[T]he third-party Libertarian ticket has a rare chance this year to be more than a footnote in the presidential race. [More]Not for anyone who doesn't want to ensure an unchallengeable pathway to citizenship Democrat supermajority within just a few years, with all that means for passing and upholding "gun laws."
And not for anyone who doesn't want to put a demonstrable gun-grabber a heartbeat from the presidency.
So yeah, if you don't mind being the only one relegated to the bottom who gets screwed in the deal...
19 comments:
TINVOWOOT.
There is no voting our way out of this.
Voting for the worst candidate for the US government to bring it down faster has merit.
You say this as if the GOP has been your bestest ever buddy when it comes to your rights, 2nd amendment and otherwise. Yours is truly the triumph of hope over experience.
How many times does one have to be lubed and tubed before saying "Y'know... this just isn't working out"?
You continually reject those who are actually on your side for the promise that (maybe) this Republican nominee won't be all that bad. And you (and we) are continually disappointed.
This "lesser of two evils" crap is really wearing thin. At what point do we say "enough"? If spokesfolk like you ever get to that point and actually -- y'know -- endorse the LP candidate, that 3rd party candidacy might actually have a chance. As it is, this year could be the charm. There are hordes of Democrats who won't vote for Hillary, and hordes of Republicans who won't vote for Trump. If a bunch of them get the LP urge the next Presidential debates will look very different, even if the LP doesn't win.
That's got to be worth rollin' the dice for...
Rexhead-- I'm merely observing the political choices and consequences before us that will play out in November regardless of our opinions. If you think "bestest buddy" is what I think, you haven't been paying attention to a whole body of work that's been explained ad nauseam here for years. You go ahead and vote for someone who will enable a pathway to citizenship and his established - by - actions gungrabber running mate. That's your "side," not mine. If you believe Libertarian - advocated open borders will not result in an overwhelming anti-gun voting majority, how about some credible numbers and sources like the ones I've been consistently presenting for years? Because believe it or not, I'd love for you to be right and me to be wrong.
Pat H -- You may be right. Perhaps genocidal chaos is unavoidable. If people had just gotten off their asses and gotten involved in self-government and guarded with jealous attention the public liberty -- instead of limiting their "activism" to "Molon Labe" comments -- we wouldn't be facing what you seem to be welcoming. Me, I don't have a crystal ball as accurate as the one you seem to have, so you'll forgive me if I continue to keep all options open. Or not.
"You continually reject those who are actually on your side."
WTF? On our side? Rexhead should lay off the bong. Another irresponsible, pompous, True Believer "Libertarian" ignoranus who apparently can't read, or comprehend, or acknowledge 50 years of overwhelming empirical evidence contrary to the open-immigration cult. He'll pull the lever for the candidate with "L" after the name despite their voting record or their policies or the consequences of their policies, axiomatically claiming they're "actually on our side". If someone claims a policy is "Libertarian", he's for it.
I won't bother discussing why Left "Libertarian" open-immigration & invasion-occupation policies are really treasonous SOCIALIST policies, not Libertarian, because it's a waste of time arguing with people who are too dull, arrogant, hopped up & brainwashed to get it. I'll stick with the obvious.
Does he know anything about the candidates? Did he bother to read the article on "Libertarian" VP pick William Weld?
9-30-1993 NY Times:
Gov Weld of MA reversed course and proposed some of the most stringent gun control laws in the country.
Weld, a REPUBLICAN up for re-election, called for a statewide ban on assault weapons - a proposal he opposed during his 1990 campaign - as well as a waiting period for handguns and a ban on handgun ownership by anyone under 21. His legislation would also limit the number of handguns an individual could buy and would impose tough penalties for illegal gun sales and gun-related crimes.
"The purpose of this common sense legislation is to remove deadly guns from our streets and take weapons out of the hands of many teens who themselves are becoming deadly killers," [Weld] said.
3 years ago, candidate Weld's position on gun control won the endorsement of Gun Owners' Action League, a local group affiliated with the NRA. While many in law enforcement praised his turnaround, critics charged political expediency.
"I'm glad he's changed his position..." said Democrat AG Scott Harshbarger.
Michael Yacino, exec dir of Gun Owners' Action League, said his group had been betrayed by Weld, who is an avid hunter and owns four shotguns. "I can't stand a liar."
