-4 votes

Party civil wars. Accent on the "s".

Per Woodward, Hot Air: Civil War Brewing in Democratic Party Over Entitlement Reform

Per Prof. Wall: The GOP Civl War Begins. Are We Ready?!

What if:

  • A Liberty-minded adminsitrative leader rose up.
  • The leader arranged an honest, embracive and accurate survey of the top 5 or 10 (or whatevernumber) items to be addressed by a new party. All clearly and unequivocally stated in true RP style.
  • He made it a preregusite that anyone joining would sign allegiance to those facts, although any others could and should be discussed (as opposed to being what the party pushes for).
  • A site (and whatever other publications) was created to inform of the party's official statements on that only, as approved only by those who signed allegiance to the fundamental points so that all the above could be returned to in ANY MSM interview.
  • Recruitment of localised leaders was done from not only the cream of the crop of garnered memberships but also head-hunted in the rebel factions of the current two-headed, single party.
  • Funds were raised and applied to ensuring full and complete ballot registrations at all levels and locations.
  • A full and complete insistence on transparency in voting was implemented in all locations at all levels for this party (hand-counted in public, written votes only)
  • A presidential candidate was voted for from a pool, when needed, and judged ONLY by performance in establishing, maintaining and forwarding the basic principles as surveyes (with everythin else open to argument). Practice would be obtained by having the same rules and transparencies in all elections at all locations and at all levels.

A lot of work? Maybe a lot less than currently goes into libertarian activities which are then squashed by the single party.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

This is all BullOney

The parties wants us to all thinks this crap. The Repubs stand the best chance of becoming the new WHIG type decline. The more they keep everyone fighting about politics the longer the sheeple will be blind to reality of the fact we are losing it all.

This is a prime example of why I am disappointed in trying to change the R party with Liberty. R's in general don't want Liberty, they want the gubbiment to side with the rules they want and I mean Joe Public R's here.

Liberty will be valued when it no longer exists at all. Then, it will be too late.

Build a new party and take the Rs on and let the Ds screw things up for another 8 years or more if that is what it takes. Otherwise just get ready for '1984' and 'Farenheit 451'

New Ammunition Listing Starting July 24th 2014 - Components are Back In Stock! www.ammopit.com

I am not quite getting your reply.

Your opening comment of "The parties wants us to all thinks this crap." seems to refer to my post (when what I said is not even remotely, vaguely approximated or approached in the existing one party set-up, by either pseudo-side).

In contrast, the rest of your reply is pretty much what I said, just re-stated although lacking the key admin points I suggested.

Particualrly I would join you in shouting this form the roof tops: "Liberty will be valued when it no longer exists at all. Then, it will be too late."

I was not

commenting on your position, but rather on the freak show being paraded by the 'Parties'. I also wanted to impart the idea that it is a foolish mission of joining the R party to try to fix it.

Join me on the roof for a cocktail and a bit of shouting today at 6pm? pst ;-)

New Ammunition Listing Starting July 24th 2014 - Components are Back In Stock! www.ammopit.com

got it :)

Thanks. I hope my agreement with you main position came through clearly. Here's to roof tops being properly used.

It came through loud and clear!

I will bring the booze, you just bring yourself. :-P

New Ammunition Listing Starting July 24th 2014 - Components are Back In Stock! www.ammopit.com

I am not quite getting your reply.

Your opening comment of "The parties wants us to all thinks this crap." seems to refer to my post (when what I said is not even remotely, vaguely approximated or approached in the existing one party set-up, by either pseudo-side).

In contrast, the rest of your reply is pretty much what I said, just re-stated although lacking the key admin points I suggested.

Particualrly I would join you in shouting this fro
m the roof tops: "Liberty will be valued when it no longer exists at all. Then, it will be too late."

lindalsalisbury's picture

Flawed Plan

Sounds like the EU

Must Join

Must Swear Allegiance

Cream of the Crop will select leaders

Sounds a little like you want your own Nazi Party, please back up and take another run at it.

Ideas are hard to come by, at least you had one.

No plan is perfect.

But, Your objections to it are not logical enough for me to have any way of knowing that you understood what I said.

Any organization, to survive has to have a core of inviolate rules or else it is just a mob. How would you know what you are joining or supporting?

If they are in place co-ordinated action on the main principles is possible -- without it, increasingly impossible.

It also enables refutation of actions of the new equivalent of RINO.

You have clearly confused the idea of insisting on firm agreement with a small set of inviolate principles arrived at by an appropriate survey (the whole purpose of the plan) with the enormous, prevaricative, confusing and ill-intentioned polcies of the EU. Your misagligned, emotional response (apparently based on a universe-wide, loosely assigned, self-definition of the phrase "swear allegiance") has led you to oppose the opposite of what they stand for, if you stop and think about it (which you clearly did not do the first time around).

