Is There A Party For Golwater Republicans?

Discuss life, the universe, and everything with other members of this site. Get to know your fellow polywell enthusiasts.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

Yes. Goldwater is dead. But his ideas are not. And they and the people who hold them are no longer welcome in the Republican Party. Thank you for making that TOTALLY clear.

That leaves Republicans with a reliable 30% to 40% of the vote. Can you win elections with that? Depends on how many outside the Party you can attract. Do the math.

These days all a Republican has to do to lose an election is mouth off about social issues or get a reminder from Democrats about where the party stands on social issues. It can be done. But it adds a headwind.
In many ways, the Republican Party is like a 3 legged stool.with 3 constituent legs - the social conservatives, the Rockefeller Republicans and constitutional liberty activists.

1. The social conservatives endorse big government and endless wars.

2. The Rockefeller Republicans endorse big government and endless wars but are very uncomfortable the social issues which they don't care about.

3. The constitutional liberty activists oppose big government, the darn wars, the trillion dollar a year foreign policy, the Federal Reserve and they really oppose the federal government meddling in the social issues because it's not a power specifically enumerated in the constitution.

What is killing the Republican Party is that the constitutional liberty activists will no longer hold their noses and vote Republican as they once did and this is a trend that surfaced in 2006 and was considerably magnified in 2008 when the Democrats took back the House of Representatives and won the presidency.

In fact, the liberty activists are so angry with the GOP that they are determined to guarantee its defeat by voting 3rd party for however long it takes for the liberty activists to takeover the GOP from the warmongers and fascists. The Gary Johnson vote delivered critical swing states to Obama in 2012.


http://judymorrisreport.blogspot.com/20 ... -ugly.html
As a warmonger myself I do not fit well with #3. But the Democrats have come around enough on that issue (in practice if not rhetoric) that I can tolerate them.

I'm proud to say that I was part of the Johnson surge and may have convinced a few where it matters (I live in Illinois) to join it as well.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

Diogenes
Posts: 6967
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Post by Diogenes »

MSimon wrote:Yes. Goldwater is dead. But his ideas are not. And they and the people who hold them are no longer welcome in the Republican Party. Thank you for making that TOTALLY clear.

That leaves Republicans with a reliable 30% to 40% of the vote. Can you win elections with that? Depends on how many outside the Party you can attract. Do the math.

I've done the math, and the math tells me that worring about elections is now futile. Romney MIGHT have made the economic numbers work. Captain Stupid is "D@mn the ice bergs, full speed ahead!" Lest he and giggles both die of a stroke, and soon, we're pretty much done.

What good is an election? Will it hold back the sea? I saw this comment today, it pretty much summed it up.


277 As a very wise Vorlon once said, "The avalanche has started; it is too late for the pebbles to vote."

Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at February 05, 2013 09:34 AM (QXlbZ)






MSimon wrote:
These days all a Republican has to do to lose an election is mouth off about social issues or get a reminder from Democrats about where the party stands on social issues. It can be done. But it adds a headwind. .

Social issues are only a problem because of the media headwind and propaganda going back decades. The problem is actually self solving.

I keep telling people, nature WILL assert itself.









Why would you quote her? I looked at her blog. I see nothing to recommend her. Seems like a flake to me.




MSimon wrote: As a warmonger myself I do not fit well with #3. But the Democrats have come around enough on that issue (in practice if not rhetoric) that I can tolerate them.

Does that mean you think they Will, or Won't do something about Iran? I'm confused, because it looks to me like they WILL let Iran build nuclear bombs and delivery systems, and they WILL let Iran nuke the most powerful nation in the Middle east.


You must really love your drug issue a lot if you are so willing to trade the lives of so many millions of people for it.



MSimon wrote: I'm proud to say that I was part of the Johnson surge and may have convinced a few where it matters (I live in Illinois) to join it as well.

Yeah, youse guys got a whole 1%! Good going!


I do think you have your priorities all mixed up. On one side is Massive Economic collapse, and possibly millions of deaths, maybe your very survival, and on the other you have not having to put up with people annoying you.



Yeah, that's a tough one.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

quixote
Posts: 130
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 8:44 pm

Post by quixote »

MSimon wrote:I'm proud to say that I was part of the Johnson surge and may have convinced a few where it matters (I live in Illinois) to join it as well.
Out of curiosity, I gathered the election results for all 50 states and DC to see if the Gary Johnson "surge" made any difference in the election. The answer, in a word, is no. Not a single state would have flipped regardless of whether you assume all Johnson voters would have voted for Romney, or all Johnson voters would have voted for Obama.

I stuck the data in google docs if anyone cares to look at it. I sourced it from this FEC data.

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

quixote wrote:
MSimon wrote:I'm proud to say that I was part of the Johnson surge and may have convinced a few where it matters (I live in Illinois) to join it as well.
Out of curiosity, I gathered the election results for all 50 states and DC to see if the Gary Johnson "surge" made any difference in the election. The answer, in a word, is no. Not a single state would have flipped regardless of whether you assume all Johnson voters would have voted for Romney, or all Johnson voters would have voted for Obama.

