Free Republic
Browse · Search
GOP Club
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Problem with Voting “Other” Whether Libertarian or 3rd Party
Caffeinated Thoughts ^ | October 20, 2012 | Prof. Anita Morrill, Des Moines Area Comm College

Posted on 10/19/2012 11:53:15 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet

I have a lot of respect for my Libertarian friends, and they are frequently the first people I’d like to have a discussion with about a new policy or political controversy. I find most of them to be intelligent, thoughtful, well-read people. I also find that in large part Independents (including the Tea Party) often have much in common with the right when it comes to the issues of this particular election–economics and the over-reach of the Federal government.

But I do think that to actually vote for a 3rd party candidate in a tight general election (as this one) is to actually harm the chances of someone whose views are probably most similar to your own. A vote for a 3rd party actually makes a TWO point difference in terms of real numbers, from +1 to a -1 vote that could have been received by one of the main candidates. Let’s get practical—in a close election, a few thousand votes can make or break the entire Electoral College contribution of a state, which in turn can determine the winner of the election.

A recent Des Moines Register poll showed only a 1-point difference between Romney and Obama here in Iowa. And in both 2004 and 2008, “other” votes in Iowa made up…. 1 percent.

So by all means, make your case to anyone who will listen in the off-years and primary season! In fact, the last 2 election cycles, I’ve supported someone other than the eventual candidate at caucus time. But once the primaries are over, I think we do need to figure out which of the remaining candidates is closest in ideology to our own views.

As to Gary Johnson himself, I find myself agreeing with many–if not most–of his positions. I want education back at the local level. I absolutely believe that the 2nd Amendment has implications for the rest of the Bill of Rights. And he was right on when he reportedly said, “My next door neighbor’s two dogs have created more shovel-ready jobs than this current administration.”

My main personal concerns about any Libertarian candidate are the tendencies for fast change and the hesitancy to deploy the military. I frequently wonder if the drastic “fix-it-now” approaches of the Libertarian movement are the best approach. There are so many entrenched government programs and expenditures in place today that practically speaking, it’s going to take some time for states and individuals to adjust. My second concern is that a Libertarian president may put ideology ahead of national defense. In my opinion, there ARE times when we need to engage in combat, and I want a President who won’t hesitate to do that if it becomes necessary.

Even so, I can certainly respect the 3rd party vote—or even abstention—of someone who has deeply considered the issues and clearly done their homework.

But this election is not an apples-to-apples choice, but truly an apples-to-oranges choice between two very different ideologies. So I think those who chose to actually vote for Gary Johnson this particular election will actually be harming the chances of another candidate who isn’t as far off from their views as they might think.


TOPICS: Iowa; Campaign News; Issues; Parties
KEYWORDS: iowa; lping; obama; romney
Comments?
1 posted on 10/19/2012 11:53:27 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Voting 3rd party is political masturbation. It makes you feel good, but doesn’t accomplish anything.


2 posted on 10/20/2012 12:08:07 AM PDT by Hugin ("Most times a man'll tell you his bad intentions, if you listen and let yourself hear."---Open Range)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
2ndDivisionVet said: "... practically speaking, it’s going to take some time for states and individuals to adjust. "

Unfortunately, I suspect that "reality" is not going to provide time to adjust. The U.S. is like a binge drinker whose bouts have become longer, more frequent, and more intense. We've borrowed all the Chinese will supply. We have probably "borrowed" much of what the Fed can supply.

At the same time that the borrowing has been accelerating, we have been fast approaching the end of all our credit lines. There is no way for our weakened economy to be taxed sufficiently to provide the resources required.

We will all be "adjusting" rapidly whether we want to or not.

3 posted on 10/20/2012 12:09:43 AM PDT by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hugin
Doh!
Obamas Gotta GO!!
4 posted on 10/20/2012 12:11:42 AM PDT by right way right (What's it gonna take?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: William Tell

DMACC Professor Anita Morrill said that, not 2ndDivisionVet.


