Subject:
|
Re: LP statement on terrorist attacks
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 17 Sep 2001 14:19:41 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
953 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
>
> > I agree with some of the stances that each of the big two take. I agree with
> > many of the stances of the LP. I think I agree with some of what the Green
> > Party says. Why shouldn't I be able to support (through membership) each of
> > those? After all, I am a member of the NRA and the Nature Conservancy (and a
> > bunch of others).
>
> But if you were going to run for office, under which party would you do
> it? It's fine (and appropriate) for individuals to support such political
> groups as are in line with the individual's views, but when one is running
> for office (in the current and long-term-forseeable future political setup),
> one is generally required to take certain definitive positions. For a
> Libertarian to do otherwise (ie: to leave himself all sorts of "yeah-but"
> escape clauses) would be to subscribe wholeheartedly to the exact Washington
> problems that the LP nominally opposes.
Well, I admit I am myself ambivalent about this. But consider this... (and
know that since I am not Ron Paul I am speculating. But I HAVE pored over
his website to see where he stands on stuff)
The Republican party makes you sign no oath, and does not make you promise
that you support the R platform or that you aren't member of some other
party too.
What would *prevent* a LP member from running as a republican? He can say
the same platform he always would have if he was running as an L. If he has
name recognition and can win the race, great. (and Ron Paul DOES have name
recognition in his district and outside of it, he was a GOP US Congressman
before he switched) The only downside is that because he ticks the R column
he is helping the GOP keep committee seats etc. in Congress.
Ron Paul may never have actually renounced his LP membership for all we
know. Certainly if you go to his website and look at his positions, look at
the bills he has introduced, look at the bills he cosponsors, etc. it's a
VERY libertarian record. 100% i would say, unless i missed something, which
is possible.
It may not be what I would choose to do. Or maybe it is. I am trying to talk
Josette into running for the school board and in order to have any chance of
winning she will have to run as an R. The D's have no chance in our
district, even though that's the way she's been voting lately. She's not
happy about holding her nose to do it, though. We shall see
The big two are unprincipled parties. Is it wrong to use their lack of
principle against them? Part of me says yes. Part of me doesn't know. I'm
STILL opposed to taking federal funds for elections though.
(was it wrong for Lenin to say "the capitalists will sell us the rope we
need to hang them, on credit" ? :-) )
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: LP statement on terrorist attacks
|
| (...) I agree that if an LP member agrees with the tenets of the platform on which he is running, then he's under no conflict. If, however, he's (an abstract "he" rather than Paul) biting his tongue on major issues with which he might disagree (like (...) (23 years ago, 17-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: LP statement on terrorist attacks
|
| (...) But if you were going to run for office, under which party would you do it? It's fine (and appropriate) for individuals to support such political groups as are in line with the individual's views, but when one is running for office (in the (...) (23 years ago, 17-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
49 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
