Mitt Romney rhymes with shit hominy.
Obama rhymes with, hmm can't think of one.

I'll just put him in the "shit hominy" category also.


Pick your poison. It's all gonna be more of the same.

 Lazy8 wrote: 
I've seen some examples that put the lie to that.

 hippiechick wrote: 
Gosh, thanks.

I got what you're saying, I just disagree. Everyone is "evolved enough" to engineer their own life. No one is "evolved enough" to engineer someone else's.

 Lazy8 wrote: 
I should have said a large percentage of...

Pretty sure you are evolved enough to get what I was saying.

 hippiechick wrote: 
Speak for yourself.

 Romulus wrote: 
US citizens are currently not evolved enough to be engineers.

 RichardPrins wrote: 
The question is, do we want power centralized in the hands of a few, or do we want decentralized, localized power in the hands of many, closer to the people where it is fluid, adjusting and changing as needed based on the will of the people.

Do we want to be engineered, or collectively, voluntarily be engineers? Huge difference.

 Lazy8 wrote: 
It remains (to be) engineering based on ideology.

 RichardPrins wrote: 
Yes, hands-off really means hands-off. Change via evolution rather than threat of violence.

 Beaker wrote: 
I'm afraid this really isn't getting thru.

I don't want a stellar candidate to overwhelm people's political preferences with his personality, I want to change those preferences. I want lasting change, not a personality cult. And I don't care if my party ever wins an election. I'm in this for the long haul.

You're welcome. Just one of many services I offer.

 Lazy8 wrote: 
You wanting a hands-off approach to society isn't a form of engineering to match what you'd want to see? Seems to me the only difference is in who's doing the engineering (top-down vs. bottom-up). In the end both all sides want the power to produce a desired outcome.

PS: The engineering being in all cases driven by political ideology (however strong, weak, good or bad it might be in the eyes of the followers)

 Beaker wrote: 
I get it—you don't like him. I really, honestly understand that. I'll understand it the next time too.

You aren't getting something tho: it isn't about him, and it isn't about winning this election. When that sinks in maybe we can have a civil discussion about the matter.

 steeler wrote: 
One at a time:

There are people withing the libertarian movement who want to not just advance the agenda but reform politics in general, and they don't think they can do it from within the incumbent parties. They want to build a party and challenge the incumbents head-to-head, and they need to break their monopoly (on things like ballot access) to do it. This is a long, exhausting slog.

Others have less patience and are willing to be co-opted to get the agenda advanced. Both have good points, both have their hearts in the right place. Dr. Paul is trying to subvert the Republican party from within and he has to make Republican noises to do it.

Libertarians have an actual political philosophy. Neither of the incumbent parties do; they are coalitions of interests with no unifying philosophy but a desire for power. We really don't have a home in either place, but when I talk to Republicans I can usually finish my sentences. They often pay lip service to the idea of liberty (at least on economic issues) but don't back it in practice. Democrats are (in general, and in my experience) overtly hostile to the idea of liberty and for the most part can't even imagine the world I want to build. There are issues we can work together on (issues of personal freedom sometimes have some common ground) but our basic approaches are so different (I want a hands-off approach to society in general so it can evolve, they want to engineer it to match what they want to see) it's hard to make even that work.

Both claim to want my support. One tells me he's with me, but he's lying. The other tells me he opposes everything I believe in and means it. In that respect we are more welcome in the Republican camp...so long as we don't wear too much tie-dye when we tiptoe thru the never-ending tent revival.

 Beaker wrote: 
i only glanced at the results last night and he was like 10% or close across the board

better than i thought

politics is force which is why RP doesn't fit in

regards

 Lazy8 wrote: 
I think you are right about a third party needing to build its brand by competing in Presidential elections. It does become a bit of a chicken-or-egg decision.

Only one question:  Ron Paul is carrying the banner for Libertarian beliefs, but he is running as a Republican. I've heard his explanations for that, and for why he won't run in General Election if not the Republican nominee.  

So, is the attempt here to change the thinking within the Republican party to move it more in line with Libertarian philosophies, or is it to establish the Libertarian Party as a brand? If it is the latter, running as a Republican seems to be a roundabout way of establishing the Libertarian Party brand. Is Paul stumping for a split in the Republican party — does not seem like it; in fact, he seems to be saying that he himself is not leaving the party.    

Sorry. Another question that just popped in  my head:  I've read and heard the points about Paul positing views that are neither squarely in Republican or Democrat camps; that Paul offers planks that should appeal to some of those in both parties (anti-war for Dems; steep budget cuts for Repubs, etc).  Do the Libertarians feel more kinship with Republicans (obviously, Paul does), and if so, why?     

 Lazy8 wrote: 

That would be awesome! He'd sure get my vote! However the culture warriors would have none of it.

 Beaker wrote: 
Lolwut! At least you're honest. I think a lot of other 'R's' feel the same. It's very amusing to hear that an R would vote for Obama as the lesser evil against Ron Paul. lol

 Beaker wrote: 
Fruit is good for you.. don't be offended!

3rd parties can't compete. It's like expecting Fred tackle shop to do well next to a Wal-Mart. It's not a conspiracy, just a fact. They don't have the resources and the house rules are made by the duopoly. Nor do they have any backing. But I'm not a party guy anyway..  Yes L's could do better, but I don't care about party, I vote based on issues. It's too bad to get along in a party people are pushed to compromise their beliefs and voters are all to willing to ignore that. Party is meaningless..its just a vessel.

 Beaker wrote: 
Surely the Republicans could have put better candidates forward, since they have a lot more members. But they didn't.

The process we have now where other candidates and surrogates and enemies in the media do everything in their power to destroy anybody they disagree with has left us with meager choices. I would rather see Colin Powell vs. Alan Simpson vying for the Republican nomination, but they aren't running. They aren't willing to put themselves thru it, or to put their families thru it (OK and Simpson's too old, but you get the idea).

Every election this same argument happens within the party: do we spend the vast resources necessary to put forth a presidential candidate or do we concentrate on school board races? The answer is always the same: a presidential candidate gets vastly more attention than a roomful of city councilmen. We won't attract candidates to lesser races unless they know we exist, and running a presidential candidate is the best way to make that happen.

For the first time in a long time the libertarian movement has two first-class candidates in the presidential race. No, neither one will win. That isn't the point. Until people see and alternative they can't choose it. Ron Paul is on his third presidential campaign. The first two times he was ignored and openly mocked by the press. Now he is seen as a serious contender in some areas. He may come to the Republican convention with enough delegates in tow to have some influence on the result.

This takes time, and it takes more than one try. You can't wait for momentum, you have to build it.