5 posted on 10/20/2012 12:20:14 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet (You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

I agree that voting Libertarian isn’t pragmatically viable—the R–D duopoly being what it is forces participation in the suboptimal R choice, since voting L merely increases the odds of greater undesirable outcomes (more Ds getting elected). The better approach for Libertarianism to gain traction would be to keep infiltrating the GOP; though the downside is that this would invite backlash from SoCons in the GOP who enjoy using government to play social engineer just like Liberals do, albeit with a different agenda of course.

I disagree with the author’s assumption that Libertarianism is incompatible with a strong national defense. I see Libertarianism as being more directly opposed to nation-bulding, as well as avoiding international entanglement in agreements that don’t serve national self-interest.


6 posted on 10/20/2012 12:20:43 AM PDT by Utmost Certainty (Our Enemy, the State)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

lol. My view is totally the opposite.

1. I think libertarians are insane.
2. I think they have every right to support and vote for a third party that better represent their views.


7 posted on 10/20/2012 12:28:52 AM PDT by GeronL (http://asspos.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

let me add

3. They are adults. Age-wise. I assume they can make decisions on their own what is in their best interest.


8 posted on 10/20/2012 12:31:42 AM PDT by GeronL (http://asspos.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
Am mailing off my absentee ballot today - and voting the Libertarian ticket.

What the author of this article has failed to mention is that, since the presidential election is not a direct election, but rather a (with only one exception: Nebraska) winner-take-all, state-by-state election, voters in uncontested Democratic strongholds such as my home state (California) will not hurt Romney's (already dismal) chances by awarding their vote to the Libertarian Party.

Of course, voters with 3rd-party preferences in so-called "battleground" states would do well to reconsider "wasting" their votes. Conservative voters in such states would indeed be favoring Obummer by strictly "voting their conscience."

Regards,

9 posted on 10/20/2012 12:46:41 AM PDT by alexander_busek (Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hugin
Voting 3rd party is political masturbation. It makes you feel good, but doesn’t accomplish anything.

False! There are small, but non-negligible benefits to voting 3rd party (assuming that such a 3rd party indeed more-closely reflects your political convictions):

1) Matching campaign funds and

2) notoriety.

Regards,

10 posted on 10/20/2012 12:50:22 AM PDT by alexander_busek (Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: alexander_busek

There are also huge — albeit fairly improbable — disastrous consequences to voting 3rd party. For example, if Romney loses VA by fewer votes than Virgil garners, and the Marxist wins another four years as a result, that would also be “non-negligible,” to say the least!


11 posted on 10/20/2012 12:57:24 AM PDT by kevao (Is your ocean any lower than it was four years ago?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: alexander_busek
[...] since the presidential election is not a direct election, but rather a (with only one exception: Nebraska) winner-take-all, state-by-state election [...]

Have, in the meantime, determined that Maine likewise can split its electoral college votes.

Myself

12 posted on 10/20/2012 1:15:28 AM PDT by alexander_busek (Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
  If Gary Johnson gets 5% of the vote in November, we secure public funding for our party in 2016. I vote in Georgia and I suspect that Gary Johnson won't win Georgia. Obama doesn't have a chance here either, so my vote here for Gary Johnson will just be a vote for public funding of the Libertarian party.
13 posted on 10/20/2012 1:19:17 AM PDT by Maurice Tift (You can't stop the signal, Mal. You can never stop the signal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Maurice Tift

No one, whether it’s me or anyone else, can tell you how to cast your vote. That franchise was won on the battlefields of the Revolutionary War and defended in every war since, from 1812 to Iraq. Each citizen who is not a felon or in an insane asylum get the same one vote. Use it or don’t use it as you see fit.


14 posted on 10/20/2012 1:28:13 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet (You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: kevao

Those who harp on those voting third party seem to make the same assumption: if they do not vote third party, they will vote for Romney. There are other possibilities, most likely not voting on that line at all. Not everyone believes Romney has changed his views as radically as he claims. It is hard for some to pull the lever for someone whose history is opposed to their views.


15 posted on 10/20/2012 1:46:22 AM PDT by Ingtar (Everyone complains about the weather, but only Liberals try to legislate it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: alexander_busek

Had the Libertarians in AZ8 voted for Jesse Kelly then Gabby Giffords would still have all of her brain because she wouldn’t have been at that shopping center.


16 posted on 10/20/2012 3:27:02 AM PDT by SubMareener (Save us from Quarterly Freepathons! Become a MONTHLY DONOR!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Ingtar

In an election this important you would think that those “educated” libertarians would use their noggin to remove the dictator in office. I guess there’s a reason that the phrase, “educated fools”, was invented...: )


17 posted on 10/20/2012 3:28:18 AM PDT by jsanders2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

.

“Surely, my fellow Americans understand that they have only ONE chance to remove a communist cabal from power peacefully. That chance is November 6, 2012… Who can afford to focus on anything else?

No true Patriot will be sitting out the election at home this time. No decent American will sit on the sidelines in some futile 3rd party fantasy or protest. There is simply too much at stake.

We currently have a known enemy of our nation residing in the people’s White House. The people didn’t have the good sense to stop it in 2008. The courts didn’t have the courage to stop it or rectify the disaster after the 2008 election. Congress hasn’t had the backbone to correct the fraud and hold all accountable, even after the 2010 cycle that swept so-called Tea Party candidates into political power. Not even state governments have the honor and courage to block a known fraud from appearing on the ballot again in 2012.

That means that righting the greatest wrong ever perpetrated in American politics is left to the American people alone. They will get ONE CHANCE to end this charade, peacefully, on November 6th. If they fail to end it peacefully, they will be left with only a Second Amendment solution. There is no other solution at that point.

When did communism become an American Dream for some? A long time ago… When the American people allowed it.

When did the communist dream become acceptable to the rest of America? Only YOU can answer this one, on November 6th, 2012.

No American can afford to sit this one out or play childish games with fantasy candidates. — Removing this criminal communist cabal from power is the ONLY relevant issue of the 2012 election. Only a traitor, a coward or a fool would tell you any different!”

JB Williams

http://www.newswithviews.com/JBWilliams/williams211.htm

.


18 posted on 10/20/2012 3:59:20 AM PDT by patriot08 (TEXAS GAL- born and bred and proud of it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

I voted third party in 2008 because I consider John McCain a menace and the Judas Iscariot of the Republican Party. Mitt Romney may policy-to-policy be less conservative than McCain but I’d vote for Romney now simply because we no longer have a blank slate running against him. We have four years of economic illiteracy combined with incredible gall and arrogance.

A third party vote is simply doubling down on four more years of bad economic policy and four more years of lies about everything under the sun. No thinking American should allow that to happen.


19 posted on 10/20/2012 4:14:04 AM PDT by OrangeHoof (Our economy won't heal until one particular black man is unemployed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hugin; 2ndDivisionVet

I’d encourage “3rd-party” against:
GOP Roraback CT-5 (pro-gay-marriage, NARAL, physician assisted suicide, in a center-right district)
GOP Obsitnick CT-4 (NARAL)
GOP Bass NH-2 (NARAL, in a center-right district)
GOP Tisei MA-5 (gay radical activist, pro-death)

I oppose 3rd-party against:
Scott Brown (supports DOMA, voted ‘no’ on Kagan)
Linda McMahon, CT
Dold, Illinois (mixed voting record per National Right to Life)
Nan Hayworth, NY (mixed voting record per National Right to Life)

the prob is that anyone who lacks sound judgment on this matter is apt to do the 3rd-party thing against anyone who annoys them in the least. 3rd-party is a good thing, but in the hands of stooges, very dangerous tool.


20 posted on 10/20/2012 4:15:14 AM PDT by campaignPete R-CT (campaigning for local conservatives)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
A vote for a 3rd party actually makes a TWO point difference in terms of real numbers, from +1 to a -1

Arithmetic absurdity.

21 posted on 10/20/2012 5:04:55 AM PDT by j_tull (Keep Congress Kennedy Free - Sean Bielat for Congress #MA4)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
In states or particular election contests where one of the major parties will win by a large margin, voting 3rd party does not affect the outcome and can make a useful statement. So if you are in some district where the Republican can't win anyway and the candidate is, for example, a RINO, you might as well vote your conscience.

