Libertarians could be spoilers in key Senate races

Politico ^

[Arthurio]

Democratic hopes of maintaining a razor-thin Senate majority may hinge on an unexpected outside force: Libertarians.

In the battlegrounds of Montana, Arizona and Missouri, polls show the Libertarian nominee poised to siphon a fraction of the vote — a small fraction, but potentially enough to tip the outcome in a cliffhanger. And with the battle for the Senate shaping up to be a coin-flip proposition, no factor — not even fringe candidates with little more than a Libertarian label to propel their campaigns — is too insignificant to dismiss.

Given the small-government mantra of Libertarian voters, Democratic officials see the development as a major boon.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/82379.html#ixzz29PEPJZAA

[discostu]

He pushed for socialized medicine in his state, I don’t vote for socialists, it’s just that simple.

[OneWingedShark]

I am a libertarian myself and anyone who votes for anyone besides Romney has s**t for brains.
The next president is going to be either Obama or Romney. NO ONE ELSE!!
A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for Obama and anyone who says there is no difference is not a serious person and just not even worth debating.
If you are not happy with Romney (as I am not) then WORK THAT MUCH HARDER in the next election cycle to get someone closer to your beliefs nominated.
So go ahead and pout libertarian. Go ahead and vote in a manner that helps get Romney defeated.
You are a loser anyway.

Hm, great strategy for winning people to your way of thinking, calling them shit-for-brains and losers.

It doesn't matter if only Obama or Romney will be president if your conscience won't let you vote for a socialist; or is a moral stand only laudable when it matches with the action that you want?

[discostu]

I’m not in the LP, and I’m not talking about who is drawing voters from where. I’m pointing out that if you blame the voters for not liking your candidates you’re making a mistake. That’s what the dems did in 2002 and 2004, blamed the voters, said they “couldn’t understand the message”, we of course made fun of them, said the voters understood just fine. We were right then, and what we said then is just as true today. If the voters don’t want to vote for your candidates that’s not the voters’ fault, that’s your candidates’ fault.

I wish there had been better candidates, there weren’t, and there aren’t. We’ve run mostly libs with Rs after their name in this century. Not gonna stop leftists big government by blindly voting for the R even if they say all the same things as the D.

Actually at this point I think the issue is the parties. The parties are obsessed with power, they don’t really have agendas or goals or beliefs anymore. They just want numbers and power, they want to be in charge. Every couple of years they throw together slogans, pretend they’re vastly different from each other, but when you look at how they actually govern there isn’t that much. How many of Obie’s signature pieces did McCain vote for, and yet during the election they insisted they were as different as night and day.

[OneWingedShark]

Damn! If you don’t see much difference then you are BLIND.

I agree w/ discostu, there isn't a lot of difference between the two. Campaign rhetoric aside, the things Romney did as gov: judicial appointments, gun ban, socialized med, etc. are all progressive socialist in nature.

Was Romeny LYING when in the first debate he said he will repeal Obamacare? He might be. But still...

No "might be" about it, he was definitely lying: the president cannot repeal already-passed legislation.

You need to lose the lberal mindset and vote for Romney.

Romney, who is a liberal.
"We had to burn the village to save it." => "Today we had to abandon free market principals to save the free market." => "I had to vote for a liberal to get rid of a liberal."

[Responsibility2nd]

It’s a very simple question. You and disco have made your answer quite plain.

When the question is: Who would YOU rather have as president? Obama or Romney?

You both pick Obama.

You both can (and do!) blather on on the weaknesses of Romney, but in the final analysis...

You. Pick. Obama.

[OneWingedShark]

It’s a very simple question. You and disco have made your answer quite plain.

Then why can't you accept it.

When the question is: Who would YOU rather have as president? Obama or Romney?

It's a false dilemma: politically speaking they are the same person.

You both pick Obama.
You both can (and do!) blather on on the weaknesses of Romney, but in the final analysis...
You. Pick. Obama.

And you exemplify the up-thread observation regarding blaming voters for not embracing a candidate.

And you know, I really can envision a Romney presidency that would be worse for the country than a second Obama term. At least under Obama people are starting to wake up to how ineffective (and corrupt) our government is; Romney could, and likely will, continue most, if not all, of Obama's policies. Don't expect any government agencies to be dissolved, or even held to account for crimes, the EPA, DEA, FBI, BATFE, TSA, DOE, other DOE, and all the other federal government agencies will be fed and further legitimized BECAUSE ROMNEY IS A STATIST.

[EternalVigilance]

http://www.cfmpl.org/blog/2012/10/15/reject-re-packaged-relativism-false-dichotomies-moral-devolution-and-the-2012-election/

[discostu]

You’ve got the question wrong. The question is: which candidate deserves your vote? Now everybody has their own method of arriving at that answer, yours is taking the lesser of two evil approach. And I’ve taken that approach before, but I also have inviolable principals, there are certain rules I won’t go against, I’ll take the lesser of two evil unless they break one of my big rules, because if they break the big rules they aren’t really lesser. And one of my big rules, the biggest really, is I don’t vote for socialists. Ever.

