Pages: [1] 2 
|
 |
|
 Author
|
Topic: Libertarians running as Democrats (Read 3271 times)
|
|
JasonPSorens
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Audio signature (MP3) "Experience has shown that it is difficult, if not impossible, for a populous state to be run by good laws." --Aristotle, The Politics
|
|
|
|
Ward Griffiths
|
Yup. Gotta rip the masks off those freedom fighters in statist disguises. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
-- Ward Griffiths wdg3rd@comcast.netMen will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest. (Denis Diderot) |
|
|
|
JasonPSorens
|
I bet these candidates are thinking, "Don't throw us into that briar patch, please!"  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Audio signature (MP3) "Experience has shown that it is difficult, if not impossible, for a populous state to be run by good laws." --Aristotle, The Politics
|
|
|
RalphBorsodi
Guest
|
the national Democratic Freedom Caucus would probaly not endorse those LPs running within the DP because of the reason they are no longer in the LP (they left well ahead of the recent LRC dust-up).
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: July 22, 2006, 11:33:57 am by RalphBorsodi »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JasonPSorens
|
the national Democratic Freedom Caucus would probaly not endorse those LPs running within the DP because of the reason they are no longer in the LP (they left well ahead of the recent LRC dust-up).
What do you mean by that? Shouldn't the DFC be endorsing those candidates that are closest to their philosophy? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Audio signature (MP3) "Experience has shown that it is difficult, if not impossible, for a populous state to be run by good laws." --Aristotle, The Politics
|
|
|
|
Dreepa
|
the national Democratic Freedom Caucus would probaly not endorse those LPs running within the DP because of the reason they are no longer in the LP (they left well ahead of the recent LRC dust-up).
What do you mean by that? Shouldn't the DFC be endorsing those candidates that are closest to their philosophy? Maybe they are having the 'purer than thou' problem that the LP has and that some within the FSP have? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
JasonPSorens
|
the national Democratic Freedom Caucus would probaly not endorse those LPs running within the DP because of the reason they are no longer in the LP (they left well ahead of the recent LRC dust-up).
What do you mean by that? Shouldn't the DFC be endorsing those candidates that are closest to their philosophy? Maybe they are having the 'purer than thou' problem that the LP has and that some within the FSP have?  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Audio signature (MP3) "Experience has shown that it is difficult, if not impossible, for a populous state to be run by good laws." --Aristotle, The Politics
|
|
|
Follow
FSP Participant
 Offline
Posts: 25
|
That's pretty funny. I'm a Libertarian running as a Democrat here in Utah. The article was unclear how forthright the candidates were on this question, but I have been extremely honest with the party. In fact, the only reason I'm running as a Democrat instead of a Libertarian is because there was no Democrat running and I called the part office. The conversation went something like this: (on my way out the door to the county clerk's office) Me: Hi, I'm about to head over to the county clerk's office to announce my intention to run for the house leg as a Libertarian. I noticed you have no democrat running in my district; and thought I could just as easily write "democrat" on my ticket as "libertarian." Them: We strongly encourage you to run as a democrat. Since that time, they've called me a "bitter pill" and various other things. I haven't gotten too much help from the party itself, no monetary contributions at all, and what seems like something of an uncertain cold shoulder. But in any case, it hasn't bothered me since the whole point for me was to pick up some free votes (hey, if they're going to push out a straight ticket vote, I might as well claim them). So ya, while it isn't all roses or anything, it has certainly put me in the race. I live in a swing district, it's just that the incumbent republican is pretty good at what he does, which has kept him in office. The only way we are going to get a fair shake in the system is by infiltrating the parties. Step one: Get libertarians elected as whatever they can get into office with. Step two: Ensure fair ballot access; there should be some requirements to get access, but they shouldn't be out of reach. Step three: Enstate Instant Runoff Voting. Those three steps will make the libertarian party (or any other party really), a viable and winnable third party. Currently, we have step two accomplished here in Utah, and my top priority in office is to get step 3 passed. I have no chance in hell of actually doing it, but I want enough media attention that other liberty minded individuals in the state might get up and accomplish step 1. Once step 1 is accomplished (step 2 is already done, remember), then step 3 becomes natural course. I encourage anyone running or thinking about running for office to follow those steps to make the voice of liberty heard. Follow  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"Ask anything of men. Ask them to achieve wealth, fame, love, brutality, murder, self-sacrifice. But don't ask them to achieve self-respect. They will hate your soul."
