|
|
Post by JP5 on Nov 7, 2013 0:47:31 GMT
"Why would a billionaire Obama bundler in Texas support a Libertarian gubernatorial candidate in Virginia?
To ensure that Republican nominee Ken Cuccinelli does not win, of course."
Why this info didn't get out until it was too late for those in Virginia who were being tricked......is beyond me.
"This tactic is not new. Last year, Gather reported that Mia Love, who would have been the first black female Republican congresswoman in history, was "sabotaged" by a Libertarian candidate who was supported by a Democratic Political Action Committee, UTEPAC, who
"hired a voter contact firm for $10,500, to persuade 'thousands of 4th District Republicans' to vote for a Libertarian third-party candidate." Jim L. Vein got 5,703 votes. The Democratic candidate, Jim Matheson, won by 2,818 votes.
If Democrats can't persuade Republicans to vote for their candidate, they throw their weight behind a Libertarian candidate to take votes away from the Republican. In Love's case, the Libertarian candidate did not even realize that he was being supported by Democrats."
www.examiner.com/article/obama-bundler-funds-libertarian-candidate-to-disrupt-virginia-gubernatorial-race
You know.....if this isn't illegal, it should be. These kinds of "dirty tricks" and purposefully tricking the American public is sickening. Terry McAulliffe should be outraged that he won in such an underhanded way. But, of course, I'm betting that he, Obama and all the Dems involved knew full well what game was being played on the Virginia resident. SHAME ON THEM ALL. And shame on Obama for EVER demonizing the Koch Brothers for daring to have a 501(4)(c)......when Obama's BILLIONAIRES are out there pulling these kinds of dirty tricks.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Nov 7, 2013 12:04:38 GMT
What amazes me is that many believe that a Libertarian vote adversely affects either a Democrat or Republican during an election. Libertarians don't lean toward either "social conservatism" or "progressive liberalism" when it come to politics. There is an apparent misconception that Libertarians lean politically "to the right" and that is false.
We see the extremism on both sides of the isle and object to both. The "Tea Party" conservative proposals are just as offensive to us as the extremist liberals that make proposals like "single-payer health insurance" in America.
The Libertarians I know wouldn't vote for either a Democrat or a Republican in an election when given a choice to vote for a Libertarian candidate. When a Libertarian is on the ballot then any money spent to get the Libertarian vote out for them doesn't take away any votes from either Democrats or Republicans. It just increases the vote for the Libertarian candidate.
Perhaps the false belief comes from the fact that many of the extreme in the right, or the Tea Party movement, have attempted to portray themselves as Libertarians but they're not. Rand Paul is no where near being a "libertarian" and yet many seem to believe he is because he, and his father, try to portray themselves as libertarians. They simply carry too much "Republican" baggage to ever be considered to be a libertarian. President Obama has just as much in common with Libertarianism as someone like Rand Paul which isn't a whole hell of a lot.
So if Democrats want to donate to Libertarian candidates then I'm all for it. They don't gain anything but the Libertarians do. In fact the Libertarian candidate for governor received 7% of the vote if I recall correctly and that was a great showing for a Libertarian candidate. He received that many votes because Libertarians knew that they had someone to vote for and turned out to vote for "Our Candidate" and it didn't have any impact whatsoever on the vote for the Democratic or Republican candidate. It merely reflects that more Libertarians turned out to vote.
|
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Nov 7, 2013 17:06:54 GMT
Once again.....you totally missed what the article and my OP was about. EVERYONE knows the Libertarian guy was not going to win. So, what's the purpose? Well, the purpose of supporting someone like that is to take votes away from someone else, so that YOUR guy can have a better chance of winning. Now, there is no way that an Obama bundler; that is someone who has raised tons of money for Obama, wanted the conservative to win. No way. So, he didn't do it for purposes of taking votes away from the Democrat. Odd how you always try to spin everything in defense of Democrats.
From what I see about Libertarians is that they are people who can't really decide what they believe. There's only one thing they are sure of: they want marijuana to be legal everywhere.... and no laws regarding it. They want abortions and everyone else to pay for their abortions. They want contraceptions to be paid for by taxpayers as well. They are for a lot of social programs and tend to agree with liberals that money grows on trees somewhere......usually inside the so-called evil rich pockets! That would be the evil rich conservative pockets however.....because they don't demonize the liberal ultra rich. So, IMHO, they are far more liberal and I see little or nothing that resembles conservatives about them; not even in fiscal responsibility that they like to claim they believe in.
