Galt's Gulch

Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

    -
  • Posted by Spinkane 12 years, 8 months ago
    What “objections” do you have to the Libertarian Party?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
      -
    • Posted by khalling 12 years, 8 months ago
      yes, Euda, why not the Libertarian party?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        -
      • Posted by Eudaimonia 12 years, 8 months ago
        I have no Objections to the LP, as long as they've stepped back from the "9/11 was an inside job" conspiracy-kook cliff.

        I have no problems with an existing 3rd party as a 3rd party to flee to.
        I'm more interested in taking the GOP off of Tea Party life support.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          -
        • Posted by khalling 12 years, 8 months ago
          that is kooky. I did not know that. me too on second comment. I remember when we were all debating a libertarian vote is a throw away vot. When in actuality a third party vote, is something to be greatly feared by the dems and rep. you pull in 10% of a vote based on platforms and both parties stand up and listen. My son has worked up stats on that. I'll see if he's willing to post about that in here...
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            -
          • Posted by Rocky_Road 12 years, 8 months ago
            "In 1992, Ross Perot ran as an independent and took 18.9% of the popular vote. Bush 41 lost to Clinton in the popular vote by only 5.6%. If we give Perot's vote to Bush 41, then Bush 41 would have taken California (51 electoral college votes), Colorado (8), Connecticut (8), Delaware (3), Georgia (13), Hawaii (4), Illinois (22), Iowa (7), Kentucky (8), Louisiana (9), Maine (4), Massachusetts (12), Michigan (18), Minnesota (10), Missouri (11), Montana (3), Nevada (4), New Hampshire (4), New Jersey (15), New Mexico (5), Ohio (21), Oregon (7), Pennsylvania (23), Rhode Island (4), Tennessee (11), Vermont (3), Washington (11), West Virginia (5), and Wisconsin (11) -- and very narrowly lost Maryland (10) by <0.01% and New York (33) by <0.1%. Conceivably, had Perot's vote all gone for Bush 41, Bush would have won the popular vote 56.4% to 43.0%, taken 47 of 50 states, and won 483 of 538 electoral college votes."

            http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/08/t...

            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by khalling 12 years, 8 months ago
              Bush 41 was a terrible President. sorry-he was also behind the passing of Sarbox- which helped his oil interests greatly. The problem with a Perot is that running as an independent is not a platform. The Libertarians have a well-thought out platform. You do not have to agree with all of it, but at least you can say yes to this no to that. The Republican platform is a mishmash, middle of the power road, nation destroying machine
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo