

[VoodooAce]

Originally posted by rmsharpe


Of course, anyone that disagrees with you is a "wacko."

Not true at all. Tel-evangelists? Yup, for the most part.

Greadius, it was actually the feds....FBI, etc...not the Supreme Court decision. The California issue was from about 4 or 6 years ago, and it dealt maiinly with medicinal marijuana, at that, iirc. Immediately following the vote both Bubba and Janet Reno came out and said they'd continue to enforce federal law in California.

 

[amadeus]

I don't know why you see Christians on TV as being some sort of gateway to religious fundamentalism.

 

[Greadius]

Originally posted by allan2
And what about campaign finance reform? Most of the people seem to want that, yet it never passes. Conflict of interest? Well, they "move" on it, but go nowhere. No difference really. And if they get unseated because of this, their replacements probably won't pass it either. And I think many of the people know this.

Uhm... that was signed into law a few weeks ago...

Originally posted by allan2
Have you ever wondered why so many people don't vote? Yes, I agree, they SHOULD vote (and maybe stir some things up). But I think an understandable reason why they don't is that they feel hopeless--that no matter WHO they elect, the people with more money and power than them will always have the real say in what they do.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Most people that don't vote don't do it because there is no candidate... most people that don't vote couldn't name a candidate. THEY DON'T CARE! That is why they don't vote! The only thing that can be done in the system to make them care is if the system starts overtly bending them over and screwing them... then they'll vote. In my opinion, not voting is a sign of complacency, they don't care, they don't want to care, and they're not interested in caring.

Originally posted by allan2
Both parties being so close to each other these days, they can bet that no matter who they choose, it won't make much difference--the winner will still "play the game" and give in to the people who ante the most money into it....

You think there isn't much difference between me and RM???
And 'playing the game' is the way things get done, and have always been done in all politics. Libertarian paradise is no more likely to fix human nature than a Communist paradise.

Originally posted by allan2
They need to gather with like-minded people--not people who all agree with EVERYTHING, but people with overall similar views. The republicans aren't it, the democrats aren't it; but some people in BOTH parties, along with some independents, even some Greens, and maybe some of the disenchanted and unvoting masses (let's register them!), ALONG with the small Libertarian Party core, MAY be better.

Its called coalition building. I'm working on it

Originally posted by allan2
This debate is NOT where some of the bigwigs in the big parties want us to go, I don't think. So we can't create this debate within a party machine that will stifle it any chance it can get.

There IS that debate within the 'party machine'
Its just not on the 6 o'clock news like the Campaign Finance Reform bill signing was.

Originally posted by VoodooAce
Greadius, it was actually the feds....FBI, etc...not the Supreme Court decision. The California issue was from about 4 or 6 years ago, and it dealt maiinly with medicinal marijuana, at that, iirc. Immediately following the vote both Bubba and Janet Reno came out and said they'd continue to enforce federal law in California.

I still can't find this. Can I get a news link please?

 

[VoodooAce]

Well, here are a couple that touch on the subject.

My lack of skill in searching for specific stories is unmatched. And my slow connection doesn't make failing any more enchanting.

But, have at...maybe there are some links at these sites with more specific and/or up to date info.....

Basically, though, its been through court and gone up the chain....don't know where it stands now, but for all I know it may be appearing at a Supreme Court near you.....

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/9612/02/1medical.marijuana/index.html


http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9702/weed.wars/issues/focus/index.html

Can't help but notice that, once again, you see "states' rights" guys like Orin Hatch being a hypocrite, here. States' rights means states should have these rights ONLY when they agree with Republicans on the issues....anytime there's a states' rights issue that they don't like they conveniently forget what they're all about.

 

[VoodooAce]

Originally posted by rmsharpe
I don't know why you see Christians on TV as being some sort of gateway to religious fundamentalism.

Have you ever seen the guy that prances around, singing or chanting or something , and then commences to firmly smack somebody in the forehead with his palm, thereby curing the poor soul of whatever it was that ailed them?

Yeah, I'd call the guy a wacko....or crook, scam artist, con man, etc....

Jim Baker and his lovely wife Tammy? You may be a little young to have seen them in their 'glory' days. That was before Jimmy boy got himself busted in a Motel 6 with some Ho or something.

These types are horrible....absolutely horrible.

Now, guys like Schuller or most of the other Sunday morning type TV preachers are more along the lines of normal preachers.....not quite the snake oil salesmen the others are.

Can you name any that aren't wackos?