I stuck the data in google docs if anyone cares to look at it. I sourced it from this FEC data.
You are correct. But that doesn't account for those who stayed home. Or who changed parties. I have been getting a lot of anecdotal evidence of party switches at my blog. People who are no longer willing to "hold their nose" as they put it. People who had voted for Republicans who voted Democrat.

http://classicalvalues.com/2013/02/how- ... hese-days/

And in my opinion the trend is not in full swing yet. Up until now it had no venue for articulation. I believe that will be changing. Especially with the anti-Prohibition efforts heating up.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

quixote wrote:
MSimon wrote:I'm proud to say that I was part of the Johnson surge and may have convinced a few where it matters (I live in Illinois) to join it as well.
Out of curiosity, I gathered the election results for all 50 states and DC to see if the Gary Johnson "surge" made any difference in the election. The answer, in a word, is no. Not a single state would have flipped regardless of whether you assume all Johnson voters would have voted for Romney, or all Johnson voters would have voted for Obama.

I stuck the data in google docs if anyone cares to look at it. I sourced it from this FEC data.
Here is a post that shows where the Libertarians gave Democrats victories. A quote and then a link:

A Ron Paul endorsed Montana senate candidate, Denny Rehberg,lost to the Democratic incumbent Jon Tester 48.7% to 44.8% but the Libertarian Party candidate, Dan Cox, got 6.5%, here. Rehberg's defeat was painful for liberty activists.

In the Indiana senate race where social conservative Richard Mourdock lost to Democrat Joe Donnelly 49.9% to 44.4%, the Libertarian candidate Andy Horning got 5.8%, here.

In Missouri where the now infamous Todd Akin of the 'legitimate rape' fame got walloped by incumbent Claire McCaskill 54.7% to 39.2%, it's important to note that Akin was running about even with McCaskill before his EPIC blunder. Given that it was going to be a tight race under the best of circumstances, it instructive to note that the Libertarian candidate Jonathan Dine pulled in a very significant 6.1%, here. It's entirely possible that McCaskill would have squeaked by anyway if Akin hadn't blundered and once again the Libertarian vote would have cost the GOP another victory.

The uber liberal Daily Kos literally gloated over how the Libertarian vote delivered 9 victories to the Democrats in tight races that included 2 senate seats, a governorship and 6 house seats. The Daily Kos was reporting only on its early preliminary calculations and indicated that the Libertarian vote may have been even more decisive.

http://judymorrisreport.blogspot.com/20 ... arian.html
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

KitemanSA
Posts: 6179
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Post by KitemanSA »

Diogenes wrote:Actually, I rather like the Barry Goldwater quote.
"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!"
I like that quote too. It is too bad, D, that what you defend is not liberty, and what you pursue is not justice, but in both cases is suppression.

If you fit the mold of a "Goldwater Republican", your best fit party is now the Libertarian Party.

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

KitemanSA wrote:
Diogenes wrote:Actually, I rather like the Barry Goldwater quote.
"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!"
I like that quote too. It is too bad, D, that what you defend is not liberty, and what you pursue is not justice, but in both cases is suppression.

If you fit the mold of a "Goldwater Republican", your best fit party is now the Libertarian Party.
Amen. Heh.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

Diogenes
Posts: 6967
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Post by Diogenes »

KitemanSA wrote:
Diogenes wrote:Actually, I rather like the Barry Goldwater quote.
"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!"
I like that quote too. It is too bad, D, that what you defend is not liberty, and what you pursue is not justice, but in both cases is suppression.

If you fit the mold of a "Goldwater Republican", your best fit party is now the Libertarian Party.

Anything which makes a society impossible makes Liberty impossible as well.


We are both in favor of Liberty. You just do not see how drugs threaten it because cause and effect are too greatly separated for you to perceive the connection between them.


You have to look at things Macroscopically.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

Diogenes
Posts: 6967
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Post by Diogenes »

MSimon wrote:
KitemanSA wrote:
Diogenes wrote:Actually, I rather like the Barry Goldwater quote.
"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!"
I like that quote too. It is too bad, D, that what you defend is not liberty, and what you pursue is not justice, but in both cases is suppression.

If you fit the mold of a "Goldwater Republican", your best fit party is now the Libertarian Party.
Amen. Heh.
Meanwhile, While youse guys remain oblivious in your caterwalling about a piddling entertainment pastime, far more important sh*t is going on.


http://politicalhat.com/2013/02/05/the- ... grapevine/
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

KitemanSA
Posts: 6179
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Post by KitemanSA »

D,
"Society" did just fine with controlling the effects of drugs and alcohol until people like you who confuse "society" with "government" decided that "society" needed more control so you turned to what you view as "society" and started prohibition.

Diogenes
Posts: 6967
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Post by Diogenes »

KitemanSA wrote:D,
"Society" did just fine with controlling the effects of drugs and alcohol until people like you who confuse "society" with "government" decided that "society" needed more control so you turned to what you view as "society" and started prohibition.


You keep misdiagnosing the problem. You WANT it to be about control, and not about an actual problem.
When cocaine and alcohol meet inside a person, they create a third unique drug called cocaethylene. Cocaethylene works like cocaine, but with more euphoria.


So in 1863, when Parisian chemist Angelo Mariani combined coca and wine and started selling it, a butterfly did flap its wings. His Vin Marian became extremely popular. Jules Verne, Alexander Dumas, and Arthur Conan Doyle were among literary figures said to have used it, and the chief rabbi of France said, "Praise be to Mariani's wine!"
Pemberton remained a step ahead, though. He replaced the wine in the formula with (healthier?) sugar syrup. His new product debuted in 1886: "Coca-Cola: The temperance drink."
Cocaine wasn't even illegal until 1914 -- 11 years after Coca-Cola's change -- but a massive surge in cocaine use was at its peak at the turn of the century. Recreational use increased five-fold in a period of less than two decades.
There's the start of that Logistical growth function.

Image

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/print ... da/272694/
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

Post Reply