Do you vote Republican but may in fact have Libertarian beliefs?

[Phokus]

I suppose this post is directed more towards moderate republicans but anyway... I came to the conclusion a while ago that many people who vote "Republican" are actually Libertarian when asked about what they believe them. I find that the one unifying reason that people vote Republican is of course taxes, but it seems that the other Republican issues they tend to be rather uniformed about. But when i asked several co-workers on how they feel about certain issues such as legalization of marijuana, freedom for controversial groups to put up websites that are deemed "subversive" and "obscene", seperation of church and state, it appears that almost all of them are liberal when it comes to civil liberties.

If you're like me and like less taxes (not just a flimsy tax cut for individuals and huge tax cuts for big businesses like a certain other political party advocates!), and value civil liberties, i invite you to visit the libertarian website. For more information about the libertarian idealogy, please look at the "contents" link @ http://www.libertarian.org/contents.html

Sorry for sounding like an ad campaign, and thank you for your time

 

[Flat]

Republicans suck arse

 

[Arschloch]

I vote Libertarian but in fact have Libertarian beliefs.

I was one of the 242 people in my county who voted for Harry Browne in 2000. I feel special.

 

[FelixDeCat]

You make a good point. But most of the time a third party canidate is just a detractor (split vote) from the true winning party - Rep or Dem. I just dont like throwing my vote away. Just like Perot helped the elder Bush lose in 92, Nader helped Gore blow 2000.

 

[Phokus]

<< You make a good point. But most of the time a third party canidate is just a detractor (split vote) from the true
winning party - Rep or Dem. I just dont like throwing my vote away. Just like Perot helped the elder Bush lose in
92, Nader helped Gore blow 2000. >>



That's why people need to be educated in politics. Why vote for someone who has ideals that go against your beliefs?

 

[Arschloch]

I never agreed with that "throwing your vote away" argument. I always thought the purpose of voting was for a person to say, "I agree with this person's views / future plan more than anyone else out there." I mean I can understand why people would vote for only a major candidate, but I just don't happen to agree with it.

 

[Jingoh]

IMHO,

I only think it's a thrown away vote if.... you don't vote. Then you're just
saying, I'll go along with whoever it is that the majority think is best. I've
voted Libertarian in the past two presidential elections because that's where
my beliefs most are aligned. If more people would actually vote their
conscience and strong beliefs, I think the major parties would have a run for
their money. (and that's what it boils down to...sadly, money) 3rd parties
will most likely have a hard time ever getting major votes, until the two major
parties have run our Constitution so far into the ground that a 3rd party will
have to reinstate it as the law of the land.

(just my $.02)

 

[Dually]

Republicans are more Libertarian than Democrats by definition.

 

[Phokus]

<< Republicans are more Libertarian than Democrats by definition. >>



Maybe the original Republican ideology was, but the party has been so twisted and perverted by groups like the Christian Coalition/Moral Majority, etc. that they don't resemble anything close to Libertarian.

 

[cipher00]

In a word, yes. But voting is a strategy, just like any other game.

Think about it for a minute: there is no effective way to vote against a particular candidate. That's the trouble with one person/one vote. But, changing that would require more political will, and comprehension, than the electorate usually displays.

Oh, well.

 

[Texmaster]

<<

<< Republicans are more Libertarian than Democrats by definition. >>



Maybe the original Republican ideology was, but the party has been so twisted and perverted by groups like the Christian Coalition/Moral Majority, etc. that they don't resemble anything close to Libertarian. >>



LOL Oh please. You really think the vast majority or republicans fit into the Christian Coalition example you gave?

Give us a break.

The sticking point with being a libertarian for me is legalizing all drugs, one of the dumbest proposals in history IMO.

 

[Sir Fredrick]

Interestingly enough, my views don't fit in any of the categories, Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Green, whatever. I've got a little bit of each in me, apparently. It frustrates my girlfriend because she has a hard time explaining it to other people ("is your boyfriend a republican?" well, no... "is he a democrat then?" no not really "so what is he?" I don't know, I can't explain it).

I hate it when I have a political argument with someone and they try to put me in a box and label me. If I argue with a repub about something they're quick to call me a liberal or a democrat, and if I argue with a democrat about something, they're quick to call me a republican or a conservative.

I think we should all vote for whoever is most closely aligned with our personal beliefs, but that doesn't seem to be the way that politics work these days.

 

[Dually]

Its a mistake to think you have to sign on to all the beliefs of the current party leadership. You just have to like most. Agendas change slightly over time. The Democrats used to be Proslavery, you would never guess now. The Republicans freed the slaves but do most African-Americans vote for them, no.

 

[Phokus]

<< LOL Oh please. You really think the vast majority or republicans fit into the Christian Coalition example you gave? >>



Most do to varying degrees. Even the ones that are furthest away from them (with the exception of a few) have to pay lip service to them in order to keep unity in the party (read: Bush's faith based initiative). Oh and did you know Reagan was a close personal friend of Jerry Falwell? If you think otherwise, you're in denial.

That being said, the only Republican i would ever vote for is McCain as he's about the only ethical Republican out there (I would've even voted him over Harry Browne if he was the frontrunning repub. for president).

 

[Texmaster]

<<

<< LOL Oh please. You really think the vast majority or republicans fit into the Christian Coalition example you gave? >>



Most do to varying degrees. Even the ones that are furthest away from them (with the exception of a few) have to pay lip service to them in order to keep unity in the party (read: Bush's faith based initiative). Oh and did you know Reagan was a close personal friend of Jerry Falwell? If you think otherwise, you're in denial. >>



We aren't takling about Reagan or his friends. Stick to the subject of Bush supporters.

