English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

It seems the Republicrat uniparty has sewn up any chance to change the national agenda again.
The Republican side continues to scare its base with the bogeyman of Big Government.
The Democratic side continues to scare its base with the bogeyman of Big Business.
All the while medical marijuana is still persecuted by the federal Government while legal drug addicts (Prozac, Xanax, etc) are permitted.
Pressuring Mexico to improve living standards so people don't immigrate in large numbers is completely off the table.
Foreign policy remains as bloody and costly as it always has been.
The Greens and the Libertarians (many whom march against a lot of the same things) should put aside their differences-mainly on economic policy-and give the nation a 3rd party agenda. A choice on the ballot for a change would be nice.
Right now it's a choice between Millionaire A and Millionaire B and which one will screw us over less.
"Our agenda is yours to steal."-Ralph Nader

2007-05-08 14:12:01 · 11 answers · asked by annarkeymagic 3 in Politics & Government Elections

-Patrick E., what I'm talking about is putting name calling like Environmental wacko and Gun Nut behind us and working on issues where we have common ground.
Like ending the War on Poor People, er, War on Liberty, er.... War on Drugs.
One of the best arguments I hear for keeping legalization is by Prof. Milton Freidman, Mr Free Market himself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Se_TJzB9-z0
B. Kivorkian-wrong! The common ground between the two is actually an agenda that opposes a lot that Beltway Insiders are for and the American people are against and vic versa.(DOD & DOE cleaning up their own sites first, ending the War On Drugs, opposing subsidies to Defense Contractors, opposing the Death Penalty, and there's more)
-Aristotilean, Granted, that's a major disagreement. But the rest of the agenda of both parties, the parts that are in common, are ignored by the media and the Republicrat uniparty.
-obelix, Thanks. And I think being ablr to do a little bit is better than being able to do 0!

2007-05-08 15:39:11 · update #1

11 answers

Though they seem so different, I have often voted for a Green or a Libertarian in preference to official candidates. In doing so I never expected to win and never have.

Your suggestion, though, is the only possibility for a real alternative. For it to work, Greens would have to abandon their naderish intransigeance, and Libertarians would have to leave behind their own dedication to status quo economics. I don't know that either is a true possibility, but if it were I might actually find candidates with whom I agreed.

2007-05-08 14:59:50 · answer #1 · answered by obelix 6 · 2 0

No, I don't think so. Libertarians are opposed to using the force of government for what some group might think is a good idea, and the environmental movement is notorious both for advocating that as well as initiating aggression against those that disagree. These are VERY un-libertarian views.

2007-05-09 02:11:40 · answer #2 · answered by Tim M 2 · 0 0

The only problem with your idea is that Libertarians are strict Free Traders/Pro-Globalization & the Greenies are anti-all of that. So I doubt that you'll ever see Ralph Nader & the Libertarian party getting together any time soon.

2007-05-08 14:18:29 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Actually I think if Ron Paul steers clear of the environmental wacko’s he might stand a chance with the social conservatives in the country (I did not say republicans)

Courage is doing what you are afraid to do. There can be no courage unless you are scared.
Eddie Rickenbacker

2007-05-08 14:16:54 · answer #4 · answered by patrsup 4 · 1 0

Hell, Ron Paul is actually a conservative Libertarian.
Anti Patriot Act
Pro Second Amendment
Anti Big NANNY state govt.
He pisses the power structure in Washington off. Thats my man.

2007-05-08 15:27:11 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

If the Greens and Libertarians were to put asside thier differences, they'd have no platform at all.

Though I agree that Green vs Libertarian would at least be a real choice!

2007-05-08 14:17:28 · answer #6 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 2 1

The found out and knowledgeable non secular human beings of the Bible didn’t understand the 1st coming of Christ. in basic terms so, dissimilar found out and knowledgeable non secular human beings as we talk don’t understand the rapture any further ideal than the Pharisees and the Sadducees did the 1st time. yet, they effective make dissimilar funds by way of advertising books approximately their very own opinion of the activities surrounding the rapture. 2 Peter 3:10-15 - meanwhile, we watch for the Lord's coming with zeal, averting sin, and being at peace, in the wish of our salvation.

2016-10-04 14:29:36 · answer #7 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

It is long past due. It is time to put some intelligence back into the public debate and that cannot happen until we get past the 2 party system that is designed to exclude 3rd party candidates.

2007-05-08 14:24:39 · answer #8 · answered by power2dapeople 1 · 1 1

The green party is too socialist to join with libertarians

2007-05-08 14:20:37 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

The green/libertarians are a bunch of hippies.

2007-05-08 14:16:50 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0 2

fedest.com, questions and answers