Billionaire dem finances libertarian pays off

[Hoologan]

Actually the book I was referring to, is a book on how libertarians could actually win elections . I believe there is a thread on recommended books, right here on our very own CALGUNS ! Not that a real libertarian would bother to read anything ! Why should they? They know everything already !



Unfortunately these big mouthed illiterate chumps that vote for candidates financed by wealthy democrats are just plain too brainwashed for creative solutions

Is that the fourth, or fifth time you've mention this book in this thread? I've lost count.

I've read the book. It is a good book, and the fictional character Mr. Preston was a very smart individual, but the story is exactly that, fiction.

You're pretty proud of the fact that you can read. Congratulations.

[rugershooter]

Once again you and your libertarian buddy's go back to using analogies that reflect personal preferences with subjects that have nothing to do with gun rights !

I honestly do not understand this obsession by some members of the calgunns community to bring the discussion around to topics they find irresistible .

The topic is a billionare democrat, Obama fundraiser, financing a libertarian candidate to elect anti gun Terry McAulliff . Who in case you missed it, just injured law abiding gun owners, legislatively, of course .

Bill W, thank you for your correct analysis on why in part, A rated Ken Cucchenelli lost .
Others who pointed out the RNC not properly financing Cucchellini are also correct .

I'm thinking this democrat billionare, who financed the libertarian, did so with the intent of taking votes away from A rated republican Ken Cucchenelli !

What you're missing is that he's a libertarian in name only. He's not a true libertarian.
One of the major problems regarding elected officials is that people don't really give a damn about the candidate's views or history. The majority of Americans, including many people on Calguns, are stupid enough to believe what the candidates say, rather than looking at their history on different issues and using that as an indicator of what they would do if elected. If you don't believe that, read the threads here on Gov. Brown. He has a proven record of being anti gun, yet people are so f**king stupid that they believe his bulls**t about being pro gun. If the candidate is anti gun, that will manifest itself in one way or another, regardless of party affiliation. Personally, I vote for the person whose beliefs align most closely with mine, party affiliation be damned. I'll vote for a pro freedom Democrat over an anti freedom Republican every time. I really don't give a ***** about the party.
The Republican party has sole responsibility for the position they're in. They refuse to put out real conservative candidates who are proven to be consistently conservative. They're rather put out a piece of ***** like John McCain. If Republicans were consistently conservative in reality, more people would vote for them instead of Libertarian candidates. The root of the problem is NOT that the Libertarians are somehow "stealing" votes from the Republicans (who are usually liberal anyways. The problem is that the Republican party REFUSES to put out candidates who are real conservatives.

[NickTheGreek]

When was the last time a Libertarian actually won an election?

That is irrelevant.

The Republican party was founded in 1854
The Democratic party has roots back to 1828
The Libertarian party is relatively new, founded in 1971. However, it really hasn't had much cohesion until the past decade when social media allowed it to push past the media biases and get the word out.

[kotetu]

Sarvis was outspent almost 100 to 1 by Cuccinelli, and nearly 200 to 1 by McAuliffe. "Blame the Libertarian"? That's just weak.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_gubernatorial_election,_2013#Fundraising

Campaign finance reports through November 28, 2013

Candidate...........Spent..............Votes
Terry McAuliffe....$38,003,836.....1,069,789
Ken Cuccinelli......$20,942,496....1,013,354
Robert Sarvis...........$213,781.......146,084

[ja308]

You are trying to insult a libertarian by insinuating he is gay as if that is an insult. Sorry, but this is the 21st century, that isn't a big deal anymore. It is apparent you are out of touch with not only modern politics but the modern voters as a whole.

It is rather interesting that you interpreted my attempt to bring you folks who are fixated by sexual activitys between same sex people as an insult !

Being an adult who is fairly familiar with human experiances, through history by reading authors going back 3000 years and living a few decades on planet earth.
I can assure you that your proclivities are neither new, nor special ! So I would humbly suggest that if you and others like you, would kindly put aside topics not related to furthering liberty via RKBA .

Others have suggested certain republicans are really libertarians. Unfortunately not one has been elected as a libertarian, so in reality they are Republicans with libertarian leanings .

Now in not suggesting registered libertarians are just too stupid to fiqure out that libertartarian type republicans can be elected by working through the GOP in primary's and in general elections.
That would require libertarians to actually claim the title of a Republican !

I know of Zero libertarians that have the courage to call themselves republican for fear of appearing not cool !

