Thought on the Walorski/Donnelly run.

[Fletch]

Libertarians are seen as the "right" side of American politics. For the purposes of discussion, nothing else matters.

So if something is factually an apple, but I see it as an orange, nothing else matters?

"I keep running this thing through the juicer, but I never seem to get any OJ out of it. WTF?"

 

[photoshooter]

I'm not as smart as all yals folks with this whole libertarian, majority, talk... I'm just glad Andre Carson filled his seat again. That Carson family has done so much for the people of the 7th district.

I shook Carson's hand yesterday.

Cause my mama raised me to be polite. He stuck his hand out to a bunch of us at a polling place.

I washed it afterward to get rid of the Progressive cooties.

 

[Phil502]

Thats correct 88GT, I think the Republican Party would benefit from Libertarians and Tea Party Candidates coming in to offer a different point of view. Helping give a win to Donnelly in this crappy cycle we are in helps no-one. I seriously doubt that MOST Democrat voters are interested in Tea Part/Libertarian issues, thats just not the Agenda.

 

[Fletch]

Thats correct 88GT, I think the Republican Party would benefit from Libertarians and Tea Party Candidates coming in to offer a different point of view. Helping give a win to Donnelly in this crappy cycle we are in helps no-one. I seriously doubt that MOST Democrat voters are interested in Tea Part/Libertarian issues, thats just not the Agenda.

Democrats and Republicans are not homogenous nationwide. An Oklahoma Democrat is a New York Republican.

 

[Phil502]

Democrats and Republicans are not homogenous nationwide. An Oklahoma Democrat is a New York Republican.

We're talking about the 2nd district of Indiana though.

 

[critter592]

Hell, the tea party candidates are smart enough to recognize you can't bring down an entire political machine from the outside. That's why so many of them ran as REPUBLICANS in the primaries. If the Libertarians had half a brain and really wanted to make a difference, they'd go this route as well.

I was just about post this very same thought. They knew what would happen by starting another party. It would just split the conservative vote...again.

I voted Perot the first time too. I read the book "On Wings of Eagles" and thought he'd make a great president. But it did show me that third party only ensures the candidate you don't want most will get elected.

 

[ATOMonkey]

I don't want the Republican or the Democrat to get elected.

Either one will cause us harm.

If you get your ass kicked every day, but some days aren't as bad as others, you still aren't winning the fight. If you think you are, it's just a rationalization.

 

[Fletch]

But that's what you get when you're a debate club who does nothing but throw little rocks that hit just hard enough to annoy yet not hard enough to grab attention or make any difference whatsoever.

And here I thought the thread was about the idea that libertarians were making a difference, just the kind of difference that Republicans don't like.

 

[TiminMishawaka]

And here I thought the thread was about the idea that libertarians were making a difference, just the kind of difference that Republicans don't like.

They are making a difference Republicans don't like. They're confusing Conservatives and getting Liberals elected.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

And here I thought the thread was about the idea that libertarians were making a difference, just the kind of difference that Republicans don't like.

Yes they're making a difference. My point is most of them don't know what the Libertarian Party platform is, yet blindly ascribe to it. The irrationality of complaining about illegal aliens yet supporting a party who wants open borders. Someone lacking the intellectual integrity to admit that keeping government out of the abortion debate is in fact a pro-choice plank. Pro-military folks who support a platform calling for a military so small we can't project or protect this country. That are so blinded by the inadequacy, inequity and incompetence of the injustice system the best idea they can come up with is to dismantle it by eliminating crime.

And most heinous of all, that states in the platform that "unjust" laws (however defined) should not be followed and insurrection initiated if it doesn't like the results of lawful elections resulting in the lawful exercise of representative government.

 

[Fletch]

My point is most of them don't know what the Libertarian Party platform is, yet blindly ascribe to it.

That could be said for members of any party, really. There are far more lockstep Republicans and lockstep Democrats than the LP will ever hope to have in their camp. And libertarians feel the same frustration about those folks that you do about lockstep Libertarians.

Hell, I'd rather all the lockstep people of all parties just stayed home. I figure if you can't articulate your position on a given issue beyond "for" or "against", you have no business voting. That would eliminate a giant chunk of both major parties and make elections far more interesting.

FWIW, I know what the LP platform is, and I largely agree with it, but I'm not a member and probably never will be. So where does that put me on your sneer scale?

 

[photoshooter]

We don't need Walorski's presence? She's just one out of how many?

Current House total pending some close/undecided races:
US Senate: Dem 51 to Repub 46
US House: Dem 185 to Repub 239
President: Obama (Dem)

Votes required to pass bills into law:
House: 218 plus Senate: 51 (after 60 for cloture) PLUS THE PRESIDENT
or
House: 288 + Senate: 67 to over-ride presidential veto.

If the GOP sweeps all undecided Senate races, the still have to peel off 18 votes from the dem side to over-ride the impending Presidential Veto of any serious reform bills they might try to get through.

Adding one more vote to the House helps us in the Senate, how?
Or, having her in the house takes us from 239 to 240. How many times can she vote to help us get to 288 Veto-over-ride?
If she can get away with voting 49 times at once, she's darn good.

And yet to use the Libertarian logic, "If everyone voted that way", there'd be no Republicans at all to oppose that agenda. It's a nasty trick you're playing there. The entire premise of your statement counts on other people to maintain the Republican numbers precisely to stave off that progressive agenda (because you recognize the fact that the Libertarians will NOT garner the votes to replace the Republicans...interesting). So either we're idiots for doing what you count on us to do or we're heroes for keeping the Dems out of the majority. You can't have it both ways.

{gollum}Nasty tricksees! My Precious! {/gollum}

Just as Nasty as John McCain and Dan Coats as our "Republican Saviors"

To stop the Progressive agenda, we needed 218 votes in the US House - We've got that. I'm still waiting for someone to explain how we're actually going to reverse that progressive agenda in this next congress when we've got a huge VETO waiting in the wings and a Democrat controlled Senate.

Look, I don't have a problem with any man voting his conscience. I really don't. I'd be a hypocrite if I did. But actions have consequences, and I'm none too pleased about those consequences. So let's be honest about just exactly what taking that principled stand leaves us. If you're going to take the "higher ground," be adult enough to recognize that we don't operate in a world of "ifs." If people voted this way. If people voted that way. We operate in a world of THIS IS THE WAY PEOPLE VOTE. So when principle meets reality and we're stuck with the greatest of all evils instead of merely the lesser of them, don't try and hand off responsibility by claiming some superior political morality.

Perhaps we should look at what the GOP party gives us then?

Jackie W was as close as I've seen to a libertarian based establishment GOPer in a long time. But even she has non-libertarian "moral" issues that I don't support. I said in another thread, that I would have voted FOR her if I were in that district, because of how close the race was. My principle in that race was "stop the democrat" - but when we look at the nationwide result - WE DID JUST THAT. We lost the battle in D2 - but not because of any third party. We lost because Donnelly got more votes.

Ask yourself this: how many of those Libertarians votes would have gone toward Donnelly? what was the breakdown based on college students and disaffected dems vs disaffected GOPers?

I find it amusing that GOPers in this climate would not support someone like Jackie. My guess is that the rise in Libertarian votes came from disaffected Democrats. In 2008, Donnelly had over 180,000 votes, while this year he had only 86,050. Looks like he lost over 100,000 votes (yes, 2008 was a presidential year, and the prez had some long coat-tails).

How many of those libertarian votes would have gone to Donnelly? It's just a guessing game, but given the strong dem makeup of St. Joe County, along with the various college campuses, I'd be surprised if less than 50% of the increase in L votes came from the dem side.

I love how the TEA Party and Liberty movement is in the process of pulling the GOP back toward the Constitution and Small Govt end of the spectrum (thereby, away from the big govt heavy spending end) but it's not the GOPs fault that folks won't vote FOR them?

Also, in answer to the earlier statement about Redistricting: how does JW in the US House help redistricting?

Here's the link to the IN Sect State website on redistricting. If I read this correctly, it's handled at the state level and the US Congress has no say?

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

That could be said for members of any party, really. There are far more lockstep Republicans and lockstep Democrats than the LP will ever hope to have in their camp. And libertarians feel the same frustration about those folks that you do about lockstep Libertarians.

Hell, I'd rather all the lockstep people of all parties just stayed home. I figure if you can't articulate your position on a given issue beyond "for" or "against", you have no business voting. That would eliminate a giant chunk of both major parties and make elections far more interesting.

FWIW, I know what the LP platform is, and I largely agree with it, but I'm not a member and probably never will be. So where does that put me on your sneer scale?

No Fletch. You're not allowed to play the victim card. You're much to smart for that. I have no sneer scale, and if I did it wouldn't apply to you.

I have no issue with someone who reads the platform, disgests it, understands it, and says "this is for me". This is after all America. If you want to be a Marxist, facist, Republican, Democrat, whatever it is your absolute right. That's what's beautiful about America.

It's the blindly stupid who say "I want to be one of those" not knowing what one of those is just to protest because they are too lazy to overcome their ignorance or get involved in changing the landscape. Then they whine about the political reality having never lifted a finger to change it. That are only consistent about their position as long as it's convenient to be. I don't think you're one of those.

But in regard to this thread, it is intellectually dishonest to assert that a vote for whomever the Libertarian candidate was not a vote for Joe Donnelly. Libertarians had a choice to send the best candidate to the House, and knowing full well their candidate would not win, failed to do it. That's why Libertarians will forever live in the barren wasteland of the political abyss.

 

[ATOMonkey]

Yes they're making a difference. My point is most of them don't know what the Libertarian Party platform is, yet blindly ascribe to it. The irrationality of complaining about illegal aliens yet supporting a party who wants open borders. Someone lacking the intellectual integrity to admit that keeping government out of the abortion debate is in fact a pro-choice plank. Pro-military folks who support a platform calling for a military so small we can't project or protect this country. That are so blinded by the inadequacy, inequity and incompetence of the injustice system the best idea they can come up with is to dismantle it by eliminating crime.

And most heinous of all, that states in the platform that "unjust" laws (however defined) should not be followed and insurrection initiated if it doesn't like the results of lawful elections resulting in the lawful exercise of representative government.

Nice spin. How about some actual facts now.

 

[dom1104]

Because all Libertarian votes vote straight party line tickets without researching the candidates at all, and believing like they do...

RIGHT.

Whatever.

Suck it up.

Less time throwing stones at LiberTARIANS, more educating LiberALS to think like we do.

Lets make the democrats the minority party.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Only if you're using a multi-axis illustration. I wasn't.

Then I submit that you are not looking at the whole picture. Saying that politics is solely a left vs. right thing is like saying that the earth is flat.

I want a small, ineffective government. Right now, we have a large, ineffective government, but they keep trying to be more effective and efficient. This is a bad thing. If government is ineffective and inefficient, what is the result? We have fewer laws passed because people vote principle rather than make deals to vote for things they cannot in good conscience condone. I made the example once before that despite not having met him, I could reasonably guarantee that Melensdad would never, in a political office, compromise his view that abortion is wrong and unconscionable. Even if he could be guaranteed absolutely that his vote to make abortion-on-demand 100% legal in perpetuity would mean the repeal of any and every firearms law ever written and the pure enforcement on government that the 2A meant exactly what it says, I have no doubt that he would never compromise that position. While I disagree with the position I describe here, I respect the dedication to principle it would require.

Our current crop of politicians, from what I've seen, have no such set of standards, no set of absolute principles they will never compromise. It's all about "What's in it for me?" first, then "What's in it for my district?", and somewhere down the line, they might get as far as, "Oh yeah... um... is it ConstitutionalOhneverminditdoesn'tmatter."

I have yet to see a Libertarian (a subset of small-L libertarians) willing to advance something that grows government. I have yet to see a D or an R in office willing to avoid doing so, unless they hold libertarian beliefs and principles. Both of the big two parties grow government which grows our "serfdom". Who do you see that doesn't fit that description?

Blessings,
Bill

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Yes they're making a difference. My point is most of them don't know what the Libertarian Party platform is, yet blindly ascribe to it. The irrationality of complaining about illegal aliens yet supporting a party who wants open borders. Someone lacking the intellectual integrity to admit that keeping government out of the abortion debate is in fact a pro-choice plank. Pro-military folks who support a platform calling for a military so small we can't project or protect this country. That are so blinded by the inadequacy, inequity and incompetence of the injustice system the best idea they can come up with is to dismantle it by eliminating crime.

And most heinous of all, that states in the platform that "unjust" laws (however defined) should not be followed and insurrection initiated if it doesn't like the results of lawful elections resulting in the lawful exercise of representative government.

Nice spin. How about some actual facts now.

Spin?

Straight from the Libertarian platform.

1.2 Personal Privacy

Libertarians support the rights recognized by the Fourth Amendment to be secure in our persons, homes, and property. Protection from unreasonable search and seizure should include records held by third parties, such as email, medical, and library records. Only actions that infringe on the rights of others can properly be termed crimes. We favor the repeal of all laws creating “crimes” without victims, such as the use of drugs for medicinal or recreational purposes.

The Holy Grail of Libertarianism. Even California tweakers couldn't get on board with this.

1.4 Abortion

Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.

How exactly is this not a pro-choice position?

1.5 Crime and Justice

Government exists to protect the rights of every individual including life, liberty and property. Criminal laws should be limited to violation of the rights of others through force or fraud, or deliberate actions that place others involuntarily at significant risk of harm. Individuals retain the right to voluntarily assume risk of harm to themselves. We support restitution of the victim to the fullest degree possible at the expense of the criminal or the negligent wrongdoer. We oppose reduction of constitutional safeguards of the rights of the criminally accused. The rights of due process, a speedy trial, legal counsel, trial by jury, and the legal presumption of innocence until proven guilty, must not be denied. We assert the common-law right of juries to judge not only the facts but also the justice of the law.


The bedrock of our founding was that we would be a nation of laws, not of men. But this platform says we'll decide later if the law was just or not. This is a return to the England of old. Anarchy at it's finest.

3.1 National Defense

We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression. The United States should both avoid entangling alliances and abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world. We oppose any form of compulsory national service.

A large enough military to defend against aggression. I read this and I think current day Japan. Not exceptional American superpower. I don't want adequate. I want overwhelming. I want a military so powerful screwing with us is not a viable option.

That sure sounds isolationist to me.

3.3 International Affairs

American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world. Our foreign policy should emphasize defense against attack from abroad and enhance the likelihood of peace by avoiding foreign entanglements. We would end the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention, including military and economic aid. We recognize the right of all people to resist tyranny and defend themselves and their rights. We condemn the use of force, and especially the use of terrorism, against the innocent, regardless of whether such acts are committed by governments or by political or revolutionary groups.

Nice meaninless beauty pageant answer. The correct response is that the American government will protect its citizens from all enemies, foreign and domestic with such force and wrath as to make our enemies shudder at the thought of our mobilization.

More isolationalism.


3.4 Free Trade and Migration

We support the removal of governmental impediments to free trade. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders. However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a credible threat to security, health or property.

Sounds like promoting open borders to me.

3.7 Self-Determination

Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of individual liberty, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to agree to such new governance as to them shall seem most likely to protect their liberty.

How does this not promote insurrection in the event you dont achieve the results you want? Our founders never guaranteed results. They guaranteed the process.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I shook Carson's hand yesterday.

Cause my mama raised me to be polite. He stuck his hand out to a bunch of us at a polling place.

I washed it afterward to get rid of the Progressive cooties.

I was raised to be polite, too, but I was also raised not to lie. I cannot and will not respect someone like Carson. It also would make a wonderful photo for anyone who caught it: Carson, with his hand out, me standing there, staring alternately at it and at him. Shaking his hand is a gesture of respect.

When I went to the GOP convention in Indy several months ago as a delegate, I knew there was a possibility that I might see Mr. Coats in some kind of receiving line. Fortunately or unfortunately, it didn't happen, because he and Lugar are two others whose hands I would not shake.

Coats might prove me wrong. Maybe he learned his lesson the last time he was in Congress. I'm not holding my breath. If he gives me reason to respect him, I might reconsider.

Those of you who see things in terms of D or R only, I would ask you to consider State Senate district 15. Given the choice of Democrat Jack Morris vs. Republican Thomas Wyss, who never saw a form of "gun control" he didn't want to have babies with, wouldn't you be wanting a Libertarian (or really any) choice?

Staying on point, (Walorski), some years ago, she introduced a bill to the IN House of Representatives that would have added "LTCH" to the endorsements on a driver's license, such that a person who left his pink paper at home would still be in compliance. I originally viewed this as a gun control measure and decried her for it. Then I was told what work she'd done in Indiana, such as fighting for the Lifetime LTCH. I removed my objection. I still didn't agree with her bill, but knowing where she was coming from and still forming my own, far more conservative ideas, I was willing to listen to what she had to say. Now I support her. I wish I could have voted for her, for I certainly would have done so.

The libertarians are not the enemy some of you seem to think they/we are. We've just decided we're tired of voting against the greater evil, because before voting Libertarian, most of us rarely voted for anyone.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[bobzilla]

One more Lib(eratarian) vote here. I'm sick of voting R because it's slightly better than the D. I'm not going to do it anymore. If they give us a good R then I'll vote for them. If they don't (Coats) I'm voting against them every time. If things have to get worse before the Republican party straightens out, then so be it.

tHIS.... and I'm a registered "R".... but they can't seem to get their heads out of their asses any better than the "D's" do.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

One more Lib(eratarian) vote here. I'm sick of voting R because it's slightly better than the D. I'm not going to do it anymore. If they give us a good R then I'll vote for them. If they don't (Coats) I'm voting against them every time. If things have to get worse before the Republican party straightens out, then so be it.

Rather than sit around and wait to see what you're "given" why not work to help find, field and support the best candidate?