Senate Election - INGO style

[Bill of Rights]

If you're talking about the proverbial "don't waste your vote" advice so often given when it comes to Libertarians, I agree. . .

I will vote for Rebecca the Libertarian, and I will NEVER 'waste' my vote by voting for a Republican (or Democrat), merely to keep the Democrat (or Republican) from getting elected.

Wasting our votes NOT on Libertarians, ladies and gentlemen, but wasting our votes on RINO Republicans "to keep the greater of two evils from being elected" is precisely WHY WE GOT IN THIS MESS...!

I fully agree. (Just FYI, using purple text on here typically means you're being sarcastic. I think it's very clear you're not being sarcastic in this post, but I thought you'd want to know so you didn't get misread in some other post.)

There is but one message we send on Election Day, and that is "This is who best represents me in office." I cannot fathom the mindset of people in 2008 who voted for Barry Hussein to "send a message to George W. Bush!" His eligibility for office ended in January 2005, when he was sworn in for the second and last time. Those "messages" were like the rest of us picking up the voice mail: Creditor? *delete* Telemarketer? *delete* Nielsen poll? *delete* Homeowners Association meeting? *DELETE DELETE DELETE*

I have yet to find a Libertarian involved in any scandal. I have yet to find one that didn't overall represent me better than any GOP or Dem ever could. I'm not joining the LP, but I'm sure voting with them until I find someone better.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Rebecca Sink-Burris]

To all Republicans on the fence: Coats polls at 54%, Ellsworth at 32%. With that kind of spread you can safely vote for me and not put a Democrat back in the Senate. Even is every INGO member, all of the Libertarians and all those from Liberty minded groups voted for me, Coats will still win. But, the more votes I receive, the more Dan Coats will understand that you mean what you say about demanding a smaller, less intrusive and constitutionally limited government. We have to show the Big Governments Parties that we won't be fooled again because we are willing to vote for what we really want and are not taken in by his small government "conversion".

 

[henktermaat]

To all Republicans on the fence: Coats polls at 54%, Ellsworth at 32%. With that kind of spread you can safely vote for me and not put a Democrat back in the Senate. Even is every INGO member, all of the Libertarians and all those from Liberty minded groups voted for me, Coats will still win. But, the more votes I receive, the more Dan Coats will understand that you mean what you say about demanding a smaller, less intrusive and constitutionally limited government. We have to show the Big Governments Parties that we won't be fooled again because we are willing to vote for what we really want and are not taken in by his small government "conversion".

that was the same logic I had running in my mind. This good lady gets my vote.

 

[EnochRoot43]

Also, every vote for Rebecca or other Libertarian candidates helps to legitimatize third party choices in future elections, benefiting all Hoosiers by helping candidates without an (R) or (D) behind their name have a better shot of not being marginalized or summarily dismissed by both traditional voters and the media.

I think it would be great to get at least double digits on several of the races in the state this year, and I think it is also ENTIRELY possible.

Folks, you have 6 days to put your money where your mouth is. Tell friends and family members why Libertarians are a good choice, and why giving a vote to Coats or Ellsworth is actually the way to waste a vote.

 

[singlesix]

If you think the Republicans will repeal obamacare or even defund it, you're fooling yourself. They like it just as much if not more than the Dems.

In fact, it was Republicans that first hoisted up the idea of Health Insurance Exchanges as a way to try to reduce cost.

It was also a Republican that instituted Socialized Medicine with an insurance Mandate in Mass.

So, forgive me if I don't have faith in our big government masters with the R after their name.

You are forgiven, and you'll forgive me if I don't have the same faith in the Party with the "L".

 

[ATOMonkey]

You are forgiven, and you'll forgive me if I don't have the same faith in the Party with the "L".

That's fine. But if you don't mind my asking, why is it that you don't believe in the Libertarian party position?

 

[singlesix]

That's fine. But if you don't mind my asking, why is it that you don't believe in the Libertarian party position?

Platform | Libertarian Party

3.1 and 3.3

Seems a bit naive and isolationist. We live in a Global World with other powers that will use other nations to achieve their agendas. We have to play in the Global World Stage.

 

[U.S. Patriot]

I met my good friend today to discus the election. I have decided to vote for Rebeca. Honestly I'm sick of both Republicans and Democrats. He made a good point of voting for the lesser evil. I would rather have a Republican than a Democrat. However, if enough people vote for Rebeca it will send a message, even if she does not get elected. I liked Coats until, I saw his position on the 2A. I'll never vote for a Democrat. So, that leaves one option for me. I'm not expecting much to happen though. It's going to take more than one election to change things. All we can do is vote, hope and pray for the best. Until our idiotic Government gets back to the roots of our founding Fathers nothing will change.

 

[ATOMonkey]

Platform | Libertarian Party

3.1 and 3.3

Seems a bit naive and isolationist. We live in a Global World with other powers that will use other nations to achieve their agendas. We have to play in the Global World Stage.

Isolationist isn't really accurate though is it?

To provide for the defense of the country doesn't mean we don't retaliate, or that we wouldn't respond to a threat.

You can know what's going on around you without actually being involved in what is going on around you. We certainly wouldn't cancel any of our clandestine intelligence operations overseas.

Here's their issue. When you make an alliance, you tie your fate to that of the alliance partner. That means if they do something stupid, you're bound to back up their stupid decision. You can be friendly with a nation without being allied with them, or being part of some organization.

Without NATO or the UN, we'd still be friendly with Great Britian, France, Israel, etc.

As for section 3.3. Do you think it's ok for the government to spy on you in your home?

 

[rambone]

Seems a bit naive and isolationist. We live in a Global World with other powers that will use other nations to achieve their agendas. We have to play in the Global World Stage.

You stick with those Globalists who are a lot naive and interventionalist.

 

[singlesix]

As for section 3.3. Do you think it's ok for the government to spy on you in your home?

OK, I reread section 3.3 and it deals with International Affairs. As to the spying question: I believe we need to tighten up the existing protections against warrantless search and seizures.

 

[U.S. Patriot]

Isolationist isn't really accurate though is it?

To provide for the defense of the country doesn't mean we don't retaliate, or that we wouldn't respond to a threat.

You can know what's going on around you without actually being involved in what is going on around you. We certainly wouldn't cancel any of our clandestine intelligence operations overseas.

Here's their issue. When you make an alliance, you tie your fate to that of the alliance partner. That means if they do something stupid, you're bound to back up their stupid decision. You can be friendly with a nation without being allied with them, or being part of some organization.

Without NATO or the UN, we'd still be friendly with Great Britian, France, Israel, etc.

As for section 3.3. Do you think it's ok for the government to spy on you in your home?

To me, the UN and NATO are worthless.

 

[mrjarrell]

Platform | Libertarian Party

3.1 and 3.3

Seems a bit naive and isolationist. We live in a Global World with other powers that will use other nations to achieve their agendas. We have to play in the Global World Stage.

Libertarians are not isolationists. The word you are actually looking for is non-interventionist. There's a world of difference between the two. Libertarians want to trade and talk freely with every civilised country, but do not want to intervene in their affairs, as we have all too often done. That is what the founders wanted and what we should have.

 

[Mike H]

I cast my ballot last monday for RSB.

 

[U.S. Patriot]

Libertarians are not isolationists. The word you are actually looking for is non-interventionist. There's a world of difference between the two. Libertarians want to trade and talk freely with every civilized country, but do not want to intervene in their affairs, as we have all too often done. That is what the founders wanted and what we should have.

I totally agree 100%. We need to take care of us and ours. Not meddle in everyone else's business. Perfect example is Charlie Wilson. He felt so bad for Afghanistan and helped them. Now, who are we at war with? Let them deal with their own ****. We have enough to deal with ourselves.

 

[AJMD429]

Just FYI, using purple text on here typically means you're being sarcastic.

Well, isn't THAT just special...!

You mean like that...?

Seriously, thanks for telling me that; I just used it because it's the only color I can see very well on my monitor...!

 

[MACHINEGUN]

She got my vote today!

 

[henktermaat]

Platform | Libertarian Party

3.1 and 3.3

Seems a bit naive and isolationist. We live in a Global World with other powers that will use other nations to achieve their agendas. We have to play in the Global World Stage.

Oh no you didnt! Don't you dare go against the Libertarian flowing freely on these boards!

 

[singlesix]

Libertarians are not isolationists. The word you are actually looking for is non-interventionist. There's a world of difference between the two. Libertarians want to trade and talk freely with every civilised country, but do not want to intervene in their affairs, as we have all too often done. That is what the founders wanted and what we should have.

So if China starts spreading its cash around in say Panama, we are just going to sit by let that happen? Fight the war through satellite states or fight the war inside your boards.

 

[mrjarrell]

So if China starts spreading its cash around in say Panama, we are just going to sit by let that happen? Fight the war through satellite states or fight the war inside your boards.

Have you been asleep for the last decade? China is heavily invested in Panama and nothing has been done, nor does anything need to be done. Free trade is just that, free. Either you believe in it or you don't. The Chinese aren't invading Panama. They're doing business there. Just like American companies are. The idea behind non-interventionism is to not fight wars. Trade works much better.