Anyone look seriously at the third party candidates?

My take on Libertarians is this: a majority of the people I know have beliefs that could be a great fit for the LP, but they would never think of themselves as one. How many people say things like "I'm fiscally conservative and socially liberal"?

My problem with the LP is although I would love to have people in the Federal government that think their way and support their platform - that is not what I want in a local or state government. I think that is one reason why they are a fringe party and seem destined to remain so.

TJ wrote: How many people say things like "I'm fiscally conservative and socially liberal"?

I do. But then, I see being socially liberal as actually a fairly conservative thing. I think people and government should keep its nose out of people's personal lives.

Seems like social issues are the only ones where being "liberal" means you think the government should keep it's nose out and let people decide for themselves.

That's what I meant by it as well. There are lots of people who want low taxes and in general for the government to stay out of their way. But with the two major parties if you want smaller government (and still believe that the GOP does too) you can choose to be a republican, but then you get to buy in to things like letting the government decide what you should do in your bedroom. If you want more freedom to bear arms you have to give up some freedom of speech.

In short I cannot get behind either of the two major parties. It is funny that the Congress has a 9% approval rating but incumbents get reelected at a rate of 96% in the house and a little less in the Senate.

Everyone apparently thinks congress is terrible except for their congressman!

TJ wrote: My problem with the LP is although I would love to have people in the Federal government that think their way and support their platform - that is not what I want in a local or state government.

Me, too. And here I thought I was the only one who had read and understood what the Constitution means by "federal."

Incidentally, I voted libertarian for President and Senate, but republican for Congress. My only beef with my congresscritter is that I'm sick of his robocalls, and the libertarian didn't have a platform other than "vote for me because I'm libertarian." I also voted republican for my state legislature and county judge (chief executive of the county). That's the fiscally conservative part. I voted mainly democrat for judges, which is the socially liberal part.

I almost voted Libertarian. And then I read the part of their platform about completely unregulated commerce...and considering that's how our economy took a giant crap in the first place, I decided against voting for them.

I like most of the rest of their platform.

Twin_Cam wrote: I read the part of their platform about completely unregulated commerce...and considering that's how our economy took a giant crap in the first place,

Really? Don't fall for the "it was lack of regulation that caused our economic problems" line. It is simply not true. Rather we had a whole bunch of poorly thought out regulations and a system so full of moral hazards that it is not even funny. It's almost as if the idea of unintended consequences never crossed the minds of the people running the show. If it weren't for regulations we would not be where we are today. Biggest among these is the whole idea of "too big to fail".

That being said, I agree with you on not being a total fan of the LP platform of no regulations at all. I do want my doctor to have a license for example.

TJ wrote: That being said, I agree with you on not being a total fan of the LP platform of no regulations at all. I do want my doctor to have a license for example.

Oh Noes!!11!!! Libertarians = witch doctors!!!111!!!one!!eleven!!11!

AngryCorvair wrote:

TJ wrote: That being said, I agree with you on not being a total fan of the LP platform of no regulations at all. I do want my doctor to have a license for example.

Oh Noes!!11!!! Libertarians = witch doctors!!!111!!!one!!eleven!!11!

Clearly

TJ wrote:

Twin_Cam wrote: I read the part of their platform about completely unregulated commerce...and considering that's how our economy took a giant crap in the first place,

Really? Don't fall for the "it was lack of regulation that caused our economic problems" line. It is simply not true. Rather we had a whole bunch of poorly thought out regulations and a system so full of moral hazards that it is not even funny. It's almost as if the idea of unintended consequences never crossed the minds of the people running the show. If it weren't for regulations we would not be where we are today. Biggest among these is the whole idea of "too big to fail". That being said, I agree with you on not being a total fan of the LP platform of no regulations at all. I do want my doctor to have a license for example.

Same here. I don't care for the idea of any goober who can paint a sign setting him/herself up as a doc or similar.

I also wouldn't have regulated or directed the mortgage industry, or done the bailout for the bad mortgages. The economy is self correcting, in a few years this mortgage screwup will be a nasty memory. Except for those who are going to plunder the tax money.

Ok, here's my issue with non-regulation: people can be trusted, businesses cannot. They will always screw people wherever they can, and therefore, I think they need a bash on the head occasionally. I'm all for free market capitalism, but what happens when one corporation runs everything? It's not capitalism when all competition is eliminated.

FYI: This post is not made to offend anyone, I'm just trying to understand other people's views, please don't respond by yelling. Thanks!

It looks like you are saying people can be trusted, businesses can not, but we certainly can trust our government.

I disagree. I would say that business are run by people, and that they can therefore sometimes be trusted, and sometimes not because people can sometimes be trusted, and sometimes not.

Government, on the other hand, can rarely be trusted because it is run by bureaucrats and politicos. The bureaucrats have no vested interest in long term success or failure, they just do their job and accept no responsibility for it, while the politicos only exist for own personal gain. They ultimately are only motivated by what they can gain in influence, power, control, or money.

So, I would suggest that governmental regulation of monetary systems is only useful to the extent that the average ignorant bureaucrat or sheople voter can understand it. Complex regulatory systems are only useful as a tool for manipulation by politicos for their personal gain (see above).

Government, influenced by many.

Business, influenced by money.

People can't rise up against business,but they can; however, rise up against government.

PHeller wrote: People can't rise up against business,but they can; however, rise up against government.

Wait, what? It's WAY easier to "rise up" against a business. Stop giving them money.

Try THAT with the government!

Osterkraut wrote:

PHeller wrote: People can't rise up against business,but they can; however, rise up against government.

Wait, what? It's WAY easier to "rise up" against a business. Stop giving them money. Try THAT with the government!

Amen. Business / Government. One you have the choice about giving money to. The other takes it at the end of a gun.

In doing some research I cam across this quote which I thought was just incredible:

James Garfield said:Now more than ever the people are responsible for the character of their Congress. If that body be ignorant, reckless, and corrupt, it is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness, and corruption. If it be intelligent, brave, and pure, it is because the people demand these high qualities to represent them in the national legislature. . . . [I]f the next centennial does not find us a great nation . . . it will be because those who represent the enterprise, the culture, and the morality of the nation do not aid in controlling the political forces.