Weld's spokesman said Weld had been working on gun-control legislation for months. Earlier, Weld had "thought gun control a less critical component" than imprisoning criminals. "He has supported the Brady Bill from its inception."
Mark Roosevelt, a D legislator, said: "I'm glad he's for gun control. Let's get it done. But we have a pattern. He was adamantly pro life. Now he's pro choice. He used to be anti-gay rights. Now he's for it. He was opposed to more money for education. Now he's for it. He opposed gun control. Now he's for it."
====================
Does it sound like Weld is "actually on our side"? Does he sound like a true Libertarian or another lying opportunist who finds the "L" convenient this year?
Is Gary Johnson a true L? Would a true L pick a lying gun grabber like Weld for VP? Or is Johnson another Libertine whose remaining drug-addled ganglions are focused on the all-important priority of legalizing drugs, to which all other issues are expendable - including the continued existence of the USA as a sovereign nation with borders & immigration limits, citizenship with any meaning or value, private property, govt property held in trust for the citizenry, and gun rights?
People who worry about "open borders policies" worry about the wrong thing (if that's actually what they're worrying about). We don't have an 'illegal immigrant' problem today; we have a 'welfare state' problem. The open-borders worriers may know this and merely figure that solving the welfare-state problem is just too hard, or they may not realize the two are connected.
120 years ago, we worried about Italians flooding into our cities; 160 years ago, it was the Irish. Back then, there was no welfare-state; we just didn't want 'furriners' speaking their funny lingo. It was plain old-fashioned bigotry. We can see this today and we cluck our tongues at those ancestors who let emotion override their best instincts as Americans, and someday our descendants will do the same for us.
On occasion these days, someone will ask whether we would have denied entry to starving Irish during the Potato Famine. We didn't, but I'm sure there were some who wanted to. We certainly denied entry to Jews fleeing the Third Reich, and we berate ourselves these days for the lapse in judgement.
Well, it's the Mexicans' turn now. Those Mexicans streaming northward looking for work (or are they looking for a handout?) are fleeing a polity that keeps the peon unable to resist the depredations of bandits and government. Why does anyone think they might vote to establish exactly the same sort of system here? And if they do, how in Hell does anyone think that the welfare state is too big a problem to fix, but rounding up 350 million guns in the hands of a pissed-off citizenry will be a piece of cake?
Absolutely unresponsive to my challenge.
David, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics. "Credible numbers" impress only the credulous, especially on a topic like this. What about the fundamental strength of the American system? Do we think it's inherently strong enough or good enough that new arrivals will be irresistibly drawn to it, or do we not? That, I think, is not simply an important question, but is perhaps the core question.
I, personally, think the system "as designed" is quite that good enough, and I have a great faith in the American people, most of whom arrived here from elsewhere and were irresistibly co-opted into being what we today think of as "Americans". The same is true for new arrivals from the South.
On the other hand, if the system-as-designed is so soft as not to be able to stand on its own, maybe it's time for it to be replaced. It's at least as likely that America v.2 will be better than America v.1 than it is to be worse.
Regardless, all your worrying isn't going to avert disaster, but if you always do what you always did, you'll always get what you always got. In this case, it's a first-class screwing by the GOP.
Again, as I knew would happen, you've avoided my challenge and tried to change the conversation -- because you've got nothin'. If you had an actual and measurable issue with the "statistics," you'd be able to give a credible refutation of them and the methodology used to derive them. And you'd be able to include in your analysis an explanation for why they just happen to track within a percentage point or two of real-world election results.
Call it a dice roll if you like -- what you endorse and your non-responsiveness to observable fact is actually a spin of the cylinder with all chambers loaded. I've got things to do this weekend. Produce or stop wasting my time.
Left-"Libertarian" True Believer definition of lies, damned lies, and statistics:
Any empirical evidence that "Libertarian" immigration policy produces negative consequences, whether or not these output variables are contemplated by the model, may prima facia be dismissed as a lie, damned lie, or statistic.
Another sleazy Left-"Libertarian" M.O. is to change the subject and go ad hominem as a diversion. i.e.:
~ "Anyone who opposes "Libertarian" immigration policy must be a bigot who would've opposed Irish and Italian immigration on the basis of bigotry and denied refugee status to European Jews in the 1930s and 1940s."
Never mind that I don't even believe in race, that my opposition to "Libertarian" immigration policy has nothing whatsoever to do with race.
