There's one other thing. A Jackie win would have made it easier to fix the Elkhart county gerrymandering that has kept this District of Indiana Democrat.
-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
Thought on the Walorski/Donnelly run.
- Thread starter TiminMishawaka
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
There's one other thing. A Jackie win would have made it easier to fix the Elkhart county gerrymandering that has kept this District of Indiana Democrat.
I haven't voted 3rd party since Perot.
Learned my "lesser of two evils" lesson the hard way, it is just a shame that the lesson Perot taught wasn't universal.
Oh I still think Perot would have made a GREAT President & that the country would probably be much different today if he had been elected but the only thing his Presidential campaign really did was to help elect Clinton.
Learned my "lesser of two evils" lesson the hard way, it is just a shame that the lesson Perot taught wasn't universal.
Oh I still think Perot would have made a GREAT President & that the country would probably be much different today if he had been elected but the only thing his Presidential campaign really did was to help elect Clinton.
AMEN! I'd like to see one Libertarian explain to me how a Donnelly win helps the Libertarian platform. Take your time. I'll wait.
The same way a Republican win would help the Libertarian platform.
There's also the fact that it is not true that a libertarian is just another flavor of Republican. There are some offices for which I absolutely refuse to vote for a Republican, and would rather have a Democrat unless I hear very specific statements of principle from the Republican. I'm sure there are libertarians in Indiana who voted in the race in question and who think the same way.
QFT
redneckmedic
Grandmaster
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.
Just as an aside, the NRA didn't help by endorsing Donnelly. With Jackie's record, it didn't make any sense for them to do that. Honestly, they may be a major factor to why she lost. I think I'm going to be sending them an email soon, Jackie was not soft on her 2nd Amendment support.
henktermaat
Master
- Jan 3, 2009
- 4,952
- 38
So the Libertarians didn't take the votes away from Walorski, but Donnelly did? What load of
.The fact of the matter is that without the 3rd party candidate splitting the "right of center" voting bloc, Walorski would have won. And based on the rantings of the GOP-haters here, a good portion of those are protest votes against the Republican party.
To the red text: that's a big effing "if." Historical behavior being the best predictor of future, what on God's green earth makes anyone think that we're suddenly going to have this massive movement towards third party politics in this country?
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. Oh sure, at some point in the future, when things get really, really bad, we might have a massive wake up call as a nation and get our collective head out of our arse. But how long is that going to take? And how much damage is going to be done in the mean time? Will there be any chance of recovering from that with our country intact and our current (intended) form of government surviving?
We don't need Walorski's presence? She's just one out of how many?
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.
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.
The few times I've seriously considered running for office, I figured I'd probably want to run as a Democrat. So it's kind of weird to see you assume that any libertarian who "really wanted to make a difference" would necessarily run as a Republican.
No, it doesn't.
It only matters that of those who showed up, the "right of center" crowd split its vote and handed the "left of center" candidate the win.
They weren't voters if they didn't come to the polls. Arguments like that are just red herrings to the real issue.
Since you haven't disclosed your reasons for choosing to run as Democrat, your point is somewhat irrelevant. Should you choose to share your motivation, we can discuss how "weird" my position really is.
Libertarians are not right of center, they're above center.
Only if you're using a multi-axis illustration.
I wasn't.I'm running out of time here, but you can ignore the reality of voting trends all you want with your definitions, graphs, and illustrations. The fact of the matter is that American votes "right" or "left." Libertarians are seen as the "right" side of American politics. For the purposes of discussion, nothing else matters. THAT is what I'm trying to convey.
And THAT is where Libertarians miss the opportunity to make big strides in American politics.
Off the top of my head, I am anti-theocracy, anti-prohibition, anti-war, anti-security state, and pro-individual freedom in social arenas. Those are just the broad strokes. There are other issues which I would probably be effectively siding with Democrats, but my position is more nuanced than a simple "pro" or "anti".Since you haven't disclosed your reasons for choosing to run as Democrat, your point is somewhat irrelevant. Should you choose to share your motivation, we can discuss how "weird" my position really is.
On the Republican side of things, I am pro-gun, pro-economic freedom, pro-property rights, and anti-socialism. Again, some other nuanced positions might place me in their camp depending on how the argument or bill is progressing.
Long story short, it's complete BS to lump me in as a "default Republican who's just trying to be a cool kid". As I stated somewhere around here, there are offices that I hate to see a Republican hold, because the Republican party line is completely anti-libertarian with regard to that office's responsibilities and powers. It would take a specific candidate with a specific set of stated principles to get me to vote Republican in those cases.
SemperFiUSMC
Master
- Jun 23, 2009
- 3,480
- 38
The interesting thing to me is few Libertarians I know have actually read and agree with the party platform. Open borders. Legalizing drug use. Soft on crime. Pro choice. Promote anarchy. Isolationalist. Dovish. Anti-military power. All straight out of the Libertarian Party platform.
And while I dispise large over-reaching government, I recognize a need for government. Libertarians wouldn't know the first thing about how to govern. A while back dross started an "if you were elected what would you do" thread. You could almost tell the Libertarian supporters based on the responses, which vascilated between ineffective, unachievable, unreasonable, and flat out goofy. 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.
So Libertarians got part of what they wanted. They got an open borders, pro-choice, soft on crime, isolationalist, dovish, military power hating son of Pelosi Congressman. Woo hoo. The worst possible choice of the three. Libertarians elected him just as if you voted for him.
Libertarians will spend the next two years complaining, whining and crying about him, but you own him.