But again, in this particular instance, I'm sure the Obama bundler did not believe in the state of Virginia that he would be taking votes away from McAuliffe. In fact, all the analysis shows it was just as he thought; those votes he took away from the conservative. Now the question remains.....do you think Obama and McAuliffe were in on it?
And BTW, Obama has come down to Austin to this multi-billionaire's home to collect money. They are friends. Do you think if Obama thought what his Austin buddy was doing would take votes away from McAuliffe that he wouldn't pick up the phone and say...."What the heck or you doing? " Of course he would. This was a DIRTY TRICK played by liberals who were afraid that McAuliffe just might not pull it off on his own. And apparently some low-information Republicans fell for it.
BUT as former Mayor Koch said......"The voters of Virginia have spoken, and now they will be punished." 
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Nov 7, 2013 21:22:29 GMT
Complete ignorance of libertarian political beliefs is obvious.
The fact remains that no one lost a single vote by the Libertarian candidate in Virginia receiving 7% of the total vote. That vote represents Libertarian turn out at the polls on Tuesday.
Of interest though more and more Democrats and Republicans are abandoning their respective parties because they find the Libertarian Party position on the issues to be more closely aligned with their own.
|
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Nov 7, 2013 21:44:55 GMT
Complete ignorance of libertarian political beliefs is obvious.
The fact remains that no one lost a single vote by the Libertarian candidate in Virginia receiving 7% of the total vote. That vote represents Libertarian turn out at the polls on Tuesday.
Of interest though more and more Democrats and Republicans are abandoning their respective parties because they find the Libertarian Party position on the issues to be more closely aligned with their own.
|
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Nov 7, 2013 22:00:51 GMT
Shiva......the guy who ran as a Libertarian in Virginia, Robert Sarvis, stated in interviews these things....
** He said he was "not into the whole Austrian type, strongly libertarian economics," but preferred the "more mainstream economics," whatever that means. Acted like he didn't even know what economics is; much less where he stands on it.
** He told Chuck Todd, in an interview, that he would be hesitant to CUT TAXES, and unsure as to how he might "reduce spending," meaning he hadn't even given it a thought, because it wasn't important to him.
** he supported expanding Virginia's Medicaid program.
** AND he supported the VMT plan.....which requires the installation of gov't GPS system in private car so they could b taxed "per mile" driven.
NOW, I ask you Shiva.....are ALL of those LIBERTARIAN ideas?? Can you link me to ONE Libertarian website that espouses these things.....
--NOT cutting taxes
--Against reducing spending
--Expanding Medicaid or any other big government social program
--Being Against PRIVACY, by going along with the fed gov't installing a GPS system on your car
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Nov 7, 2013 23:11:34 GMT
Shiva......the guy who ran as a Libertarian in Virginia, Robert Sarvis, stated in interviews these things....
** He said he was "not into the whole Austrian type, strongly libertarian economics," but preferred the "more mainstream economics," whatever that means. Acted like he didn't even know what economics is; much less where he stands on it.
** He told Chuck Todd, in an interview, that he would be hesitant to CUT TAXES, and unsure as to how he might "reduce spending," meaning he hadn't even given it a thought, because it wasn't important to him.
** he supported expanding Virginia's Medicaid program.
** AND he supported the VMT plan.....which requires the installation of gov't GPS system in private car so they could b taxed "per mile" driven.
NOW, I ask you Shiva.....are ALL of those LIBERTARIAN ideas?? Can you link me to ONE Libertarian website that espouses these things.....
--NOT cutting taxes
--Against reducing spending
--Expanding Medicaid or any other big government social program
--Being Against PRIVACY, by going along with the fed gov't installing a GPS system on your car
There are some that believe that a VMT (Vehicle Motor Tax) that taxes the mileage a car drives is superior to the fuel tax. It doesn't require a GPS satellite tracking system to verify mileage although GPS could be used but that is an expensive way to impose the tax.
But let's look at the national LP party position on taxes because there is ignorance related to it.
1) Cut defense spending to about $250 billion per year by withdrawing the US military from virtually all foreign assignments, slashing the size of the military, and ending US military interventionism.
2) End the prohibitions on drugs that costs the federal government close to $100 billion a year in total costs.
3) Work towards private charities replacing government welfare programs and as charities begin to carry the load then government welfare spending can be reduced. (My personal preference is to reduce poverty which is a lot easier than providing assistance to mitigate the effects of the poverty.)