If you are in a state where Romney has a chance of winning then every vote counts, and tactical concerns should trump long term ideals. Put another way - vote for the lesser of two evils! Vote Republican.

22 posted on 10/20/2012 5:41:20 AM PDT by freeandfreezing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Utmost Certainty

“The better approach for Libertarianism to gain traction would be to keep infiltrating the GOP...”

Libertarian is a philosophy, not a political party. Every year they run a Presidential candidate for one reason, publicity. ANY true political party will establish itself at the local level first. Can you site any example, in all the years of Libertarianism’s existence, of a city run by Libertarians which led to a state run by Libertarians?

Of course not. Governing is antithetical to Libertarianism. They have a Marxist (Groucho, that is) legislative agenda. “No matter what it is or who commenced it, I’m against it.”


23 posted on 10/20/2012 5:54:40 AM PDT by Leonard210 (Viva Perot)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Over the years I have voted libertarian or constitutional but only when the race was already decided. Am not a big fan of Romney but it is imperative that Obama be shown the door Nov6/Jan20. There is no other choice. If you don’t like Obama now just wait until he doesn’t have to worry about reelection.


24 posted on 10/20/2012 5:59:08 AM PDT by all the best (`~!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

I’m completely in favor of “hesitancy to deploy the military” if the rules of engagement envision anything other than unconditional victory.


25 posted on 10/20/2012 6:22:00 AM PDT by Eric Pode of Croydon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OrangeHoof
OrangeHoof said: "We have four years of economic illiteracy combined with incredible gall and arrogance."

This was a predictable outcome of allowing Obama to win.

There is no doubt in my mind that McCain would have nominated by accident Supreme Court Justices who would have been superior to Sotomayer and Kagan. We will be paying a price for that for the next thirty years.

If Romney wins, liberals may well look back on this time as a lost opportunity of incredible import. I fully expected Ginsburg to retire. If Romney gets to choose her replacement, our nation may well survive.

I believe that the major reason to vote GOP rather than third party is the effect that we will see regarding the Electoral College if Romney wins the election but doesn't get a simple majority of the votes. The movement to eliminate the Electoral College will get a great boost.

Today, the Electoral College is the only thing that prevents the liberals from winning the Presidency by stealing all the votes they need in California, Illinois, New York, and New Jersey. Voting third-party will provide justification to eliminate this important safeguard.

26 posted on 10/20/2012 9:47:51 AM PDT by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
Let's say it was November 1996 again. Republican Presidential candidate Bob Dole is running 10 points behind Democratic President Bill Clinton. Clinton is a smooth talking president with a fantastic (stock market bubble) economy. In other words, Dole doesn't have a snowball's chance of winning.

In that case is voting Republican for Bob Dole a "wasted vote"? Would you have voted for Clinton because not voting for a winning candidate is a "wasted vote"?

Moving back to the real 2012 world, that is exactly why I, as a libertarian, am voting against both Obama and Romney by voting for Gary Johnson. I don't let other people (polls) tell me how to vote. I don't follow the herd. I vote for the candidate I agree with, and if I lose, I lose.

As far as the tactical voting thing goes, the lesser of two evils, Republicans have been doing that since their last conservative presidential candidate, Reagan 30 years ago, and things have just gotten worse. Voting for the lesser of two evils gave us candidate McCain and President Obama.

27 posted on 10/20/2012 10:11:36 AM PDT by Siegfried X
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Siegfried X

Also, if McCain had won, there would have been no Tea Party.

Republicans would still be as left-wing socialist as they were during the 2008 election, when none of them saw anything wrong with RomneyCare, McCain’s Cap & Trade, etc.


28 posted on 10/20/2012 10:21:18 AM PDT by Siegfried X
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Siegfried X

lesser of two evils: a phrase originated by US Army in WWII. Not a Christian concept.

So I, along with other readers, reject the concept.


