|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Nov 9, 2013 11:44:30 GMT
This statement is most amazing.
So you didn't have a clue what Johnson stood for or what his proposals were and, of course, ignorance was the preferred course. Were you aware of the fact that Johnson was the only candidate on the ballot last November proposing a balanced budget? Of course "conservatives" only gives lip service to a "balanced" budget because they really don't want one and wouldn't vote for any presidential candidate that actually advocated a balanced budget.
Oh, and Johnson "didn't have a chance anyway" so you didn't want to waste your vote on Johnson and instead you wasted your vote for Mitt Romney (assumed) that according to every poll that from the date of his nomination never had a chance of winning the electoral college vote. Every poll on the electoral college leading up to the election showed Romney losing by between 80-120 electoral college votes (Obama won by 126 electoral college votes). Everyone except an "ostrich with their head in a hole" knew that Romney was going to lose the 2012 election if they followed the electoral college polls.
So if "no chance of winning" was the criteria then why did anyone vote for Mitt Romney in 2012 because he never stood a chance of winning the White House?
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Nov 9, 2013 12:18:11 GMT
Another interesting statement on the Presidential Debates.
So let's see, a candidate that has enough of a following to be on the ballot in enough states to actually become the President, regardless of their political views, isn't worth listening to? Of course they have to be from the "Squishy middle" that don't "have any real convictions" even though Libertarians are neither. Libertarians are at the extreme end of the spectrum when it comes to government as we're the only "small non-authoritarian government" party out there and we actually know how to pragmatically and responsibly end "big authoritarian government" and make proposal after proposal to accomplish that.
Ted Cruz doesn't advocate "small non-authoritarian government" but Libertarians do. Ted Cruz has never made any proposal to balance the federal budget but Libertarians have. Ted Cruz has never offered any proposal that would reduce federal assistance to the poor while still ensuring their needs are met but Libertarians have. Ted Cruz has never made any proposal related to Social Security where all retirees would be better off but Libertarians have. Ted Cruz has never offered any responsible tax proposal that would reduce the tax burden on hard working American families through fair taxation but Libertarians have. Ted Cruz supports big government interventionism in the economy (crony capitalism) while Libertarians oppose it. Ted Cruz advocates spending American tax dollars on the national defense of other nations that can afford to pay for their own national defense and Libertarians oppose it. Ted Cruz supports America's role as "World Cop" and Libertarians oppose it. Ted Cruz has never offered responsible and pragmatic solutions to America's problems but Libertarians have.
Of course Americans do want "answers from the middle" as opposed to the nut-case proposals from extremists. That's why a recent poll on Tea Party Republicans only showed a 27% favorable rating and it was still going down. Basically 3 out of 4 Americans oppose the extremism of the Tea Party Republicans just as 3 out 4 oppose extremism from the Democratic Party as well. Americans don't want extremists at the helm of our government. The want someone that balances economic conservatism with social responsibility and civil rights that can pragmatically and responsibly reduce the size of government, balance the budget, and build up American as opposed to tear it down.
I heard a quotation I'd like to share.
The Tea Party isn't about "building the barn" but instead is about "tearing it down" as they're offering no positive proposals for America today. Cutting spending while ignoring the problems that created the spending does not fix the problems. The Tea Party doesn't address any of the actual problems of America today.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Nov 9, 2013 12:43:11 GMT
Back to the original OP which turns out to be a lie based upon a press release by Wes Benedict, Executive Director Libertarian National Committee.
That donor was identified in the news story as software billionaire Joe Liemandt of Austin, Texas and he's been a Libertarian Party supporter since 2008.
Additionally Wes Benedict provided the following information related to the Virginia gubernatorial election.
www.lp.org/with-libertarian-sarvis-mission-accomplished?utm_source=iContact&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Libertarian%20Party&utm_content=20131107+Libertarian+Booster+PAC
So the entire story was nothing but BS lies to begin with and Wes Benedict would know because he was the one that secured the donation and he was the person that authorized the partial funding of the Sarvis campaign, and as I also assumed, the votes for Sarvis didn't even effect the final outcome of the gubernatorial vote because those that support Libertarian candidate don't typically support either Democrats or Republicans.
Another "Republican Conspiracy Theory" bites the dust.
|
|
|
|
Post by niff on Nov 9, 2013 14:34:58 GMT
At the rate McAullife's numbers were collapsing in the days before the election solely b/c of the Obamacare fiasco he would have lost to Charlie Manson if the election was held a week later. He knows it. Obama knows it. The Clintons know it and the DEM 'back room boys know it.
When, not if, the scammers have totally polluted the Obamacare web site within about six months to the point where no one in their right mind will go anywhere near the site for fear of having their bank account emptied, then Obama will be claiming all those Nigerian scammers are being paid by the GOP. Well maybe not Obama himself but Chris Matthew's and 'the little gray english man and the Bull Dyke Madcow and the union thug and the 'metro-sexual et al on MSNBC will be doing so.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Nov 9, 2013 14:46:13 GMT
At the rate McAullife's numbers were collapsing in the days before the election solely b/c of the Obamacare fiasco he would have lost to Charlie Manson if the election was held a week later.
What does it have to do with the fact that the vote for Robert Sarvis didn't actually have anything to do with results of the election that is also falsely claimed.
The fact is that the "Republican Conspiracy Myth" that this thread was based upon has already been exposed by Wes Benedict, the head of the Libertarian Party, that was responsible for both obtaining the donation as well as authorizing the funding of the Sarvis campaign.
|
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Nov 9, 2013 17:27:25 GMT
Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country!This statement is most amazing.
So you didn't have a clue what Johnson stood for or what his proposals were and, of course, ignorance was the preferred course. Were you aware of the fact that Johnson was the only candidate on the ballot last November proposing a balanced budget? Of course "conservatives" only gives lip service to a "balanced" budget because they really don't want one and wouldn't vote for any presidential candidate that actually advocated a balanced budget.
Rick Perry is for a national Balanced Budget.....as he stated during the Primaries. In the Congress/Senate that we have now....you'd never hear that proposal from a Democrat; only Republicans.
Oh, and Johnson "didn't have a chance anyway" so you didn't want to waste your vote on Johnson and instead you wasted your vote for Mitt Romney (assumed) that according to every poll that from the date of his nomination never had a chance of winning the electoral college vote. Every poll on the electoral college leading up to the election showed Romney losing by between 80-120 electoral college votes (Obama won by 126 electoral college votes). Everyone except an "ostrich with their head in a hole" knew that Romney was going to lose the 2012 election if they followed the electoral college polls.
So if "no chance of winning" was the criteria then why did anyone vote for Mitt Romney in 2012 because he never stood a chance of winning the White House?
Yes, I voted for Mitt Romney. But he wasn't my choice at the Primary level. As soon as he began running, I told my husband that he'd never get elected because of Romneycare....and he is the candidate that the left wanted us to have for that very reason. And in case you are unaware, the liberal/mainstream goes out of its way each election year to influence the choice for the Republican candidate....and they always pick out one they believe they can beat. They did the same with John McCain. Republicans are going to have to get smarter about what happens each time....and ignore the mainstream media/press.
Of course, Rick Perry was demonized. But he'd have been a FAR SUPERIOR president to what we have now. We'd have job growth now. In fact, the jobs that HAVE been created under Obama...that he often takes credit for......have mostly come from Texas. One doesn't need to be a perfect speaker (with the help of a teleprompter) or a good bs'er.....to be president. Just watch next time. The primary candidate that the mainstream gives the most notice to.....will not really be the best choice for Republicans. IF the mainstream is favoring one of our primary candidates, that's usually a HUGE clue to me.
So, you threw away your vote on Johnson? Seriously.....you voted for Obama, didn't you??? 
|
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Nov 9, 2013 22:09:57 GMT
At the rate McAullife's numbers were collapsing in the days before the election solely b/c of the Obamacare fiasco he would have lost to Charlie Manson if the election was held a week later.
What does it have to do with the fact that the vote for Robert Sarvis didn't actually have anything to do with results of the election that is also falsely claimed.
The fact is that the "Republican Conspiracy Myth" that this thread was based upon has already been exposed by Wes Benedict, the head of the Libertarian Party, that was responsible for both obtaining the donation as well as authorizing the funding of the Sarvis campaign.
 (ROTFLMAO) They wouldn't go against what Obama wanted....and Obama wanted McAuliffe. Wes Benedict is probably getting rich too off his little PAC.......it's what liberals do.
|
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Nov 9, 2013 22:21:43 GMT
Come on Shiva.......don't be so easily snookered by Democrats. Wes Benedict ADMITTED in an interview that "we probably wouldn't have spent the $11,000 on Sarvis in we had NOT received the $150,000 from him (major Democratic donor Joseph Liemandt." That means that Liemandt told him he wanted to get the so-called Libertarian on the ballot in Virginia. Gave him a lot of money, so he'd do it. And guess what? It was just 3 months AFTER Liemandt donated $4,090 to the Virginia Democratic Party.
"In an exclusive interview with Breitbart News on Tuesday, Wes Benedict, co-founder and President of the Libertarian Booster PAC that spent $11,454 to circulate petitions necessary to get Libertarian gubernatorial candidate Robert Sarvis on the ballot in Virginia said “[w]e probably wouldn’t have spent the $11,000 on Sarvis if we had not received the $150,000 from him [major Democratic donor Joseph Liemandt].”
Benedict told Breitbart that Liemandt, a software entrepreneur from Texas who had a net worth of $1.5 billion in 2000 , gave the Libertarian Booster PAC $150,000 in January 2013. Breitbart News searched Federal Election Commission records and discovered that Liemandt donated $4,090 to the Virginia Democratic Party just three months earlier on October 17, 2012."
Only one reason he wanted a so-called Libertarian on the ballot. He and other Democrats were a bit worried and believed that a so-called "Libertarian" on the ticket would take just enough votes away from the Republican to do the trick.
Until 2013, the Libertarian Booster PAC had focused on Texas, but Benedict told Breitbart that Liemandt knew of his intention to get involved in the Virginia gubernatorial race if he had the money. “I met with Mr. Liemandt several times. I told him we were going to expand to a few other states, including Virginia, before he put the money in, It was in the report I gave to him before he made his investment.”
“We’ve gotten support from the right and the left,” Benedict said, adding that “I don’t think the intention was to make Cuccinelli lose but I have no problem if the perception is Sarvis caused Cuccinelli to lose. Republicans deserve to lose lots of election for supporting bailouts and for supporting a nominee for president whose Romneycare plan helped deliver Obamacare.”
I'd say that based on the last statement.....Wes Benedict is really a Democrat in Libertarian sheep's clothing. And he was all too happy to take a lot of money for what he did.
www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2013/11/wes-benedict-discusses-sarvis-democrat-donation/
|
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Nov 9, 2013 22:44:50 GMT
MORE proof, it was all a Democrat ploy. Keep in mind that these Democrat donors KNEW this when they made the decision:
"Sarvis has the support of between 7 percent and 11 percent of likely voters, much of which is drawn from the Republican candidate, Ken Cuccinelli."
Now.....look closely at the other multi-Billionaire Obama supporter connection in the Virginia race; Warren Buffet. Keep in mind that Buffet, Liedhardt, and Obama are all close buddies and by the Sunday before the election, they could see how McAullife's margin was dropping fast and they took yet another measure to assist votes going to Sarvis:
"On Sunday the Danville Register & Bee, a small market daily newspaper in Virginia owned by Warren Buffett's Berkshire-Hathaway, surprised political observers when it endorsed Libertarian candidate Robert Sarvis for governor in Tuesday's election.
www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/11/03/Danville-Newspaper-Owned-by-Warren-Buffet-Endorses-Libertarian-in-Virginia-Governor-s-Race
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Nov 10, 2013 1:28:06 GMT
Come on Shiva.......don't be so easily snookered by Democrats. Wes Benedict ADMITTED in an interview that "we probably wouldn't have spent the $11,000 on Sarvis in we had NOT received the $150,000 from him (major Democratic donor Joseph Liemandt." That means that Liemandt told him he wanted to get the so-called Libertarian on the ballot in Virginia. Gave him a lot of money, so he'd do it. And guess what? It was just 3 months AFTER Liemandt donated $4,090 to the Virginia Democratic Party.
"In an exclusive interview with Breitbart News on Tuesday, Wes Benedict, co-founder and President of the Libertarian Booster PAC that spent $11,454 to circulate petitions necessary to get Libertarian gubernatorial candidate Robert Sarvis on the ballot in Virginia said “[w]e probably wouldn’t have spent the $11,000 on Sarvis if we had not received the $150,000 from him [major Democratic donor Joseph Liemandt].”
Benedict told Breitbart that Liemandt, a software entrepreneur from Texas who had a net worth of $1.5 billion in 2000 , gave the Libertarian Booster PAC $150,000 in January 2013. Breitbart News searched Federal Election Commission records and discovered that Liemandt donated $4,090 to the Virginia Democratic Party just three months earlier on October 17, 2012."
Only one reason he wanted a so-called Libertarian on the ballot. He and other Democrats were a bit worried and believed that a so-called "Libertarian" on the ticket would take just enough votes away from the Republican to do the trick.
Until 2013, the Libertarian Booster PAC had focused on Texas, but Benedict told Breitbart that Liemandt knew of his intention to get involved in the Virginia gubernatorial race if he had the money. “I met with Mr. Liemandt several times. I told him we were going to expand to a few other states, including Virginia, before he put the money in, It was in the report I gave to him before he made his investment.”
“We’ve gotten support from the right and the left,” Benedict said, adding that “I don’t think the intention was to make Cuccinelli lose but I have no problem if the perception is Sarvis caused Cuccinelli to lose. Republicans deserve to lose lots of election for supporting bailouts and for supporting a nominee for president whose Romneycare plan helped deliver Obamacare.”
I'd say that based on the last statement.....Wes Benedict is really a Democrat in Libertarian sheep's clothing. And he was all too happy to take a lot of money for what he did.
www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2013/11/wes-benedict-discusses-sarvis-democrat-donation/
Of course a $150,000 donation (with no strings attached) is going to be used to fund many Libertarian candidates and without it many would receive no funds at all. To simply state that "without the money we probably wouldn't have supported Sarvis or many other Libertarian candidates around the country. The Libertarian Party doesn't have "war chests" with billions of dollars in it like Republicans and Democrats.
Yes, many wealthy people support both the Republican or Democratic Party and also contribute to the Libertarian Party as well. Some wealthy people even support both the Republican Party and Democratic Party because they want to be on the "winning" side regardless of who wins.
The key to the entire issue is that Joseph Liemandt donates to the Libertarian Party without any conditions on what his donations are used for. The decisions on how that money is spent is exclusively in the hands of the Libertarian Party. Those decisions on who the Libertarian Party supports has absolutely nothing to do with Joseph Liemandt and I can't imagine any political party accepting donations with strings attached to it.
The final irony is that "Republicans" call Libertarians "liberals" and then claim that a Libertarian candidate would steal "Republican" votes. How is a "liberal" going to steal "Republican" votes? If a Libertarian candidate is a "liberal" then they would steal "Democratic" votes and not "Republican" votes.
|
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Nov 10, 2013 2:28:08 GMT
You can believe that if you want. But there is no way that one of Obama's top bundler money makers wanted anyone but Obama's guy to win.
Super rich like Liemandt has plenty of money to try and interfere with lots of elections. It's been before by Democrats. Just watch.....I'm betting there will be a Libertarian candidate in just about every Senatorial race next year. Especially those with a Tea Party candidate challenger. And I bet we'll find they were supported by Obama's money men. Dems know they are in trouble regarding the Senate with Obamacare....and they'll be pulling out all the cards; cash, I mean.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Nov 10, 2013 11:34:16 GMT
You can believe that if you want. But there is no way that one of Obama's top bundler money makers wanted anyone but Obama's guy to win.
Super rich like Liemandt has plenty of money to try and interfere with lots of elections. It's been before by Democrats. Just watch.....I'm betting there will be a Libertarian candidate in just about every Senatorial race next year. Especially those with a Tea Party candidate challenger. And I bet we'll find they were supported by Obama's money men. Dems know they are in trouble regarding the Senate with Obamacare....and they'll be pulling out all the cards; cash, I mean.
As long as I've been a card-carrying Libertarian this statement is absolutely true. Every member of the Libertarian Party is encouraged to run for office even if they have no chance of winning. The National and State Libertarian organizations have always been willing to support these efforts and where possible with financial assistance to the campaign.
Wes Benedict decided to back several different State campaigns, with the Virginia gubernatorial race being just one of many, if Liemandt made a donation to help fund it. Liemandt's donation funded many of these State campaigns that Wes Benedict had decided to try and provide financial assistance to. The "Democratic Party" had absolutely nothing to do with Wes Benedict's decisions nor did Liemandt except that he made the donation that would provide the funding for many of them. Liemandt did not make a donation to the Sarvis campaign which he could have done directly like he did to the Obama campaign.
But there is an aspect of this entire story that bothers me intensely. Liemandt donation was through a 501(c)(4) non profit organization and his donation was explicitly for campaign purposes. He was able to hide his political activism behind the anonymity of a non profit organization and I've repeatedly stated that this is wrong. I don't care about his donation because I encourage people to be politically active but I do object to the fact that his political activism is hidden from the public. As an American voter we have a Right to Know about who's behind political activism.
I do believe the assumption that it is more likely for a Libertarian to run against a Tea Party Republican in the 2014 election as being true because, as a Libertarian, I see the Tea Party movement as being highly harmful to American. They place their anti-tax agenda above all else including what's best for America. The Tea Party movement is both fiscally and socially irresponsible and that makes them the greatest threat to America. Democrats and a few more centralist Republicans don't represent that same level of threat because they are predominately just fiscally irresponsible. Fiscal irresponsibility is bad enough but when social irresponsibility is added to that it becomes intolerable.
We should never sacrifice Americans, especially poor Americans, with our political agenda. Think about this inscription on the Statue of Liberty:
When we look at the Tea Party agenda to cut spending their target is the tired, the poor, the huddled masses of America. They would willingly take food off the table for a young child if it will "save a buck" in federal spending. They don't care if their proposed cuts to Social Security result in an aged woman being evicted from their home if it "saves a buck" in federal spending. Their tax policies are about ensuring that about 1/2 of the Top 1% of income earners retain special tax loopholes that result in unfair taxation for other 99.5% of all Americans. And they don't make any positive proposals that would reduce welfare assistance by reducing poverty, they make no proposals that would ensure quality health care for all Americans that includes the tired, the poor, the huddle masses of America, and they don't even propose a balanced budget.
So yes, because of the "Tea Party threat" I can see a Libertarian being far more concerned for their state or the nation if a Tea Party Republican is running for office and therefore more likely to challenge them. I can also see it would be more likely for the Libertarian Party to provide financial assistance in those cases as well. No surprises here at all.
|
|
(ROTFLMAO) They wouldn't go against what Obama wanted....and Obama wanted McAuliffe. Wes Benedict is probably getting rich too off his little PAC.......it's what liberals do.