Posting this in WWE since it probably fits the demographic better.
Grover came on The Independents today and made the case that in a close election, libertarians should vote for the GOP. I'm going to guess nearly all conservatives here agree with that half of the equation.
But he also said in decided elections where the GOP candidate is weak, libertarians AND conservatives should vote for the libertarian to put real numbers on the board to show dissatisfaction with a weak candidate, and signal to others that that person should be primaried in their next election. Do the conservatives here agree with that half of the equation?
There was also a pretty good exchange on the show:
Kennedy: "I want to talk about issues that I know are important to you that Republicans are doing a poor job of addressing especially for those who are more liberty minded and -"
Grover: "How long is this show?"
Norquist has been a mixed bag over the years but yes I agree with both halves of his advice.
(11-03-2014 09:35 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote: [ -> ]Posting this in WWE since it probably fits the demographic better.
Grover came on The Independents today and made the case that in a close election, libertarians should vote for the GOP. I'm going to guess nearly all conservatives here agree with that half of the equation.
But he also said in decided elections where the GOP candidate is weak, libertarians AND conservatives should vote for the libertarian to put real numbers on the board to show dissatisfaction with a weak candidate, and signal to others that that person should be primaried in their next election. Do the conservatives here agree with that half of the equation?
There was also a pretty good exchange on the show:
Kennedy: "I want to talk about issues that I know are important to you that Republicans are doing a poor job of addressing especially for those who are more liberty minded and -"
Grover: "How long is this show?"
I can't disagree but I'm sure the left will demonize it
I would agree with it, but I doubt republican leaders would go along with it.
Don't always agree with him, but I'd agree on both halves of this one.
Yes. I'd also agree with what he said, based on your report about it. No reason to vote for a RINO if he has no chance of winning-- but I'd add that there's no reason to vote for him if his win is a sure thing, also. Either way, make your statement vote if your vote really doesn't really make any difference to the CURRENT election outcome. And I agree that if the race is close, do NOT make your statement vote, because it just makes absolutely no sense to make it, because it could do far more damage than good.
Have NO problem with that at all. What some libertarians don't get, is that we get you! You are like our kinda odd cousin down the street that thinks the same way we do, wants the same things, in one way or another, just we aren't all on board with some of your rather kooky ways of getting there. We BFF you, if you're a neighbors kid we'd probably try to hook up with you, but you're so hung up on one or two rather oddball things you push us off.
Most conservatives I know, and have known, in over 30 years are NOT Rockefeller, or McCain or even free spending Bush Repubs. You've seen nary few defend any of them around here.
BUT, as I've said before, even today, any of those guys are FAR preferable to Pelosi, or hack Reid, or the disgusting Schmucky or Hernandez, any day of the week.
As a hopelessly lost, and destined to lose, again and again, whose ship do you want to tie up to? That's the real question for the 3%'ers.
(11-04-2014 01:12 AM)JMUDunk Wrote: [ -> ]Most conservatives I know, and have known, in over 30 years are NOT Rockefeller, or McCain or even free spending Bush Repubs. You've seen nary few defend any of them around here.
But it's the Rockefeller and McCain and free spending Bush types that the republicans are giving us as choices. And we're supposed to support them because they're somehow "conservative" because they are opposed to abortion and gay marriage? I want somebody who is going to balance the budget and doesn't give a damn about gay marriage. That's not who republicans are offering. The last presidential candidate to fit that description was Bill Clinton--and he is a democrat.
Quote:BUT, as I've said before, even today, any of those guys are FAR preferable to Pelosi, or hack Reid, or the disgusting Schmucky or Hernandez, any day of the week.
No, they aren't, and that's the problem. They may be ever so slightly less bad at the margin, but only slightly. And in return they are blocking any real improvement. They are creating ill will and animosity toward conservatives and conservatism without actually being conservative themselves. George W. Bush made the election of Barack Obama possible. That alone makes him a terrible president.
Quote:As a hopelessly lost, and destined to lose, again and again, whose ship do you want to tie up to? That's the real question for the 3%'ers.
The ship that is going to balance the budget and doesn't give a damn about gay marriage. Which ship is that?
(11-04-2014 01:52 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]I want somebody who is going to balance the budget and doesn't give a damn about gay marriage. That's not who republicans are offering. The last presidential candidate to fit that description was Bill Clinton--and he is a democrat.
Since Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act into law, does that mean you will support a candidate who campaigns in support of that law?
(11-04-2014 01:57 AM)Native Georgian Wrote: [ -> ] (11-04-2014 01:52 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]I want somebody who is going to balance the budget and doesn't give a damn about gay marriage. That's not who republicans are offering. The last presidential candidate to fit that description was Bill Clinton--and he is a democrat.