4) Privatize federal enterprises. This is relatively small budgetary-wise but it would include things like privatizing AMTRAK and perhaps much of what the Corp of Engineers is involved in.
5) End corporate welfare based upon subsidies and/or tax loopholes.
6) Revise the tax codes so that the tax burden relative to income is balanced which would dramatically reduce the tax burden on working families. (Which I've proposed on this forum. The LP goes so far as calling for ending income taxes completely but that is because they're inherently unfair and complex today but I've also resolved with my tax proposal.)
7) Return to the gold standard is commonly mentioned among Libertarian circles because it ends the inflationary policies of economic interventionism by the federal government. (I even have a proposal for accomplishing that.)
8) Partially privatize Social Security. (The Libertarian Party only wants to partially privatize Social Security while I propose privatizing all of it and virtually eliminating Social Security leaving just a small safety net and completely eliminating Medicare.)
More important than cutting taxes for Libertarians is balancing the US budget first and then by reducing spending in a responsible manner it will reduce taxation.
The Libertarian Party position, while outlining how to reduce spending and taxing, is juxtaposed to Democratic and Republican policies of fiscal irresponsibility and completely opposite to what the Tea Party proposes which is irresponsible tax cutting in addition to fiscal irresponsibility.
|
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Nov 7, 2013 23:17:47 GMT
There's only 3 of those listed that even remotely resemble anything conservative or Republican.....and that is #3, #4, and #8.
The rest are liberal socialist ideas.
Can you share the LINK to this national Liberal site which contains this list?
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Nov 8, 2013 11:49:43 GMT
There's only 3 of those listed that even remotely resemble anything conservative or Republican.....and that is #3, #4, and #8.
The rest are liberal socialist ideas.
Can you share the LINK to this national Liberal site which contains this list?
I can provide a link to a libertarian website though because my list is an abridged version of the National Libertarian Party website where it addresses the issues and proposals to deal with the issues.
www.lp.org
As I noted anyone that believes that Libertarians voting is taking away votes from either Republicans or Democrats is basically delusional. Libertarians are fiscally conservative and socially liberal. I wish I had the link because I lost it but there was a study done several years ago that actually reflected the rank-and-file Republicans and Democrats, when polled on their actual political beliefs, had more in common with Libertarian Party beliefs than they did with their own political party because the Libertarian Party is fiscally conservative and socially liberal at the same time. These two issues are not mutually exclusive.
As I've noted people on the left like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have about as much in common with Libertarians as people on the right like Boehner and McConnell which is very little. Tea Party extremists like Ted Cruz have virtually nothing in common with Libertarian political beliefs.
This is why I can state that a vote for a Libertarian doesn't take away votes from either Democrats or Republicans because we have little in common with either. It certainly wouldn't take away votes from a Tea Party conservative because the Libertarian Party has nothing in common really with the Tea Party because it is the most socially and fiscally irresponsible element of the Republican Party.
|
|
|
|
Post by niff on Nov 8, 2013 14:14:08 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Nov 8, 2013 14:24:46 GMT
Ralph Nader was a one-pony show and not the third largest political party in America with a history of over 40 years behind it that addresses all of the political issues in America.
|
|
|
|
Post by niff on Nov 8, 2013 18:53:26 GMT
Yeah. The third largest party. Charlie Manson has also addressed all the issues of the political issues in America. Dream on pal. How many times did Nader attempt to become the President.? Third largest party= 1%. Wake up. Funny. The 'party' has been in existence for forty years and still nobody gives a SFF about them. Could it be their MESSAGE? ? |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Nov 8, 2013 19:43:40 GMT
Yeah. The third largest party. Charlie Manson has also addressed all the issues of the political issues in America. Dream on pal. How many times did Nader attempt to become the President.? Third largest party= 1%. Wake up. Funny. The 'party' has been in existence for forty years and still nobody gives a SFF about them. Could it be their MESSAGE? ?
Even with that handicap of exclusion from the Presidential Debates Gary Johnson was still able to get his message out to many Americans and, in fact, received more than 3-times the votes of the entire Libertarian Party membership in 2012. If either a Republican or Democratic presidential candidate could pull off this trick they'd have over 100% of the entire vote.
Perhaps the greatest problem for Libertarians is the ignorance of the American people when it comes to the Libertarian political ideology. That has been evidenced on this thread where I presented the Libertarian positions on reducing the size of government and reducing the taxation to support it. We address how to pragmatically reduce spending and the size of government unlike either Republicans or Democrats. We're actually fiscally conservative where neither Republicans or Democrats are. We're also unlike Republicans or Democrats in that we seek to resolve the problems as opposed to ignoring the problems and addressing symptoms of the problems.
