Does anyone know which state in US has the largest percentage of Libertarians?

Thanks B12

 

I don't actually know, but I'm betting it will be either Mass. or Ill.:kewl:

 

I would say it must be a relatively conserva6ive State with a low population. Maybe an old Yankee State? New Hampshire or Maine?

 

My guess would be Alaska.

 

My quess would be a state out West without lots of retirees, like Montana.

 

Mass. aka Kennedyville.

 

New Hampshire has the highest percentage of elected libertarians...soooo running on that line of thought you could reasonably come to the conclusion that they have the highest number of libertarians or those that lean that way.

 

I'll bet that California has the highest percentage of voting Mexican citizens.

 

We have many far right conservatives in AZ so we may take the title.

 

AUH2O!

 

We have far too many Conservatives that are over represtated in the rest of the country in general. For example, the combined populations of Montana, Wyoming, Nevada, North and South Dakota, Colorado, Nebraska, Kansas, Arizona, and Alaska (Red states) are equal to to the populations of Massachusettes and New York (Blue states). The list of red states has a total of 9 more Electoral College votes and 5 times the votes in the Senate.
In other words, Conservatives literally count for more in this country.

 

Unfortunately, many congressman that were elected by their conseervative base have pretty much forgot about conservative principles such as protecting our borders, fiscal spending, and fighting a war against islamic animals WITHOUT tying the militaries' hands. Bush's numbers reflect this. When you try to appease to the MoveOn crowd, you WILL lose your base.

Bush is not losing support from liberals who will ALWAYS hate anything a white-republican says and does (40% of the registered, legal voting public). He is losing support from the conservative base because he is abandoning these solid principles. Just like when his father raised taxes after the famous, "read my liips" statement, conservatives looked elsewhere, voted for Perot, and Clinton won the election with 42.9% of the vote. Liberals will always remain solid in their support for higher taxes (income redistribution) and bigger government. It is easy to spend somebody elses money...especially when it is NOT your own! This 40% of the voting public is a lock for them and these social parasites. After all, their existance DEPENDS on the government redistribution prpgrams.

I could care less about "bible-thumping" issues like homo-marriages or abortion. Actually, the woman that fight for 'choice' are the least likely of getting knocked up in the first place! My only issue is when it comes to adopting children. Let's see...you have two daddies and a man/woman couple. What circumstances would be better for the child (all things being equal)??

Bush needs to take a page from Reagan who took a bunch of heat early in his presidency. After Reagan cut the marginal tax rate from 70% to 28%, the economy took a good year to adjust to this influx of YOUR own money in YOUR own hands. What happened? Revenues coming into the treasury nearly DOUBLED as this tax policy encouraged business ownership, investment, and capital risk. If you think about it, how many businesses would take a risk when the government is going to take over 70% of your profits? Only socialist liberals think you can tax yourself into prosperity!

So if I were Bush, I would build a "berlin-type" wall on the Mexico border to stop the invasion of these ILLEGALS coming into this country. I would call for a presidential "line-item-veto" that evey previous President wanted (including Clinton) to stop all of these pork projects being tacked on to Federal bills. I would also tell the federal social agencies there is a freeze on spending increases...you have 90 days to submit a NEW budget. Last, but not least...I would fight the war against islamics animals the same way we fought against the Japs and Nazis of World War II...SHOOT first, ask questions later.

When you are fighting against an enemy with this type of devotion to their religion and cause, you can't fight nice!

There...I just fixed the republican party. It is the reason why the libertarian party is growing at the expense of the republican party. Conservatives like me have had it with the G.O.P.

 

This is the only part of your post that struck me as odd. The Republican Party is all about "values" these days and it's more traditional stances of smaller government, less taxes, and fiscal conservatism have become secondary considerations. Bush isn't trying to firm up his base when he brings up these issues; he is trying to usher in a Christian Fundamentalist agenda that most Republicans would find reprehensible and unrecognizable.

You regularly assail foreign Muslim radicals (also fundamentalists) for their behavior and their disregard for basic human decency but you have a large group of Fundamentalists in your own country of similarly-minded folks that want nothing less than to replace constitutional law with biblical law in this country. Sound far fetched? It would probably surprise you to know that they already control 2 of the three branches of government and are assaulting the third branch on a daily basis. They already control the Administrative Brach via George Bush, the Congress via the Republican Party, and have their focus squarely on the Judiciary. Do they sound like benign "bible-thumpers" to you?

If you listen to some of the things the leaders of this movement are saying in their mega churches, you soon realize that the basic civil rights that Americans have come to expect from this nation are threatened. Influential Bush friends, advisors, writers, spiritual leaders and appointees such as Tim LaHaye, Michael Farris, D.James Kennedy, Francis Schaeffer, Rousas John Rushdoony, Ralph Reed, and Marvin Olasky have called for such things as the death penalty for gays, having congress strip judges of the ability to rule on any issues of separation of church and state (more violent methods if that didn't succeed). The hiring of only born-again Christians by government, refusal of any kind of birth control for women, mandatory scripture readings to solve societal problems like alcohol and drug addiction, teen pregnancy, and domestic violence.

