On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 18:01:07 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Travis Pahl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in part: > > >> Wrong. If they have any brains, they look at those Libertarian votes > >> and > >> realize that there isn't a single thing they can do to get them. > > >If they put up Ron Paul or someone that voted like him, I would vote > >for the republican instead of the Libertarian. > > But there are very few yous and mes.
The whole point of this subthread is that IF there are more and more libertarian votes then it will influence republicans and democrats to nominate more libertarian candidates. You counter the arguement by saying that they feel there is nothing they can do to get those votes so they will ignore and not adjust their policy/candidates. I point out that there is something that they can do (run candidates who are more libertarian). And now you are trying to change the original premise (that there are more people voting for them. In otherwords you are going in circles. > In most districts where Republicans > had a chance of being elected, a Ron Paul would be defeated in a primary, > and clobbered in a general election. And so you suggest that we should just go along with whoever they give us? How will that change who they offer next time? Voting LP in signifigant numbers WILL change them. Voting for their shitty candidate does nothing. Also what is so special about this area of texas that resulted in a libertarian being elected that is not present in the other 220+ republican congressional districts in the nation? > >> tax cuts, medical insurance reform because that was > >> the only way to get 60 votes in the Senate? > > >You only need 50% when you have the president on your side. > > Not against a filibuster. Senate rules, you know. makes it more difficult, but not unattainable. Convictions in what you beleive you know. > >> Are we really better off that > >> tort reform still languishes in the Senate or that the various anti-2nd > >> Amendment laws remain on the books because the laws rolling them back > are > >> stalled in the Senate? > > >A senate with how many republicans? > > Not 60. If they need 60 to get it done, then they are simply not effective and should be replaced. _______________________________________________ Libnw mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