So we have a lot of "conservatives" and "liberals" making statements about Libertarians that are really nothing but misrepresentations or outright false statements and it discourages many from actually knowing what we stand for. Even the press misrepresents us when they make claims like Ron or Rand Paul are "libertarian Republicans" because they're not. A Republican is never a Libertarian, ever.
But we're doing better all of the time. People may be slow to learn but eventually they do. One thing going in our favor today is that more and more Americans are rejecting both the Republican and Democratic Party agendas. This disillusionment is greatly aided by extremists like Ted Cruz that will literally drive Republicans out of the Party and they'll be looking for somewhere else to go. I could only wish that the Democrats would have some crackpot extremist like a Ted Cruz to drive more Democrats out of their party. Unfortunately today the Democrats are more like Republicans of the 1960's than anything else. Democrats today have actually moved more towards the middle while many Republicans have become real rightwing extremists on many issues.
As Americans tire of the BS politics of the Democrats and Republicans the Libertarian Party is just sitting there waiting in the wings with open arms because we are the party of solutions to Americas problems.
|
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Nov 9, 2013 2:50:45 GMT
Yeah. The third largest party. Charlie Manson has also addressed all the issues of the political issues in America. Dream on pal. How many times did Nader attempt to become the President.? Third largest party= 1%. Wake up. Funny. The 'party' has been in existence for forty years and still nobody gives a SFF about them. Could it be their MESSAGE? ?
That's because the country doesn't want to hear from people who are in the squishy middle and don't seem to have any real convictions.
Even with that handicap of exclusion from the Presidential Debates Gary Johnson was still able to get his message out to many Americans and, in fact, received more than 3-times the votes of the entire Libertarian Party membership in 2012. If either a Republican or Democratic presidential candidate could pull off this trick they'd have over 100% of the entire vote.
I never even heard Johnson speak. I wasn't interested in what he had to say and of course, knew he didn't have a chance anyway....so voting for him was to throw one's vote away.
Perhaps the greatest problem for Libertarians is the ignorance of the American people when it comes to the Libertarian political ideology. That has been evidenced on this thread where I presented the Libertarian positions on reducing the size of government and reducing the taxation to support it.
Yes, occasionally you say that. But you also sound like a liberal who wants Medicaid to be expanded and wants taxes raised. How many times have you argued for more and more higher taxes on the rich? That's taxation. And whenever we advocate more taxes to be sent to Washington D.C. they simply sit around and figure out new ways to spend it. That's why, as a conservative, I'm for fighting to keep it in the pockets of the American people who earned it. I don't have a problem with a progressive tax system....as I realize those starting out; those at the bottom; need the break. But that doesn't mean we get punitive for those at the top either, IMHO.
We address how to pragmatically reduce spending and the size of government unlike either Republicans or Democrats. We're actually fiscally conservative where neither Republicans or Democrats are. We're also unlike Republicans or Democrats in that we seek to resolve the problems as opposed to ignoring the problems and addressing symptoms of the problems.
Arguing for taxes to be raised on the rich is NOT fiscally conservative. Arguing for taxes to be raised on anyone is NOT fiscally conservative. This is where you appear to talk out of both sides of your mouth.
So we have a lot of "conservatives" and "liberals" making statements about Libertarians that are really nothing but misrepresentations or outright false statements and it discourages many from actually knowing what we stand for. Even the press misrepresents us when they make claims like Ron or Rand Paul are "libertarian Republicans" because they're not. A Republican is never a Libertarian, ever.
BUT based on many views you've espoused on these boards.....if you are truly representative of Libertarians....than Libertarians ARE often liberal.
But we're doing better all of the time. People may be slow to learn but eventually they do. One thing going in our favor today is that more and more Americans are rejecting both the Republican and Democratic Party agendas. This disillusionment is greatly aided by extremists like Ted Cruz that will literally drive Republicans out of the Party and they'll be looking for somewhere else to go. I could only wish that the Democrats would have some crackpot extremist like a Ted Cruz to drive more Democrats out of their party. Unfortunately today the Democrats are more like Republicans of the 1960's than anything else. Democrats today have actually moved more towards the middle while many Republicans have become real rightwing extremists on many issues.
