Greg Raymer Campaigning for Libertarian Party's Vice Presidential Slot

[Brainwalter]

Sheesh Dvault,

Cut me some slack.

One issue alone is enough to get me to vote for Raymer, the thing that happened in Washington this term that affected me the most: He is a poker player, online poker spokesman, and has voiced opposition to the backroom wheeling and dealing that got poker banned, something members of either major party cannot afford to oppose.

I never accused R's or D's of personality cult worship. What I have in fact argued is that people like myself who maybe disagree with one major platform 90% of the time and the other 95%, should stop supporting the lesser of two evils. The WPT lawsuit (which I hadn't thought of in the 10 seconds between reading the post and posting in approval) is not enough to make Raymer another Evil. Even if I disagree with 25% of his platform he is still Good.

I have also argued that being a well-informed voter is irrational, and I have implied if not stated that I understand voting LP today is a throwaway-protest vote. I have no ojection to any R or D voting a straight party ticket if they actually agree with the tenets of the party's philosophy, and support the actions of the party while in office. For these reasons I don't feel it is hypocritical at all for me to say at this point I would vote for ANY Libertarian in any race unless I had a really good reason not to. This will hold until my views change or the LP nominates someone severely out of line with the LP philosophy, and it comes to my attention. Raymer doesn't count at this point, because despite that, the LP considering running him still means 9 times out of 10 I will agree with him on almost every important issue. If I find out more about him that's unsettling I will have to reconsider.

Furthermore I understand that at this point voting LP is a throwaway-protest or momentum-building vote. The LP candidate will have no actual shot of winning, so I would rather see it be a popular, intelligent spokesman like Raymer who can bring attention to the party and ideals (especially from disaffected poker players like me) than some wacko the LP might dig up. By the time the LP ever has a real shot of winning, there will be a primary and we can pick the most sincere libertarian, smartest statesmen, or whatever. But at this point to make any difference the LP needs to become a "real" contender, and to do that they need name recognition, spokesmanship, etc. They need to get Clint Eastwood to run.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I mean, here are the only two things I know about Raymer's politics:

1) He says he's a libertarian
2) He sued the WPT for violating anti-trust laws

[/ QUOTE ]
You are getting a bit carried away. Although I personally do not support the existence of anti-trust laws, many -- probably most -- libertarians do support them. Supporting anti-trust laws certainly doesn't bar someone from correctly self-identifying as a libertarian. Same with intellectual property laws. Same with a government-run police force. Same with having some form of coerced taxation. These are all issues on which reasonable libertarians may disagree with each other.



[/ QUOTE ]

while there may be disagreements within any party, the official libertarian party line is nay on anti-trust laws and yea on the sanctity of contracts entered into voluntarily, both of which are opposite the positions in this lawsuit.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, I did find it odd you were seemingly coming to Raymer's defense by highlighting my supposed need for a personal 'seal of approval'. I momentarily forgot the unquenchable thirst of some on this board that manifests itself with the constant assailing of our system of government.

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't have anything to do with my opinion of government, really. I'm just highlighting the arrogant elitism in your post. Since *you* don't like Raymer for the job, you say he's "unqualified."

The fact that a potential win by an "unqualified" individual helps illustrate the crappiness of the system is just icing.

[/ QUOTE ]

If insisting one have qualifying characteristics for the job they desire is arrogant elitism, guess I'm guilty as charged.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why are *your* personal qualifications the correct ones to insist upon?

Do you see the difference between "doesn't meet my pesonal preferences" and "is unqualified"?

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, I did find it odd you were seemingly coming to Raymer's defense by highlighting my supposed need for a personal 'seal of approval'. I momentarily forgot the unquenchable thirst of some on this board that manifests itself with the constant assailing of our system of government.

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't have anything to do with my opinion of government, really. I'm just highlighting the arrogant elitism in your post. Since *you* don't like Raymer for the job, you say he's "unqualified."

The fact that a potential win by an "unqualified" individual helps illustrate the crappiness of the system is just icing.