And you have missed the obvious fact that you must join something to be part of it, probably through similar reasoning.

Beleive it or not "must" can be used without connotiations of coercion. "I must be free to be happy".

That kind of surface understanding of what has been said while reacting to self-assigned definitions of words or phrases is largely what allows the MSM to so easily manipulate those who do not examine concepts attentively.

"Cream of the crop" in the context that I used it was clearly to the people with the best performance in applying the appropriately surveyed fundamental points. God alone knows how you managed to twist it to equate to the EU and the Nazi party. I can understand now why RP had to keep repeating the same things over and over for 30 years before some people understood them.

lindalsalisbury's picture

Grant You.

that I could be confused and may not have the same definitions that you refer to.

Are you suggesting that your organization must have inviolate rules, and your leadership will decide what the rules are, and the conditions of membership that leadership will require.

I did not miss the fact that you are suggesting what the republican party already is, only you want to agree on who is elite. You want to bar people who are not "pure", just as the republican elite wants to do.

I am not so confused that I don't understand that the organization you are planning already exists, and it's name is Republican.

You clearly don;t comprehend what I said.

Because you stated that I want the cream of the crop to elect the leaders. You showed with that a total miscomprehension of what I was suggesting.

I am MUCH more radical than that. I want them to BE THE LEADERS!

If you understood what I said you would see that it is a procedure for getting the best of libertarian ideas implemented by a broad base of people despite their disagreement on lesser items (in my opinion, the main thing that holds back the BROAD IMPLEMENTATION OF THE MAIN LIBERTARIAN IDEAS).

I'll state "the plan" more simply.

1) Get a good administrator in place who can make sure "the plan" can happen.

2) Survey people who want to be part of an efective Libertarian party (of whatever name) to find the 5 or 10 main points they see as vital for the party to achieve.

3) Invite Membership from people who want those 5 or 10 things and will put their money where their mouths are.

4) Make sure elections are as difficult to corrupt as possible.

5) FOR LEADERS; propose only those people who have the best records in attaining and maintaining the 5 or 10 points discovered by the survey.

6) Make sure that the main points are clearly and unambiguously known to membership and available to the rest of the world by publication on a website and any other method that might work.

6) make sure that any public utterances that do not agree with the will of the membership (as expressed in the main points as surveyed) are actionable. The utterer aligns with what his people require of him or relinguishes his party post. The membership is also able to refute what he said as not being what they wanted.

If you think that is the GOP, then I'd be interested to know your answer to the following: why did they create new rules not agreed by the majority at a conference to shut out the most popular libertarian in the country form even speaking to their public?

lindalsalisbury's picture

Because the "Cream of the Crop"

of the elite GOP, as you are suggesting, can decide who stays and who goes, or who can participate and who cannot. - - -Same idea you are suggesting.

Please be so kind as to re-quote ...

... where I said or suggested this:

"Because the 'Cream of the Crop' of the elite GOP, as you are suggesting, can decide who stays and who goes, or who can participate and who cannot." as you are baldy stating is pretty near to the opposite of what I said while you say most inaccurately: "Same idea you are suggesting."

You are still harping on your miscomprehension.

I am not suggesting the cream of the crop SELECT THE LEADERS.

I am suggesting that the cream of the crop must BE THE LEADERS.

And I am suggesting some clean admin (as opposed to the mess of questionable voting procedures you now have) to see that it happens.

It is exasperating when you keep up the semi-straw man thing of arguing with something you say I said when I said something else.

It is self-evident. Would you want the worst performers to be the leaders (as you generally have now in both sides of the single party, and which is the opposite of what I am suggesting)?

Here's the name

http://columbiaparty.com/2012/02/28/what-is-this-website/

Columbia Party

Main planks of platform:
1)State Power - returning unconstitutional federal powers to the states
2)Constitutional war - requiring declarations of war as well as more oversight over clandestine activities

3)Financial transparency - audit the Fed, audit the big banks, persecute fraud, persecute misbehavior (funding human trafficking, drug trafficking, al qaeda)

4)Tax Reform - make the system less convoluted, more transparent, more fair

5)Privacy and civil liberties - duh

6)Compromise via federalism - legislation allowing for states to adopt a multi-state/blue-state single payer option, others an interstate, individually tax deductible, free market plan.

Takers? I guess there have to be 'leaders'. The problem is that so many of these leaders are sell-out. In order to gain exposure you have to lose credibility.

And yet, for some reason big ideas have little traction on DP.

thanks.

Survey entry number 1. :)