Don't Blame Me, I Voted Kodos!
The Libertarians could win if they would divorce themselves from the anarchists, pacifists, and child-sex apologizers, and focus on winnable goals, and back mainstream candidates rather than running their own candidates when the mainstream candidates will adopt a simple pledge platform like a pledge not to support any new tax or regulation. That would have a real world effect. If winning were their actual goal.
Talk about "suckers." The suckers are the people who vote a straight Libertarian ticket no matter what the real world effect. I don't believe there is one single straight-ticket Republican on this forum. For example, without even asking, I am sure that John Armaos will vote third party if either the liberal candidate is a shoe-in (so he has his choice of losing candidates) or if the independent might actually win. John can let me know if I'm wrong. It is the "not for the anti-Socialist candidate even if he has a chance of winning" voter who is the intentional sucker.
Note that, yet again, Steve Wolfer can't even answer a straight question on the issue. He said above that pragmatically Obama's win was better than McCain's because it focuses the electorate on the evil of the leftist agenda.
Q. Well, doesn't the electorate count as focused now? Yes or No?
Again, if the electorate isn't backing Brown because they are focused on socialized medicine, why are they backing him? Because they are racists?
And if the electorate isn't focused enough now to let us vote for the best candidate with a chance of winning, then under what real world circumstances will it be okay to vote for the best candidate? What further lesson beyond nationalization of one sixth of the economy has to be learned? Do we need a devaluation of the currency?
Q. Under what set of real world circumstances would a Libertarian vote for a winning Republican rather than a losing Libertarian in order to remove a Democrat from office? Are things not yet bad enough? Yes or No?
And, finally, do the issues ever matter? The Libertarian in Massachusetts wants to "pass a law" and bring our troops home from Afghanistan as quick as possible. Is that the Objectivist position? He doesn't think states should recognize marriages of any sort, so he wants to repeal the defense of marriage act, which says that one state doesn't have to recognize the gay marriage of another. Is that the Objectivist position? Those may be yours, but they are not my positions. None of the three major candidates matches my stand, but one is simply evil. Does that not matter? Is voting for the Libertarian because of his party affiliation, rather than what he actually stands for and its relevance in the current climate, the Objectivist position?
The judgment always has to be made in its full context.
Actually defeating evil sometimes matters.
(Edited by Ted Keer on 1/19, 12:06am)