-Ayn Rand
|
|
|
|
Dreepa
|
Me: Hi, I'm about to head over to the county clerk's office to announce my intention to run for the house leg as a Libertarian. I noticed you have no democrat running in my district; and thought I could just as easily write "democrat" on my ticket as "libertarian."
The cool thing about running in NH is that you can run as a 'fusion candidate' Run as an LP and Dem. Also what district in SLC? I know some people who live there.. maybe I can drum you up some votes. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Follow
FSP Participant
Offline
Posts: 25
|
I'm running in District 34. Taylorsville/Kearns area. Follow |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"Ask anything of men. Ask them to achieve wealth, fame, love, brutality, murder, self-sacrifice. But don't ask them to achieve self-respect. They will hate your soul."
-Ayn Rand
|
|
|
|
freedom's ideologue
|
Maybe they are having the 'purer than thou' problem that the LP has and that some within the FSP have?  Some libertarians just don't view neo-cons as a force for liberty, no matter what political party they claim. See Carl Milsted's article "Why I am a warmonger" for an example of a neo-con masquerading as a libertarian. Purity is not a bad thing when you're insiting on purity of principle. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
We've made too many compromises already; too many retreats. They invade our space and we fall back. They assimilate entire worlds and we fall back. Not again. The line must be drawn here! This far, no further! And I will make them pay for what they've done. - Jean Luc Picard
|
|
|
RalphBorsodi
Guest
|
the national Democratic Freedom Caucus would probaly not endorse those LPs running within the DP because of the reason they are no longer in the LP (they left well ahead of the recent LRC dust-up).
What do you mean by that? Shouldn't the DFC be endorsing those candidates that are closest to their philosophy? the leadership of the DFC attempted reform of the LP (Tom Paine Caucus http://www.tpaine.org/tpc.htm) and were thrwarted (prior to the Libertarian Reform Caucus taking up the cause) so they left to work within the DP - the party founded by Thomas Jefferson. why would they then turn around and endorse someone who has no real intention of working within the DP and won't align their platform with the platform of the DFC as it relates to property rights based on simple justice - the reason they left the LP in the first place? we would put in jeopardy the inroads that have been made working within the DP. here is a former LP member that we have endorsed nationally because he acknowledges and will work to actively promote the DFC platform. http://www.politicalgateway.com/cand.php?id=186&page=candhttp://www.tpaine.org/index.htm |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
JasonPSorens
|
the national Democratic Freedom Caucus would probaly not endorse those LPs running within the DP because of the reason they are no longer in the LP (they left well ahead of the recent LRC dust-up).
What do you mean by that? Shouldn't the DFC be endorsing those candidates that are closest to their philosophy? the leadership of the DFC attempted reform of the LP (Tom Paine Caucus http://www.tpaine.org/tpc.htm) and were thrwarted (prior to the Libertarian Reform Caucus taking up the cause) so they left to work within the DP - the party founded by Thomas Jefferson. why would they then turn around and endorse someone who has no real intention of working within the DP and won't align their platform with the platform of the DFC as it relates to property rights based on simple justice - the reason they left the LP in the first place? we would put in jeopardy the inroads that have been made working within the DP. here is a former LP member that we have endorsed nationally because he acknowledges and will work to actively promote the DFC platform. http://www.politicalgateway.com/cand.php?id=186&page=candhttp://www.tpaine.org/index.htmSo you're saying that the DFC has more in common with Kathleen Sullivan than John Babiarz?  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Audio signature (MP3) "Experience has shown that it is difficult, if not impossible, for a populous state to be run by good laws." --Aristotle, The Politics
|
|
|
|
Dreepa
|
Maybe they are having the 'purer than thou' problem that the LP has and that some within the FSP have? Some libertarians just don't view neo-cons as a force for liberty, no matter what political party they claim. See Carl Milsted's article "Why I am a warmonger" for an example of a neo-con masquerading as a libertarian. Purity is not a bad thing when you're insiting on purity of principle. Carl Milsted doesn't mean shit to me. I never read the article. Nor do I care to. I am not a member of the DEM, LP or GOP. But there is a HUGE 'purer than thou' problem within the LP and the FSP. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: July 22, 2006, 03:08:13 pm by Dreepa »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 
|
|
|
 |
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