As Americans tire of the BS politics of the Democrats and Republicans the Libertarian Party is just sitting there waiting in the wings with open arms because we are the party of solutions to Americas problems.
Repeating Obama and the Democrats mantra that the Tea Party and Ted Cruz are extremists......as they try to create their bogeyman.....does not make it so. They are NOT extremists.
LOL. "Democrats have moved more towards the middle?" HOW? Where??? Prove that statement.
The ones who have moved more towards the middle is Republicans. George W. Bush comes to mind. At times, he really p'd me off when he sounded like a liberal. When he coped the mantra of the left towards the end of his administration about "everyone should own their on home," I about came unglued. Sounded just like Barney Frank. And for someone who had fought for almost 8 years at that point about the dangers of Fannie & Freddie and the lowering of standards by the banks which was being pushed by liberals/Democrats....I just couldn't believe he was adopting their mantra.
I've heard Ted Cruz speak before in person. He is NOT an extremist....whatever that means to you. Yes, he fights for what he believes in. But then so do Democrats. Why is it "extremist" when a Republicans does, but not when a Democrats does? You blame him for the Shutdown....but you don't blame Obama for saying at the outset, "I will NOT negotiate...period." That to you, I guess, it NOT being "extremist." Harry Reid uses ever tool available to him when he's the Majority Leader.....and/or when he's the Minority Leader. Did you demonize him and call him "extremist" for it? No. And I think it's because you are more supportive of Harry and his big government spending ideas than you are of Cruz and his desire to cut spending and reverse this $17 TRILLION debt, which is fast heading toward $21TRILLION and more. Cruz was NOT for national healthcare from the beginning. Recently, I think he's been proven to have been on the correct side of that issue from Day ONE.....as has been Paul Ryan and many, many others who could the dangers of what Obama and Pelosi were pushing down the throats of America. And now.....we are in a HUGE mess as a result of those who followed Obama, and not those who were calling for caution.
Now is the time for All Good men to come to the aid of their country. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Nov 9, 2013 11:19:09 GMT
I want to address one statement at a time and I'll address this first because it's false.
I don't argue for "more had higher taxes on the rich" but instead argue that every dollar of income is a dollar of income. A dollar is a dollar is a dollar is a dollar and every dollar of income should be treated identically under our tax codes.
The CEO with a $10 million salary is getting screwed by our federal tax codes just like the minimum wage worker. I've never stated anything differently. The problem isn't with income, the problem is with income being taxed differently where some income is literally taxed at over twice the tax rates when compared to other income.
Go back and read my thread on federal taxation because it doesn't target the "wealthy" but instead it has a single exemption for all taxpayers to eliminate all personal tax deductions and/or tax credits and then imposes the identical tax rate on all income above that exemption. It doesn't even fundamentally change who has a net income tax obligation (i.e. 47% don't have a net income tax obligation today and 50% wouldn't have a net tax obligation under my proposal). My proposal also ends the "progressive tax rates" because there would only be a single tax rate.
There wouldn't be a top income tax rate of 39.6% because we don't require that high of a tax rate to fully fund our government. MY tax proposal eliminates this absurdly high tax rate that is unnecessary for a balanced budget. Try explaining how cutting the top tax rate is "raising taxes on the wealthy" in America.
A household with a $75,000 income would be paying the identical taxes and tax rates on income above the exemption as household with $75 million in income. If the taxes and tax rates are identical then no one is being targeted. There isn't a "progressive tax rate" where more income is subjected to higher tax rates. Explain how that is "raising the taxes on the wealthy" in America.
That is NOT arguing for "more taxes on the wealthy" but instead the argument is that everyone should be taxed identically under our tax codes. Many high income households in the top 5% would pay less in taxes while others would see an increase based upon fair taxation where everyone pays the same taxes and tax rates.
I would suggest you return to my thread on federal taxation and argue against replacing all deductions and tax credits with a single exemption for all households. I would suggest you go back and argue against the elimination of "progressive" tax rates. I would suggest you go back and argue against all income being subjected to the same taxes and tax rates. I would suggest you go back and argue against ending the 39.6% income tax rate for wealthy income earners that would go away under my proposal because it's both unnecessary and represents draconian taxation. I would suggest you go back and argue against balancing the US budget. I would suggest you go back to my thread and argue against fiscal responsibility.
|
|
" Of course he would. This was a DIRTY TRICK played by liberals who were afraid that McAuliffe just might not pull it off on his own. And apparently some low-information Republicans fell for it. 