This is of course propaganda put out by wealthy democrats and flat out screwballs who 's only intent is chaos !

[GoZoner]

Going back 3000 years! Only 1000 more to go.

Most Libertarians look forward to the day when the Republican party returns to its libertarian roots. Phase One: moral majority types die off. Other phases: dollar is dropped as the World's reserve/exchange currency (in progress); Dems crush Reps repeatedly (intelligent Reps will reassert fundamentals); US exposed as world hypocrites (thanks Ed Snowden) reducing US military trust/use.

[NickTheGreek]

So I would humbly suggest that if you and others like you, would kindly put aside topics not related to furthering liberty via RKBA .

You should probably take your own advice.

[NickTheGreek]

It is no longer Republican vs Democrat; the battle of the 21st century is authoritarian (Rep+Dem) vs libertarian. An objective look at the legislative evidence and eventually, I suspect, you will find this conclusion obvious. Except for JA308

[Ronin2]

Here...watch this speech given on the floor of the NJ statehouse and find me a democrat ANYWHERE in the country who has taken a similar position....

[NickTheGreek]

Here...watch this speech given on the floor of the NJ statehouse and find me a democrat ANYWHERE in the country who has taken a similar position....

Why are you asking for someone to find you a democrat with that position? Is anybody arguing that democrats are pro-gun? Because I don't see it.

[MotoriousRacing]

When was the last time a Libertarian actually won an election?

That is irrelevant.

The Republican party was founded in 1854
The Democratic party has roots back to 1828
The Libertarian party is relatively new, founded in 1971. However, it really hasn't had much cohesion until the past decade when social media allowed it to push past the media biases and get the word out.

It is relevant, I believe, because both established parties do not want more competition, therefore the rise of a third party will be difficult, possibly impossible. As others said, better to get a Rep in office then a Dem, because the Reps uphold 2A much better than the Dems, then work on changing what the Rep party stands for.

Maybe voting for Libs will help move the Rep towards more freedom, however, in the meantime, not voting for the Rep can enable the Dem to win the office. I see it being a dilema, but often you cannot make a change (especially large changes) in one step. Change may need to be broken down into smaller steps.

For instance, with enough Rep wins, maybe some anti freedom laws could be reversed, then, when some freedom has been established, voting for more freedom (a Lib; win or lose) would not so greatly enable the Dems and their fight for control.

[ja308]

It is relevant, I believe, because both established parties do not want more competition, therefore the rise of a third party will be difficult, possibly impossible. As others said, better to get a Rep in office then a Dem, because the Reps uphold 2A much better than the Dems, then work on changing what the Rep party stands for.

Maybe voting for Libs will help move the Rep towards more freedom, however, in the meantime, not voting for the Rep can enable the Dem to win the office. I see it being a dilema, but often you cannot make a change (especially large changes) in one step. Change may need to be broken down into smaller steps.

For instance, with enough Rep wins, maybe some anti freedom laws could be reversed, then, when some freedom has been established, voting for more freedom (a Lib; win or lose) would not so greatly enable the Dems and their fight for control.

Your post puts forth some common sense points ! Added to the truths contained in your post, is also the fact that states with republican legislators and governors seem to be the places nearly every Calgunner wants to relocate to.

Unless I missed some thing contained within the 1500 plus posts on relocation, I cannot recollect one person moving to an exclusive democrat controlled state.

The state I chose for relocation had a democrat governor who refused all CCWs !
The new republican has signed CCW legislation. CCWs are now easy to obtain !

Fortunately this state contains nearly zero childish libertarians blabbing about their utopia and electing anti gun democrats in the process.

[GoZoner]

...Fortunately this state contains nearly zero childish libertarians blabbing about their utopia and electing anti gun democrats in the process.

We missed you. Apparently you were on a 72 hour hold?

[NickTheGreek]

We missed you. Apparently you were on a 72 hour hold?

He needed time to come up with a strong comeback. Either that, or he needed to read his book again.

[ja308]

He needed time to come up with a strong comeback. Either that, or he needed to read his book again.

Thank you for noticing I haven't posted on CALGUNS for about a week .
Fortunately I was w/o an Internet connection and used the time to read
" State of Fear " by Micheal Crichton .

I highly recommend this book which destroys the idea of man made climate change in very entertaining vehicle .

Republicans will learn lots by reading it as each claim is documented by footnotes. The author does appear to be progun and in certain situations mocks the liberal view of self defence and man made climate change