Their followers literally believe the Earth is 6 thousand years old, Iraq was behind 9/11, George Bush is more fiscally conservative than Bill Clinton was, and dinosaurs and man co-existed despite the mountains of evidence to the contrary. It’s a different kind of reality that has nothing to do with facts. If a fact is inconvenient or antithetical to the bible’s literal interpretation, it is ignored or a parallel history is written to explain the discrepancy.

To put it bluntly, if you liked Fascism you’ll love Christian Nationalism. What does this have to do with the Republicans? The Republicans have championed their political causes in congress, diverted billions of tax dollars to Evangelical groups and away from traditional social services organizations without the slightest pretense of accountability, and taken mountains of money and votes in exchange for forcing the Christian Nationalist agenda down the rest of the country’s throat. So if you’ve ever wondered why George Bush doesn’t seem like a traditional Republican with tried and true Republican values, it’s because he came to office with the agenda of saving our sinful souls and the GOP was just his ticket to reach that goal.

 

I think I see a flaw in this line of logic. Here in California there are probably more voting conservatives than there are citizens of all the States you listed. Unfortunately, conservatives in California have virtually no vote! We are swamped-out every election by millions of socialists and "unauthorized" voters, many of whom receive financial benefits from the State. Nothing would change in California, and probably NEw York, if Republicans simply did not vote. We need fly-over country to half-way even things out. :headbang:

 

That's why I go head-to-head with the bible thumpers.

[I had enough practice from my ex-wife who proudly proclaimed one day she was getting baptized...again. I responed, "What hapened?...it didn't take?"

Believe me...bible thumpers or should I say, the bible-buffet Christians (pick and choose what you want to believe and practice) have NO sense of humor. I remember coming home one day from out-of-town and there in my house was a bible meeting. Surprised, the first thing I said to the group was, "What the hell is going on?". My soon-to-be-ex responded as she pointed to me..."See, this is exactly what I was referring to!"

As for this "values" thing-of-a-ding", this is a ploy by Bush to get out the Christian vote for November as it stands right now. There is hardly anything worth while for me to vote for and issues like abortion and homo-marriages energize many of those people who can't think for themselves (like my ex). As I stated before, I am Catholic-Lite (1/3 less Catholic) and have had enough battles (you think I am bad here?) with priests and religious scholars in my day. I do believe in basic right versus wrong. I also believe that no one should have their religion forced upon another. It is one of the reasons why I am fighting against islamic radicals.

You may think the Christian-Right is radical, but they don't hold a candle to this religion that is out there enslaving, converting (under force), and killing infidels. Sure the Christian-right has their whacked jobs, but I can't think of any who are using the Bible to go out and kill non-Christians.

So what is happening between TODAY's liberal republicans and TODAY's socialist liberals is that you have to make a choice between the lesser of the two evils. It's sad, but it is so very true.

 

The way I see it is that the Muslims are over there and the right wing radical Christians are over here. They are scary stupid people as I'm sure you have seen in your ex. They seem to live in a different reality and have the look of deer in headlights about them. All I can say is that their influence is growing and dangerous.

 

Dumping the Electoral College System and making it a one person one vote system would address both problems don't you think?

 

Thanks for the help everyone.

 

Don't dump the electoral college. It was founded by the framers to ensure that people with half a brain would vote for the "right" candidate. Anyways, if you went to a popular vote, most candidates would skip 90% of the states thereby concentrating on population centers, and nothing more.

What California needs is another Ronald Reagan that STICKS to his conservative principles. Sure he may upset the hispanic population by arresting and deporting ILLEGALS, or sure he may upset liberals by making people work instead of going on welfare, but if he/she did...that person would carry 60% of the vote, easily!

********************************************************

I would take 'radical' Chrisitians over 'radical' muslims any day, any time. One, when was the last time you seen a radical Christian blow himself up in the name of God? When was the last time you saw a radical Christian learn the correct way to beat his wife? When was the last time you saw a radical Christian hijack a plane, a ship, or anything in the name of God?

Most of these radical Christians are just 'lost' people who are looking to be lead. If their life is so crappy here on this Earth, they are just getting ready for their second "life". Sure, they may preach the 10 Commandments and other teachings, but to compare them to radical islam is NOT EVEN CLOSE.

Islam is a religion founded on enslavement, conversion, and killing by the sword. Unfortunately, islam has NOT entered into modern civilization where Christianity has a lot going for it TODAY, than radical mulsims who think killing is a ticket to 70 plus virgins and 'paradise'.

Bottom line...one will knock on your door and ask if you are "saved"? while the other will kick down your door, rape your wife, take your possessions, and may even KILL you after all that is said and done for allah.

 

Direct election is something used in a demorcracy. We are a Republic. Now if we went to a one citizen, one vote as opposed to the if you can breathe and we can transport you to multiple locations regardless of citizenship or the number of times you vote voting format we currently have...