And Bush's faith based initiative doesn't mean for a SECOND it was supported by even a majority of Republicans. Where do you get your statistics?

But since you brought it up, lets look at faith based charities. With all of the problems and behind the table deals with the Red Cross and the United Way, only one major charity has only an 8% overhead (ie 92% of the money gets to the people) and thats the Salvation Army, a faith based charity.

Faith based charities offer less wasted money and lower overheads because they have more volunteers instead of paid workers which means more money gets to where its needed not to pay off the charity's people.

You really need to read more about faith based programs before going off half cocked.



<< That being said, the only Republican i would ever vote for is McCain as he's about the only ethical Republican out there (I would've even voted him over Harry Browne if he was the frontrunning repub. for president). >>



LOL McCain is a hothead that has upset BOTH sides of the Isle. You might as well vote for Ralph Nader. Reality cheak buddy, no one that pisses both parties off will be able to do a THING as president.

You must know how to get along, McCain doesn't know how to do that.

Gotta go for now but please do a little more research next time before posting.

 

[ToBeMe]

<< That being said, the only Republican i would ever vote for is McCain as he's about the only ethical Republican out there (I would've even voted him over Harry Browne if he was the frontrunning repub. for president). >>


So you're in favor of entering Afghanistan, Iraq, and any other nation whom trains terroists or manufactures weapons of mass destruction with a large military concentration of troops and carpet bombing to secure our nations well being????? Must be.......that's what McCain is in favor of.........

Let me ask........why does one need to be affiliated with ANY particular party???????? I vote for whomever I feel is most capable be it Dem, Rep, whatever! I don't think I'd go for the Lib. party though until they can define themselves...........they are split amongst themselves and also hold several views I am in complete disagreement of (drugs).

 

[gopunk]

<< You make a good point. But most of the time a third party canidate is just a detractor (split vote) from the true winning party - Rep or Dem. I just dont like throwing my vote away. Just like Perot helped the elder Bush lose in 92, Nader helped Gore blow 2000. >>



this is why we're stuck with only two possibilities. people should stop voting the status quo if they're not satisified with it.

 

[Phokus]

<<
We aren't takling about Reagan or his friends. Stick to the subject of Bush supporters.
>>



I mentioned both reagan and bush, stop trying to spin it like i only mentioned reagan.



<< And Bush's faith based initiative doesn't mean for a SECOND it was supported by even a majority of Republicans. Where do you get your statistics? >>



"The president campaigned last year on his faith-based
initiative, which he saw as a way to free religious charitable
organizations to work in society. A bill based on his plan
passed the House in July by 233-198, with 15 Democrats
joining all but four Republicans in supporting it."

http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:ivuEZ8dylYw:www.washtimes.com/national/20011207-528698.htm+bush+faith+based+senate&hl=en

While it's true it has yet to be passed by the Senate because of disagreements in a democrat controlled senate, CLEARLY, nearly every single republican in the House voted in favor of it. You're almost as bad as Rush Limbaugh when trying to spin things. Lets use facts here.



<<
But since you brought it up, lets look at faith based charities. With all of the problems and behind the table deals with the Red Cross and the United Way, only one major charity has only an 8% overhead (ie 92% of the money gets to the people) and thats the Salvation Army, a faith based charity.
>>



Wow, you give several examples that suit YOUR viewpoints, but ignore the fact that there are THOUSANDS of non-profit organizations.

That and you change the subject from the real issue, that being the seperation of church and state.



<< LOL McCain is a hothead that has upset BOTH sides of the Isle. You might as well vote for Ralph Nader. Reality cheak buddy, no one that pisses both parties off will be able to do a THING as president. >>



Riiiiight, so let me get this straight, because McCain is strong in his conviction and (allegedly) pisses people off in both parties ,that is a reason why i shouldn't vote for him? Logic? Reasoning? None? Ok then.



<< You must know how to get along, McCain doesn't know how to do that. >>



When you try to please everyone, you risk not sticking with your convictions.



<< Gotta go for now but please do a little more research next time before posting. >>



This comming from someone who applies the "Rush Limbaugh Research Technique"

 

[worth]

<< "The president campaigned last year on his faith-based
initiative, which he saw as a way to free religious charitable
organizations to work in society. A bill based on his plan
passed the House in July by 233-198, with 15 Democrats
joining all but four Republicans in supporting it." >>



I think Texmaster was refering to Republican Voters, not Republican House Representatives.

 

[Phokus]

<<
I think Texmaster was refering to Republican Voters, not Republican House Representatives. >>



Clearly, texmaster doesn't specify, and even if he did mean it, i'm sure it's just one of his BS lies.

The only people i see protesting this initiative are:

1) Underrepresented religious organizations. Some feel that there is going to be some favoritism towards Christian faiths in this bill. Even a handful of Christian organizations are against it, but for the wrong reasons (Reverend Jerry Falwell said he was against it because there might be a possibility that they'd have to share with those "evil muslims").

2) Atheists. Duh. I'm not one, but this is obvious.

3) Civil Libertarians.

 

[batgeek]

i AM, and VOTE Libertarian. just sucks we'll never get one of our candidates elected :disgust:

 

[BlueApple]

The republican voters elect the Republican House Representatives.

 

[Mo0o]

bah, lets all just vote democrat

 

[FelixDeCat]

this is why we're stuck with only two possibilities. people should stop voting the status quo if they're not satisified with it.


Who said I wasnt satisfied? That is why you need to read the post before you reply.

 

[mithrandir2001]

If the Democrats would drop their holy class war and liberal economic dogma, I might even vote for them. But their demand-side philosophies are dangerous to the economy and the American way of life.