I’m not picking Obama, I’m just as unwilling to vote for him as Romney. The candidate selection has put me to the point where my answer to which candidate deserves my vote is neither. I will not vote for socialists and therefore I will not vote for either major party candidate. That is the final analysis. If you’re willing to look at their rather slim differences and go for Romney fine, your vote your call. But my vote is my call and it never has and never will go to a socialist. Neither candidate deserves my vote, apparently Romney deserves yours.

[Responsibility2nd]

You’ve got the question wrong.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I do not have the question wrong. You are just afraid to answer it.

Go ahead. OWS admitted he perfers Obama over Mitt. Hell, he “envisions” a better country if B. Hussein is re-elected.

You say you are not picking Obama? But you know voting 3rd party leaves us with the same result.

So your principles won’t allow you to vote for Socialist Mitt? So you won’t vote for anyone for prez? Again you know that action results in Øbama being relected?

[discostu]

Sorry your question is wrong, because your question is an answer. The question is who are you voting for? Your question is why you are voting for that guy. Your question isn’t really a question.

I also know what happens in midterms and how the overall numbers game goes. I outlined in post 17 the historical trends and how that interacts with the two possible victories. The long term is better with Obama than a liberal R. That’s just how it goes. With two terrible for the next four years the long term math is better in a situation where we’re almost guaranteed an R victory in 2016 with R control of both chambers. Of course there’s another historical trend problem: R candidates for president have been on steady decline in conservatism since 88. So there’s a really good chance that our 2016 candidates won’t be any better, so then it really doesn’t matter.

The only real good news on the horizon is the GAO report that in 2035 there will be no possible way to afford the government we have. 2/3 of the government will have to evaporate then. Until then we’re screwed. Regardless of the party of the guy in the White House, they’re all high spending liberals, and they’re all gonna be high spending liberals.

[rdb3]

Leftists are successful because government is a religion substitute for them.

Fixed it!

The pain you feel today is the strength you'll have tomorrow.

[OneWingedShark]

Go ahead. OWS admitted he perfers Obama over Mitt. Hell, he “envisions” a better country if B. Hussein is re-elected.

I did not say I prefer Obama; I prefer neither of them. That is what you refuse to accept: that I or discostu can be against both of the candidates.
To be precise, I said I "can envision" -- I've always had a good imagination and tend to be future-minded, this means I tend to be a bit more consequentially-minded than my peers -- the people believing that changing the D to an R for the president is actual change can, and almost certainly will, lull people into a false sense of accomplishment.

John Adams said it very well:

The question before the human race is, whether the God of nature shall govern the world by his own laws, or whether priests and kings shall rule it by fictitious miracles? -- John Adams

A vote for Romney is a vote for fictitious miracles.

[editor-surveyor]

OWS has lost his last gray cell.

[OneWingedShark]

OWS has lost his last gray cell.

You know, that just destroyed a lot of respect that I had for you.

Do I really need to list out the 'fictitious miracles' Romney and supporters are pushing?

1. Claim: Romney will repeal Obamacare.
   Fact: The President cannot legitimately repeal an already-passed law.
2. Claim: Romney will use Executive orders to exempt states from implementing Obamacare, thereby gutting it.
   Fact: The use of such method would be very harmful to the States; it accepts as legitimate the idea that the States have no sovereignty in themselves and are thus both subject to and dependent on the Federal Government. Furthermore, the exemptions could themselves be rescinded at a later date; thus giving the President an effective blackmail threat: "do what I say, or I'll devastate your economy by invalidating your healthcare exemption."
3. Claim: Obama will appoint worse Supreme Court Justices than Romney.
   Fact: The record of Romney's judicial appointments is that of liberal and activist judges; not any better than what Obama's given us.
4. Claim: Romney/Ryan is the only choice if you are pro-life.
   Fact: The "mother's health, rape and incest" exceptions are actually used to justify any and all abortion.
   Fact: That one would condemn the child to death for the action of the parent[s], a child who literally did not exist at the start of the act, is the ultimate rationalization of condemning the innocent and is so morally repugnant and unjust that "pro-life" politicians ought to be called on it.
5. Claim: Romney will get government spending under control.
   Fact: The Congress is in control of budgeting.

Fact: The

[fieldmarshaldj]

*sniff*sniff*

[sickoflibs]

RE :”If Romney wins he continues most of obie’s policies AND the dems gain seats in 2014, then if he wins reelection in 2016 the dems get major gains in 2018, and because sitting VPs often win the nomination but almost never win the presidency a dem gets the White House in 2020 with a workable majority.
You’ve got to understand the difference between the battle and the war. Some battles aren’t that bad to lose. I’d prefer a good republican in the White House, but none ran. So this is what we’ve got, 2 guys with very similar mindsets, 2 guys that will continue the run away spending, 2 guys where the only noticeable difference is the letter after their name, 2 guys that quite simply don’t deserve my vote.
........
great posting discostu...you and SOL could be twins ???”

We really dont know what Romney's view are if he has any, besides cut taxes.

Electing another R POTUS who is Dem light or/and can't sell different ideas to the voters (because he doesnt believe them or cant articulate ) just delays the pain, take that really strong pain killer and you wont need that painful dental work.
Romney cant sell anything to anyone, he is just dodging. His very specific tax cuts are paid for fully (no deficit increase) with unspecified tax increases so it is not really a tax cut at all......? Not pretty.

What I think we need is Scott Walker as a candidate in 2016 if he can survive Dems assaults till then and not compromise himself like insider made up hero Ryan has done.

But we are lectured that 2016 doesnt matter, only 2012 matters. The world ends after election day. Party anyone?

[fieldmarshaldj]

Again, do you think you’re the first person to engage in revisionist history where Willard is concerned ? That’s been going on here for a half-dozen years and debunked in hundreds, if not thousands, of threads. I suggest you stop with the spam and go look them up.

Oh, and to answer your ridiculous question (which I’ve answered countless times in those prior threads), any so-called Conservative group or individual who willingly endorsed a Socialist Willard (especially in the early primary season), deserves to have their credentials seriously questioned, period.

[marktwain]

I’m not in the LP, and I’m not talking about who is drawing voters from where. I’m pointing out that if you blame the voters for not liking your candidates you’re making a mistake. That’s what the dems did in 2002 and 2004, blamed the voters, said they “couldn’t understand the message”, we of course made fun of them, said the voters understood just fine. We were right then, and what we said then is just as true today. If the voters don’t want to vote for your candidates that’s not the voters’ fault, that’s your candidates’ fault. I wish there had been better candidates, there weren’t, and there aren’t. We’ve run mostly libs with Rs after their name in this century. Not gonna stop leftists big government by blindly voting for the R even if they say all the same things as the D. Actually at this point I think the issue is the parties. The parties are obsessed with power, they don’t really have agendas or goals or beliefs anymore. They just want numbers and power, they want to be in charge. Every couple of years they throw together slogans, pretend they’re vastly different from each other, but when you look at how they actually govern there isn’t that much. How many of Obie’s signature pieces did McCain vote for, and yet during the election they insisted they were as different as night and day.

We see reality differently, obviously. It is clear to me that the reason that both parties have fairly similar policies in many ways, is that both are operating from the playbook controlled by the MSM. The new media has changed that, and now there are considerable numbers of Republicans that buck the MSM, using the new media as a way to communicate to voters. Voters can only make decisions based on the information that they have, and for many decades, most of that information was filtered through the "progressive" or, if you prefer "socialist" agenda of the MSM.

Yes, McCain was very similar to Obama. Both are "progressives". Bush was a "progressive" as well, but conservative constitutionalists, though the new media, were able to push him to appoint a couple of much more conservative constitutionalists to the Supreme Court than he would have otherwise.

Romney is not nearly as committed to "progressive" ideology as Obama, so he is much more subject to pressure from the Republican base using the new media.

If we do not get control of spending, yes the Government will crash by 2035. If you read much history, you should know that historically, it is highly unlikely that a less restrictive government will come from that. Most such situations result in a much more restricted and regulated state, which exacerbates the problem, of course.

[discostu]

I’m not sure how we can consider a guy that pushed socialized medicine on his state less progressive.

Yes we do need to get spending under control. And Romney isn’t going to do that. I don’t think anybody is going to do that. Even if Romney wanted to Congress uses the budget to buy votes, they won’t allow a major budget reduction, and the way earmarks rule the budget now (so much we’ve had no budget approved for Obama’s entire term) a president no longer has the threat of a government shutdown veto.

[marktwain]

and the way earmarks rule the budget now (so much we’ve had no budget approved for Obama’s entire term) a president no longer has the threat of a government shutdown veto.

Earmarks are less than 1/2 of 1 percent of the budget.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/eliminating-100-percent-earmarks-cuts-federal-spending-less-05-percent

The Republicans have pushed hard for a budget, but the Democrats refuse to pass one. It is a Constitutional requirement. If the MSM were not completely complicit with the Democrats, we would have a budget.

The only reason that the Democrats get away with this is because they get a pass in the MSM on it. Can you imagine representatives and senators not passing a budget if they were constantly being hammered in the media about how they were violating their oath of office and neglecting their constitutional duty?