Since Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act into law, does that mean you will support a candidate who campaigns in support of that law?
I care a whole lot more about whether a candidate will balance the budget than I do about what he or she thinks about DOMA. I would have thought that "doesn't give a damn about gay marriage" would have made that clear. For the record, I favor civil unions for any two consenting adult human beings, give marriage back to the churches, and keep church and state separate on this issue. That's not DOMA.
(11-04-2014 02:02 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]I care a whole lot more about whether a candidate will balance the budget than I do about what he or she thinks about DOMA. I would have thought that "doesn't give a damn about gay marriage" would have made that clear. For the record, I favor civil unions for any two consenting adult human beings, give marriage back to the churches, and keep church and state separate on this issue. That's not DOMA.
All legitimate opinions to hold.
But you cited Clinton as the example of what kind of leadership you were looking for on the issue of "gay marriage", so I thought it fair to look at the record of what he did on that issue the last time he was "a presidential candidate" in 1996. He did not follow the counsel you have expressed on that issue. And in fact, I don't believe that's his view even
now, although (as ever with Clinton) parsing his words is not for the faint-of-heart.
Also worth noting that "his" balanced budgets occurred with the House *and* Senate both under firm GOP control. A crucial point, IMHO.
There's not a dime's worth of difference between the actual policies of "conservative" GWB and socialist/communist Obama. That's not because Obama is conservative but because GWB isn't. 60% of Americans disliked GWB because his policies didn't work. 60% of Americans dislike Obama because his policies aren't working. When they disliked GWB they disliked "conservatives." When they dislike Obama they dislike leftists. If we're going to be stuck with policies that don't work, I'd rather people be blaming leftists for them.
(11-04-2014 02:17 AM)Native Georgian Wrote: [ -> ]All legitimate opinions to hold.
But you cited Clinton as the example of what kind of leadership you were looking for on the issue of "gay marriage", so I thought it fair to look at the record of what he did on that issue the last time he was "a presidential candidate" in 1996. He did not follow the counsel you have expressed on that issue. And in fact, I don't believe that's his view even now, although (as ever with Clinton) parsing his words is not for the faint-of-heart.
Also worth noting that "his" balanced budgets occurred with the House *and* Senate both under firm GOP control. A crucial point, IMHO.
The reason we don't know Clinton's position on gay marriage is because it isn't a big issue with him. I don't give a damn what your position on gay marriage is. I just don't want that position--no matter what it is--at the top of your agenda. I'm not looking for Clinton's or anybody else's leadership on gay marriage. I want leadership focusing elsewhere.
As for his balanced budgets, it is absolutely correct that it happened with republicans controlling congress. And that republican congress deserves a lot of the credit, probably 50/50 with Clinton. But to give Clinton a fair shake, he was writing in the 1980s about the need to balance the budget and reform welfare. And those republican congresses found a way to run amok with those balanced budgets when GWB replaced Clinton. Not as badly as democrat controlled congresses under both GWB and Obama, to be sure. But badly enough that you have to give Clinton some of the credit.
(11-03-2014 09:35 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote: [ -> ]Posting this in WWE since it probably fits the demographic better.
Grover came on The Independents today and made the case that in a close election, libertarians should vote for the GOP. I'm going to guess nearly all conservatives here agree with that half of the equation.
But he also said in decided elections where the GOP candidate is weak, libertarians AND conservatives should vote for the libertarian to put real numbers on the board to show dissatisfaction with a weak candidate, and signal to others that that person should be primaried in their next election. Do the conservatives here agree with that half of the equation?
If you're in an election area where you know you're guaranteed to see the re-voting of the Democratic incumbent, I don't have a problem with this philosophy (It's something I've pretty much tried to ask of the Libertarian posters around here, but I either get ignored or shot down... "Libertarian or nothing!"
But how many major seats this year fall in that category?
Even Udall , which a couple of months ago I would have said fell in that "locked in" category, hasn't been a sure thing over the past couple of months worth of polling.
But g-man i disagree with you on this one:
Quote: No reason to vote for a RINO if he has no chance of winning-- but I'd add that there's no reason to vote for him if his win is a sure thing, also.
What if all those sure-winners were because of the Libertarian vote?
Btw.. here's an example of the Candidate doing it....
Connecticut independent governatorial candidate
drops out to help Republican candidate jump to the lead?
Quote: He said he made his decision when he observed the latest Public Policy Polling poll that showed Malloy ahead by three percentage points, with Visconti in third place with six percent of the vote. The latest Rasmussen poll has Malloy ahead by one percentage point
So if those 6% of voters do right by the guy they supported, Foley should take the Conn. Governorship, by 3%?