29 posted on 10/20/2012 11:21:04 AM PDT by campaignPete R-CT (campaigning for local conservatives)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Hugin
Accurate description. I consider myself very libertarian but not a Ron Paul Libertarian. I don't want that kook anywhere near the WH. He thinks if we just give these radical Muslims a great big hug, they will like us. He's delusional.

Take away Ron Paul's views on national defense and national security and I'd like him.

We still are always confronted with choices. There are only two political parties that can win. I'm a Wm F Buckley Republican--always vote for the most conservative--THAT CAN WIN.

The goal is to advance conservatism and that cannot be done voting "third party".

30 posted on 10/20/2012 11:28:35 AM PDT by Conservativegreatgrandma
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Siegfried X; Maurice Tift

So you are voting for total abortion, total homosexuality, and totally open borders and for eliminating the border patrol and INS.

There are other options you know, you don’t have to become a radical leftist to not vote Obama/Romney.


31 posted on 10/20/2012 11:37:34 AM PDT by ansel12 (Mitt Romney is a mixture of LBJ and Nixon, Obama is a mixture of LBJ and Jimmy Carter.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Utmost Certainty

” I disagree with the author’s assumption that Libertarianism is incompatible with a strong national defense. I see Libertarianism as being more directly opposed to nation-bulding, as well as avoiding international entanglement in agreements that don’t serve national self-interest.”

I used to think of myself as more of a libertarian than a Republican until 9/11/2001. Harry Brown’s response to going to Afghanistan changed that. I could understand disagreeing with some of the policies after we got there but his do nothing stance changed that.


32 posted on 10/20/2012 12:13:18 PM PDT by Lurkina.n.Learnin (Ignorance is bliss- I'm stoked)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Lurkina.n.Learnin

The stance of one Libertarian politician doesn’t define Libertarian ideology as a whole.


33 posted on 10/20/2012 12:31:54 PM PDT by Utmost Certainty (Our Enemy, the State)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: campaignPete R-CT

I would vote for any of them for the simple reason that their opponents will vote for Nancy Pelosi for speaker. Then work for a primary opponent next time around.


34 posted on 10/20/2012 12:32:07 PM PDT by Hugin ("Most times a man'll tell you his bad intentions, if you listen and let yourself hear."---Open Range)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Hugin

there will never be primary opponents against Obsitnick, Roraback, Bass and Tisei. Roraback could hold that seat for 25 years.


35 posted on 10/20/2012 12:46:04 PM PDT by campaignPete R-CT (campaigning for local conservatives)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: campaignPete R-CT

Then you certainly won’t ever elect a more conservative 3rd party candidate either. So do you want 4 more votes for Pelosi or not?


36 posted on 10/20/2012 12:49:07 PM PDT by Hugin ("Most times a man'll tell you his bad intentions, if you listen and let yourself hear."---Open Range)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Hugin

it is better if Esty the DEM beats Roraback the radical GOPer
it is a GOP seat


37 posted on 10/20/2012 1:03:04 PM PDT by campaignPete R-CT (campaigning for local conservatives)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Hugin

yep
we don’t need NARAL people electing the GOP Congressional leaders.

DEM Esty over Roraback. Elect a conservative Republican in 2014. At least a center-right Republican.


38 posted on 10/20/2012 5:09:55 PM PDT by campaignPete R-CT (campaigning for local conservatives)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
   A leftist would never push to abolish the IRS, radically slash the size of government, or appoint a judge that has actually read the Constitution. Regardless of Gary Johnson's statement that he wants an amendment to the Constitution legalizing 'gay marriage,' the amendment process does not include the President and the amendment would never pass. In effect, he would be far more conservative than any president in recent history.
39 posted on 10/21/2012 5:26:30 AM PDT by Maurice Tift (You can't stop the signal, Mal. You can never stop the signal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Maurice Tift

If you are sane then you cannot claim his/this party platform as conservative, freerepublic is not the place for pro-abortion and homosexual agenda promoters, and open borders people and candidates.

Here is the leftists agenda hidden behind the Libertarian Party curtain.