[/ QUOTE ]

If insisting one have qualifying characteristics for the job they desire is arrogant elitism, guess I'm guilty as charged.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why are *your* personal qualifications the correct ones to insist upon?

Do you see the difference between "doesn't meet my pesonal preferences" and "is unqualified"?

[/ QUOTE ]

Except kickabuck's apparent personal preferences are consistent with the "qualifications" that the vast majority of voters would look for. If your qualifications don't require some sort of leadership experience, either business or government, then that reflects on your lack of good judgement, not kick's desire for his "personal preferences"

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Except kickabuck's apparent personal preferences are consistent with the "qualifications" that the vast majority of voters would look for. If your qualifications don't require some sort of leadership experience, either business or government, then that reflects on your lack of good judgement, not kick's desire for his "personal preferences"

[/ QUOTE ]

So why are such people allowed to run for office? Why are voters permitted to vote for them?

[kickabuck]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, I did find it odd you were seemingly coming to Raymer's defense by highlighting my supposed need for a personal 'seal of approval'. I momentarily forgot the unquenchable thirst of some on this board that manifests itself with the constant assailing of our system of government.

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't have anything to do with my opinion of government, really. I'm just highlighting the arrogant elitism in your post. Since *you* don't like Raymer for the job, you say he's "unqualified."

The fact that a potential win by an "unqualified" individual helps illustrate the crappiness of the system is just icing.

[/ QUOTE ]

If insisting one have qualifying characteristics for the job they desire is arrogant elitism, guess I'm guilty as charged.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why are *your* personal qualifications the correct ones to insist upon?

Do you see the difference between "doesn't meet my pesonal preferences" and "is unqualified"?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you feel compelled to lecture me with "do you see why" Sklansky-like pronouncements in this matter? My dull- normal IQ neighbor has libertarian philosophies and is of adequate age and citizenship. Perhaps the libertarians should put him on the ballot, apparently they would be assured of your vote, with your overwhelming aversion to arrogant elitist views and judgement calls.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
Raymer comes out and says he's a libertarian, and some of you guys want to throw a parade for him; but it sounds like merely silly identity politics to me. His spear-heading the lawsuit against the WPT sounds anything but libertarian

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see where Raymer claimed to be a libertarian. It seems to me he said he "mostly" agrees with libertarians and sees the Libertarian Party as closest to representing his views, but that's not the same at all. The OP specifically says he doesn't agree witht the LP platform 100%.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, I did find it odd you were seemingly coming to Raymer's defense by highlighting my supposed need for a personal 'seal of approval'. I momentarily forgot the unquenchable thirst of some on this board that manifests itself with the constant assailing of our system of government.

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't have anything to do with my opinion of government, really. I'm just highlighting the arrogant elitism in your post. Since *you* don't like Raymer for the job, you say he's "unqualified."

The fact that a potential win by an "unqualified" individual helps illustrate the crappiness of the system is just icing.

[/ QUOTE ]

If insisting one have qualifying characteristics for the job they desire is arrogant elitism, guess I'm guilty as charged.

[/ QUOTE ]

Raymer might actually uphold his oath of office to protect the Constitution. That would make him more qualified than anyone elected to that position in the last century.

[Annies_Beaver]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see where Raymer claimed to be a libertarian. It seems to me he said he "mostly" agrees with libertarians and sees the Libertarian Party as closest to representing his views, but that's not the same at all. The OP specifically says he doesn't agree witht the LP platform 100%.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you read? In the original post, Raymer said he is thinking about seeking the Libertarian vice-presidential nomination. If the vice-president of the Libertarian party is not a Libertarian, then what the hell is he? A Communist?

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't see where Raymer claimed to be a libertarian. It seems to me he said he "mostly" agrees with libertarians and sees the Libertarian Party as closest to representing his views, but that's not the same at all. The OP specifically says he doesn't agree witht the LP platform 100%.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you read? In the original post, Raymer said he is thinking about seeking the Libertarian vice-presidential nomination. If the vice-president of the Libertarian party is not a Libertarian, then what the hell is he? A Communist?

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you read? I said libertarian, not Libertarian.