Evasion is the province of the weakminded, the coward, the dishonorable, and ... the Left "Libertarian".
Hey Mexhead shouldn't we end the welfare state BEFORE giving millions of illegals and everyone else who wants to come in the vote?
Lazlo: Yes, we should. The welfare state is THE problem. Without it, no one would be complaining about people coming here to work, even if they also got to vote.
We fought a revolution over 'taxation without representation' but a more serious problem is 'representation without taxation'. Those who don't pay the bill get to order from the same menu as those who do. It's the reason everything is so screwed up. It has nothing to do with ethnicity or nationality.
Good point Lazlo. "Open-immigration wouldn't be a problem if we didn't have welfare, therefore we support open borders, open-immigration, and invasion-occupation right now."
Never mind that it means we will never be able to abolish welfare, because at even at the current unassimilable immigration levels, the immigrants bring their corrupt cultures with them and continue to fast-breed overwhelmingly Democrat, socialist, and anti-gun voters.
"Libertarian" geniuses always glaze over on that too, because despite their alleged commitment to capitalism and freedom, they don't really give a crap about the rights of American citizens.
Open-immigration would actually be even more destructive of our voting control if we ended welfare.
World Population: Over 7 billion.
4 billion live on income between $2.01 a day and $10 a day.
3.6 billion have total wealth less than $2,161.
2.1 billion have total wealth < $1,000.
1.04 billion people live on < $2/day.
Welfare or no welfare, every one of these people would be economically better off living in the USA than where they live now. Not to mention far better quality of life, security, etc.
They would pour into the US by the billions until the quality of life, liberty, security, etc, here was crushed down so that it was actually worse than garden spots like Rwanda.
Long before that, the USA would have ceased to exist as a sovereign nation.
So you admit you're trying to do things backwards?
Oh and what about the gun vote? That doesn't matter?
Children, children, be quiet. The "L" party won't be able to double it's votes in the coming election. IOW it won't hit TWO PERCENT. Because people don't like THROWING AWAY THEIR VOTES. Now some "true believers" will signal their virtue by not voting. But that is both sides. So the best we can do is try and convince people that voting for Trump is a CHANCE and if they don't listen, tell them to fuck off.
mexhead lol
rexxhead, I sympathize with your argument, really. But not this time.
I agree with your argument that we have a welfare state problem, and not an immigration problem. But it’s like being in a leaky boat and arguing that what we have is a structural integrity problem, not a water problem. It’s absolutely true — but if your solution is to continue to let the water in while you hope for someone to make progress at the much harder job of plugging the hole, you will drown.
If the Libertarian Party were offering me libertarians this year, I’d be sorely torn… but they’re not. They are offering remaindered Republicans. Bill Weld in particular threw me under the bus on the gun issue back in 1993 when I was one of his subjects, at which time I wrote him and told him I would never vote for him for any office whatsoever. This removes any indecision I may have had.
Last time around the LP offered me a remaindered Republican drug-warrior.
We joke about how when there is a boot on your neck, it doesn’t matter whether it is a right boot or a left boot. The LP has graduated to offering us just a more worn out right boot.
Henry said: "I agree...we have a welfare state problem, and not an immigration problem."
Catchy slogan. I hear it a lot. What it means is a bit too vague, though. Do you mean we would have no problem if 3-5 billion people moved here for *work*? No problem long as they can't get welfare? If so, please explain why you think your fellow citizens should have no problem with... "Developing" every inch of private land, ultra high density & gridlock coast to coast, everyone in each other's hair, privacy & dignity distant quaint concepts, cost of land orders of magnitude higher, current citizenry losing its voting control to billions of left-leaning newcomers who brought horrible cultures with them and imposed them on us. And nowhere to escape from it.
World Pop 7 billion & growing.
4 billion live on $2-$10/day
1 billion < $2/day
3.6 billion wealth < $2,161
2.1 billion wealth < $1,000
Under the Left-"Libertarian" utopia of unlimited immigration and no welfare, you don't think billions would want to move here for JOBS, opportunity to earn a lifetime income 50-100 times greater than they could have where they are now and pass wealth on to their kids? With far less worry about being blown up, shot, slaughtered, heads sawed off, limbs chopped off, tortured, displaced, frog marched, raped, robbed, indoctrinated, imprisoned, re-educated, subjected to "famine", diseased, and so forth?
Carlos Perdue
Post a Comment