Originally Posted by hogger129
The reason Paul never gets elected is because people have the idea that voting for him makes them 'nuts,' or 'far right wing nuts.'
They buy into this idea that one man can't make a difference, but that's simply not true. One man CAN make a difference. Jesus Christ was one man wasn't he?
I'm not saying Paul is Christ, but Paul is the perfect opportunity for the American people to take back the United States from these totalitarian types that run it right now.
The Democrats do it and so do the Republicans. USA PATRIOT Act comes to mind.
I just want a leader who is honest for once rather than helping out all their buddies that handed them money, or sidestepping the law for what they think is the 'greater good.'
I agree with you, but I think there are other obstacles
The Libertarian party is unjustly discriminated against in many states where the R&D have conspired to prevent any other candidates from being allowed on the ballot in National elections
The Libertarian party has to run RP as a Republican because they know they have ZERO traction as Libertarians. Sure, getting the word out is one thing, but there's a difference in dealing in reality and self deception. I dont like it anymore than any of you do, but it's no different than Perot or Nader votes. If we were to massively reform our entire electorate and actually turn it into 1 man (person now): 1 vote then we could get rid of some of those hurdles, but even today we'd still be looking down the double barrel shotgun of a President who can legalize 20 million democrats with the stroke of a pen.
The Libertarians also present themselves as Independent and have ideals that are both right and left facing, but their planks make to many of either side choke, so they either stay home or they vote their original party line.
Drugs - should pot be legal? IMO, yes, stop wasting time money and resources on knuckleheads that hang out at the mall and want to smoke a joint.
Should that extend to coke? ehhhh... maybe. yeah, people with addictive personalities will be ruled by this drug, but it is their choice to use it at their peril, are they any more likely to commit a traffic homicide because they are on coke than whiskey? I dont think any of the history of arrests support that (which is also why most jurisdictions no longer prosecute DWI and now choose DUI) it's a big legal distinction between Intoxicated and Impaired (Impaired being = "under the influence")
Should that extend to man made drugs like Meth, PCP, LSD? Uhhhhh how about not only NO, but HELL NO. Those arent random things someone will stumble across on their trek across God's green earth and decide to sample, those are some of the nastiest things we've ever made, and those individual lives are destroyed faster than any pot smoking or beer drinking slacker could ever hope to achieve.
Foreign entanglements... these ideals were framed when it took months if not weeks to move people from one country to another in order to make war or hostilities. Now we can bring Global Thermonuclear War to all corners of the globe in less than 28 minutes. Yeah... I think we need to rethink the hands off, they are on their own xenophobic Libertarian policy.
Lest we forget, that without the French, who we immediately stabbed in the back, we wouldn't have this country of our own sovereign from British rule.
Libertarians have a lot going for them (us) but they need to prove it to everyone else in big ways, at the very basic levels first. And that has more to do with knocking on doors and talking to neighbors than it does with donating to a national campaign that will walk away with at best perhaps 1-2 dozen electorate votes in a Presidential general.
Just my opinion.