Special Senate Election

I agree. The problem is many of them are either too stupid to know it "I vote D just like my parents always have", or they have been brainwashed by the corrupt media that libertarians are whackos.

agreed, both apply pretty frequently. libertarians are often deemed un-electable before anyone even knows their platform or proposals. Usually despite them being the most qualified
 
agreed, both apply pretty frequently. libertarians are often deemed un-electable before anyone even knows their platform or proposals. Usually despite them being the most qualified

What I found interesting when i was talking to my family and friends about libertarian talking points, is that most of my family and friends agreed with almost all of them. Several of my friends voted for (L). I actually dont know anyone off the top of my head who voted (D) or (R) who was my age that I am friendly with. My parents and grandparents all voted (R), despite the fact that they had more common ground with (L) than they did with (R).

Perception of electability and stigma of voting 3rd party are what keep "old" people from voting outside of their comfort zone.
 
If Marsha would have won the special election, I don't see she would have voted any different. That said, if a Libertarian runs, I will be voting for them.

If only a reasonably sane one would stand up. Enough with the legalize pot and small government is beautiful crap. Get real, get funding, get elected.

The biggest problem we have with libertarians in this state is that the ones who run usually seem loony without any help from the Democratic mud machine.

We need a third, and maybe fourth party, and pols that care enough to throw down on the senate floor like every other civilized country. ;p
 
If only a reasonably sane one would stand up. Enough with the legalize pot and small government is beautiful crap. Get real, get funding, get elected.

The biggest problem we have with libertarians in this state is that the ones who run usually seem loony without any help from the Democratic mud machine.

We need a third, and maybe fourth party, and pols that care enough to throw down on the senate floor like every other civilized country. ;p

Ah yes, Carla Howell. Small government is beautiful, but she was not the best messenger.

ETA: I did vote for her once, can't remember if it was for Senate or Governor though.
 
Last edited:
What I found interesting when i was talking to my family and friends about libertarian talking points, is that most of my family and friends agreed with almost all of them. Several of my friends voted for (L). I actually dont know anyone off the top of my head who voted (D) or (R) who was my age that I am friendly with. My parents and grandparents all voted (R), despite the fact that they had more common ground with (L) than they did with (R).

Perception of electability and stigma of voting 3rd party are what keep "old" people from voting outside of their comfort zone.
and a lot of people who only care about social issues will vote D simply because republicans can't help themselves from saying stupid shit at every turn to alienate them from gays and other minorities.

I know a few gay couples who all voted D because they were scared of Romney, really the truth of it Obama and the democrats don't really do much for marriage equality or equal rights at all and they would be better served with a libertarian or other party
 
Ah yes, Carla Howell. Small government is beautiful, but she was not the best messenger.

Exactly. No offense to her, but we always seem to get 'not the best messenger'. It's an uphill battle, for sure, but a few articulate, personable folks willing to take one for the team would be great. And if someone like George Soros would use his power for good rather than evil, it wouldn't hurt.
 
***
Ok, do you think Romney would be appointing VP Ryan to convene a committee to conjure up more useless gun control bills while the country teeters on the fiscal cliff?

After Newtown, if you think a hypothetical President Rombot wouldn't do this, you're clearly not thinking straight. Romney has always voted the way the wind blows.
 
and a lot of people who only care about social issues will vote D simply because republicans can't help themselves from saying stupid shit at every turn to alienate them from gays and other minorities.

I know a few gay couples who all voted D because they were scared of Romney, really the truth of it Obama and the democrats don't really do much for marriage equality or equal rights at all and they would be better served with a libertarian or other party

remind your gay friends that libertarians are socially more liberal than (D) and more fiscally conservative than (R)'s. It's win-win as long as your not a religious lunatic, want to force your values on other people or controlling.
 
remind your gay friends that libertarians are socially more liberal than (D) and more fiscally conservative than (R)'s. It's win-win as long as your not a religious lunatic, want to force your values on other people or controlling.
I try, they are so scared by the media's portrayal of republicans (and some isn't even media driven) that they do the same as people on here and vote the lesser of two evils for their beliefs.

hopefully one day they can come around
 
remind your gay friends that libertarians are socially more liberal than (D) and more fiscally conservative than (R)'s. It's win-win as long as your not a religious lunatic, want to force your values on other people or controlling.

I argue that gays/people advocating for "equal rights" aren't arguing for rights but for equal oppression.
 
I'm amazed with all the people in Mass that complain about one major party or the other - and in a lot of cases, both - that Gary Johnson only got 1% of the vote here. He not only had the best resume of all the candidates, it was a perfect time for a protest vote since Obama was going to win the state, and most likely the country anyway!

Also, one thing to think about when you're wondering why more candidates don't step up: in a senatorial race, it will cost about $40,000 just to get on the ballot. There's very few people with that kind of money that are masochistic enough to run in Mass as an independent or minor party.
 
Ill go for Brown. Is he the optimum candidate? No. However there has not been a valid libertarian candidate that had a chance of getting more than a handful of votes. Voting does have a "lesser of two evils" factor. Fact is the parties put up who they think is best and not always who "I" think is best so you need to make a decision on who is closest to your ideal candidate. By not voting Brown we know have Warren who caves at every presidential request.
 
I will vote for the candidate that shows that they vote to preserve the constitution even when it is counter to their desires and the desires of their constituents.

We are not a democracy and our reps ans senators need to stop acting like we are.
The republican brand of tyranny isn't any better than the democrat brand. It's like coke and pepsi. Sure they are slightly different but they both rot your teeth and make you fat.

Sent from my mobile device.
 
Last edited:
And if everyone continues to write off third party unelectable candidates despite being the better choice for them personally simply because they are deemed unelectable, then unelectable they will remain and on goes the power grab between the two major parties in favor of more intrusive government, the only differences being what kind and who controls it
 
I will vote for a third party candidate, if there is one. If not, I won't vote. The only good coming out of a "Brown" senate seat, would be the entertainment value of watching his interactions with Liawatha. There's been bad blood between them in the past, and now that he won't have his war hero "Liveshot" Kerry in the seat beside him, he just might vote in opposition to her, just to piss her off. I bet she really hopes he doesn't get elected!
 
Back
Top Bottom