Libertarian Party Platform:

Throw open the borders completely; only a rare individual (terrorist, disease carrier etc.) can be kept from freedom of movement through “political boundaries”.

Homosexuals; total freedom in the military, gay marriage, adoption, child custody and everything else.

Abortion; zero restrictions or impediments.

Pornography; no restraint, no restrictions.

Drugs; Meth, Heroin, Crack, and anything new that science can come up with, zero restrictions.

Advertising those drugs, prostitution, and pornography; zero restrictions.

Military Strength; minimal capabilities.


40 posted on 10/21/2012 9:33:34 AM PDT by ansel12 (Mitt Romney is a mixture of LBJ and Nixon, Obama is a mixture of LBJ and Jimmy Carter.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
  Military Strength; minimal capabilities.
  Gary Johnson:

   Maintaining a strong national defense is the most basic of the federal government’s responsibilities. However, building schools, roads, and hospitals in other countries are not among those basic obligations. Yet that is exactly what we have been doing for much of the past 10 years.

Given trillion-dollar deficits, America simply cannot afford to be engaged in foreign policy programs that are not clearly protecting U.S. interests. There is nation-building and rebuilding to be done right here at home.

Our military should remain the most potent force for good on Earth. To do this, we should resort to military action as the last option and only as provided in the Constitution.
41 posted on 10/21/2012 2:01:19 PM PDT by Maurice Tift (You can't stop the signal, Mal. You can never stop the signal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
Drugs; Meth, Heroin, Crack, and anything new that science can come up with, zero restrictions.

  I've never heard any Libertarian say "zero restrictions." I'm against the dog shooting drug raids and Gary Johnson simply believes that abuse of hard drugs is a health problem. It is and jail just isn't an effective treatment program.
42 posted on 10/21/2012 2:17:20 PM PDT by Maurice Tift (You can't stop the signal, Mal. You can never stop the signal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Maurice Tift

You don’t ask people for their opinions, you read the party platform.

“We favor the repeal of ALL laws creating “crimes” without victims, such as the use of drugs for medicinal or recreational purposes.”

Want to see the details on immigration?


43 posted on 10/21/2012 2:29:47 PM PDT by ansel12 (Mitt Romney is a mixture of LBJ and Nixon, Obama is a mixture of LBJ and Jimmy Carter.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
  “We favor the repeal of ALL laws creating “crimes” without victims, such as the use of drugs for medicinal or recreational purposes.”

  I do agree with the above. Recreational purposes doesn't include operating heavy machinery. I favor a world where heroin addicts can seek professional help without fear of imprisonment.
44 posted on 10/21/2012 5:44:25 PM PDT by Maurice Tift (You can't stop the signal, Mal. You can never stop the signal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Maurice Tift

LOL, that’s what I have been saying.

These are the two related elements of your party platform (in plain language), want to see the portion on open borders?

Drugs; Meth, Heroin, Crack, and anything new that science can come up with, zero restrictions.

Advertising those drugs, prostitution, and pornography; zero restrictions.


45 posted on 10/21/2012 5:50:43 PM PDT by ansel12 (Mitt Romney is a mixture of LBJ and Nixon, Obama is a mixture of LBJ and Jimmy Carter.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

If the election goes the wrong way or Romney turns into a moderate-liberal, I’ll be ready to put time and money into a third party.

The goal is to make the third party the second party and let the repubs ride off into the sunset as the moderate republican party.

I believe many conservatives would get behind that. It would be 3 years of hard work.


46 posted on 10/21/2012 5:54:50 PM PDT by morphing libertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
  Drugs; Meth, Heroin, Crack, and anything new that science can come up with, zero restrictions.

  There is no solution to the problem, but the current drug laws make it far worse. Johnson has only gone as far as saying marijuana should be legalized. He also says that it will never be legal to drive under the influence of marijuana. That's a restriction. He also doesn't believe in under-age marijuana smoking (implied on his web site). That's another restriction.
47 posted on 10/21/2012 9:24:42 PM PDT by Maurice Tift (You can't stop the signal, Mal. You can never stop the signal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
GOP Club
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson