the foolish little libertarian pizza boy ******** is pulling votes from the republican, and may send kay hagin back to the senate.

then, the foolish little libertarian fucktards will blame the republicans for not doing whatever foolish little ******** libertarians want . . . . which is currently open for debate.

It could also be because he's the poster boy for an unpopular General Assembly.

But alas, I'm torn. I don't want to give the Republicans two houses and possibly the presidency in 2016. I'm not voting for that office anyway though.

Count your blessings...neither of them are going to be in State Gov't.

I've always felt that these independent candidates take away from Republicans. Probably recieve some funding from leftwing groups to mute the challenge against the Democrats. But not in every case.

(11-01-2014 11:42 PM)EagleX Wrote:  the foolish little libertarian pizza boy ******** is pulling votes from the republican, and may send kay hagin back to the senate.

then, the foolish little libertarian fucktards will blame the republicans for not doing whatever foolish little ******** libertarians want . . . . which is currently open for debate.

Here is the question that seems difficult to answer despite its common sense. As a Libertarian whose candidate has 0 chance of winning in the General Election, Which candidate do you have a better chance of influencing to enact things you care about. In NC I'd wager that ISNT Hagan

I'm sure Tillis refusing to go to Tea Party debates and having a nasty primary where he turned off the conservative grass roots and tea party groups, and subsequently never won them back, is totally unrelated to this.

(11-02-2014 03:58 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  I'm sure Tillis refusing to go to Tea Party debates and having a nasty primary where he turned off the conservative grass roots and tea party groups, and subsequently never won them back, is totally unrelated to this.

Which is a monumentally stupid move by him. But is he better than Hagan? Will he be more likely to vote for things you want or will Kay? Neither will give you everything you want but you'll get more from him then Kay. Then Primary his azz in 6 years which gives Libertarians plenty of time to groom someone

(11-02-2014 04:06 PM)Brokeback Flamer Wrote:  Which is a monumentally stupid move by him. But is he better than Hagan? Will he be more likely to vote for things you want or will Kay? Neither will give you everything you want but you'll get more from him then Kay. Then Primary his azz in 6 years which gives Libertarians plenty of time to groom someone

Do you really think Tillis has the stones to fix any of our problems? I know I don't. So what is the point? That Senate seat was already lost when Tillis won the primary. It really doesn't matter which of the two clowns you send in at this point. I don't think the GOP even has the stones to press home an ObamaCare repeal at this point.

Republican PAC's are funding ads for Haugh because they think he'll take votes from Hagan.

The Democratic PAC's are funding ads for Haugh because they think he'll take votes from Tillis.

One of them is going to end up shooting themselves in the foot.

Tillis wasn't my first or second choice, but he's still much further right that Hagan, Obama's Rubber.




Stamp

Libertarians have this fascination with forcing their agenda into the Republican party by disrupting general elections. If Libertarian ideas were so great and so accepted they'd be winning elections.

(11-02-2014 07:13 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  Tillis wasn't my first or second choice, but he's still much further right that Hagan, Obama's Rubber.




Stamp

Libertarians have this fascination with forcing their agenda into the Republican party by disrupting general elections. If Libertarian ideas were so great and so accepted they'd be winning elections.

Not easy to get a word in edgewise among the two well-heeled noise machines.

(11-02-2014 03:35 PM)Brokeback Flamer Wrote:  

(11-01-2014 11:42 PM)EagleX Wrote:  the foolish little libertarian pizza boy ******** is pulling votes from the republican, and may send kay hagin back to the senate.

then, the foolish little libertarian fucktards will blame the republicans for not doing whatever foolish little ******** libertarians want . . . . which is currently open for debate.

Here is the question that seems difficult to answer despite its common sense. As a Libertarian whose candidate has 0 chance of winning in the General Election, Which candidate do you have a better chance of influencing to enact things you care about. In NC I'd wager that ISNT Hagan

Neither one. Not Hagan, but not Tillis either.

(11-02-2014 07:49 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-02-2014 03:35 PM)Brokeback Flamer Wrote:  

(11-01-2014 11:42 PM)EagleX Wrote:  the foolish little libertarian pizza boy ******** is pulling votes from the republican, and may send kay hagin back to the senate.

then, the foolish little libertarian fucktards will blame the republicans for not doing whatever foolish little ******** libertarians want . . . . which is currently open for debate.

Here is the question that seems difficult to answer despite its common sense. As a Libertarian whose candidate has 0 chance of winning in the General Election, Which candidate do you have a better chance of influencing to enact things you care about. In NC I'd wager that ISNT Hagan

Neither one. Not Hagan, but not Tillis either.

But they'd both go along with a Party Line vote. There's a better chance of a Republian Party line vote being closer to the Libertarian ideal than a Democratic one. Sometimes when competing (or getting sht faced drunk) you take what you can get.

(11-02-2014 08:00 PM)Brokeback Flamer Wrote:  

(11-02-2014 07:49 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-02-2014 03:35 PM)Brokeback Flamer Wrote:  

(11-01-2014 11:42 PM)EagleX Wrote:  the foolish little libertarian pizza boy ******** is pulling votes from the republican, and may send kay hagin back to the senate.

then, the foolish little libertarian fucktards will blame the republicans for not doing whatever foolish little ******** libertarians want . . . . which is currently open for debate.

Here is the question that seems difficult to answer despite its common sense. As a Libertarian whose candidate has 0 chance of winning in the General Election, Which candidate do you have a better chance of influencing to enact things you care about. In NC I'd wager that ISNT Hagan

Neither one. Not Hagan, but not Tillis either.

But they'd both go along with a Party Line vote. There's a better chance of a Republian Party line vote being closer to the Libertarian ideal than a Democratic one. Sometimes when competing (or getting sht faced drunk) you take what you can get.

This is exactly why we have a terrible two party system that fully represent very few people in this country well.

People doing the same thing election after election doesn't make things better. It just continues a bad system.

Why is it too much to ask for the republicans to do a better job of representng libertarians? That is how you're supposed to win elections.

(11-02-2014 08:00 PM)Brokeback Flamer Wrote:  

(11-02-2014 07:49 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-02-2014 03:35 PM)Brokeback Flamer Wrote:  

(11-01-2014 11:42 PM)EagleX Wrote:  the foolish little libertarian pizza boy ******** is pulling votes from the republican, and may send kay hagin back to the senate.
then, the foolish little libertarian fucktards will blame the republicans for not doing whatever foolish little ******** libertarians want . . . . which is currently open for debate.

Here is the question that seems difficult to answer despite its common sense. As a Libertarian whose candidate has 0 chance of winning in the General Election, Which candidate do you have a better chance of influencing to enact things you care about. In NC I'd wager that ISNT Hagan

Neither one. Not Hagan, but not Tillis either.

But they'd both go along with a Party Line vote. There's a better chance of a Republican Party line vote being closer to the Libertarian ideal than a Democratic one. Sometimes when competing (or getting sht faced drunk) you take what you can get.

Libertarians are want small government with liberal social views.
Democrats want big government with liberal social views.
Republicans want big government with conservative social views.

Show me a true fiscal conservative republican and I will vote for him, despite the differences on social issues. But nobody is showing me one.

(11-02-2014 10:14 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-02-2014 08:00 PM)Brokeback Flamer Wrote:  

(11-02-2014 07:49 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-02-2014 03:35 PM)Brokeback Flamer Wrote:  

(11-01-2014 11:42 PM)EagleX Wrote:  the foolish little libertarian pizza boy ******** is pulling votes from the republican, and may send kay hagin back to the senate.
then, the foolish little libertarian fucktards will blame the republicans for not doing whatever foolish little ******** libertarians want . . . . which is currently open for debate.

Here is the question that seems difficult to answer despite its common sense. As a Libertarian whose candidate has 0 chance of winning in the General Election, Which candidate do you have a better chance of influencing to enact things you care about. In NC I'd wager that ISNT Hagan

Neither one. Not Hagan, but not Tillis either.

But they'd both go along with a Party Line vote. There's a better chance of a Republican Party line vote being closer to the Libertarian ideal than a Democratic one. Sometimes when competing (or getting sht faced drunk) you take what you can get.

Libertarians are want small government with liberal social views.
Democrats want big government with liberal social views.
Republicans want big government with conservative social views.

Show me a true fiscal conservative republican and I will vote for him, despite the differences on social issues. But nobody is showing me one.

I am not one to have an ideological purity test. I know what I'd like to see happen and I'll cast my vote for the person who can win who gives the best shot of it happening. I know I won't get what I want in full but again, I'll take what I can get. I'd love to see more fiscally conservative Republicans run, and that's what Primaries are for. I do think you are seeing the effects of the likes of Libertarians and Tea Partiers are having on the Republican Party and would like to see that continue.

(11-02-2014 10:14 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Show me a true fiscal conservative republican and I will vote for him, despite the differences on social issues. But nobody is showing me one.

Here's the problem Owl. I know too many libertarians that say "show me a true fiscal conservative". They'll see one that's "close" (even more so than Libertarians), but they'll see ONE item that doesn't seem to fit, and they'll go off on the "He's not a true fiscal conservative" tangent and then throw their vote at the Libertarian candidate, regardless of possibly agreeing with the Republican on anything else.

You want a voter that REFUSES to believe in any compromise with Republicans or Democrats? Then I'll show you a Libertarian-ticket voter.

I've said it before and I'll say it again.. Libertarians want to make a difference? Start running for city, county, and state offices... Win there and prove your policies work on a smaller basis, and then start talking about national platforms.

(11-03-2014 05:33 AM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(11-02-2014 10:14 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Show me a true fiscal conservative republican and I will vote for him, despite the differences on social issues. But nobody is showing me one.

Here's the problem Owl. I know too many libertarians that say "show me a true fiscal conservative". They'll see one that's "close" (even more so than Libertarians), but they'll see ONE item that doesn't seem to fit, and they'll go off on the "He's not a true fiscal conservative" tangent and then throw their vote at the Libertarian candidate, regardless of possibly agreeing with the Republican on anything else.
You want a voter that REFUSES to believe in any compromise with Republicans or Democrats? Then I'll show you a Libertarian-ticket voter.
I've said it before and I'll say it again.. Libertarians want to make a difference? Start running for city, county, and state offices... Win there and prove your policies work on a smaller basis, and then start talking about national platforms.

Problem with your position is that republicans may talk fiscal conservative, but they don't do fiscal conservative.

GWB said that he was going to reduce the size of the federal government and get us out of the nation-building business. Sounds very libertarian. He then presided over a larger expansion of the federal government than any of his predecessors and got us into two major nation-building efforts.

If I have to vote for a social conservative to get a fiscal conservative, I will. What I'm not willing to do is vote for a social conservative who lied about being a fiscal conservative.

(11-03-2014 05:41 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-03-2014 05:33 AM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(11-02-2014 10:14 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Show me a true fiscal conservative republican and I will vote for him, despite the differences on social issues. But nobody is showing me one.

Here's the problem Owl. I know too many libertarians that say "show me a true fiscal conservative". They'll see one that's "close" (even more so than Libertarians), but they'll see ONE item that doesn't seem to fit, and they'll go off on the "He's not a true fiscal conservative" tangent and then throw their vote at the Libertarian candidate, regardless of possibly agreeing with the Republican on anything else.
You want a voter that REFUSES to believe in any compromise with Republicans or Democrats? Then I'll show you a Libertarian-ticket voter.
I've said it before and I'll say it again.. Libertarians want to make a difference? Start running for city, county, and state offices... Win there and prove your policies work on a smaller basis, and then start talking about national platforms.

Problem with your position is that republicans may talk fiscal conservative, but they don't do fiscal conservative.

GWB said that he was going to reduce the size of the federal government and get us out of the nation-building business. Sounds very libertarian. He then presided over a larger expansion of the federal government than any of his predecessors and got us into two major nation-building efforts.

If I have to vote for a social conservative to get a fiscal conservative, I will. What I'm not willing to do is vote for a social conservative who lied about being a fiscal conservative.

Have we ever had a fiscal conservative anywhere in Federal office? It took small steps to get into the mess we are in. To change minds it's going to take the same.

(11-02-2014 03:58 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  I'm sure Tillis refusing to go to Tea Party debates and having a nasty primary where he turned off the conservative grass roots and tea party groups, and subsequently never won them back, is totally unrelated to this.

I'm going to agree with GTS here. If you are going to get the Tea Party out to vote for you, you better not thumb your noses at them because they are something like 30% of republicans. Granted, I haven't really followed this race in that kind of detail, but there are more than enough conservatives in NC to easily win a lower turnout midterm against a weak democrat candidate. For some reason, many seem to be staying home.